When Theater Replaces Real Transparency: A Global Lesson in Election Governance

Transparency is a universally venerated pillar of electoral integrity. But when it becomes more about optics than being authentic, more performance than principle, it courts a backfire. Rather than building trust, performative transparency creates a false sense of oversight, lulling citizens into complacency, and conceals institutional rot.

In the Philippines, the chairman of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) is under fire for a procurement process riddled with controversy—making it a powerful case study in electoral governance. 

Chairman George Garcia. Source: Wikipedia/Comelec

The Philippine Case: What Went Wrong?

In a bid to create a perception of transparency, Chairman George Garcia orchestrated livestreams and media briefings covering its procurement of a new election system for the 2025 polls. But lawmakers and election watchdogs quickly saw through the performance and flagged irregularities in the procurement process.

Concerned groups raised alarms over the $310 million contract being awarded to newcomer Miru without competitive bidding. Beyond allegations of corruption, Miru’s technological failures have repeatedly disrupted elections and eroded public trust.

Even during the bidding process, Miru’s technology performed poorly in two different countries. In the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2023 presidential elections, 45% of polling stations using Miru equipment experienced major malfunctions. The Carter Center flagged critical flaws in the voter registration kits, including thermal printers that smudged voter cards. In Iraq, Miru’s systems failed during both the 2018 and 2023 elections—70% of voting centers using its devices malfunctioned during special voting in 2023, requiring emergency manual counting.

Garcia’s efforts at transparency seemed to serve more as misdirection from the anomalies than genuine institutional accountability. As dissenting voices were ignored, public trust plummeted. Out of the camera view of the stage-managed transparency, a growing suspicion of corruption festered.

The chairman now faces multiple formal complaints which include a graft complaint alleging 61 million counts of cyberfraud during the 2025 elections, a graft suit by a congressman, accusing Garcia of violating procurement laws in awarding the $310 million contract to Miru Systems, and a disbarment petition before the Supreme Court citing a ₱300 million bribery allegation and political favoritism.

These cases point to a troubling reality: when transparency is only performed rather than practiced, accountability is undermined. 

Cameroon: Fake Observers, Fabricated Legitimacy

Lip-service legitimacy is being observed elsewhere around the world too. In Cameroon’s 2018 presidential election, the government boasted of international observers from Transparency International. But there was a catch—they never came. The illusion was only exposed after the narrative had circulated widely, reinforcing distrust in state-led transparency initiatives. 

Political Finance in France and Spain: Legal Compliance, Minimal Disclosure

While many EU member states claim to uphold financial transparency in politics, only 7 out of 27 countries mandate full pre-election disclosure of private donors. Nations like France and Spain still allow anonymity, even under mounting international scrutiny. This selective opacity chips away at the credibility of transparency efforts, revealing how compliance can mask concealment. 

The High Cost of Illusion

When institutions focus on looking transparent—through press conferences, staged demos, and curated narratives—they often distract from real structural flaws. This performative transparency misleads the public into believing systems are secure and fair, even when serious gaps remain.
 

According to research from the Electoral Integrity Project, countries with low authentic transparency suffer from lower voter turnout, increased corruption, and waning democratic trust.

True transparency isn't about putting on a show—it’s about structural openness, real-time accountability, and meaningful engagement with public concerns. Genuine transparency means conducting free, fair and competitive bidding, releasing full vendor evaluations and not just summaries and polished press briefings. It includes involving independent experts, civil society, and watchdog groups rather than staging tightly controlled stakeholder panels.

Real transparency also requires commissioning third-party technical audits instead of relying solely on internal demonstrations. It responds to legal complaints directly and substantively, rather than brushing them off as partisan attacks. In contrast, performative transparency is all optics, offering the appearance of openness without the substance.

Transparency must be more than a spectacle. In an age where disinformation, political apathy, and democratic backsliding are on the rise, authentic transparency is essential—not optional. It requires courage, institutional reform, and a commitment to face uncomfortable truths. Without it, democracy becomes less a system of accountability and more stagecraft.

And once trust is lost, no amount of theater can restore it.

Electronic Voting in Iraq: Mission Unaccomplished

Fifteen years after US President George W. Bush gave his “Mission Accomplished” address, Iraq continues its struggle for democracy. Regrettably, key institutions like its Independent High Electoral Commission have proven inefficient in laying the foundations for a thriving democracy. What is worst, they are failing to learn from their own recent experiences. 

In May 2018, Iraq headed to the polls for its first election in the post-ISIS era. What initially appeared to be a relatively decent election gradually emerged to have involved massive potential fraud, forcing a manual recount of the results of a failed electronic voting system. These botched elections cast into serious doubt Iraq's ability to strengthen its own democratic institutions and conduct future election processes.

The tragic episode of the 2018 elections could have had a positive spin, had authorities learned the lesson. However, the fact that they are mulling over the idea of using the same unreliable technology, is a sad testament to the struggle facing Iraq’s fragile, corrupt and inefficient institutions.

Most of the complaints reported after the 2018 election in Iraq concerned the alleged compromise of the optical scanners provided by Miru Systems. The $135 million system purchased by Iraq’s elections commission was intended to help the critical vote-counting process. Yet, as reported by media outlets, tests of electronic voting machines produced varied results, giving credence to the fraud claims.

Miru Systems is no stranger to this type of controversies. Currently, its leadership is having to answer questions before South Korea’s parliament about its dealings with election commissions in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina and El Salvador. Prosecutors allege that a corruption scheme allowed Miru to win contracts. The Association of World Election Bodies (A-WEB), which helped MIRU to win contracts around the world, is also under investigation in South Korea. 

Though it is yet to be proven if Miru Systems applied in Iraq similar questionable techniques to close deals, it is already evident that the end result is far from ideal. 

Miru’s voting technology was analyzed by academics from the United States and Argentina. According to election expert Joseph Hall, experts “were able to show how completely insecure the Miru system was, including: publicly posted cryptographic keys allowing total modification of the system or vote data; radio transmission of each ballot, which was easily intercepted; and using chips embedded in each paper ballot (RFID tags) to load many more than one vote per ballot.” Argentina stopped the procurement and legislative authorization process to obtain these machines shortly after the security researchers publicly presented these flaws to Argentinian legislators.

Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission must rebuild trust after the 2018 mayhem. The nation needs an election that leads to the kind of political stability that generates trust and creates the conditions for a thriving democracy. So far, transparent, efficient and modern elections continue to be a “Mission Unaccomplished”.