Elections as Critical Infrastructure: Preparing for a Climate-Disrupted World
Ferran Martinez i Coma, Sarah Birch, and Erik Asplund
Hurricanes Helene and Milton hit the south-eastern United States in the weeks before the 2024 presidential election. Tropical Cyclone Idai struck Mozambique two weeks before voter registration began in 2019. During the final days of India's seven-phase general election in 2024, temperatures climbed above 45°C. At the end of any given year, there are, roughly between 50 to 60 national elections. Are hurricanes, cyclones, heatwaves and the like just coincidences affecting such electoral processes?
To address this question, we need data. In Managing Natural Hazards and Climate Risks in Elections, a new study from International IDEA, we set out the most comprehensive evidence to date on whether and how this is happening. In short, it is happening and is being made worse by climate change.
Drawing on more than 100 briefs from its Election Emergency and Crisis Monitor and 13 in-depth country case studies — spanning cyclones in Mozambique, earthquakes in Türkiye, extreme heat in Mexico and the Philippines, and floods in Bosnia and Australia, we find that since the start of the century at least 94 elections and referendums in 52 countries have been disrupted by one or more natural hazards. In 2024 alone — the super-cycle year, when approximately half the world's eligible voters went to the polls — at least 23 elections in 18 countries were affected by extreme weather.
All available scientific evidence shows that extreme weather grows more frequent and more intense: 2024 was confirmed as the warmest on record, with the annual average temperature exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time. As we have shown with the opening examples, this is affecting elections. But in the forthcoming years, the question is no longer going to be whether a natural hazard will coincide with an election, but whether the institutions running an election, during emergencies and crisis are adequately prepared. Hence, the question, how do electoral management bodies (EMBs) get ready for climate risks?
Our book has a practical focus. In the chapters and cases, we identify building blocks of resilient elections guided by four main principles: redundancy, legal flexibility, coordination and communication. Each of these principles translates into concrete, context-specific measures. For example:
By building redundancy into registration and voting means — as in New York or Australia — no single failure becomes definitive.
Regarding legal flexibility, granting EMBs the legal authority to relocate polling stations — as in Austria — or adapting or expand special voting arrangements at short notice allows them to act decisively — as in Australia or Canada's Northwest Territories or British Columbia. Additionally, shifting election dates away from peak hazard seasons can remove the risk altogether, as Alberta has done by moving its fixed date out of wildfire season.
On coordination. As it is unlikely that any EMBs can manage extreme events on their own, partnerships with meteorological, civil-protection and disaster-relief agencies — as in Australia or India — are useful both in turning warnings into action and pooling scarce resources.
Proactive, transparent communication is the foundation: in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2024, the electoral commission issued regular press releases as it postponed voting in flood-hit municipalities, heading off rumours before they could spread.
All the above measures are context specific and the institutional and legal arrangements in some countries are more amenable to adaptation than others. However, that does not disqualify the main objective of any EMB in a democracy: respond to the event, adapt to it and deliver the election with utmost integrity.
The thirteen case studies in the volume show these principles tested under real pressure. Some authorities were ready; others learned hard lessons. Together they make a compelling case that climate adaptation now belongs at the heart of electoral planning rather than at its margins.
We include eleven action-oriented recommendations. Perhaps the most relevant for ICPS' audience is our call for governments to recognise electoral processes, in the context of natural hazards and climate risks, as critical infrastructure and to write elections into national climate-adaptation and disaster-risk-reduction plans. This is fundamental as extreme weather is fast becoming a central concern for EMBs.
In a context in which climate will affect elections more often and more harshly, EMBs and electoral authorities will be facing harder choices. Following the message in the foreword from the Council of Europe's rapporteur on elections in times of crisis, Damien Cottier, "emergencies must not be allowed to suspend democracy, but democracies must prepare for emergencies." Managing Natural Hazards and Climate Risks in Elections offers experiences — positive and negative — for learning, tools and principles to prepare for such emergencies and continue with democracy.
Managing Natural Hazards and Climate Risks in Elections is available free of charge from International IDEA. It is a basic reading for anyone responsible for delivering elections in an age of climate disruption.
Ferran Martínez i Coma is Professor in the School of Government and International Relations at Griffith University (Australia). His research focuses on elections, electoral integrity, comparative politics, political parties and electoral behaviour. He has served as a senior advisor in the Policy Unit of the Office of the Prime Minister of Spain, and as a technical advisor at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and at Barcelona's City Hall.
Sarah Birch is Professor of Political Science in the Department of Political Economy at King's College London. Her research interests include the political effects of extreme weather events and the role of political institutions in securing democracy for the Anthropocene. Sarah has worked with the United Nations Development Programme, International IDEA, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, among others.
Erik Asplund is a Senior Advisor in the Electoral Processes Programme at International IDEA, with over 18 years of experience supporting electoral management bodies and civil society organizations across Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. He specializes in elections during emergencies and crises, risk management in elections, and training and professional development in electoral administration.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this commentary are those of the authors, one of which is a staff member of International IDEA. This commentary is independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the institutional position of International IDEA, its Board of Advisers or its Council of Member States.