Following the Super-Year of Elections, 2025 is Shaping up as the Year of Elections in Turmoil

In a few days, we wrap up what was labeled the “super-year of elections,” which saw more than 800M (and up to 1.5B according to unofficial figures) people go to the polls in nearly 80 countries and territories holding national-level elections. And 2025 is giving no indication that things will slow down in the electoral world. What is more complicated, many countries expected to hold elections next year, find themselves in a state of turmoil – in active or coming out of conflicts, rampant political violence, and high levels of insecurity. Especially in these scenarios, elections can be a tipping point, helping build the legitimacy of authorities to start a new chapter in the country’s history or exacerbating grievances and discontent with the entire political and electoral processes. It might not be too late for the international community to help tilt the balance toward the former.
 

An uninviting background for elections
As of now, more than 70 countries could hold national-level elections in the near future, although several of these are still not confirmed. Libya (which has not held presidential or parliamentary elections since 2014 due to rival factions’ disagreement on electoral rules), and Mali and Burkina Faso (postponed indefinitely) are some of these elections that are due but unlikely to happen absent major shifts in conflict and power dynamics. With the sudden fall of the Assad regime, and despite the uncertainty that lies ahead, there are increased calls for national elections representative of the Syrian people.

At least twelve other countries recording extreme, high, or turbulent levels of conflict according to ACLED’s Conflict Index could hold polls next year. Other countries not technically in conflict are not necessarily free of trouble either. Belarus, for example, is not featured in the conflict list, despite its regime supporting Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine and escalating political repression ahead of the so-called presidential elections scheduled for January. This so-called election process is happening in a context where opposition candidates, parties, movements, civil society, and media are targeted and imprisoned; where there are severe limitations on freedom of assembly, association, and expression; and where large-scale election-day violations around vote counting and tabulation have been constant. Belarus’ democratic movement has called for elections not to be recognized until they meet international standards, under the supervision of an international body. Bolivia, although officially also off the ACLED list, is seeing renewed political polarization and fragmentation – particularly within the ruling party – and economic instability ahead of its August polls, a combination that often fuels political unrest.

The pool of countries in turmoil and up for elections is, of course, very heterogeneous – in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Myanmar, voters are at the mercy of domestic military juntas. In Libya, disagreement among political elites hinder the very scheduling of national level elections, while in Ecuador and Honduras, criminal groups not only undermine voters’ security but their very choice at the polls by infiltrating politics.

As diverse as these challenges and their root causes are, some common strategies can foster an environment that is more conducive to credible elections.

Laying the ground for credible elections amid turmoil
In environments marred by insecurity, an obvious goal in preparation for elections is to stabilize security levels and ensure candidates, election workers, voters, and observers can fully participate in the process. This might entail more and better prepared law enforcement and security personnel, but also a consistent and effective legal framework to guide these officials’ work. Before elections take place, for instance, reforms might be needed to remove legal provisions that have enabled repression and intimidation (e.g., bans on rallies and other restrictions on freedom of assembly as were seen in Tanzania, and censorship laws) or undue advantages (e.g., impunity for officials abusing administrative resources for electoral gains).

Incumbency can also bring natural advantages – for instance, ruling leaders tend to dominate media during wars and other crises, getting more exposure to potential voters – which also need to be addressed. Pluralism and diversity of thought in media coverage must be promoted so voters are well-informed about the different platforms and options they have on the ballot. And for these different political platforms to get the attention they deserve, they must also be attentive and responsive to the needs of different constituencies. It is common, especially during crises, for political elites to get self-absorbed and fully invested in attacking each other, alienating large sectors of the electorate who just want to see practical solutions to their daily struggles. Iraq, for instance, will need to make serious efforts to revert the trend of declining turnout seen in previous elections, when voters felt largely disconnected from the elites competing for power.

In addition to physical security, it is increasingly important to prevent malign actors, domestically and abroad, from trying to further disrupt these electoral processes through digital means, undermining information integrity or directly tampering with election data and results. Election officials need help to identify and patch existing cybersecurity vulnerabilities and ensure the flow of high-quality, accurate information throughout elections and transition processes.

Particularly in countries coming out of wars and natural disasters, it might also be needed to rebuild infrastructure that is essential for elections, such as public buildings used for registration and polling, transportation, and information management systems. Elections are already incredibly challenging logistical endeavors even in peacetime, and an unreliable infrastructure can create additional challenges, from moving electoral material across the country to ensuring the secure and timely transmission of results. Haiti, which is planning on holding elections in 2026 for the first time in 10 years, will have a lot of work to do in this area, as gang violence and destruction only added to the damage caused by recent earthquakes.

Rebuilding infrastructure and investing in updated election equipment and processes can be financially prohibitive for many countries – be it due to wars demanding the prioritization of military equipment and humanitarian aid or economic collapse induced by other political crises. Furthermore, when funding for elections is limited, investments in important activities such as civic education and voter information campaigns or activities to promote the inclusion of frequently marginalized populations tend to be deprioritized. In these scenarios more than ever, authorities might need extra help to procure needed electoral material and equipment, and they need to ensure systems’ maintenance and future expenses sustainably fit their institution’s budgets.

Finally, there can be no credible elections without people – people as political leaders, election and law enforcement officials, voters, and observers. A serious consequence of conflict and other political crises, however, is the loss of human capital. It is estimated that a quarter of the Ukrainian population had left their homes one month into Russia’s full invasion. Since 2014, about 20% of Venezuela‘s population has fled the country’s political and economic crisis, and more than half of Syria’s population is currently displaced. Countries trying to hold meaningful and inclusive elections have an uphill battle to train new personnel, create conditions to bring back people in forced exile, and enfranchise internally displaced persons and refugees, both legally and procedurally.
Without addressing these foundations, grievances, and dissatisfactions that led or contributed to the country’s crisis will likely only exacerbate during elections, which by their own nature heighten competitiveness and strife.

Not enough time means no time to lose
In addition to the traditional administrative and logistical challenges that come with holding nationwide elections, countries in active or recent turmoil often experience a level of volatility that makes everything more sensitive. Every delay can be interpreted as an attempt by somebody to cling to power, every human error can be seen as a deliberate action to interfere with results. Ideally, of course, there should be enough time before elections to address grievances and technical problems and ensure all processes are politically fair and technically sound. We know all too well, though, that not many countries have the luxury of time when it comes to holding post-conflict, transitional, or other high-stakes elections. External support, from the US and the international community in general, can be very impactful in these tight windows.

As recent data from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project showed, international support was a common element among the countries that bounced back to democracy after a period of autocratization. And Americans have a lot to gain by tilting the world’s field toward democratic systems. For starters, democracies are more likely to form alliances with other democracies and maintain cooperative relationships with the global community, foster economic opportunities for their citizens (which can reduce crime and forced migration), and safeguard individual rights through the rule of law.
In this turbulent election year, it is vital to demonstrate leadership and support nations that face serious headwinds in conducting elections that genuinely channel and reflect the will of their voters. The work to build or rebuild these basic conditions needs to start quickly, often during and despite the turmoil future elections are supposed to overcome.