The New Europe: Election Observation Albania remains a volatile society - but the signs so far suggest a much calmer response to the results - victory for the governing Socialists - than during the previous two elections, in 1996 and 97, when there were violent incidents. On the first of those occasions the Socialists accused President Sali Berisha of large-scale ballot-rigging. And international monitors, despatched by the European security organisation, the OSCE, published one of their most critical reports. Their conclusions angered Mr Berisha, but he fell from power after a popular uprising against his administration in 1997; and since then the Socialists have welcomed the OSCE with open arms. This time around the OSCE sent some 250 observers to Albania to watch that everything was going well. During the first round of voting on 24 June, I caught up with two of the observers - Sonja Kurten-Vartio from Finland and Cecile Ritter from Luxembourg - in the port city of Durres, and began by asking them what they are looking out for: "That there are no signs of cheating, that people are not getting two ballots, that people are getting this ink on their thumbs..." "And they check also their identification..." "and that the whole procedure - that it looks like it goes right…" How many hours do you expect to work? What time do you start, what time will you finish? "Well, we left half past six in the morning and I guess maybe we'll ready at two or three o'clock in the morning." So you think it's a worthwhile effort? "Yes, for sure. Yes, with a lot of coffee it should do." These two observers with their checklists of 40 questions for each of the ten or dozen polling stations they visit, are just part of a vast logistical operation that's organised at each election on behalf of the OSCE by its specialist institution, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Known by its acronym as ODIHR, the Warsaw-based office with a staff of 50, is a relatively little-known organisation outside European government circles. But how does it see its role? A promotional video, produced for the OSCE, sets out its objectives: "The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is mandated to ensure full respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. It works to build, strenghten and protect democratic institutions as well as to promote tolerance throughout society." But can ODIHR fulfil its task as a provider of independent election monitoring, given the fact that it's a creature of the OSCE - an organisation in which 55 countries from Europe, North America and the former Soviet republics do their best to pursue their own interests. In the past it's been alleged that OSCE observers were too lenient towards the Montengrin President, Milo Djukanovic, after he had turned against the former Yugoslav strongman, Slobodan Milosevic. ODIHR's Director, Swiss diplomat, Gerard Stoudmann, is certainly aware of this and other problems: "These kind of examples are in the background very often, or between the lines, but they are never very direct. You'll find a certain situation where a certain state has a very specific agenda and, therefore, have a tendency to - or expecting us - to be extremely tough or, on the contrary, extremely understanding. And what I am striving for is to keep a distance from double standards, as much as possible, to maintain therefore the consistency and credibility of the organisation, in particular in the electoral field." For his part, President Djukanovic argues that his opponents' complaints are part of what he calls "the Balkan syndrome" a refusal to accept defeat. He believes the idea that the OSCE supported him just to weaken Mr Milosevic doesn't make sense - after all, the Montenegrin parliamentary elections in Apil - which came after the end of the Milosevic era - were also endorsed by the OSCE's observers: "Everyone who loses at the elections thinks that injustice has been done to them. Probably this kind of political comedy happens only in the Balkans. What is very important for us are the very high standards of critics from the international community - mostly from the OSCE. We had an election process that was very closely supervised, and at the end of this process the OSCE and other elections observers said that the election process had been regular." ODIHR's chief election observer, Hrair Balian - a US-trained lawyer originally from Lebanon - believes the strongest guarantee of independence and impartiality is the set of criteria that's been developed - albeit relatively recently: "Up until 1997 our observation had no set methodology. We invented the wheel every time we despatched an observation mission. As a result, there were ad hoc responses to developing events, developing situations. This made the organisation susceptible to political pressure. In 1997, as a result of these difficulties a methodology was developed and I think I can comfortably say that since 1997 we have not experienced this difficulty of making political statements, rather than calling black as black and white as white." But are there universal standards that can be applied in every case? And isn't there a danger that election observers - whether from the OSCE or elsewhere - are imposing Western values on the former communist East? Joseph Middleton is a British lawyer who's suggested improvements to election laws in 15 countries from Albania to Uzbekistan. He's convinced that good legislation transcends the divisions between the new and the more mature democracies: "One should emphasize - I would emphasize - that I am generally not involved in comparing elections East and West. I don't consciously - and I hope neither unconsciously - try to import Western standards into former socialist countries. What I am trying to do is I take as a starting point two things - first of all the OSCE commitments, the commitments that that particular country embraced voluntarily over 10 years and secondly I start with their own legislation. And I say this is the law, these are the commitments, do the two match up?" But if universal standards are applied, wouldn't it make sense to make election observation a two-way process? In other words, shouldn't observers from the former communist countries help oversee elections in the West? It's a question I put to a Kosovar Serb official, Rada Trajkovic, who was part of a group of politicians from central and south-east Europe to visit Britain during the British elections in early June: "Taking into consideration what kind of background I come from, I can't say that I am the person to judge and I can really help you with this. The first thing I asked was 'Can you rig the elections here?' Since I had an experience with Milosevic who was always rigging the elections quite a lot." A prominent Kosovar Albanian politician, Edita Tahiri, had fewer reservations: "In the trends of globalisation I am sure it would be very good to interact also in this level. Why not have observers? I think always there should be a tendency for perfection, including Great Britain. So, I think it would be very good." During last year's controversy over the Florida vote in the American presidential elections an Italian newspaper carried a cartoon showing a group of people, wearing traditional Serb dress, landing at an airport. The caption read: "Serb observers arriving in Washington".For the moment, though, the idea of formal OSCE election monitoring in the West - something Russia has repeatedly suggested - remains in the realm of speculation. Why? Gerard Stoudmann: "Certainly, it's true to say that no electoral system is perfect and no elections are perfect. We have a recent example of this. However, there's a substantial and fundamental qualitative difference in the sense that most countries with established democracies have an internal system of checks and balances so they have the means, they have the arsenal to deal with problems that occur nationally. What we are trying to achieve in most countries where we work is precisely to develop an internal mechanism - a checks and balances mechanism - which would allow one day the international community not to observe any more." If not being observed is a sign of achievement, then refusing to be observed can be seen as a mark of desperation. But that's precisely what Belarus is about to do by barring OSCE monitors from September's presidential elections - the first time any OSCE member has done this since the collapse of communism. President Lukashenka - already ostracised by much of the West for his authoritarian leadership - is clearly not concerned by further criticism over this move. But what about other, similarly less-than-democratic leaders? How do they deal, for example, with Joseph Middleton's recommendations for improving their election laws: "The reaction that we get to these reports varies enormously. Sometimes it's openly hostile, sometimes it's ostensibly welcoming. But then, of course one has to see what happens in response to the recommendations. I think it would be fair to say that the Central Asian republics, the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - in all those countries there is still a great deal of work to be done in terms of responding to recommendations." The fact that advice on election laws and other forms of help is ignored in some countries, raises doubts in some minds, at least, as to value of the contribution ODIHR and other similar institutions have made in democracy building. Put it bluntly, if ODIHR did not exist, would it have made much of a difference? Hrair Balian has few doubts: "I think had ODIHR not existed, someone might have invented some other organisation doing similar work. ODIHR came into being to fill a gap. I think that without an organisation such as ODIHR, some of the transitions might have taken longer to come about during the last 10 years." Indeed, ODIHR is keen to play up the success stories. Some of the first converts or returnees to democracy - countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland - are no 0longer subject to formal OSCE election monitoring. They are seen as being in the first class to have graduated in democracy after successfully finishing a course in good electoral practice. So does that mean that the process of democratisation is irreversible and that, sooner or later, ODIHR will be doing itself out of business? Gerard Stoudmann doesn't think so and he points to problems in some of the former Soviet republics, now known as the CIS: "No, certainly not. I think we have to distinguish between. We have really two paces in the transition. One is the central European states which have to a large extent been success stories and what is called the CIS where we have, of course, different cases. That doesn't meant that there's been no progress - there has been progress in many cases, thank God - there have been a lot of things developing towards sustainable democracy over the last 10 years, but at a completely different pace and with totally different problems. And nowadays what we are facing there - what I am concerned about - is a further slowing down and, in some cases, backtracking on what has been achieved." The contrasting developments in central Europe and central Asia may suggest that what really matters is the domestic background - national traditions of democracy or their lack - rather than external influence. However, it would be wrong to dismiss the contribution of outside help in speeding up positive developments where these are already underway, and acting as a brake - in some places, at least - on potential backslidiers. The OSCE and its institutions remain a kind of reference point for democracy that virtually all European countries accept - and many of them are even willing to put into practice.