From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings

and reinforce durable solutions. 27 In the peace process
for resolving the conflict in Darfur, Sudan, there was
some involvement of IDPs in the civil society group
consultations held in Qatar in 2010 and 2011 between
the Liberation and Justice Movement (LJM) and the
government of Sudan; moreover, many of the representatives,
both women and men, of the opposition groups
participating in the talks were IDPs themselves.
Perhaps more than any other benchmark, the participation
of IDPs in decisionmaking is difficult to assess.
Some governments have made an effort to organize
meetings with IDPs and to work with IDP associations,
but whether that constitutes meaningful participation
of IDPs in decisions that affect their lives remains unknown.
At the most fundamental level, participation is
about sharing power. Governments have a responsibility
to protect and assist IDPs; to involve IDPs in making
decisions is to share that responsibility.
9(b) Are IDPs able to exercise their right
to vote without undue difficulties related
to their displacement?
As the Framework for National Responsibility notes,
national responsibility for encouraging and facilitating
IDPs’ participation also entails safeguarding IDPs’
right to political participation, as affirmed in Guiding
Principle 22(d) cited above. However, the Framework
also recognizes that “frequently IDPs face obstacles
in exercising their right to vote and thereby to having
27 Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement,
IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally
Displaced Persons, April 2010, p. 24 (www.brookings.
edu/reports/2010/04_durable_solutions.aspx). See further,
Gerard McHugh and others, Integrating Internal
Displacement in Peace Processes and Agreements,
Peacemakers’ Toolkit (Washington: Brookings Institution
and United States Institute for Peace, February 2010)
(www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0216_internal_displacement_mchugh.aspx);
Brookings-Bern Project on
Internal Displacement, Addressing Internal Displacement
in Peace Processes, Peace Agreements and Peace-Building,
September 2007 (www.brookings.edu/reports/2007/09
peaceprocesses.aspx).
Benchmark 9 Facilitate IDPs’ Participation in Decisionmaking
121
a say in the political and economic decisions affecting
their lives.” In countries with democratic traditions, the
national constitution usually guarantees the rights of
all citizens to vote. However, many IDPs face specific
obstacles to exercising that right: they do not fulfill the
residency requirements for electoral registration; they
often lack documentation because it was lost, destroyed
or confiscated in the course of displacement; they may
be required to return to their community of origin in
order to register to vote; and they may face intimidation
or threats to their security related to their displacement
when trying to vote. 28 When such obstacles exist,
governments are expected to take special measures to
ensure that IDPs can exercise their right to vote.
Overview of research findings:
(b) Political participation, in particular,
the right to vote
The case studies illustrate a number of examples in
which governments have taken measures to address
such obstacles and thereby enable IDPs to participate
in the political process, in particular by exercising their
right to vote. Yet they also show that even when such
obstacles are removed, additional efforts are required to
promote IDPs’ political participation if it is to be on par
with that of nondisplaced populations.
Legal obstacles to IDPs’ electoral participation often
arise in relation to residency requirements for registration,
which almost inevitably affect IDPs. National
legislation in Georgia restricted the voting rights of
IDPs in parliamentary and local elections in two main
ways. 29 First, it extended indefinitely the mandate of the
parliamentary deputies from Abkhazia, who also were
displaced and were serving their electoral term at the
time of displacement. Second, the combined effect of
28 Erin Mooney and Balkees Jarrah, “Safeguarding IDP
Voting Rights,” Forced Migration Review, no. 23 (2005), p.
55.
29 For more detailed analysis of Benchmark 9(b) in the
context of Georgia, see the Georgia case study in chapter 2
of this volume.