Comparative Study of Resolution Mechanisms of Presidential Election Disputes in Kenya (2017), Afghanistan (2009) and Iran (2009)

This research aims to identify and describe similarities and differences of mechanisms used to resolve three post-election disputes of presidential elections of Kenya 2017, Afghanistan 2009 and Iran 2009. Tradition and comparative strategy in this study were qualitative-in-depth and case-oriented with n, respectively. To achieve this benchmark, a researcher-made conceptual framework has been used, as well as the library-documentary method to collect the data. Based on the findings of the study, the system and the dominant approach in resolving the presidential election disputes in Kenya and Afghanistan is integrated, i.e. the use of a combination of official/governmental and non-official/non-governmental mechanisms. While in Iran, the dominant system and approach is formal/governmental, and no application of informal/alternative dispute resolution mechanisms has been recognized. Moreover, the formal mechanisms used in all three comparisons has been included in the similarities found them, with the difference that in Kenya and Afghanistan, the application of these mechanisms has led to the acceptance of requests of protester candidates and ultimately to the resolution and end of disputes. While in Iran, the protester candidates’ requests have been rejected.The current comparative analysis indicates that reforming electoral management laws and institutions with the specific function of resolving potential disputes in an electoral cycle with “learning” from the previous controversial situations may lead to the creation of new mechanisms, including formal, informal or complementary. These mechanisms allow the parties of the dispute to resolve the dispute more constructively, fairly, creatively and rapidly through cooperative actions.