Good practices guide

A democracy is stronger when citizens participate consistently, not only during elections. Participation goes beyond voting: it includes staying informed, expressing opinions, attending activities, and following what happens in public affairs.

It is vital for parties and campaign teams to maintain spaces for meeting and explanation outside electoral periods as well. If they only appear during campaigns, their relationship with the public weakens and people eventually see political processes as something distant. A more continuous relationship awakens civic interest and makes it easier for people to become involved naturally.

The rules of political competition should be clear and should not change according to convenience. Although parties and campaign teams do not establish those rules, they can remain alert to whether they are being followed and point out when they are changed irregularly or without a valid justification.

With stable rules, everyone knows how to participate and what to expect. Frequent changes, by contrast, undermine trust and reinforce the idea that the outcome has already been decided. Paying attention to such changes and calling them out is one way to protect the system.

Assuming that everything works properly is not enough. Parties and campaign teams should request that the specific steps be made public: how electoral authorities are selected, how results are published, how questions are addressed, and how resources are managed.

Greater transparency leaves less room for distrust and rumors. When transparency is lacking, it is legitimate to point that out. A process open to review is more credible than one that presents itself as closed.

A party does not exist only to win elections, but also to represent people and govern effectively. Parties and campaign teams should continuously train their members, leaders, and candidates, whether through their own study centers or through partnerships with universities, foundations, and other institutions.

This training could cover public administration, ethics, citizens’ rights, institutional operations, and communication, without being limited to party doctrine. When preparation is lacking, public offices are filled through improvisation and mistakes are repeated. Training does not guarantee good leaders, but it tends to reduce improvisation and provide better criteria when selecting candidates.

What is said should be consistent with what is done. When messages and conduct move in different directions, credibility deteriorates quickly. Consistent parties and teams earn trust over time; inconsistent ones create suspicion, regardless of how attractive their discourse may be.

Being consistent does not mean that everything must be perfect. It means that there should be harmony between what is promised and what is delivered.

Communication should not end with the campaign. Between one electoral process and the next, parties and teams should continue to inform, explain, and maintain contact with the public. Regular communication helps people understand what is happening instead of receiving messages only when they are being asked for their vote.

When communication stops between elections, people grow distant. When it continues, it becomes easier to identify problems in time and preserve trust.

Everyone has the right to aspire to an elected office, and this recommendation is not intended to restrict that right. It is addressed to parties and concerns how they decide whom to nominate on behalf of their organization.

Each party should define clear and verifiable criteria, such as experience, preparation for the position, and respect for democratic rules; make those criteria public; and apply them equally. Nominating candidates under known rules strengthens trust in the system and helps democracy function better.