See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 14158
| 10 October 2016
Observation of the parliamentary elections in Belarus (11 September 2016)
Author(s): Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
Rapporteur : Ms Gisela WURM,
Austria, SOC
1. Introduction
1. At its meeting on 26 May 2016,
subject to receiving an invitation, the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly
decided to observe the parliamentary elections in Belarus; constituted
an ad hoc committee for this purpose composed of 11 members, as
well as the rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
on “The situation in Belarus”; and authorised a pre-electoral mission
to take place one month before the election.
2. On 16 June, the Assembly received the invitation of the Chairperson
of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the
Republic of Belarus to observe the elections. On 24 June, the Bureau
approved the composition of the ad hoc committee and appointed me
as chairperson. The composition of the ad hoc committee is set out
in Appendix 1.
3. The pre-electoral delegation visited Minsk from 8 to 11 August
2016 to evaluate the state of preparations and the political climate
in the run-up to the parliamentary elections on 11 September 2016.
The multiparty delegation was composed of myself, Aleksander Pociej
(Poland, EPP/CD), Goran Tuponja (Montenegro, ALDE), Ingebjørg Godskesen
(Norway, EC) and Andrea Rigoni (Italy, ALDE), rapporteur on “The
situation in Belarus” of the Committee on Political Affairs and
Democracy.
4. The pre-electoral delegation, in the statement issued at the
end of the visit, recalled that the Assembly, in its report on the
observation of the presidential election in 2015, had highlighted
that “Belarus needs to reform its electoral legislation to ensure
a thoroughly competitive political environment which is a key condition for
the long-term democratic stability of the country”. Recent amendments
to the electoral legislation in October 2015 failed to address some
of the key recommendations of international organisations, including
those of the Council of Europe’s European Commission for Democracy
through law (Venice Commission). The declaration issued by the pre-electoral
delegation at the end of its visit is set out in Appendix 2.
5. As regards the election observation, the ad hoc committee
was part of the international election observation mission (IEOM)
which also comprised observers from the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
and the election observation mission of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
6. The ad hoc committee went to Minsk from 9 to 12 September
2016. It met the leaders and representatives of main parties or
their representatives, the Chairperson of the Central Election Commission (CEC),
the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission and the
members of the core team, representatives of civil society, international
organisations and the media. The programme of the ad hoc committee’s
meetings is set out in Appendix 3.
7. On polling day, the ad hoc committee split into eight teams
deployed in Minsk, Vitebsk, Borisov and surrounding areas.
8. The international election observation mission concluded that
the “parliamentary elections were efficiently organised and there
were visible efforts to address some long-standing issues, but a
number of systemic shortcomings remain. ... Voting was calm and
well-organised, although there were concerns regarding the counting.
However, elections are not limited to voting day only, and these
elections showed that Belarus, as a European country, needs a truly
competitive political system in order to realise its democratic potential.
It is therefore vital to begin immediately the necessary reform
of the legal framework, so as to enable the creation of such a system,
which is a key element for democratic stability. PACE and the Venice Commission
stand ready to co-operate with Belarus in this regard”. The press
release of the international election observation mission published
following the elections appears in Appendix 4.
2. Relations between the Parliamentary
Assembly and Belarus in recent years
9. The Parliamentary Assembly
observed parliamentary elections in Belarus for the first time in
1995. In 1996, the Assembly observed the Constitutional referendum
and the parliamentary elections. On 13 January 1997, the special
guest status of the Parliament of Belarus was suspended by the Bureau
of the Assembly. In September 2001 and October 2015, the Assembly
observed the presidential elections.
10. On 29 April 2010, the Assembly adopted
Resolution 1727 (2010) “The situation in Belarus: recent developments” in which
it decided to suspend its high-level contacts with the authorities
of Belarus
, having noted
a “lack of progress” towards Council of Europe standards and a “lack
of political will” on their part to embrace its values.
11. On 22 and 25 August 2010, Ms Sinikka Hurskainen, as a rapporteur,
went to Belarus in the framework of the presidential election of
December 2010. On 6 October and on 18 November 2010, the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy held two hearings concerning
the presidential election, with the participation of representatives
of the majority and of the opposition in Belarus.
12. The crackdown on protesters contesting the 2010 presidential
election results prompted an urgent debate during the January 2011
part-session, which led to the adoption of
Resolution 1790 (2011) on the situation in Belarus in the aftermath of the
presidential election. The Assembly reaffirmed its decision to put
on hold its high-level contacts with the authorities and called
on the Bureau of the Assembly not to lift the suspension of the
special guest status for the Parliament of Belarus.
13. On 10 March 2011, the Bureau of the Assembly set up an ad
hoc committee on recent detentions, prosecutions and convictions
of members of the opposition in Belarus. A report covering the period
from 19 December 2010 to 1 October 2011 was made public by decision
of the Bureau on 7 October 2011. The continuing deterioration of
the situation of human rights and civil and political liberties
throughout 2011 led to the adoption of
Resolution 1857 (2012) and
Recommendation
1992 (2012) on the situation in Belarus, on 25 January 2012.
14. In 2013, at the request of the then President of the Assembly,
Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, the Political Affairs Committee decided to
organise an exchange of views on 27 June, with the participation
of a delegation from the House of Representatives of the National
Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, composed of chairpersons of
different standing committees and the Head of the Working Group
on the Death Penalty.
15. On 10 April 2014, Mr Andrea Rigoni (Italy, ALDE) was appointed
rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on
“The situation in Belarus”. He was invited by the Belarusian Parliament
to visit the country on 25 and 26 February 2015. While welcoming
the openness of the authorities of Belarus, the rapporteur reiterated
the Assembly’s non-negotiable position on the establishment of a
moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty,
as well as the release of all political prisoners. At the same time,
he also stressed that “it is time for Belarus and the Assembly to
start looking in the same direction, build mutual trust and set
up an honest, transparent and regular collaboration”.
16. Upon Mr Rigoni’s proposal, a delegation of the Belarusian
Parliament, along with opposition forces, was invited to a regional
conference for eastern partnership countries organised by the Parliamentary
Assembly on 4 and 5 June 2015 in the French National Assembly in
Paris. The theme of the conference was “The implementation of the
right to free elections: the challenge of implementing the electoral
laws and the respect for Council of Europe standards”.
17. In 2015, the Assembly observed the presidential election in
Belarus in the framework of the international election observation
mission (IEOM) which also comprised observers from the Parliamentary
Assembly of the OSCE and the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission.
18. The Assembly election observation delegation concluded that
the presidential election of 11 October 2015 had shown that “Belarus
still had a considerable way to go in honouring its commitment to
hold democratic elections. On polling day, voters had been able
to make their choice in a transparent manner in the presence of
many domestic and international observers. However, counting procedures
needed to be improved considerably. An election was not limited
to polling day. Consequently, Belarus needed to reform its legal
framework to ensure a thoroughly competitive political environment,
which was a key condition for the long-term democratic stability
of the country”.
19. Of the four candidates, the incumbent President
Alexander
Lukashenko was elected with 83.5% of the votes (5 102 478 votes),
Ms Korotkevich 4.4% (271 426 votes), Mr Haydukovich 3.3% (201 945
votes) and Mr Ulakhovich 1.7% (102 131 votes). The turnout rate
was 87.2%. Mr
Alexander
Lukashenko was re-elected President of the Republic of Belarus;
he has been the President since 1994.
20. In 2016, the Parliamentary Assembly continued its co-operation
with the authorities of Belarus on election-related issues. On 18
May 2016, on the initiative of the Assembly and in close co-operation
with the Central Election Commission of Belarus, a seminar was organised
in Minsk on electoral standards and improvement of the electoral
process in Belarus. This one-day seminar was hosted by the Belarusian Parliament
and brought together members of the Parliament of Belarus, of the
Parliamentary Assembly and of the European Parliament, representatives
of the CEC of Belarus, the Venice Commission, OSCE/ODIHR and various
non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The discussions were aimed
at evaluating the conclusions of the different election observation
mission reports and opinions including those of the Assembly, the
Venice Commission, the OSCE/ODHIR and the Community of Independent
States, and possible improvements to be adopted in the short term
before the parliamentary elections of 11 September 2016.
21. There was general agreement on the necessity to improve several
points in order to bring the whole electoral process in Belarus
in line with European standards, in particular in view of the forthcoming parliamentary
elections on 11 September 2016. Participants at the seminar discussed,
in particular, the registration process for the candidates, the
capacity to provide updated voters’ lists, the composition of different election
commissions, the possibility for persons in pre-trial detention
to vote, the control of mobile voting procedures and the organisation
of mass events related to elections.
22. On 21 and 22 May and on 4 July 2016, in the framework of the
activities of the Assembly in the Eastern Partnership Programmatic
Co-operation, the members of the Parliament of Belarus and the CEC
participated in seminars on media and election issues which took
place in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in London and
in the Bundestag in Berlin.
3. Political
context and legal framework
23. The Republic of Belarus has
a strong presidential system, the President has extensive powers,
including the authority to dissolve the lower and upper houses of
parliament, to issue presidential decrees which have the force of
law when the legislature is in recess, to declare a state of emergency
or to impose martial law.
24. The National Assembly is composed of two chambers, the House
of Representatives and the Council of the Republic.
The
House of Representatives is composed of 110 members, elected for
a four-year term from single mandate constituencies using a majoritarian
system (Article 82 of the Electoral Code). The House of Representatives
has little real power and has little control over government spending;
it cannot pass a law to increase or decrease the budget without
presidential consent.
25. The Constitution guarantees universal, equal, and direct suffrage
by secret ballot. The parliamentary elections are regulated by the
Constitution,
the Electoral Code (as last amended
in October 2015),
the
Law on Political Parties, the Law on Mass Media and the decisions
and instructions of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC). Recent
amendments were introduced in 2013 and in 2015, but they did not
address some of the key recommendations of international organisations,
including the ones set out in the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR
Joint Opinion issued in 2010,
and they were not
preceded by public consultations with relevant stakeholders.
26. In previous elections, results were only valid in constituencies
where voter turnout was over 50% of registered voters in the first
round or 25% in the second round. The OSCE/ODIHR recommended removing
the turnout requirement for elections to be deemed valid, at least
in the second round of elections, to avoid the possibility of indefinitely
repeating elections. In October 2015, the Code was changed and the
second round was eliminated. According to the new wording of Article
82, “the candidate for the House of Representatives is considered
elected if he received the majority of the votes of the voters who
took part in the elections. If the voting is on the single candidate
than he is considered elected if he received more than half of the
votes of the voters who took part in the elections”. In this regard,
in the 11 September parliamentary elections no candidate was elected
unopposed.
27. The party system in Belarus is weak, even though, according
to the Constitution, political parties “contribute towards ascertaining
and expressing the political will of the citizens and participate
in elections” (Article 5). The Belarusian authorities have not registered
a single new political party since 2000, and political parties are
repeatedly denied registration. There are 15 registered political
parties and a number of parties and groupings that function without
formal registration.
28. On 12 February 2016, the authorities of Belarus established
the Interagency task force of experts.
The Assembly’s pre-electoral
delegation, during its visit to Minsk was informed about the work
of this Interagency. The aim of the Interagency task force was,
in line with the recommendations made by the OSCE/ODIHR, to prepare
measures to improve the electoral process.
29. In May 2016, the CEC adopted some procedural changes, in line
with the results of the work of the Interagency task force of experts
on electoral issues and with the OSCE/ODIHR’s previous recommendations:
- candidatures nominated to the
election commissions would be discussed at the sittings of the bodies responsible
for the formation of election commissions and the decision on each
nominee would be taken by preferential voting;
- decisions of the election commissions regarding electoral
disputes would be made public on the Internet, inter alia on the CEC website, as
well as websites of the relevant regional authorities;
- more substantive safeguards concerning the safety of the
ballot boxes throughout early voting would be applied, for example
the CEC recommended polling station commissions (PSCs) using single-use plastic
seals for ballot boxes;
- international observers, as well as local observers who
are accredited with relevant district election commissions (DECs),
would be allowed to be present at DECs’ premises to observe the
handing over of the PSCs’ protocols on the results of the polling
station voting;
- observers during early voting and election day voting
would be entitled to get information on the number of voters on
the voter list, as well as on the number of voters who have received
a ballot;
- the CEC has determined the place for PSC members and observers
during the count of votes so as to allow for a clear observation
of the counting procedures;
- the CEC has also recommended that local authorities allow
candidates and their proxies to carry out election campaigning in
any public places except those included in the list of places where
public events are prohibited in general.
30. The Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation, in its statement
at the end of the visit, welcomed the CEC decision and the work
of the Interagency task force and asked the relevant authorities
to fully implement the CEC decisions and expressed the hope that
this body would continue its work after the parliamentary elections in
closer co-operation with the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR.
31. In general, the legal framework contains undue restrictions
concerning discretionary powers to deny registration or de-register
political parties and public associations; criminal and administrative
offences (defamation, libel, insult as well as calls or acts to
disrupt, cancel or postpone elections); a burdensome procedure for
holding public assemblies; and disproportionate sanctions for unauthorised
meetings.
4. Election
administration, registration of voters and candidates
32. Elections are administered
by the Central Election Commission (CEC), six Oblasts and the Minsk
City Election Commission, 110 district election commissions (DECs)
and 5 971 polling station commissions (PSCs), including 47 PSCs
abroad.
33. The CEC is a permanent body, appointed for a five-year term
in 2011, DECs and PSCs are appointed on a temporary basis by regional
or local authorities. The president of Belarus appoints six of the
twelve members of the CEC, including the chairperson, and can dismiss
all of its members. The other six members of the CEC are appointed
by the upper house of the parliament. At the CEC level, political
parties can appoint extra members to the commission, who do not
have voting rights. Although the opposition parties have often appointed
members to the CEC, their voice had no impact on the decision-making
process.
34. Concerning the composition of PSCs, the pre-electoral delegation
of the Assembly was informed, by interlocutors representing the
opposition, international community and civil society, that the
formation of the PSCs was unbalanced: only 0.1% of the total 65 856
PSC members came from opposition parties. This situation raises
concerns about the independence of the election administration.
In this regard, the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation noted in
its statement that a politically balanced membership of election
commissions is a key factor to enhance voters’ confidence in the
integrity of the electoral process.
35. The CEC stated that it had adopted a decision under which
local authorities would need to provide written explanations for
their rejection of candidates for members of election commissions
from parties or public associations. Nonetheless, various opposition
representatives said that the membership of the DECs and PSCs was
unbalanced. The CEC Chairperson made a number of biased public statements
that undermined the perception of impartiality of the election administration.
36. Following an open and unrestricted invitation to the observing
institutions, the CEC displayed a welcoming attitude towards international
observers, including ODIHR long-term observers, without imposing, in
general, constraints on their work. The ODIHR observers stated that
the CEC had adopted all its decisions within the deadlines laid
down, in full compliance with instructions and with the rules in
force; the CEC’s decisions were published on its website.
37. The Assembly observation delegation welcomed the openness
and the willingness of the authorities of the country to invite
a large number of international observers in accordance with the
country’s international commitments. The Electoral Code provides
for observation of the electoral process by a wide range of stakeholders
and observers may attend election commissions’ sessions and observe
voting procedures. However, the Electoral Code does not allow observers
to be present during signature verification for candidate registration,
to review the voter lists, or to observe the transfer of results
protocols from PSCs to DECs. This raises serious concerns about
the transparency of the functioning of the election administration.
38. Citizens of Belarus over 18 years of age by election day and
permanently or temporarily residing within a precinct are eligible
to vote. On 23 August 2016, the CEC decided that citizens in prison
for offences incurring a sentence of fewer than three months would
be given the right to vote.
39. Voter registration is passive. Voter lists are compiled for
each precinct by the relevant local administrations and no centralised
voter register exists above the level of PSCs. The CEC informed
the Assembly pre-electoral delegation that after the parliamentary
elections a unified electronic register would be established by
the Ministry of the Interior in the framework of the programme “Electronic
Belarus”.
40. On 26 August, the CEC announced that a total of 6 990 696
voters had been registered for the parliamentary elections, including
4 403 voters abroad. PSCs are tasked with verifying and updating
the electoral rolls by conducting door-to-door checks. Voters can
be added to additional lists on polling day subject to presentation
of a valid passport with confirmation of residence within the constituency.
This is contrary to the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice
in Electoral Matters. While a large number of people with whom the
Assembly ad hoc committee spoke during the pre-electoral mission
expressed their confidence in the integrity of the voter registration
system, representatives of certain NGOs expressed more critical
views on this issue.
41. Candidates are nominated by political parties, labour collectives
or initiative groups of citizens (that have collected at least 1 000
signatures). Eligible voters who are 21 years old by election day
and have a permanent residence in Belarus can be nominated as candidates.
Before the 2012 elections, political parties were required to have
a regional office in the district in which they wanted to nominate
a candidate. This is no longer a requirement, which is a positive
change.
42. The Assembly’s delegation was informed that 428 initiative
groups of citizens were registered for collection of signatures
in support of candidates. The registration process was characterised
by a strict application of legal provisions that resulted in the
exclusion of some candidates.
43. Compared with previous elections, there was an increase in
the number of candidates including from the opposition. On 11 August,
the CEC registered 521 candidates from 630 who submitted applications
and succeeded in collecting the required number of signatures to
be registered as candidates: 93 candidates’ registration was refused
and 16 candidates decided to withdraw their candidacy. Among the
registered candidates only 28 were members of the incumbent parliament.
There is no gender quota provided by the law – 129 registered candidates
are women.
44. The pre-electoral delegation noted with satisfaction the increasing
number of candidates for the parliamentary elections, including
the representatives of the opposition. However, according to some candidates
and civil society representatives, certain candidates have not been
registered due to minor technical reasons. The Electoral Code does
not set out a clear procedure for the selection and verification
of candidates’ signatures. Certain civil society and opposition
representatives claimed that the procedure for verifying the signatures
collected was not fully transparent and that this could undermine
confidence in the electoral process. Concerns were also raised regarding
possible pressure on donors due to their financial contributions
to the election campaign of opposition candidates.
5. Electoral
campaign, campaign financing and media coverage
45. Election campaigns in former
elections had always been very low-key. Before 2010, the Law on
Mass Events required the organisers of meetings to obtain prior
permission from the authorities. Now the system is based on a “notification”
requirement. According to Article 45 of the Electoral Code, to organise
a campaign event in support of a candidate the person authorised
by the candidate “shall send a notification to the local executive
and administrative body no later than two days prior to the suggested
day of holding the event. If the local executive and administrative
body has earlier received a notification from another candidate
about holding a mass event at the same location and time and there
is no agreement on holding a joint mass event, the local executive
and administrative body shall, not later than the following day
after receiving the notification, inform the applicant about a proposal
to change location and (or) time for holding the mass event”.
46. Oddly, the same article states that “Candidates, or their
authorised persons are obliged to contribute to ensuring public
order”. The 2010 Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR Joint Opinion
criticised this sentence, since “it could imply that they may be
held responsible for any disorder during such a mass event and have
to provide the means for maintaining public order”
and recommended that it be removed.
47. The places where the candidates could hold their meetings
were determined by local executive and administrative authorities
in accordance with the relevant electoral commissions. The CEC took
a decision in May 2016, allowing “candidates and their proxies to
hold election campaigning in any public places except for those
included in the list of places where public events are prohibited
in general”.
48. The election campaign environment appeared to be very low
key. A high number of candidates chose not to actively campaign,
contributing to broad voter apathy. Nevertheless, the Assembly delegation
noted that the election campaign environment, in general, was not
restrictive for campaigning, the candidates were able to campaign
by meeting voters, organising rallies and distributing campaign
material. However, some civil society representatives expressed
reservations as to whether candidates were able to campaign freely
and on a level playing field, in particular given the allegations
about the use of administrative resources for pro-governmental candidates.
49. In this regard, long-term election observers noted that some
candidates enjoyed privileged access to State enterprises and State
institutions for campaign events. Representatives of State-subsidised
public associations campaigned actively in favour of some candidates.
According to the IEOM statement of preliminary findings and conclusions,
“a number of printing houses refused to print candidates’ own campaign materials
or deferred printing to a specific authorisation from DEC
.”
50. The 2013 amendments to the Electoral Code abolished monetary
public funding. Now the State contributes with in-kind support through
premises for campaign events, campaign materials and free airtime. This
has hindered the capacities of some contestants and led the OSCE/ODIHR
to suggest “re-introducing monetary public funding, in view of enhancing
equal opportunities of contestants”.
51. The amendments increased the limits on donations by citizens
and legal entities, as well as on expenditure. The candidates have
the right to use their own resources and receive private donations
. A candidate for member of the House
of Representatives should not exceed 1 000 base units of total expenditure (around
€10 000). Some candidates considered this amount low and not allowing
for meaningful campaigning and raised concerns regarding the actual
financial contributions from citizens and legal entities to candidates due
to potential pressure and intimidation of donors.
52. The Code sets out a long list of organs/bodies/persons whose
donations are prohibited: foreign States and organisations; foreign
citizens and stateless persons; international organisations; organisations
whose founders are foreign States, organisations that received in
the course of the year preceding the day of making the donation
foreign gratuitous aid from foreign States, foreign organisations,
international organisations, foreign citizens and stateless persons,
and also from anonymous donors, unless they have returned the foreign gratuitous
aid; citizens of Belarus under the age of 18; State bodies and bodies
of local self-government; organisations which are fully or partially
financed from the budget; organisations registered less than one
year before the donation; charity and religious organisations; anonymous
donators. Whereas State-funded organisations are not allowed to
contribute to campaign funds, according to the IEOM preliminary
conclusions, several State-subsidised public associations campaigned
for some candidates.
53. The CEC has the obligation to publish on its website the total
income and expenditure of candidates on a weekly basis. Candidates
have to submit their reports during the campaign (between 15 and
10 days prior to the election day) and submit their final report
within five days after the election day. The CEC can impose sanctions
if a candidate exceeds campaign limits by 20%.
54. The Law on Mass Media, amended in 2015, extended the existing
restriction on traditional media to the online media, which is gathering
growing support. Owners of traditional media and websites are liable
for any content posted, even user comments in blogs and social media.
The Ministry of Information is allowed to restrict access to websites
by court decision, and can act without it if the information is
related to specific criminal offences or considered “harmful to
the interests of Belarus” (Article 38.1.3 of the Law).
55. The Electoral Code provides for free airtime for candidates
on State television and radio, and free space in State-funded print
media. Some 70 candidates did not make use of their free airtime.
The Assembly’s delegation was informed by different interlocutors
that the media coverage was mostly favourable to pro-governmental
candidates. During its pre-electoral visit in Minsk, the delegation
expressed the hope that, after the registration of candidates on
11 August, television debates would be organised between candidates representing
pro-government and opposition parties as this would enable voters
to make a well-informed choice. Television debates were broadcast
until 9 September and 227 candidates participated.
56. The Media Supervisory Board (MSB) oversees media coverage
of the campaign, reviews media-related disputes, and issues non-binding
recommendations to the CEC and media outlets on the coverage of
the campaign. The MSB has eight members, including six State-owned
media representatives and one from the Belarusian Association of
Journalists.
57. The candidates’ media coverage was depersonalised; in primetime,
candidates were mentioned collectively with no reference to their
names. As a result, many electors did not know the names of the candidates
in polling stations where they were voting. According to the IEOM
preliminary conclusions, on the monitored State media, besides free
airtime slots, broadcast coverage of candidates’ campaign activities
was virtually absent from news and political programmes. Election-related
coverage focused on procedural aspects of the electoral process
and the activities of the election administration and its President.
Outside of the free airtime given to candidates, monitored State
television channels dedicated 83% of their news coverage to the President
and government officials, 16% to the CEC, and 1% to all the candidates
together
.
6. Polling
day
58. The law provides for early
voting, but it is not regulated in a comprehensive way. Indeed,
all voters, without providing any reason, can vote in polling stations
in the five days prior to election day. The vote is held from 10
am to 2 pm and from 4 pm to 7 pm in the presence of only two PSC
members. The law does not provide for sufficient procedural safeguards.
The CEC announced an early voting turnout of 31%. Concerning the
early voting procedure, the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation
was informed by representatives of the opposition and civil society
that there was a danger of misuse of administrative resources during
early voting. The delegation considered that all necessary steps
should be taken to guarantee the transparency and fairness of early
voting procedures.
59. Polling day was calm and the voting well organised. Although,
overall, the opening was generally assessed positively, the ad hoc
committee members noted a number of shortcomings and irregularities
in the polling stations visited:
- in
some polling stations, the members of the ad hoc committee were
not systematically allowed to get near the tables to observe the
counting of votes, despite the decision of the CEC determining the
place for PSC members and observers during the counting of votes
so as to allow for a clear observation of the counting procedures;
- in polling station No. 106 of the DEC No. 094, the counting
procedure was chaotic;
- in some cases, the early voting boxes were not properly
sealed;
- in some polling stations, there was a lack of transparency
during the counting procedures;
- in some polling stations, the members of PECs did not
follow all steps of counting procedures;
- in many polling stations, the observers of the State-subsidised
public associations and the local observers did not seem to be interested
in the observing process;
- in almost all polling stations, ballots were counted by
each PSC member separately rather than collectively and votes per
candidate were not announced;
- in some polling stations, the final early voting protocols
were not displayed on the notice board;
- in many polling stations, PSC members’ understanding of
counting procedures was poor.
60. On 12 September, the CEC announced the results of the parliamentary
elections. The turnout was 74.8%. In all 110 constituencies the
elections were valid. Sixteen members of the parliament represent
political parties: 8 seats – the Communist Party of Belarus; 3 seats
– the Belarusian Patriotic Party; 3 seats – the Republican Party
of Labour and Justice; 1 seat – the United Civic Party and 1 seat
– the Liberal Democratic Party. No other elected members have a
political party affiliation; 34.5% of elected members are women.
7. Conclusions
and recommendations
61. The Parliamentary Assembly
ad hoc committee concluded that the parliamentary elections in Belarus were
efficiently organised and there were visible efforts to address
some long-standing issues, but a number of systemic shortcomings
remain. The voting day was calm and well-organised, although there
were serious concerns regarding the counting procedures and their
transparency. However, elections are not limited to voting day only.
62. Regarding the legal framework, it restricts some political
rights and fundamental freedoms and was interpreted generally in
a restrictive manner. The Electoral Code should be amended to include
substantial procedural safeguards that ensure integrity and transparency
of all stages of the electoral process. The ad hoc committee considers
that these elections showed that Belarus, as a European country,
needs a truly competitive political system in order to realise its
democratic potential. This potential would be increased with a higher
percentage of women registered as candidates.
63. It is therefore vital to begin immediately the necessary reform
of the electoral legal framework in order to improve the procedures
concerning the composition of election commissions, verification
of support signatures, conduct of early and mobile voting, transparent
counting and tabulation of votes and observers’ rights. The
ad hoc committee considers that the Interagency Task Force, which
was created on 12 February 2016 to improve the electoral process,
should continue its work after the parliamentary elections in closer
co-operation with the Venice Commission of which Belarus is an observer
member.
64. With regard to the election campaign, the ad hoc committee
noted that the campaign environment was very low key, a high number
of candidates chose not to actively campaign, contributing to broad
voter apathy. Nevertheless, in general, the election campaign was
not restrictive for campaigning, the candidates were able to campaign
by meeting voters, organising rallies and distributing campaign
material. Long-term election observers noted that some candidates
enjoyed privileged access to State enterprises and State institutions
for campaign events, representatives of State-subsidised public
associations campaigned actively in favour for some candidates.
This situation skewed the playing field for candidates.
65. The election administration made technical preparations and
took decisions within legal deadlines. The composition of some election
commissions was politically unbalanced in favour of pro-governmental candidates.
In this regard, the ad hoc committee expressed its concerns and
pointed out that a politically balanced membership of election commissions
is a key factor to enhance voters’ confidence in the integrity of the
electoral process.
66. In 2015, the authorities of Belarus invited the Parliamentary
Assembly to observe the presidential election, 14 years after the
previous invitation in 2001. This year the Assembly was also invited
to observe the parliamentary elections. In this regard, the ad hoc
committee welcomes the openness of the Belarus authorities in inviting
a large number of international organisations to observe the parliamentary
elections. The ad hoc committee is also convinced that the legal
framework should be improved to enable the international observers to
carry out their work effectively, particularly on polling day and
during counting procedures, without interfering in the operation
of the electoral commissions. This could help enhance confidence
in the whole electoral process.
67. The ad hoc committee believes that the Council of Europe and
its Parliamentary Assembly, through their various co-operation programmes,
including those of the Eastern Partnership, should continue to strive
to improve the electoral legislation and its implementation in Belarus.
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: Gisela WURM, Austria (SOC)*
Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Béatrice
FRESKO-ROLFO, Monaco
- Aleksander POCIEJ, Poland*
Socialist Group (SOC)
- Paolo CORSINI, Italy
- Titus CORLATEAN, Romania
- Gisela WURM, Austria*
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Bernard
PASQUIER, Monaco
- Goran TUPONJA, Montenegro*
European Conservatives Group (EC)
- Ingebjørg GODSKESEN, Norway*
- Suat ӦNAL, Turkey
Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Soña
MARKOVÁ, Czech Republic
Rapporteur of the Committee on
Political Affairs and Democracy (ex officio)
Venice Commission
- Manuel GONZALEZ OROPEZA, Mexico,
expert
- Alberto GUEVARA CASTRO, Mexico
Secretariat
- Chemavon CHAHBAZIAN, Head of
the Interparliamentary co-operation and Election Observation Division
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Interparliamentary co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Amaya UBEDA DE TORRES, Administrator, Venice Commission
- Maria BIGDAY, Secretary of the Alliance of Liberals and
Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
* members of the pre-electoral delegation
Appendix 2 – Statement
by the pre-electoral delegation
(open)
Strasbourg, 11.08.2016 – A pre-electoral
delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)
visited Minsk to assess the election campaign and the preparations
for the parliamentary elections to be held on 11 September 2016.
The delegation thanks the authorities of Belarus for the invitation
to observe the elections.
The PACE pre-electoral delegation recalls that the Assembly,
in its report on observation of the presidential election in 2015,
highlighted that “Belarus needs to reform its electoral legislation
to ensure a thoroughly competitive political environment which is
a key condition for the long-term democratic stability of the country”. Recent
amendments to the electoral legislation in October 2015 fail to
address some of the key recommendations of international organisations,
including those of the Council of Europe Venice Commission.
The pre-electoral delegation welcomes the work of the Interagency
Task Force which was created in Belarus on 12 February 2016 to improve
the electoral process. However, the recommendations for amendments
to the Electoral Code will be examined only after the parliamentary
elections of 11 September. In a positive manner, in May 2016, the
Central Election Commission (CEC) decided to adopt some important
procedural changes, in line with former recommendations, mainly
concerning the composition of electoral commissions, the transparency
of their decisions, safeguards for early voting; improving observation
of the counting process and the possibility to carry out campaign
activities in some public places. The Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation asks
the relevant authorities to fully implement the CEC decisions.
Various opposition and civil society representatives informed
the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation that the formation of the
Precinct election commissions (PECs) was unbalanced: only 53 members
out of 514 opposition parties’ nominees became PECs members, while
3,358 people representing pro-governmental parties became PEC members.
A politically balanced membership of election commissions is a key
factor to enhance voters’ confidence in the integrity of the electoral
process.
The Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation welcomes the constructive
co-operation of the Belarusian authorities on electoral standards
and improvement of the electoral process in Belarus in the framework
of recent PACE activities in the field of elections. It also welcomes
the openness and the willingness of the authorities of the country
to invite a large number of international observers without imposing
constraints on their work, in accordance with the country’s international
commitments.
The delegation noted the increasing number of candidates for
the parliamentary elections (more than 600). However, according
to some candidates and civil society representatives, certain candidates
have not been registered due to minor technical reasons. The Electoral
Code does not set out a clear procedure for the selection and verification
of candidates’ signatures. Certain civil society and opposition
representatives claimed that the procedure for verifying the signatures
collected was not fully transparent and that this could undermine confidence
in the electoral process. Concerns were raised regarding possible
pressure on donors due to their financial contributions to the election
campaign of opposition candidates.
Concerning the early voting procedure, the delegation was
informed by representatives of opposition and civil society that
there was a danger of misuse of administrative resources during
early voting. Taking into consideration the considerable number
of electors voting early, according to some estimation, it could
be around 30% of voters, the delegation considers that all necessary
steps should be taken to guaranty the transparency and fairness
of early voting procedures.
The interlocutors of the pre-electoral delegation at the CEC
expressed their confidence in the integrity of the voter registration
system.
Currently, at around one month before the election day, the
campaign environment appears to be very low key. The pre-electoral
delegation noted that the environment was not restrictive for campaigning,
the candidates are able to campaign by meeting voters, organising
rallies and distributing campaign material. However, some representatives
of the civil society expressed reservations as to whether candidates
will be able to campaign freely and on a level playing field, in
particular given the allegations about the use of administrative
resources for pro-governmental candidates.
Concerning media coverage, the Electoral Code provides for
free airtime for candidates on State television and radio, and free
space in State-funded print media. The Assembly’s delegation was
informed by different interlocutors that this coverage was mostly
favourable to pro-governmental candidates. In this connection, the Assembly’s
delegation reiterates that public broadcasters have an obligation
to ensure equal access for all candidates without giving preferential
treatment to any candidate. The delegation hopes that, after the registration
of candidates on 11 August, TV debates will be organised between
candidates representing pro-government and opposition parties as
this would enable voters to make a well-informed choice.
The Assembly’s delegation called on the relevant authorities
to take the necessary steps to ensure equal campaign conditions
for all candidates.
The delegation had meetings with the Chairperson of the House
of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus
and Heads of the Standing Committees of the Parliament; the Vice-Minister
of Foreign Affairs, the Chairperson of the CEC; the President of
the State television and radio company, the leaders of the main
political parties and their representatives; representatives of
the international community; the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election
observation mission; representatives of civil society and the media.
The Parliamentary Assembly will send a 12-member delegation
to observe the Parliamentary elections on 11 September 2016.
Members of the delegation: Gisela Wurm, Head of the delegation
(Austria, SOC), Aleksander Pociej (Poland, EPP/CD), Goran Tuponja
(Montenegro, ALDE), Ingebjørg Godskesen (Norway, EC), Andrea Rigoni
(Italy, ALDE), rapporteur of the PACE Committee on Political Affairs
and Democracy on “The situation in Belarus”
Appendix 3 – Programme
of the election observation mission (9-12 September 2016)
(open)
Friday
9 September 2016
09:15-10:15 PACE ad hoc committee internal meeting:
- Opening by Ms Gisela Wurm, Head
of the delegation
- Debriefing by the members of the pre-electoral mission
- Recent developments in the field of the legal framework
of Belarus by the representatives of the Venice Commission
- Information by the secretariat of PACE on the deployment,
logistic questions and distribution of files
Joint parliamentary briefing
10:30-10:45 Welcome and opening
- Mr Kent Harstedt, Special Co-ordinator of the OSCE Short-Term
Observers
- Ms Gisela Wurm, Head of Delegation of the PACE
- Ms Ivana Dobesova, Head of the OSCE PA delegation
10:45-12:45 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission
- Welcome: Ms Tana de
Zulueta, Head of Mission
- Issues regarding application of election legislation,
complaints and campaign finance: Ms Zeliha Aydin, Legal Analyst
- Election Administration:
Mr Rashad Shirinov, Election Analyst
- Political background,
candidates and campaign: Mr Stefan Szwed, Political Analyst
- Media landscape and
media monitoring results: Ms Francesca Boggeri, Media Analyst
14:00-14:45 Central Elections Commission, Ms Lidziya Yarmoshina,
Chairperson
Meetings with leaders of political
parties and their representatives
14.45-15.15 Ms Tatsiana Karatkevich, Civil campaign “Tell
the truth” ; Mr Andrei Dzmitryeu, Chairperson, Civil campaign
“Tell the truth”
15:15-15:45 Mr Anatol Liabedzka, Chairperson, United Civic
Party
Mr Vital Rymasheuski, Co-Chairperson, Belarusian Christian
Democracy
Mr Yury Hubarevich, Deputy Chairperson, the Movement for
Freedom
15:45-16:15 Mr Siarhei Pigarau, Deputy Chairperson, Belaya
Rus Public Association
16:15-16:45 Mr Heorhi Atamanau, Deputy Chairperson, Communist
Party of Belarus
16:45-17:15 Mr Aliaksei Yanukevich, Chairperson, Belarusian
Popular Front Party
Ms Iryna Veshtard, Chairperson, Belarusian Social Democratic
Party Hramada
Mr Siarhei Kalyakin, Chairperson, Belarusian Left Party
“Just World “
17:1-17.45 Mr Vasiliy Zadniaprany, Chairperson, Republican
Party of Labour and Justice
17.45-18.15 Mr Mikalai Statkevich, Chairperson, Social Democratic
Party “Narodnaya Hramada”
Mr Uladzimir Niakliaeu, Chairperson, “For the statehood and
independence of Belarus” movement
18:15 Meeting with drivers and linguistic assistants for the
delegation of PACE
Saturday 10 September 2016
09:30-10:30 Civil society roundtable
- Mr Aleh Hulak, Belarusian Helsinki Committee
- Mr Valiantsin Stefanovich, Human Rights Centre “Viasna”
- Mr Siarhei Alfer, Expert on election law
- Mr Valery Karbalev, Analytical Centre “Strategiya”
10:30-11:30 Media roundtable
- Mr Ales Antsipenka, Belarusian Association of Journalists
- Mr Josif Siaredzich, Newspaper Narodnaya
Volya
- Ms Nasta Khralovich, TV “BelSat”
- Mr Alyaksandr Starykevich, e-newspaper Salidarnast
- Mr Artyom Shraibman, News portal “TUT.BY”
11:30-12:15 OSCE/ODIHR briefing (security, co-ordination,
forms)
12:15-12:45 Regional briefing by LTOs for teams deployed in
Minsk city and region
Sunday 11 September 2016
07:30-20:00 Opening of polling stations, observation of elections
After 20:00 Closing of polling stations and counting
Monday 12 September 2016
08:30-09:30 PACE ad hoc committee debriefing meeting
14:30 Joint press conference of the Heads of the delegations
Appendix 4 – Press release
of the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
(open)
Belarus elections
efficiently organised, long-standing systemic shortcomings remain,
international observers say
Minsk, 12.09.2016: The 11 September parliamentary elections
were efficiently organised and there were visible efforts to address
some long-standing issues, but a number of systemic shortcomings
remain, the international observers concluded in a preliminary statement
released today.
The legal framework restricts political rights and fundamental
freedoms, and was interpreted in an overly restrictive manner. Media
coverage did not enable voters to make an informed choice and, despite
an overall increase in the number of candidates, including a significant
number from the opposition, the campaign lacked visibility, the
statement says.
The election administration exhibited a welcoming approach
towards international observers. The composition of the electoral
commissions, however, was not pluralistic, which undermined confidence
in their independence. Despite some positive efforts by the authorities,
early voting, and counting and tabulation procedures were still
marred by a significant number of procedural irregularities and
a lack of transparency.
“It remains clear that Belarus still has some way to go to
fulfil its democratic commitments. In the run-up to the elections,
the authorities made a number of promises regarding the transparency
of the process, on which they delivered partially, but insufficiently,”
said Kent Harstedt, Special Coordinator and leader of the short-term OSCE
observer mission. “We hope the Belarusian government, together with
the newly elected parliament, will carry on with the democratisation
process and undertake a comprehensive effort to address our long-standing recommendations.”
Despite some first steps taken by the authorities, the constitutional
and legal framework does not adequately guarantee the conduct of
elections in line with OSCE commitments and other international
obligations and standards. A working group was established to consider
prior OSCE/ODIHR recommendations, signalling a willingness to engage
in electoral reform. Nonetheless, a number of key long-standing
OSCE/ODIHR and Council of Europe Venice Commission recommendations
have yet to be addressed, and the need for comprehensive electoral
reform, as part of the broader democratisation process, remains.
“Yesterday, voting was calm and well-organised, although there
were concerns regarding the counting. However, elections are not
limited to voting day only, and these elections showed that Belarus,
as a European country, needs a truly competitive political system
in order to realise its democratic potential,” said Gisela Wurm (Austria,
SOC), Head of the PACE delegation. “It is therefore vital to begin
immediately the necessary reform of the legal framework, so as to
enable the creation of such a system, which is a key element for
democratic stability. PACE and the Venice Commission stand ready
to co-operate with Belarus in this regard.”
Restrictions on fundamental freedoms of association, expression
and assembly narrowed the public space, and negatively affected
the environment in which the elections were held. While candidates
were generally able to campaign freely within the confines of the
law, a large number of candidates chose not to actively campaign, which
contributed to voter apathy. On a positive note, the CEC instruction
for a more permissive allocation of public venues was followed by
many local authorities. Unequal access to State and public institutions
and resources, however, skewed the playing field for candidates.
Collectively, this limited the choice available to voters.
“We note that, for the first time in 12 years, some members
of the opposition will be represented in the parliament. However,
the legal and constitutional framework limits public space for debate,
and did not provide voters with the opportunity to make an informed
choice,” said Ivana Dobesova, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. “We
encourage all members of parliament to use this opportunity to engage
in genuine discussions about the future of the country.”
Media regulations are strict. Criminal offences of defamation,
libel and insult, and a ban on calls to boycott the election are
contrary to international standards and challenge freedom of expression.
During the campaign, news programmes on State-owned media focused
largely on the activities of the president and other State officials,
as well as political statements by the CEC Chairperson. Coverage
of candidates’ campaign activities, meanwhile, was virtually absent
and largely limited to short, pre-recorded speeches. This narrowed
voters’ access to candidate information.
The election administration, led by the CEC, made technical
preparations and passed decisions within legal deadlines. However,
only a negligible number of election commission members were appointed
from opposition nominees, and local executive authorities had a
dominant presence in the leadership of the election administration.
Voter lists are updated by precinct election commissions (PECs)
based on data provided by local authorities. The absence of a centralised
voter register that could be used for cross-checking against multiple
registrations, along with an overly permissive system for registering
voters on election day, resulted in a lack of safeguards against
multiple voting.
“The persistent shortcomings we have identified in the course
of observing these elections point to the fact that long-standing
recommendations remain to be addressed,” said Ambassador Tana de
Zulueta, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR long-term election observation mission.
“The election of the new parliament constitutes an excellent opportunity
to take action and implement these recommendations in a comprehensive
and inclusive way.”
Of 630 candidates nominated, 484 eventually stood for election,
including a significant number from the opposition. Despite this
overall increase in the number of candidates, the legal provisions
for registration allowed for selective implementation. Ninety-three
prospective candidates were not registered, mostly due to inaccuracies
in asset and income declarations, an insufficient number of valid
support signatures or failure to submit supporting documentation.
This approach raised disproportionate and unreasonable barriers
to candidacy, the observers said.
Women are well-represented in the election administration,
but less so in political life. There are no special measures to
enhance women’s representation, and women constituted 25 per cent
of candidates in these elections.
The CEC exhibited a welcoming attitude towards international
observers. In an inclusive process, more than 827 international
and 32,105 citizen observers were accredited. Despite some improvement
in access provided for both citizen and international observers,
a number of undue legal limitations and a restrictive interpretation of
observers’ rights remain.