Human-rights declarations and various legal instruments state that elections must be conducted by secret ballot, but are silent about precisely what that means. This paper discusses two situations in long-established democracies—the 2018 Swedish general elections and the 2017 Australian “plebisurvey “ on same-sex marriage—in which recognized principles of electoral secrecy were clearly violated. It then identifies the main objectives of ballot secrecy (protecting the privacy of personal political beliefs, discouraging coercion, and preventing vote-buying) and the main measures needed to ensure them. Finally, it concludes that “secrecy” cannot be measured on a unidimensional scale.
About the Authors
Jørgen Elklit
Jørgen Elklit is professor of political science at Aarhus University, Denmark. He has worked as a consultant on election and democratization issues in Africa, Asia, and Europe. He was a member of South Africa’s 1994 Independent Electoral Commission and Secretary to Kenya’s 2008 Commission of Inquiry.
Michael Maley had a thirty-year career at the Australian Electoral Commission, retiring as Special Adviser, Electoral Reform and International Services. He has also worked as a consultant to the UN, IFES, International IDEA, and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Like many other world-government bodies, the International Monetary Fund is a necessarily nondemocratic organitzation that cannot help but have an impact on democracy’s prospects in poorer countries.
Despite the persistent doomsaying about the political consequences of untrammeled international capital flows, financial liberalization may actually contribute to democratic consolidation.
Orthodoxy’s difficult historical experiences have made it ambivalent toward democatic pluralism, but that may be changing, with believers in established democacies leading the way.
