See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 14203
| 24 November 2016
Observation of the parliamentary elections in Montenegro (16 October 2016)
1. Introduction
1. At the invitation of Mr Darko
Pajović, President of the Parliament of Montenegro, the Bureau of
the Assembly decided at its meeting on 26 May 2016 to set up an
ad hoc committee to observe the parliamentary elections in Montenegro
on 16 October 2016. On 24 June, it appointed Mr Joseph O’Reilly
(Ireland, EPP/CD) to chair the ad hoc committee. However, Mr O’Reilly
informed the secretariat of the Assembly that he would not be able
to participate and the Bureau, at its meeting on 14 October 2016,
appointed Mr Aleksander Pociej (Poland, EPP/CD) as chair of the
ad hoc committee (the membership of the ad hoc committee is set
out in Appendix 1).
2. In accordance with Article 15 of the agreement of 4 October
2004 between the Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (the Venice Commission), the Bureau of the Assembly invited
an expert from the Venice Commission to join the ad hoc committee
as an adviser. The Venice Commission appointed Mr James Hamilton
(Ireland) to accompany and advise the Assembly delegation.
3. The ad hoc committee formed part of the International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM), which included the election observation
mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR)
as well as a delegation from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE
PA).
4. The ad hoc committee met from 14 to 17 October in Podgorica,
where it met the Head of the European Union delegation, the Acting
Head of the OSCE mission, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission
and members of his team, the Chair of the State Election Commission
(SEC), political party representatives and representatives of civil
society and the media. The ad hoc committee’s programme of meetings
is set out in Appendix 2.
5. On polling day, the 14 members of the Parliamentary Assembly
delegation split into seven teams to observe the election in Podgorica,
Tuzi, Nikšić, Cetinje, Kolesin, Ulcin, Bar, Danilovgrad, Budva and
their surrounding areas.
6. The ad hoc committee observed that on polling day “Montenegrin
citizens were able to express their choice in a free and dignified
manner”. In the press release published following the elections
and at the press conference held on 17 October, the Head of the
Assembly delegation underlined that, “The high turnout reflected
the hopes that the people of Montenegro had in these elections.
Allegations of corruption, foreign funding, political tension and
inconsistencies in the legal framework tainted the electoral environment.
Despite this, the verdict of our observers is that the elections
represented the will of the people.” The Head of the PACE delegation
concluded: “It is now up to the newly elected parliament to work
with the mandate the voters have given it, in order to realise the
full democratic potential of the country.” The press release issued
after the elections appears in Appendix 3.
7. The ad hoc committee wishes to thank the Montenegrin Parliament
as well as the OSCE/ODIHR and OSCE PA teams and the Venice Commission
for their co-operation and support.
2. Political environment
8. These elections were the fourth
parliamentary elections since the country declared its independence
in June 2006. The Parliamentary Assembly has observed all four of
these elections.
9. Montenegro is a parliamentary republic with some elements
of semi-presidentialism. The executive power lies with the government,
but the President of the Republic is democratically elected every
five years.
10. The previous parliamentary elections in October 2012 were
won by the coalition for a European Montenegro (45.60% – 39 seats),
led by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and composed of
the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Liberal Party (LP). The
minorities’ parties supported the coalition in forming a government.
The opposition was composed of the Democratic Front (DF, 22.82%
– 20 seats), the Socialist People’s Party (SNP, 11.06% – 9 seats)
and Positive Montenegro (PCG, 8.24% – 7 seats).
11. Mr Milo Đjukanović, the incumbent Prime Minister at the time
of the elections (he subsequently resigned from the post), was one
of the longest serving leaders in Europe since the collapse of communism.
He held the post of Prime Minister for some 17 years and that of
President of Montenegro for almost five years. His party, the Democratic
Party of Socialists, has been in power since 1991. The concentration
of power for nearly two decades in the hands of one dominant political
party has created some frustration in the population over alleged corruption,
nepotism, economic stagnation, social difficulties and restrictions
of certain freedoms. On the one hand, the country has moved stably
towards the Euro-Atlantic integration, on the other hand, certain
sectors of the economy are dominated by mostly Serbian and Russian
capital. The country is drawn into a larger geopolitical interests
game, which also affects the population.
12. Your rapporteur is particularly concerned that the alleged
corruption by the political elite has nurtured a sense of helplessness,
particularly among the young educated population in the country.
Those who do not want to become part of this institutional network
of corruption often leave. Yet by their departure, they give the existing
elite a lifeline.
13. These polarisations and tensions in society were largely seen
in the run-up to the elections. In 2014, the general dissatisfaction
with the political, economic and social situation led to a series
of protests calling for the incumbent government to step down and
to hold early elections. In October 2015, the crisis escalated further when
the police resorted to the use of force against protesters, causing
multiple casualties. Strong pressure was put on the government,
notably to reform the electoral system and dismantle the alleged
mechanisms of corruption, which were accused of having led to electoral
fraud in several previous cycles of elections and impaired the conditions
for a fair political fight. The opposition repeatedly boycotted
the sessions of the parliament and the protests continued throughout
2015.
14. The protests were also perceived as being directed against
Montenegro’s membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), after the country had received an invitation to join the
alliance. In the meantime, in May 2016, NATO Foreign Ministers signed
the Accession Protocol for Montenegro. Protests against NATO continued
upon the initiative of the Democratic Front (DF) and the New Serb
Democracy right up to the elections, making the idea of putting
NATO membership to referendum a major campaign issue.
15. In December 2015, the political parties represented in the
parliament started a dialogue in order to find a solution to the
political stalemate and to lead the country to “free and fair elections”
in October. On 26 April 2016, an Agreement for Creating Conditions
for Free and Fair Elections was signed between all the forces. The agreement
foresaw the formation of a transition government that would prepare
the elections.
16. Among other issues, the agreement implied the resignation
of the director and editors of the public broadcaster and envisaged
the entry of opposition members into the government with ministerial
posts in four ministries – Ministry of Finance, Ministry of the
Interior, Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and Ministry of Agriculture
–, a deputy prime minister’s post as well as assistant minister
posts with special powers in two ministries and a range of lower
level positions. On 19 May 2016, the parliament approved the new
government composed of members from Prime Minister Đjukanović’s
DPS, Bosniak, Albanian and Croatian minority parties and three opposition
parties. The parliament also voted to remove the Speaker of Parliament,
Mr Ranko Krivokapić. Until January 2016, Mr Krivokapić had been
the closest political ally of Mr Đjukanović, which ended when Mr Krivokapić’s
Social Democratic Party backed the failed no-confidence vote against
Mr Đjukanović. On 11 July, President Filip Vujanović called elections
for 16 October.
17. Although the inclusion of opposition members in the government
helped ease the direct confrontation and mitigate earlier accusations
of abuse of administrative resources, tensions remained high throughout
the run-up to the elections. This culminated in the Minister of
the Interior (member of the opposition) refusing to sign the electoral
register by the 5 October deadline, citing too many inaccuracies.
Although this move did not have any legal consequences, it demonstrated
the political tensions within the country.
3. Legal framework
18. Montenegro's unicameral parliament
has 81 seats. Members are elected for a four-year term in a single nation-wide
constituency under a proportional system (with a seat allocation
threshold of 3% of the valid votes). Political parties can submit
lists either individually or, if they are part of a coalition, jointly.
19. The parliamentary elections are regulated by the Constitution
and the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament
(“the election law”). Further regulations are provided in the Law
on the Voter Register, the Law on Political Parties, the Law on
Financing Legal Entities and Campaign, as well as the decisions
of the State Election Commission and the media-related legislation.
20. The ad hoc committee was pleased to note that considerable
efforts had been made since the last parliamentary elections in
2012 and the presidential election in 2013 in order to improve the
legal framework. The latter was substantially revised in 2014, taking
into account some recommendations of previous Venice Commission
and OSCE/ODIHR joint opinions
and
final observation reports of the OSCE/ODIHR and Parliamentary Assembly.
Key changes included provisions on voter registration and voter
identification on election day, new provisions on the allocation
of mandates to minority lists, and provisions on gender equality and
on the composition and competences of the electoral commissions.
21. Serious shortcomings nevertheless remain, the biggest concern
being the 24-month residence requirement as a precondition to vote
and to be elected. While for the election law the 24 months should precede
the election day, the Constitution does not specify anything. The
requirement is very difficult to verify and its operation in practice
is unclear.
22. Other recommendations remained unaddressed, such as defining
the official start of the electoral campaign, the clarification
of the procedures in place for prison voting, the composition of
the municipal election commissions where there is no opposition
party in a municipal assembly, the extension of the mandate of the SEC
to guarantee that it co-ordinates and supervises municipal as well
as national elections.
4. Electoral system
23. In order to participate in
the allocation of the seats in the 81-member parliament, candidate
lists must surpass the 3% threshold provided for in the Electoral
Law. The seats are then assigned in line with the D’Hondt system
and allocated on the basis of the order of candidates.
24. There are special rules applicable for the parties representing
the minorities of the country. The 2014 amendments addressed a previous
recommendation made by the OSCE/ODIHR in 2012, which had asked that
clear procedures be introduced for the allocation of mandates for
minority lists. Namely, if no minority list reaches the required
threshold, but some lists gain 0.7% or more of the valid votes,
the latter are entitled to participate in the allocation of up to
3 seats, according to the total number of valid votes received.
The parties representing the Croatian minority are entitled to one
seat if they gain 0.35% or more of the valid votes.
25. This special provision for the Croats was questioned in the
2011 OSCE/ODIHR–Venice Commission Joint Opinion, quoted above. The
opinion stressed that: “It would be preferable to maintain an objective, quantitative
criterion in order not to stigmatise one specific group and, more
importantly, not to create a possible basis for discrimination in
the Constitution, should, in future censuses, the Croats reach a
higher percentage or other minority groups reach lower percentages.”
26. The latest amendments to the electoral law further defined
the allocation of mandates for minority lists: a minority nation
with a share of up to 15% of the total population of the country,
or with a share of between 1.5% and 15% of the population of each
municipality, has the right to participate separately in the allocation
of the seats with its obtained number of valid votes.
27. According to the 2011 census, Montenegrins constitute almost
45% of the population, Serbs 28%, Bosnians 8%, Albanians 5% and
Muslims 3%. Croats and Roma each account for 1% of the total population. The
population of Albanian origin is mainly concentrated in the towns
of Ulcinj, Plav and Tuzi in the Podgorica district. The Bosnian
population mostly lives in the northern part of the country, in
the municipalities of Berane, Rožaje and Bijelo Polje. There is
also a considerable Roma population, which is disseminated all over
the country although the greatest concentration of Roma is to be
found in the vicinity of Podgorica.
28. The ad hoc committee’s attention was also drawn to the fact
that the latest amendments had also introduced new provisions regarding
gender equality. According to Article 39.a of
the Electoral Law: “In order to exercise the gender equality principle,
there shall be at least 30% of
candidates on the candidate list from the under-represented sex.
Among each four candidates in the candidate list order (the first
four places, the second four places and so on until the end of the
list) there shall be at least one candidate who
is a member of the under-represented sex.” That is to say, every
fourth place should be allocated to a woman.
5. Election administration
and registration of lists and candidates
29. Elections in Montenegro are
administered in the framework of a three-tier system of electoral commissions:
a State Election Commission (SEC), 21 municipal election commissions
(MECs) and 1 206 polling boards (PBs). The SEC and MECs are appointed
after the newly elected parliament is inaugurated, for a four-year
term, while the polling boards are appointed for each election of
councillors or members of parliament.
30. The 2011 OSCE/ODIHR–Venice Commission Joint Opinion recommended
expanding the duration of the mandate of the SEC to guarantee that
it co-ordinates and supervises municipal as well as national elections.
This recommendation has not
been followed.
31. The SEC is composed of a chairperson and 10 standing members.
The members are appointed by the parliament on the basis of the
indications of the parties and civil society. More specifically,
four members are proposed by the parliamentary majority, four by
the parliamentary opposition, one by the minority representative
who won the highest number of seats in the previous parliamentary
elections and one is a representative from civil society appointed
by the parliament at the proposal of the parliamentary working body competent
for appointments and elections, following an open competition. The
President is appointed by the parliament with the majority of votes,
while the secretary is one of four members proposed by the opposition.
32. Despite efforts in this regard, the representation of women
in the electoral administration remained low, with 3 women out of
11 SEC permanent members and 37 of 115 permanent members of MECs.
33. In line with previous recommendations from our Assembly, the
recent amendments increased the powers and the responsibilities
of the SEC, which now also has legal capacity and an increased operational budget,
The ad hoc committee was informed by the OSCE/ODIHR long-term observer
team that the SEC had been able to make all the technical arrangements
for the elections; it had met all the deadlines and had conducted
regular meetings. However, a lack of strong collective leadership,
deficiencies in management and political tensions had often led
to inefficient and unproductive sessions. Some concerns were raised
over the lack of transparency, in particular after the media were
denied access to those sessions. Criticism was also voiced over
the fact that many aspects of the electoral process were now left
to the regulation of the SEC, who did not always supply guidance
to address the gaps in the law.
34. The 21 MECs are composed of a chairperson and 4 standing members
appointed by the municipal parliaments. According to Article 25
of the Election Law, the chairperson of the MEC is to be appointed
from the nominees of the political parties that won the highest
number of seats in the relevant local council. Two members are appointed
at the proposal of the opposition.
35. Twenty days before the elections, both the SEC and the 21
MECs were joined by partisan members. Each candidate list, in fact,
had the power to nominate one authorised representative to the SEC
and to each MEC. This provision was praised in the 2011 OSCE/ODIHR–Venice
Commission Joint Opinion, which stated that the “amendment … will
allow ‘extended representatives’ to participate in the work of election
administration when important decisions could be made”.
36. The PBs are composed of a chairperson and four members based
on the nomination of political parties represented in the local
councils, proportionate to the number of seats they hold. PBs are
formed 10 days before the election day, but Article 35 of the electoral
law allows for a “last-minute” composition of a PB, up to 12 hours
prior to the opening of the polling station. This raised some concerns
among our interlocutors as regards the capacity to train all PB
members and the possibility to include at the last minute people
specially trained in election fraud.
37. Despite earlier recommendations, the Law does not provide
for a proportional representation for national minorities either
in the MECs or in the PBs.
38. Every citizen over the age of 18 on election day, and residing
in the country for at least the last 24 months, has the right to
vote. The same residence requirement has to be met in order to be
registered as a candidate. As already mentioned, this residence
requirement has been consistently criticised in previous opinions
and recommendations. It goes in particular against the principles
set forth in the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters.
39. The ad hoc committee commends the introduction of the new
centralised electoral register, following amendments in 2014 to
the Law on the Electoral Register. The register is maintained by
the Ministry of the Interior and supervised by the SEC.
40. The accuracy of the register was nevertheless questioned by
almost all the stakeholders, especially by non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and opposition parties. Many allegations of dead people and
people residing abroad being on the list were reported. The Minister
of the Interior, belonging to the opposition, refused to sign the
electoral register on the 5 October deadline. The Ministry’s Secretary
General did it a day later in order not to hamper the entire electoral
process.
41. According to the latest Montenegro population census in 2011,
the country has 625 266 inhabitants. There were 528 817 voters on
the voters register. Moreover, 13 347 voters’ records were deleted
based on changes in the civil registries. According to the OSCE/ODIHR
data, more than 132 000 changes were made to the electoral register,
notably due to the change of electoral district boundaries. Changes
were possible until 15 days before election day. Each affected voter
was sent a notification. Throughout polling day, however, the ad
hoc committee observed numerous cases where people had not been
informed of the change of the boundaries of their PB.
42. For the first time, Montenegro used an Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (AFSIS), during the verification of which
the Ministry of the Interior found problems with 168 fingerprints,
representing 0.03% of the total number of registered voters. Nevertheless,
this was one of the reasons why the Minister of the Interior did not
sign the electoral register.
43. In what the OSCE/ODIHR experts deemed an inclusive process,
the SEC received and confirmed 17 lists containing a total of 1 120
candidates, out of whom 360, or 32%, were women. This was a significant increase
compared to 2012 when 264 women stood as candidates. No candidate
list was headed by a woman.
44. The electoral law stipulates that voters may only sign for
the support of one candidate list, which could in principle limit
political pluralism. The ad hoc committee was told that, in a positive
development and in line with the Constitutional Court decision,
voters no longer had to sign in front of the MEC representative.
45. Although the SEC provided training for almost all the polling
boards, the training was characterised by inconsistency and lack
of co-ordination. Our observation on election day showed many inconsistencies
in practice, although in fairness none of these were fundamental.
6. The election campaign and
the media environment
46. The legal framework did not
specify when the electoral campaign should officially start. Indeed,
the campaign began way ahead of the candidate registration, soon
after the creation of the coalition in May 2016.
47. The campaign was vibrant, competitive and in broad terms respectful
of fundamental freedoms. The figure of Milo Đjukanović, although
not participating in any of the broadcasted debates, dominated the
electoral campaign. The billboards of the DPS were among the most
present in the cities and the villages of the country. The DPS’s
slogan was “Sigurnim Korakom” (The Safe Step). It promised stability
and the continuation of the Euro-Atlantic integration process. The
opposition was led by the Democratic Front, an anti-NATO party,
which conducted a massive electoral campaign, allegedly based on
Russian funding. Its campaign mainly focused on the figure of the
incumbent prime minister (its main slogan literally stated “Either
us or him”) and on the corruption issues. Many billboards of the
party were in the Cyrillic alphabet. Two other important opposition parties,
the Key Coalition and the Democrats, focused their campaign on the
need to hold a referendum on NATO accession and on the figure of
the incumbent prime minister.
48. Mr Krivokapić’s SDP, a former partner of the Đjukanović government,
ran alone, among the opposition parties. The Democrats completed
the opposition formation. Positive Montenegro, formally an opposition
party, had backed the DPS in forming a government after the splitting
of the SDP. Minority parties from the Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian
minorities presented lists. Just before the elections, the main
opposition parties (DF, Key coalition and Democrats) announced that
they would form a coalition after the vote in order to prevent the DPS
from forming another government.
49. The electoral campaign was conducted through rallies, door-to-door
canvassing, billboards, traditional and social media advertisements
and debates. Many stakeholders expressed their concerns to the ad
hoc committee that the DPS enjoyed an institutional advantage after
many years in power.
50. The campaign lacked a commitment by the parties to undertake
social, political and economic reform. Almost all the electoral
campaign was focused on NATO accession and on the figure of the
incumbent Prime Minister.
51. The campaign financing regulation was improved by the adoption
of the Law on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns.
In January 2016, an Agency for the Prevention of Corruption was
created with the task of controlling the funds and the expenditures
of all the parties.
52. The law established reporting requirements for the parties,
limits for campaign expenditure and for donations by individuals
and legal entities. The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption,
which is in charge of the enforcement of the campaign financing
rules, did not manage to guarantee adequate transparency of pre-electoral
activities and expenditure of the parties. Parties were obliged
to submit reports to the Agency every 15 days, but the non-compliance
of some parties was not properly and efficiently addressed by the
Agency. Further and definitive reporting requirements are only obligatory
30 days after election day, too late to ensure adequate transparency.
53. The media environment in Montenegro is diverse and, although
largely DPS-dominated, all the political positions are represented.
The most influential outlet is the public broadcaster for radio
and television, the RTCG, while the private media outlets are headed
by Vijesti, which appeared to be supportive of the opposition parties.
54. The environment was strongly impacted by the absence of a
regulatory or self-regulatory monitoring body able to impose effective
sanctions on the outlets and binding internal rules. Indeed, although
the law provided for the mandatory adoption of internal rulebooks,
private outlets have mainly disregarded this requirement and no
sanctions were imposed on the outlets that did not comply with it.
More generally, the Agency for Electronic Media, the body in charge
of monitoring the media’s compliance with the legal framework, lacked
organisational resources and effective sanctioning power. A temporary
parliamentary committee, with no sanctioning powers, completed the
media monitoring framework.
55. The electoral law provided for slots of free time for all
the contestants on the public broadcaster, in order to present their
programmes and rallies. The public broadcaster respected the legal
provisions in this sense; it organised seven debates as requested
by the law and, although not legally bound to do so, allowed all
the parties to express their views in a 30-minute presentation of
the electoral programmes. Unfortunately, the public broadcaster
completely refrained from editorial coverage of the electoral news.
56. More generally, media outlets lacked critical examination
and analysis during the campaign. They simply tended to rebroadcast
the messages of the parties, without any significant contribution
to the political debate.
57. Despite the apparent media freedom and deregulation, the ad
hoc committee was informed of attacks and forms of pressure on journalists
and media outlets, a concern also raised by the OSCE Representative
on Freedom of the Media.
7. Polling day
58. Despite the tense atmosphere,
and apart from a few isolated incidents, polling day was calm. The members
of the ad hoc committee found that the opening, voting and counting
operations were carried out in a professional manner. The polling
stations were mostly well organised and serviced by dedicated and competent
personnel.
59. Polling Board members co-operated fully with the international
observers, showing documents, explaining the procedures and reporting
on some problems which had occurred on election day. The ad hoc committee
commended the extensive presence of national observers, both as
authorised representatives of the parties and as observers appointed
by local NGOs.
60. The ad hoc committee observed some minor irregularities in
the voting procedure, most probably due to the inconsistency in
the training received by the polling board members. Only in one
polling station (in a predominantly Albanian village Tuzi) did our
delegation observe a combination of frauds committed by one member
of the polling board (distributing ballot papers to non-registered
voters, giving a “bought” ID card to a voter, etc.).
61. The ad hoc committee was impressed by the effectiveness of
the new electronic voter identification system, which functioned
well – according to the information received, altogether only in
six polling boards were some technical problems observed. The system
provided a modern solution for having a constant overview of the
number of voters in each PB and preventing multiple voting. In several
PBs, members of local observer organisations – the Centre for Monitoring
and Research (CeMI) and the Centre for Democratic Elections (CDT) –
pointed out that the system could still be further improved by having
a double screen with an ID photo of the voter (without any other
data) projected on a screen towards the observers so that the latter
could verify that the ID really matched the voter.
62. Outside their own observation, the members of the ad hoc committee
received documented information of some irregularities throughout
the day: cases of voter intimidation outside polling stations, groups
of voters being brought over from Kosovo to vote, recordings of
the buying of ID cards, alleged orders to the Agency of Electronic
Communication to shut down instant messaging applications (Viber
and WhatsApp). All these cases must be thoroughly investigated by
the competent independent authorities.
63. Before election day, the ad hoc committee had been informed
that many people would encounter difficulties in voting due to the
changes in the boundaries of the electoral precincts. Despite expectations
of widespread confusion, these predictions did not materialise en
masse and all the polling board members helped the voters to find
the correct polling station.
64. Outside the polling stations, especially towards closing time,
tensions were high: the members of the ad hoc committee had been
informed that a major demonstration of the opposition parties would
take place if they lost the elections. Fortunately, the situation
remained calm after the proclamation of the first preliminary results that
saw the DPS leading in almost all the municipalities.
65. Both the incumbent and the opposition parties have alleged
that several people had been brought to the country on election
day. Indeed, the local observer organisation CeMI noted that seven
extra flights from Vienna had arrived in Montenegro on 16 October.
The case must be properly investigated.
66. Twenty Serbian citizens were arrested by the Montenegrin authorities
on election day over allegations of planning armed attacks against
the Prime Minister and the members of his party. Part of the plan
reportedly involved the capture of the Prime Minister. While many
have accused the DPS and its leader of staging the arrests, on 24
October Serbia’s PM Aleksandar Vucić declared that a number of Serbian
citizens had been detained over a suspected plot to influence the
outcome of the parliamentary elections in Montenegro. This case
too must be properly investigated.
67. According to the preliminary results, the turnout was 73.33%,
almost 10 points higher than in 2013 and 3 points higher than in
2012. The State Electoral Commission announced the preliminary results
on 18 October, one day after the legal deadline set forth in Article
92.5 of the Law on the Election of Councillors and Representatives.
According to the results, the party of the incumbent prime minister,
the DPS, received 41.41% with 158 301 votes, the Democratic Front,
20.31% with 77 491 and the Key coalition 11.11% with 42 271 votes. Due
to the 3% threshold, 8 parties out of 17 did not manage to get a
seat in the new parliament. According to the preliminary results,
36 seats went to the DPS, 18 to the DF, 9 to the Key coalition,
8 to the Democrats, 4 to the SDP, 2 to the SD, 2 to the party of
the Bosnian minority and 1 each to the parties representing the
Albanian and Croatian minorities. 17 women (29.9%) made it into
the new composition of the parliament.
68. On Tuesday 25 October, the DPS announced that it would not
present Milo Đjukanović as its candidate for the position of prime
minister and instead nominated Duško Marković, his deputy as leader
of the party. At the moment of drafting, it was not clear whether
Mr Đjukanović would remain as leader of the party, after over two
decades of governing the country either as prime minister or as
president.
8. Conclusions
and recommendations
69. The ad hoc committee concluded
that Montenegro’s parliamentary elections were conducted in a professional
manner and that the citizens of Montenegro made their choice freely
from a large range of political parties. This notwithstanding, allegations
of corruption, use of administrative resources and intimidation
by the governing party, as well as vote-buying and foreign funding
in both camps, made the playing field far from level for all competitors.
The lack of comprehensiveness of the electoral legislation, the
alleged inaccuracy of the electoral register and the lack of critical
examination by the media were further matters of concern.
70. The high voter turnout reflected the expectations that Montenegrins
had placed in these elections, be it for political change, to defend
the country’s Euro-Atlantic course or other reasons. However, a
fortnight after election day, the elections did not seem to have
brought the country out of a stalemate. At the moment of drafting,
it is not yet clear who will form the government. However, it is
essential that the newly elected parliament should start working
in good time and with the mandate that voters have given them.
71. The ad hoc committee recognises the efforts that the Montenegrin
authorities have made in order to ensure the smooth running of these
elections. To this end, we commend the maturity of the political
forces in reaching the Agreement of 26 April 2016 for Creating Conditions
for Free and Fair Elections and forming the transitional government,
which incorporated opposition members in several key positions.
72. The ad hoc committee appreciates the fact that, compared to
the previous parliamentary elections in 2012 and the presidential
election in 2013, the electoral procedures and capacities of the
bodies running these elections (State Election Commission, the Agency
for the Prevention of Corruption) were enhanced and important legislative
measures adopted in order to eliminate (or at least to reduce) the
shortcomings identified by international observer organisations
in previous years. In this respect, our observers were impressed
by the professional conduct of most of the small cross-party polling
board teams and the effectiveness of the electronic voter identification
system, which we would recommend be adopted by other member States
of the Council of Europe as a modern solution – albeit perfectible
– to safeguard against multiple voting and to have a constant overview
of the number of voters having done their civic duty.
73. The ad hoc committee also noted with satisfaction the increased
proportion of women both in the campaign and in the election administration.
It regrets that no female political leader has emerged as yet and that
parties applied the electoral law by mostly placing women in fourth
position. It is worth noting, however, that 32% of the candidates
were women.
74. However, both in electoral legislation and election management,
a number of shortcomings remain. The new parliament and government-to-be-formed
should address the remaining shortcomings identified by the international
observer mission. The Parliamentary Assembly and the Venice Commission
stand ready to assist the parliament and other institutions of Montenegro
in order to consolidate still further the entire electoral process.
In particular, the ad hoc committee calls on the Montenegrin authorities
to:
- implement in full the previous
recommendations of the Assembly and those of the Venice Commission concerning
the legal framework, in order to make it clear, coherent and comprehensive
and, in particular, to guarantee the right of universal suffrage
for all citizens of Montenegro without the 24-month residence requirement;
- further strengthen the capacities and the professionalism
of the State Election Commission, in order to avoid mismanagement
of election procedures;
- make sure that the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption
gets the proper means to effectively implement the relevant legislation,
in order to ensure the adequate transparency of campaign financing, including
prior to election day;
- enhance the transparency of the electoral register, removing
from it people who have died or who could not participate in the
voting due to residence requirements;
- establish a regulatory or self-regulatory body for media
monitoring, able to impose effective sanctions and internal rules;
- investigate all the reported cases of irregularities,
fraud, foreign funding and corruption, and publish the findings
of the investigations.
Appendix 1 –
Composition of the ad hoc committee
(open)
Based on the proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Chairperson: Aleksander
POCIEJ, Poland (EPP/CD)
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Gabriela
PESKOVÁ, Czech Republic
- Aleksander POCIEJ, Poland
- Samvel FARMANYAN, Armenia
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Gülsün BILGEHAN, Turkey
- Silvia BONET, Andorra
- Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Switzerland
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- European Conservatives Group
(EC)
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Co-rapporteur of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Ionuţ-Marian STROE, Romania
- Venice Commission
- Secretariat
- Ivi-Triin ODRATS, Administrator,
Parliamentary Assembly
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Election Observation and Interparliamentary
Co-operation Division
- Domenico VALLARIO, Assistant Lawyer, Venice Commission
Appendix 2 –
Programme of the election observation mission (Podgorica, 14-15
October 2016)
(open)
Friday
14 October 2016
08:30 – 09:30 PACE ad hoc committee internal meeting:
- Opening by Mr Aleksander Pociej,
Head of the delegation
- Outline of political situation by Mr Ionuţ Stroe, Co-rapporteur
of the Monitoring Committee
- Recent developments in the field of legal framework of
Montenegro by Mr James Hamilton, representative of the Venice Commission
- Information by the secretariat on deployment and logistical
questions
10:15-10:30 Welcome and opening:
- Ms Margareta Cederfelt, Special Co-ordinator of the short-term
OSCE observers
- Mr Aleksander Pociej, Head of the Assembly delegation
- Mr Azay Guliev, Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
delegation
10:30-11:00 Briefings by OSCE Mission to Montenegro and by
the European Union delegation:
- Mr Dan
Redford, Acting Head of OSCE Mission
- Mr Aivo Orav, Head of the EU Delegation
11:00-12:30 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission Core Team:
- Introduction
and overview of findings to date: Mr Roman Jakič, Head of Mission
- Political overview and the campaign: Ms Zarona Ismailova,
Political Analyst
- Legal framework: Mr Vasil Vashchanka, Legal Analyst
- National minorities: Mr William Romans, National Minorities
Expert
- Media landscape and media monitoring findings: Mr Egor
Tilpunov, Media Analyst
12:30-13:00 Electoral administration:
- State Election Commission: Mr Budimir Šaranović, President
14:30-16:30 Political parties:
- Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS)
- Democratic Front (DF): Mr Slaven Radunović, Vice-President
of the Coalition Party “New Serb Democracy”
- Social Democrats (SD): Ms Mubera Kurpejović, SD Member
of the Parliament
- Democratic Montenegro: Mr Velizar Kaluđerović and Mr Neven
Gošović, members of the Party Presidency
16:45-18:45 Political parties:
- Big Coalition “The Key”: Mr Zoran Miljanić, Member of
Parliament, Democratic Alliance (DEMOS) coalition party
- Positive Montenegro (PCG): Mr Aleksandar Ražnatović, Political
Director of the Party
- Social Democratic Party (SDP): Mr Ivan Vujović, Chief
of Cabinet of the President and Party International Secretary
- Albanians Decisively FORCA–DUA–AA
Saturday 15 October
2016
09:00-10:30 Agency of Electronic Media/Media:
- Agency for Electronic Media:
Ms Jadranka Vojvodić, Deputy Director, and Mr Djordje Vujnović,
International Relations Adviser to the Director
- TVCG: Ms Adrijana Kadija, Director, and Ms Ljiljana Savić,
Head of Electoral Pool
- Monitor: Mr Esad
Kočan, Editor-in-Chief
- Daily Dan: Mr Mladen
Milutinović, Editor-in-Chief
- Analitika: Mr Predrag
Zečević, Editor-in-Chief
10:30-12:00 Agency for the Prevention of Corruption/Civil
society
- Agency for the Prevention
of Corruption: Mr Savo Milašinović, Deputy Director, and Mr Dušan
Drakić, Head of the Funding Control Section
- Network for Affirmation of the NGO Sector (MANS): Ms Vanja
Ćalović, Executive Director
- Center for Democratic Transition (CDT): Ms Milica Kovačević,
President
- Center for Monitoring and Research (CeMI): Ms Dubravka
Popović, Project Associate
- Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM): Ms Danijela
Vujošević, Project Manager
- Center for Civic Education (CGO): Ms Daliborka Uljarević,
Executive Director
12:00-13:30 Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR EOM on election administration,
election day procedures and observation forms
- Ms Adina Borcan, Election Analyst
- Mr Don Bisson, Deputy Head of Mission
- Mr Hans Schmeets, Statistical Analyst
13:30-14:00 Regional Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR EOM Long-Term
Observers based in Podgorica for teams deployed in the capital and
Nikšić areas
14:00 Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday 16 October 2016
All day Opening of polling stations
Observation of elections
Closing of polling stations – Counting
Monday 17 October 2016
08:00-8:45 PACE ad hoc committee debriefing meeting
15:00 Joint press conference of the Heads of delegation
Appendix 3 –
Statement by the International Election Observation Mission
(open)
Montenegro
elections competitive and fundamental freedoms respected, but campaign
characterised by lack of distinct domestic policy alternatives,
observers say
Podgorica, 17.10.2016 – Montenegro’s 16 October parliamentary
elections were held in a competitive environment and fundamental
freedoms were generally respected in a campaign characterised by
a lack of distinct domestic policy alternatives and permeated by
personal attacks, international observers said in a statement issued
today. While pluralistic, the media lacked editorial independence.
The election administration met all legal deadlines, but despite
increased operational and human resources, the professional capacity
of the administration remains inadequate. Election day proceeded
in a calm and orderly manner, with few cases of procedural irregularities
observed, the statement says.
“Against a campaign background characterised by a divisive
debate over foreign policy questions, these elections were held
in a competitive environment and fundamental freedoms were generally
respected”, said Margareta Cederfelt, Special Co-ordinator and leader
of the short-term OSCE observer mission. “The positive changes we
have observed demonstrate a genuine will to improve the process.”
“The high turnout reflects the hopes that the people of Montenegro
had in these elections. Allegations of corruption, foreign funding,
political tension and inconsistencies in the legal framework tainted
the electoral environment. Despite this, the verdict of our observers
is that the elections represented the will of the people,” said
Aleksander Pociej, Head of the PACE delegation. “It is now up to
the newly elected parliament to work with the mandate the voters
have given it, in order to realise the full democratic potential
of the country.”
NATO membership was a key issue, with contestants also conveying
general messages on the need for economic, social and political
reforms, job creation, reducing youth emigration and fighting high-level corruption,
the observers said. There was often little policy detail in a campaign
that was largely personality driven. Accusations were made of foreign
sources of campaign funding.
“The elections have shown the aspiration of the people of
Montenegro to be fully engaged in building the stable democratic
future of their country. Voters were provided with ample choice”,
said Azay Guliyev, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. “However, the
improvements in election administration and media professionalism
would benefit future elections.”
The diverse media environment remains politically polarised
and editorial independence is lacking, as is investigative reporting.
This limited analytical information available to voters, the statement
says. Contestants were able to present their views in numerous talk
shows, debates and round-tables on public and private media, and
campaign rallies were also actively covered. The media landscape
is hampered by the absence of an effective regulatory or self-regulatory
body. In addition, the blocking of access to Viber and WhatsApp services
on election day by the Agency of Electronic Communications caused
concern.
The election administration, led by the State Election Commission
(SEC), worked in a largely transparent manner and met all legal
deadlines. However, despite increased operational capacity, the
SEC still lacks professional capacity and a strong collective leadership,
the observers said. This led, at times, to technical mistakes and
political tensions. The new formula for the composition of lower
level commissions allowed for the broad representation of political
parties. The representation of women in the electoral administration
is low – three of 11 SEC permanent members and 37 of 115 permanent
members of municipal election commissions.
The SEC registered all 17 candidate lists submitted in an
inclusive process that allowed applicants to correct errors to meet
legal requirements, the statement says. Although no candidate list
was led by a woman, in a positive development 32 per cent of candidates
were women. In line with previous OSCE/ODIHR and Council of Europe
recommendations, voters were no longer required to sign in support
of candidate lists in front of election administration representatives.
Revisions to the legal framework since the last elections
addressed a number of prior recommendations, although some, including
those concerning the right to run independently and the residency
requirement to vote or be a candidate, remain unaddressed. In addition,
the legal framework continues to lack comprehensiveness and some
inconsistencies have led to occasional misinterpretations, the observers
said.
“There have been significant improvements in the legal framework
based on prior recommendations, and our hope is that efforts in
this direction will continue,” said Roman Jakič, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
long-term election observation mission. “We heard continued concerns
about the accuracy of the electoral register, although there was
broad support for the electronic voter identification system introduced
as a safeguard against multiple voting.”
Members of national minorities were afforded a fair opportunity
to participate in the electoral process, both as candidates and
as voters, the statement says. Linguistic difficulties were minimal,
as most national minority representatives are proficient in Montenegrin,
the observers said. In certain regions, ballot papers were also printed
in Albanian.
The limited number of complaints filed with law enforcement
and judicial bodies was attributed to lack of trust in the effectiveness
and impartiality of these institutions, the observers said. Detailed
guidelines are lacking, and the deadlines for the resolution of
electoral disputes remain to be reviewed to ensure effective remedy.
While new campaign finance legislation improved the accountability
of public institutions, it did not ensure adequate disclosure of
expenditures. Contestants are not obliged to report campaign expenses
before election day, which limits the transparency of the process.
The availability of public funding for political parties created a
more equal playing field.
The election law provides for observation by citizen and international
organisations, as well as by representatives of candidate lists.
The participation of three citizen observer groups at all stages
of the electoral process contributed to transparency, the statement
says.