See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 12884
| 08 March 2012
Observation of the early parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan (15 January 2012)
1. Introduction
1. On 27 April 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe and the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan
signed a co-operation agreement to establish a political dialogue
with a view to promoting the principles of parliamentary democracy,
the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
in Kazakhstan.
2. Following an invitation from the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Kazakhstan, the Bureau of the Assembly, at its meeting on 24
November 2011, constituted an ad hoc committee composed of 11 members
to observe the early parliamentary elections scheduled for 15 January
2012 and appointed me as the Chairperson of the ad hoc committee.
3. Based on proposals by the political groups in the Assembly,
the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Francis AGIUS, Malta
- Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU, Greece
- Karin STRENZ, Germany
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Nebahat
ALBAYRAK, Netherlands
- Jonas GUNNARSSON, Sweden
- Tadeusz IWIŃSKI, Poland
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom
- Tügrul TÜRKEŞ, Turkey
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
- Mike HANCOCK, United Kingdom
- Jordi XUCLÀ, Spain
- Group of the Unified European Left (UEL)
- Venice Commission
- Aivars
ENDZINS, Member of the European Commission for Democracy through
Law (Venice Commission)
- Secretariat:
- Mr Bogdan
Torcatoriu, Secretary, Interparliamentary co-operation and election
observation
- Mr Franck Daeschler, Assistant, Interparliamentary co-operation
and election observation
- Mr Serguei Kouznetsov, Secretariat of the Venice Commission
4. The ad hoc committee was part of the International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM), which also included the election observation
missions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Co-operation and
Security in Europe (OSCE-PA) and of the Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights of the OSCE (OSCE/ODIHR).
5. The ad hoc committee, due to major disagreements with ODIHR,
which expected the Parliamentary Assembly delegation to approve
their documents without due consultation, and which was addressing
the Assembly delegation as a junior partner, decided to go ahead
with a separate statement and a separate press conference. Even
though, at the first internal meeting of the ad hoc committee, the
nine members present proposed and decided – unanimously – to proceed
once again independently, as we were all opposed to the rather unbalanced
attitude reflected in the ODIHR interim report, I asked my colleagues
to allow me to work towards a good co-operation with the OSCE-PA
and ODIHR. This proved to be a very difficult task but at the end
of the day we managed to even out differences, to “see” and to “recognise”
the positive sides of Kazakhstan’s efforts and, without ignoring
the shortcomings, to encourage this young democracy to develop and
flourish within an effective multiparty environment.
6. The ad hoc committee met in Astana from 13 to 16 January 2012.
It held meetings, inter alia,
with representatives of the political parties contesting the elections,
of political parties and movements not contesting the elections,
of the Central Election Commission (CEC), with the Head of the Election
Observation Mission of the OSCE/ODIHR and his staff, as well as
representatives of civil society and the mass media (for the ad
hoc committee's programme, see Appendix 1).
7. During the three days preceding the election day, as Head
of the Assembly Delegation, and accompanied by one or two colleagues
and/or the secretariat, I was received by President N. Nazerbayev
(he asked to see me alone), the Secretary of State K. Saudabayev,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Y. Kazykhanov, the Chairperson
of the Senate, K. Mami, and the Chairperson of the Central Election
Commission, K. Turgankulov. We also had working lunches with the
Deputy Chairperson of the Senate, A. Sudyin, and the Chairperson
of the Constitutional Council, I. Rogov. The Ambassador of Kazakhstan
in Belgium, Mr Yerik Utembayev, met with us twice, and put us in
contact with important national and international observers but also
with some candidates for the Assembly of the Peoples of Kazakhstan,
an institution that represents Kazakhstan’s minorities. All our
meetings convinced us that Kazakhstan has decided to match its dynamic economic
performances with social and democratic progress. Presiding the
OSCE in 2011, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation this year
and seeking the improvement of its relations with the European Union
and with the Council of Europe in particular, Kazakhstan is trying
and deserves to achieve a role in global decision-making.
8. On election day, the ad hoc committee split into seven teams,
which observed the elections in and around Astana, Almaty, Aktau
and Zhanaozen.
9. The joint press conference took place the following day. It
reflected a “pluralistic” dimension of views between the OSCE/ODIHR
and the Assembly. This was useful for the Kazakhstan side in terms
of understanding that the democratic course is not and should not
be understood as a monolithic process. The joint press release is
to be found in Appendix 2.
10. The ad hoc committee wishes to thank the Kazakhstan authorities,
in particular the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the support and
co-operation given to the ad hoc committee in accomplishing its
mission.
2. Political
and legal context
11. The Parliament of Kazakhstan is bicameral. The lower
house (Majilis) has 107 members and the upper house (the Senate)
has 47 members who are indirectly elected. 98 members of the Majilis
are directly elected for a five-year term, through a proportional
system with party lists, and nine members are elected by the Assembly
of the Peoples of Kazakhstan (in contrast to the Copenhagen Document
that provides for “all seats in at least one chamber of the national
legislature to be freely contested in a popular vote”).
12. Deputies lose their mandate if they leave or are excluded
from their party or if the party ceases its activity. Independent
candidacies and electoral blocks are not allowed.
13. The entry threshold is 7%. However, pursuant to an amendment
of 2009, the law provides for at least two parties to be represented
in parliament. If only one party passes the threshold, then the
party obtaining the second highest number of votes will be also
allocated at least two seats in the Majilis.
14. The electoral legislation comprises the Constitution, the
Election Law and regulations from the Central Election Commission
(CEC), which is a permanent body composed of members appointed by
the President of Kazakhstan, the Senate and the Majilis.
15. On 16 November 2011, further to an appeal from 53 deputies
to the President of Kazakhstan, the latter decreed the dissolution
of the Majilis and called for early elections on 15 January 2012
(more than six months ahead of the schedule).
3. Election administration
and voter and candidate registration
16. The elections were administered by four levels of
election commissions: the CEC, 16 Regional Election Commissions
(RECs), 207 Territorial Election Commissions (TECs) and 9 764 Precinct
Election Commissions (PECs).
17. Fifty-six special PECs were organised in 46 countries for
out-of-country voting.
18. Each commission (CEC, REC, TEC and PEC) has seven members.
The CEC is a permanent body, while the lower-level commissions are
active during election periods only. The CEC chairperson and two
CEC members are appointed by the President, two members by the Senate
and two members by the Majilis. Members of the lower-level commissions
are appointed by the local councils, on the basis of nominations
from political parties, from public associations or from higher-level
election commissions. It has been reported that, in many cases,
members nominated by other parties or public associations belonged,
in fact, to Nur Otan, the ruling and – until recently – the only
party. The overwhelming majority of commission chairpersons were
Nur Otan members. Moreover, the distinction between local executive
bodies and election commissions was unclear, and this did not favour
the necessary feeling of trust in the impartiality of the election
administration.
19. From a technical point of view, the CEC prepared the election
well and, in general, it met the legal deadlines. CEC sessions were
open to observers and to the media, but there were complaints on
occasion which negatively affected the desired transparency.
20. Voters’ lists were compiled by local executive bodies. The
CEC checked the voters’ lists for errors on the basis of a nationwide
electronic voter register and a further verification of voters’
lists was conducted by the PECs. Voters who were planning to be
away from their place of residence could apply for an absentee voting certificate
at their PEC until 6 p.m. on the day preceding election day.
21. Of the 10 registered political parties, eight submitted candidate
lists which were registered by the CEC. However, the CEC subsequently
de-registered the Rukhaniyat party list on 28 December 2011, based
on alleged violations of rules in nominating candidates. Furthermore,
a number of candidates were de-registered by the CEC on 6 and 8
January 2012, as the tax authorities had announced that they had
detected inaccuracies in their tax declarations. The de-registered
candidates were not given the opportunity to appeal.
22. The Communist Party of Kazakhstan was suspended for six months,
until March 2012, for allegedly having violated the law and was
thus prevented from contesting the 15 January elections.
4. The campaign period
and media environment
23. The campaign was low-key. Several factors seem to
have contributed to this: the harsh weather conditions, the New
Year celebrations, the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary
of Kazakhstan’s independence and the limited political competition.
It would be untruthful and unfair not to mention, as a further reason,
the Kazakhs' general contentment with and approval of their President.
24. The campaign was mainly conducted by billboards, banners,
posters and leaflets. During the last two weeks of the campaign,
several rallies were organised and some parties engaged in door-to-door
campaigning. Campaign materials for Nur Otan were by far the most
visible. Official announcements of the elections and materials for
the independence anniversary were almost identical to Nur Otan’s
campaign materials, which blurred the distinction between the State
and the party.
25. The violent clashes in Zhanaozen, on 16 December 2011, in
which 16 persons died, were an issue of a certain importance as
they occurred less than one month before the election day and had
obvious effects upon the electoral process. A state of emergency
was declared in the city from 17 December 2011 to 5 January 2012 and
was subsequently extended, without further explanation, until the
end of January 2012. The Constitutional Council considered, rightfully
so, that elections could not be held in Zhanaozen. The President
of Kazakhstan overruled that opinion and the CEC rescinded its cancellation
of the elections in Zhanaozen.
26. Prompted by Andrej Hunko, member of our ad hoc committee,
who questioned whether we should accept to observe an election that
excluded a whole region, I, as Chairperson of the ad hoc committee,
and after having consulted some members, had contacted the Kazakhstan
Ambassador in Brussels and asked him to convey to his Minister of
Foreign Affairs our concerns about observing a situation which was
unacceptable by all democratic standards. Today, we believe that
our intervention was one of the factors that prompted the President
of Kazakhstan to veto the CEC’s decision.
27. The media coverage of the campaign was dominated by reports
of campaign events and paid advertising. Interviews were conspicuous
by their absence. All contesting parties participated in one televised debate,
two days prior to the election day. In general terms, the media
failed to provide an open exchange of opinions about matters of
public concern and about political alternatives. Since a significant
amount of coverage, in particular on the State-owned television
stations, was devoted to the achievements of 20 years of independence
of the country, the ruling Nur Otan party gained an important advantage
over the other parties running in the elections.
28. Criminal penalties for defamation and the special protection
afforded to the President and public officials have the effect of
limiting the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Censorship
is prohibited by law but the exorbitant damages that may be claimed
for defamation contribute to a climate of self-censorship.
5. Complaints and
appeals
29. Complaints were addressed to the CEC or the Prosecutor
General’s office, or simultaneously to both. Before the election
day, the CEC had received 52 complaints in connection with the elections,
three of which were reviewed collegially in an open session. In
cases where further investigation was deemed necessary, the CEC
referred complaints to prosecutors’ offices or other relevant bodies
to determine the facts. In some instances, the CEC referred the
complaints to lower-level election commissions for the latter to
take decisions in accordance with their competence. All other complaints
were reviewed by CEC legal staff in the absence of the interested
parties; responses were issued in the form of letters.
30. A total of 64 complaints on violations of the electoral legislation
were filed with prosecutors’ offices throughout the country, 22
of which were referred to the Prosecutor General’s office, which
mainly issued warnings.
31. According to ODIHR, the consideration of the complaints submitted
to the CEC and prosecutors’ offices often exceeded the legal timeframes
for their review. This was categorically denied by the authorities concerned.
32. Certain complaints and appeals related to the elections were
filed with courts of law. These related to cancellation of party
list registration, violations of campaign provisions, the right
to be elected, and the de-registration of candidates.
6. Election day
33. On election day, voting took place in a calm and
relaxed atmosphere.
34. Opening and voting procedures were duly followed in most of
the polling stations visited.
35. However, members of the ad hoc committee witnessed cases of
fraudulent practices such as ballot box stuffing and duplication
of signatures on the voters’ lists. This happened in a polling station
where, at 1.30 p.m., an observer team was told that all 369 voters
on the lists had already voted. Another team was denied access to
a polling station organised in a detention centre, the reason given
being that such an observation required special credentials. Yet
another team noticed, in a polling station, the presence of a person
claiming to represent the mayor and who was supervising the voting
process. In another polling station, an unusually high number of
ballot papers were declared invalid during the counting.
36. During the counting, ad hoc committee members also observed
some skipping of essential procedural steps as well as ballot papers
in packs that could point to ballot box stuffing.
37. However, all the above could not influence the result of the
elections.
38. On 16 January 2012, the CEC announced the final results of
the elections. The Nur Otan Party obtained 80.99%, Ak Zhol 7.47%,
the Communist People’s Party of Kazakhstan (CPPK) 7.19%, the All-National
Social Democratic Party (ASDP) 1.68%, Auyl 1.19%, the Party of Patriots
0.83%, and Adilet 0.66% of the votes. The turnout was 75.1%.
7. Conclusions
39. The parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan, although
well administered, did not fully meet key democratic principles.
However, although there were shortcomings, these elections should
be considered as representing a decisive move in the right direction.
40. The ad hoc committee welcomes the political will of the Kazakh
authorities to organise more democratic elections and therefore
calls upon them to urgently address all the shortcomings detected.
It notes that, while legal changes were introduced aiming to ensure
the representation of two parties, the voters’ will brought three parties
into parliament. This is not, however, proof of genuinely pluralistic
elections. Issues such as restrictions on candidate eligibility,
the prohibition for independent candidates to stand and for parties
to form electoral blocks need to be addressed. Furthermore, the
7% threshold should be lowered.
41. The ad hoc committee welcomes the overall professionalism
and dedication of electoral administrators, but calls for further
improvements in this area. In particular, the ad hoc committee considers
that fraudulent practices (even if they were not instigated by the
authorities but were performed by over-zealous members of the electoral
committees), such as ballot box stuffing and falsification of voters’
signatures, should not happen again in the future and steps should
be taken towards creating and embedding a culture of electoral honesty in
the consciousness of the people.
42. The ad hoc committee calls on the authorities of Kazakhstan
to implement concrete measures with a view to improving the electoral
process for all concerned as soon as possible.
43. The ad hoc committee, which on many occasions called for a
higher participation of women (including by proposing this to President
Nazerbayev), welcomes the election of 28 women amongst the 107 members of
the new Majilis (there were 17 women in the previous one). We now
call for more initiatives to advance the status of women in all
sectors of public, political, social and economic life.
Appendix 1 – Programme, Astana
13-16 January 2012
(open)
Friday,
13 January 2012
10:00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee:
- Welcome address by Ms Elsa Papadimitriou,
Head of the Delegation
- Recent developments in the field of election legislation,
by Mr Aivars Endzins, Member of the Venice Commission
- Practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
12:00 Mr João Soares, Special Co-ordinator to lead the short-term
OSCE observer mission
Ms Elsa Papadimitriou, Head of the PACE Delegation
12:10 Mr Stefan Buchmayer, Human Dimension Officer, OSCE Centre
in Astana
12.30 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission
in Kazakhstan:
- Mr Miklós Haraszti,
Head of OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission
- Mr Armen Mazmanyan, Legal Analyst
- Mr Jarek Domański, Political Analyst
- Ms Elma Šehalić, Media Analyst
- Mr Steven Martin, Election Analyst
- Mr Anders Eriksson, Statistics Analyst
14:00 Mr Marat Sarsembayev, member of the Central Election
Commission
Political
parties contesting these elections
15:00 Mr Erlan Karin, Secretary of the National Democratic
Party of Kazakhstan “Nur Otan”
15:15 Mr Bulat Beisembaev, Head of the Election Headquarters,
Candidate, Party of Patriots of Kazakhstan
15:45 Mr Serikbai Alibayev, Member of the main board, Chairperson
of Astana branch, All-National Social Democratic Party
16:00 Mr Zhambyl Akhmetbekov, Secretary of the Central Committee,
Candidate, Communist People’s Party of Kazakhstan
Meeting
with political parties and movements
16:15 Mr Vladimir Kozlov, Chairperson of the Coordination
Committee, “Alga!” People’s Party
16:35 Ms Toty Yelubayeva, First Secretary of the City Committee,
Communist Party
16:55 Mr Ulan Shamshet, Co-ordinator of the Work with Public
Organisations, Rukhaniyat Party
17:15 Round table with media and NGO representatives
- Ms Bakhyt Tumenova, President,
Public Fund “Aman-saulyk”
- Ms Zauresh Battalova, President, Public Fund “Fund for
Development of Parliamentarism in Kazakhstan”
Saturday
14 January 2012
10:00 Technical arrangements and deployment of
teams staying in the Astana region
- Distribution of regional briefing packs
- Area specific briefings conducted by OSCE/ODIHR long-term
observers for teams deployed in Astana and Akmola Oblast
- Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Almaty:
16:40 Mr João Soares, Special Co-ordinator to lead the short-term
OSCE observer mission
16.45 Ms Elissavet Karagiannidou, Liaison Officer in Almaty
OSCE/ODIHR
17:00 Round table with media and NGO representatives
- Mr Ramazan Yesergepov, Association
of Journalists in Distress
- Mr Pavel Lobachev, NGO “ECHO”
- Ms Bakhytzhan Toregozhina, Public fund “Arrukhkak”
- Ms Olessya Khalabuzar, Society of Young Professionals
of Kazakhstan
- Mr Vyacheslav Abramov, Freedom House
- Ms Irina Mednikova, Public fund “Youth information Service
of Kazakhstan”
18:00 Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR long term observers, technical
arrangements for the deployment of teams in the Almaty region
Mr Andrew McEntee and Mr Elgun Taghiyev, long-term observers
in Almaty
Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday
15 January 2012
All day Observation of opening, voting, closing
and counting procedures
Monday
16 January 2012
08:30 Debriefing meeting of the ad hoc committee
15:00 Joint press conference
Appendix 2 – Joint press
release of the OSCE/ODIHR, OSCE-PA and PACE
(open)
Kazakhstan’s
parliamentary vote, though well administered, did not meet key democratic
principles
ASTANA, 16.01.2012 – Notwithstanding the government’s stated
ambition to strengthen Kazakhstan’s democratic processes and conduct
elections in line with international standards, yesterday’s early parliamentary
vote still did not meet fundamental principles of democratic elections,
the international observers concluded in a statement issued today.
The elections were well administered at the technical level
and the observers noted legal changes aimed at ensuring representation
of at least a second party in parliament, but the authorities did
not provide the necessary conditions for the conduct of genuinely
pluralistic elections. Several political parties were blocked from
standing and a number of candidates were de-registered without due
process.
On election day, voting was assessed positively by the observers,
but the counting process significantly lacked transparency and respect
for procedures, with cases of fraud noted. In many cases, it was
not possible for observers to determine whether voters’ choices
were honestly reflected.
The legal framework continues to include major inconsistencies
with OSCE commitments and other international standards, as it disproportionately
restricts freedom of assembly, the free flow of information and freedom
of association. The law also includes excessive restrictions on
candidate eligibility and the prohibition for independent candidates
to stand. It lacks guarantees for the pluralistic composition of
election commissions.
There was limited public debate and the media operated in
an environment characterised by self-censorship. The political parties
that were permitted to compete in the election could campaign largely
without interference by the authorities.
The violent clashes in Zhanaozen in December and ensuing emergency
measures in the town became a campaign issue. While the limitations
to citizen’s rights under the emergency rule were prolonged, the authorities
decided to hold elections in Zhanaozen on the day.
“If Kazakhstan is serious about their stated goals of increasing
the number of parties in parliament, then the country should have
allowed more genuine opposition parties to participate in this election,”
said Special Co-ordinator João Soares who leads the short-term OSCE
observer mission and heads the Delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly.
“These elections proved to be a move in the right direction,”
said Elsa Papadimitriou, the Head of the Delegation of the Council
of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.
“This election took place in a tightly controlled environment,
with serious restrictions on citizens’ electoral rights. Genuine
pluralism does not need the orchestration we have seen – respect
for fundamental freedoms will bring it about by itself,” said Miklós
Haraszti, the head of the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).