A mission of eight election observers followed the 2018 campaign and poll and have reported back on what they found. Overall, they were impressed, but they left with niggling questions about the confusing state of Jersey’s political make-up, the differing size of constituencies and whether rules around election finances could be abused.
The JEP looks, in detail, at what Election Observation Mission from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had to say.
Who are the mission?
The team of eight comprised politicians from across the world, led by Jamaican MP Phillip Paulwell. They visited for the nomination days in April, and then spent a fortnight in Jersey up to and including election day on 18 May.
It is the first time such a group has visited the Island to oversee an election. It follows a change in election law last year to allow outside observers to attend. They visited all 18 polling stations multiple times on polling day, as well as watching the counts in a number of districts.
What did the observers find?
On balance, they concluded the election was well-executed and competitive, but they raised concerns about the number of seats that weren’t contested, about the abuse some candidates faced on social media, and questioned whether the law around election finances could lead to fraud.
They also questioned the wisdom of allowing States Members seeking re-election to stay in office during the election campaign. They argue that it gives them an unfair advantage.
The different sizes of constituencies also bothered them, saying they do not meet international standards, particularly when it comes to the Constables. They compared the parish of St Mary with its 1,752 residents with St Helier’s 33,522. They conclude it is ‘at odds’ with the States of Jersey’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
That said, the administration of the election came in for high praise, as did the efforts of the many volunteers. The mission said ‘the system in Jersey is unique as it relies to a large extent on the work of volunteers. The commitment and willingness to support the electoral process in this manner is highly commendable.’
What did they think of the campaign?
The mission raised multiple concerns about the lack of rules around Jersey’s election campaigns, adding that one of the few rules about where candidates could display their posters and banners was ignored on more than one occasion.
That said, the observers praised the candidates for their efforts to canvas in their districts – mainly by delivering and handing out leaflets. The mission also thought filming the hustings and sharing them online was a positive move.
But it did question the robustness of the election finances law. It specifically raised concern about the lack of any reference to the finances of political parties in the law, and that the Greffe was not obliged to look into the finances of any candidate in any detail. ‘These deficiencies in financial accountability and transparency can potentially lead to fraud and abuse,’ it found.
Did the mission like the media coverage?
The mission described the media’s coverage of the election as ‘varying’, highlighting the absence of any Jersey laws governing their conduct.
It said that the lack of legislation left
individual media outlets to provide equal access to candidates and balanced coverage.
The mission heard concern from some candidates about the absence of a ‘silent period’ during the campaign and about some of the abuse they received on social media.
The media came in for praise for promoting key election messages from the States of Jersey, for posting candidate videos and publishing questionnaires.
What about election day?
The mission described election day in Jersey as ‘calm and orderly’ with procedures followed ‘diligently’ in all 18 electoral districts. It praised the work of election officials and the Honorary Police, but criticised the number of candidates and agents outside some polling stations, concluding that it was intimidating to some voters.
It found people were confused by the complex voting system on election day with different voting options on different ballot papers.
It noted turnout was particularly low in St Helier, while it found people were left queuing at times in St Brelade, particularly late in the afternoon.
On balance, it rated the whole operation as ‘positive’. It reached the same conclusion about the counting process at the end of the day, saying it was ‘efficient, transparent, well-administered and open to candidates, observers and the media’.
What happens now?
This is the finding of the mission’s preliminary report. A fuller study of the 2018 general election will follow by the end of July.
While the States of Jersey is not obliged to act on any of its findings, that the diplomatic language used in the first report highlights the Island failing in certain international standards will be seen as a call to make change.
It highlights the ongoing issue of the differing sizes of electoral districts, concerns about the number of uncontested seats, and the lack of robust checks and balances of finances.
lThe full report will be published on the UK website of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at uk-cpa.org and is expected to be published locally on the States of Jersey website.
