Electoral corruption in the biggest election year

This year was the biggest election year in history. Around 2 billion people – close to a quarter of the world's population – cast their votes worldwide. Although elections were largely free and fair, electoral corruption was reported to varying degrees. Vote buying and voter intimidation, voter fraud, manipulation of electoral processes and institutions, abuse of state resources by incumbents, campaign finance violations and media manipulation are some of the behaviours we spotted in media reports and election observation missions covering over 70 national elections.

Transparency International defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. In the context of elections, corruption is perpetrated by those who abuse their power for their electoral benefit. Electoral corruption acts may include vote-buying, ballot-stuffing, ballot counting fraud and the provision of illicit campaign donations in return for favours.

These corrupt practices can have an adverse effect on voters’ ability to make an informed choice, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. Moreover, if accusations of corruption (both substantiated and unfounded) dominate campaign discourse, it can further influence not only electoral results but also citizen trust in their elected representatives.

Countries with a typically lower democratic performance have, unsurprisingly, witnessed a high prevalence of electoral corruption allegations during their elections. In the Russian presidential election, some observers estimated that a total of 22 million votes may have been fraudulent. There were also reports of voter fraud, where the names of Ukrainians who had fled their home villages in Russian-occupied areas appeared on lists of voters despite the, living overseas at the time of the election. In Venezuela, the incumbent government adopted intimidation tactics including voter suppression, ballot tampering and the misuse of state resources. Despite the repressive atmosphere, activists demanded copies of the voting tallies to reveal the actual results of the election contest and challenge the regime’s claims of victory. In Azerbaijan, there were reports of widespread media manipulation in the lead up to the elections, which included the arbitrary detention of journalists and the blocking of certain media websites.

Electoral corruption is however not an issue that is limited to countries with a lower democratic performance. This year saw allegations of voter fraud in Belgium, where proxy votes in the municipal elections were seized by authorities and are currently being assessed to determine how many were falsified. The Georgian elections were also fraught with claims of corruption, including the initiation of certain infrastructure projects to sway voters, the restriction of independent media leading up to the elections and voter fraud on election day. In the United States, campaign-finance watchdogs raised concerns over campaign promises to promote business interests of mega-donors. Finally in India, a record number of bribes promised by politicians in exchange for voter support were seized by authorities.

Corruption in elections has severe and long-lasting impacts. Experts say that the recent fraud allegations in the Georgian elections are a sign of its democratic backsliding. In Mozambique, allegations of widespread vote rigging sparked protests against the election results, during which the police were accused of killing at least 11 unarmed bystanders.

2024 witnessed political candidates in many countries seeking to disseminate and capitalise on allegations of electoral corruption targeting their opponents. This often was seen as a deliberate tactic to discredit their adversaries and burnish their own anti-corruption credentials.

In South Korea, the last acting president alleged in early April that election officials manipulated early voting in the general elections, though these allegations were dismissed by the Election Commission. In Finland, supporters of a far-right party accused state broadcasters of biased election coverage intended to mislead viewers. Those accusations were contested as they represented a deliberate attempt to discredit the legitimacy of the elections.

Scholars have found that when citizens perceive widespread electoral corruption by public officials, their support to democratic institutions tends to diminish. Likewise, false allegations of electoral corruption can equally damage trust among the public in democratic processes.

What is obvious this year is that election periods often result in a spike in allegations of, and interest in, electoral corruption – an issue that is not limited to countries with lower democracy ranking. Exposing and addressing electoral corrupt practices is crucial to empower voters to hold candidates and parties accountable at the ballot box. This includes condemning those who use corrupt means to gain or consolidate power, demanding greater transparency and integrity in political financing, calling for the prevention of vote buying and voter intimidation, and monitoring the potential abuse of state resources during election cycles.

Elections in 2024 also raise the issue of false allegations of electoral corruption. This in turn raises the following question – what actions should the anti-corruption community take when such allegations seem to be aimed at weakening the legitimacy of democratic processes?

Unfortunately, disentangling the truth of these allegations is often not possible until months after the elections, if ever.

While the answer is still up for debate, it is clear that corruption continues to plague many election processes, as does the weaponisation of (potentially unfounded) electoral corruption allegations by political actors. It is therefore critical for the anti-corruption community to advocate for integrity safeguards in key aspects of the electoral process. Most importantly and where possible, these will contribute to combatting misinformation by urging independent investigations into corruption claims and helping to distinguish genuine allegations from false ones through building public awareness around electoral corruption.