if only partially, on several areas of the performance of the committee. Indeed, the above mentioned factors, i.e. the ad hoc nature of the electoral commission and the conditions relating to the tenures of its officers, have some connections with several aspects of the contribution that the electoral commission can make to the management of elections. These factors may, for example, affect the independence of members of the committee since it is recognised that the less time one person remains on a post, the more sensitive one is to the concerns of those one owe the appointment and finally its renewal. These factors may also affect the stability and legitimacy of the commission. Indeed, it will be very difficult for a committee whose members are constantly renewed(sometimes almost 100%) or is itself reinstalled each electoral term(that is to say who is seen in action for a few months to several years apart) to consolidate. It will be difficult to win the respect of citizens and key stakeholders involved in the electoral process, to leverage the experience of the practical management of elections and finally to enjoy the level of legitimacy necessary to carry out its delicate mission. The same factors mentioned above also contribute to determining the quality of work performed by the electoral commission. Indeed, it would be difficult for a commission in such a situation to accumulate experiences and draw lessons for improving the electoral process. It is also difficult to properly prepare for one's contribution to the various elections held so far, it will neither control the time of its installation and by extension the time available for the preparation and organization of elections. The fundamental question that follows from the above is: how to determine the terms in question to prevent the commission from falling into the traps listed above? The answer is neither simple nor 106