See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 14238
| 23 January 2017
Observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (11 December 2016)
1. Introduction
1. On 14 December 2015, subject
to receiving an invitation, the Bureau of the Assembly decided to
observe the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia”, constituted an ad hoc committee for this
purpose composed of 20 members (EPP/CD: 8; SOC: 7, ALDE: 2, EC:
2, UEL: 1) and the co-rapporteurs on post-monitoring dialogue, and
authorised a pre-electoral mission. On 25 January 2016, it approved
the composition of the ad hoc committee and appointed Mr Stefan
Schennach (Austria, SOC) as its Chairperson.
2. On 15 April 2016, the authorities of “the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia”, invited the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe to observe the early parliamentary elections in
the country, scheduled for 5 June 2016.
3. A pre-electoral delegation visited Skopje on 26 and 27 April
2016. Its statement and composition appear in Appendix 1.
4. The Bureau, at its meeting on 26 May 2016, took note of the
statement of the pre-electoral mission and of the cancellation of
the elections initially scheduled for 5 June 2016. On 5 September
2016, subject to receiving an invitation, it decided to observe
the elections postponed until 11 December 2016, constituted an ad
hoc committee for this purpose composed of 20 members as well as
the co-rapporteurs on post-monitoring dialogue and authorised a
pre-electoral mission.
5. In line with the co-operation agreement signed between the
Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) on 4 October 2004, a representative
of the Venice Commission was invited to join the ad hoc committee
as a legal adviser.
6. On 19 October 2016, Mr Trajko Veljanovski, President of the
Assembly of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, reiterated
the invitation to the Assembly to observe the early parliamentary
elections, re-scheduled for 11 December 2016.
7. A pre-electoral delegation visited Skopje on 21 and 22 November
2016. Its composition appears in Appendix 2, its programme in Appendix
3 and its statement in Appendix 4.
8. For the observation of the early parliamentary elections,
the ad hoc committee (whose composition appears in Appendix 5) operated
in the framework of an International Election Observation Mission
(IEOM) together with delegations from the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE-PA)
and the European Parliament and with the Election Observation Mission
(EOM) of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
of the OSCE (OSCE/ODIHR).
9. The ad hoc committee met in Skopje from 9 to 12 December 2016
to observe the parliamentary elections on 11 December. The programme
of the ad hoc committee’s meetings is set out in Appendix 6.
10. On polling day, the ad hoc committee split into nine teams
which observed the elections in Skopje and its surrounding areas
as well as in the following regions and municipalities: Tetovo,
Gostivar, Kumanovo, Bitola and Strumica.
11. The following day, the IEOM held a joint press conference
and issued a “Statement of preliminary findings and conclusions”
and a press release (Appendix 7).
2. Political background
12. The 11 December early parliamentary
elections were widely viewed as a crucial test for the functioning of
democratic institutions in the country, following two years of institutional
turmoil. These elections were the fourth consecutive early parliamentary
elections since 2008. The last were held in 2014 and led to a government
formed by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic
Party for Macedonian National Unity (VMRO-DPMNE), with 61 seats,
and the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), with 19 seats. The
opposition included the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM)
with 34 seats and the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA) with 7
seats. The National Democratic Revival (NDR) and Citizens Option
for Macedonia had one seat each.
13. The main opposition party (SDSM) boycotted the parliament,
claiming that the 2014 elections were rigged. The crisis deepened
in February 2015 when incriminating illegal wiretapped recordings,
allegedly implicating government and public officials in corruption,
election fraud and abuse of power, led to widespread protests. On
15 July 2015, as part of the internationally mediated Przino Agreement,
early parliamentary elections were called for 24 April 2016 and
the Office of Special Prosecutor was created to investigate the wiretapping
allegations.
14. The elections were postponed to 5 June 2016 on the grounds
that key conditions had not been met, namely checking of the voters
register, media reforms, and safeguards to separate State and party
activities. The political climate deteriorated after 12 April 2016,
when President Gjorge Ivanov issued a blanket pardon to all individuals
who were charged, under investigation or suspected of involvement
in the wiretapping scandal. All the major political parties condemned
the pardon and called on the President to rescind his decision.
The pardon triggered protests and counter protests. The demonstrators,
under the Protestiram umbrella,
called for the resignation of the President and the cancellation
of the elections. The opposition boycotted the elections and, of
the four signatories of the Przino Agreement, only VMRO-DPMNE submitted candidate
lists. On 25 May 2016, the Constitutional Court declared the dissolution
of parliament unconstitutional and the 5 June elections were cancelled.
15. The third attempt to organise elections this year followed
the signing of a new agreement in July by the four main political
parties, mediated by the European Union and the United States. Temporary
mechanisms were introduced for cross-party oversight of some aspects
of the electoral process, including voter registration and media
oversight. On 17 October, the parliament was dissolved for the second
time in 2016 and elections were called for 11 December.
3. Legal framework
16. A total of 120 members of parliament
(MPs) are elected in-country for a four-year term, under a proportional
representation system using closed lists, 20 in each of the six
electoral districts. As a result of the 2015 amendments to the Electoral
Code, up to three additional MPs are elected in a single out-of-country district.
The number of MPs elected in the out-of-country district does not
necessarily correlate to voter turnout.
17. The Electoral Code permits deviations of up to 5% from the
average number of registered voters for in-country districts. On
25 October, the Unity party challenged the holding of elections
at the Constitutional Court on the grounds that electoral district
6 deviates by 5.65%. The Court did not decide on the matter prior
to election day.
18. The legal framework is generally conducive for the conduct
of democratic elections. In a positive step, the electoral legislation
was significantly revised in 2015 as part of the Przino Agreement.
The amendments addressed many previous OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission
recommendations, particularly those related to the principle of
equal suffrage for out-of-country voting, the composition and competences
of the State Election Commission (SEC), and measures for balanced
media coverage during the campaign. They also strengthened provisions
for the separation of party and State and for campaign finance reporting.
In addition, voters can now submit a complaint at any stage of the
electoral process and the courts have to decide on electoral disputes
within shorter deadlines.
19. Following the July agreement, additional amendments introduced
a temporary commission for media oversight and required citizens
with “questionable” voter registration data to actively re-register
for these elections. These latter provisions were applicable only
to the current elections, signalling a need for continued reform
to address these issues in a sustainable manner.
20. The 2015 amendments improved the Electoral Code, but some
long-standing issues remain unaddressed, including in respect of
candidate registration, withdrawal of candidates and lists, and
public and periodic review of district boundaries by an independent
body. Some articles are ambiguous or conflict with other laws and
rules, making their implementation uncertain. In addition, the legal
changes were approved hastily by the parliament, after a reform
process that lacked transparency and meaningful consultation with affected
stakeholders outside of the four main parties, including relevant
State institutions, other political parties and civil society.
4. Electoral administration,
voters lists and the registration of candidates
21. The elections are administered
by the State Election Commission (SEC), 80 municipal election commissions
(MECs), and 3 480 electoral boards (EBs). An additional 46 EBs were
established in diplomatic-consular offices for out-of-country voting.
22. The SEC is composed of nine members: three nominated by ruling
parliamentary parties, three by opposition parties, and three independent
experts selected in an open recruitment. The president and deputy are
elected from among the independent members. MECs are composed of
five randomly selected civil servants appointed for five-year terms
in April 2016. EBs were composed of three randomly selected civil servants,
one member appointed by the governing parties and one member appointed
from the opposition parties, appointed for four-year terms in November
2016. Despite some late changes in the composition of MECs and EBs,
requirements for balanced ethnic and gender representation in election
commissions were broadly respected. However, only two of the nine
SEC members are women.
23. The SEC’s preparations for these elections were hampered by
inefficient internal organisation and politicised decision making.
Several important deadlines were missed, but the preparations were
completed by election day. The shortened time frame for early elections
also negatively impacted the SEC’s activities. SEC decisions were
generally adopted unanimously. However, on politically contentious
issues members voted along party lines and often engaged in lengthy
procedural discussions that included heated exchanges on interpretation
of the law. At times, decisions were clearly partisan. For example,
the SEC determined the order of candidate lists on the ballots by
drawing lots, but divided the lists into two groups with the first
places on the ballot offered to the four parliamentary parties represented
in the SEC. This discriminated against other contestants; however,
no contestant complained about it.
24. Voter registration is passive, with the exception of voters
temporarily residing abroad, who must actively register. According
to the Constitution, citizens aged 18 on election day are eligible
to vote, unless deprived of their legal capacity by a court decision.
However, only voters with a valid identification card or biometric passport,
and a registered domicile, are included in the voters register.
The Electoral Code contains conflicting provisions regarding eligibility
of out-of-country voters. For the first time in these elections,
voters’ photographs were placed on the voters lists.
25. The SEC is responsible for maintaining the voters register.
Following the Przino Agreement, and as a means of addressing long-standing
mistrust in the accuracy of voters lists, the SEC was tasked with
reviewing the voters register by cross-checking entries against
the databases of 11 State institutions, followed by field checks.
The review process was observed by the four largest parties and
led to 39 502 voter records being identified as “questionable”.
These citizens were required to re-register in order not to be deleted
from the register, in line with a new legal requirement. While the
process improved the accuracy of the voters register, it appears
to have deprived some citizens of the opportunity to vote. On 13
November, the SEC decided to delete 28 341 records; the voters concerned
did not have the possibility of legal redress that would allow them to
be added to voters lists and be able to vote on election day. Another
171 500 voters were moved to a separate register of persons considered
to be temporarily living abroad, but they could still vote in-country
at their registered address.
26. In addition to the possibility of verifying their registration
throughout the year, voters could check and amend their registration
details at SEC regional centres during a public scrutiny period,
from 28 October to 11 November. In spite of a legal requirement,
the SEC regional offices did not display printed voters lists and voters
who visited the offices could only check their data on SEC computers.
Voters could also check their personal data online as well as who
is registered at other addresses. According to the SEC, few of the 10 274 voters
who visited the SEC offices requested corrections.
27. The SEC approved 20 573 and rejected 458 applications for
voting abroad. Numerous applications were submitted from the same
email address, with a significant number from the same Internet
Protocol addresses in Skopje, Bitola and Shtip. This raised questions
about the integrity of the process. Voters were required to declare
their ethnicity, which, according to the SEC, was necessary to print
electoral materials in minority languages.
28. On 18 November, two days after the legal deadline, the SEC
provided electoral contestants with copies of the preliminary voters
lists. The SDSM requested the addition of 45 persons who had recently
renewed their identification cards, as well as the addition of 348
voters identified through field checks conducted by the party and
the deletion of about 800 voters who were not found at their home
address. The DUI requested the addition of five voters whose applications
had been delayed by regional SEC offices. The SEC rejected the SDSM requests
and accepted the DUI request.
29. The SEC also approved 107 of the 120 deletions requested by
a civil society organisation.
30. On 28 November, two days after the official date for closing
the voters lists, the SEC announced that 1 784 416 voters were registered
to vote in-country, of which 230 122 were placed on the special
list of voters considered to be temporarily living abroad. Special
lists were also created for 2 015 prisoners, 13 internally displaced
persons and 325 members of out-of-country electoral boards.
31. The political agreement to review the voters register only
applied for these elections. In addition, the legal and structural
flaws for maintaining the voters register, mainly due to citizens
being registered at addresses where they do not actually live, were
not addressed.
32. Any eligible voter can be a candidate for parliament, except
those sentenced by a final court decision to more than six months
imprisonment and who have not completed their sentence. Registered
political parties, coalitions of political parties and groups of
voters can nominate candidates. The latter were required to provide at
least 1 000 supporting signatures of voters residing in the respective
district. In line with a previous OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission
recommendation, for the first time, a voter could sign in support
of more than one candidate list; however, the signatures are still
required to be collected in front of a SEC employee.
33. Candidate registration took place from 18 October to 11 November
and was generally inclusive. However, it was negatively affected
by a lack of legal clarity on several aspects of nomination and
registration, including signature verification and re-submission
of registration documents, and by SEC inconsistency in verifying
the documentation. This led to the rejection of a number of lists
from the Social Democratic Party of Macedonia (SDPM) and the People’s
Movement for Macedonia (NDM). The two parties appealed the SEC decisions
to the Administrative Court, which upheld the SEC decisions.
34. The SEC registered six political parties and five coalitions
fielding a total of 1 092 candidates on 58 lists. In line with an
enhanced quota to increase women’s participation, 41% of candidates
were women, although only four of the 58 lists were topped by women.
The quota increased by 10% compared to the 2014 elections (when
one in every three consecutive places on candidate lists was reserved
for the under-represented gender, which led to a 33.33% ratio of
women in the parliament). In 2016, every third and tenth candidate
on a list must be from the less represented gender. The SEC registered
the out-of-country candidate list for the VMRO People’s Party (VMRO-PP)
and two in-country lists of the Levica party despite their not fulfilling
the gender requirement.
5. Election campaign and finance
and media environment
35. The parties and coalitions
were generally able to campaign freely, and the fundamental freedoms
of association, assembly and expression were respected. The campaign
took place in an environment characterised by lack of public trust
in the institutions and political establishment.
36. Contestants campaigned through door-to-door canvassing, small
scale meetings and rallies. Billboards were visible in many municipalities
from the four main parties. However, the placing of campaign posters
and banners in public places varied from one municipality to another
due to the locations not being clearly marked and some local authorities
not being aware of their legal obligation to designate such places.
Rallies throughout the country were generally well attended but
some audiences seemed quite passive. Women represented an average
of 20% of the audience but very few were speakers. The VMRO-DPMNE-led
coalition benefited from public support, including at rallies, of
senior officials from European Union member States. Social media
was extensively used in the campaign, including by smaller parties.
37. The main campaign messages focused on the economy, youth emigration
and job creation. While the majority of contestants used positive
campaigning, negative rhetoric was also noted. The VMRO-DPMNE-led coalition
used nationalistic messages and accused the SDSM-led coalition of
attempting to weaken the national identity, presenting the elections
as a referendum on a unitary and sovereign State. In turn, the SDSM-led
coalition accused the VMRO-DPMNE-led coalition of abusing State
power and of criminal activity. The campaigns of the ethnic Albanian
parties addressed only their communities.
38. Persistent allegations of voter intimidation, coercion, pressure
on civil servants, vote buying in Roma communities and misuse of
administrative resources negatively impacted the campaign. Such
actions raised concerns about voters’ ability to cast their vote
“free of fear of retribution”.
39. During the campaign, a number of violent incidents were observed,
targeting a range of political parties. The campaign within the
ethnic Albanian community was more intense, with some inflammatory
rhetoric from the DPA, BESA, Alliance for Albanians and the DUI.
New wiretapped conversations of DUI officials were posted on social
media during the campaign. Several parties claimed difficulties
opening campaign offices in specific areas controlled by the DUI.
40. Electoral contestants were required to open a dedicated bank
account for campaign finance purposes. Individuals could donate
up to €3 000, while legal entities could donate up to €30 000. Foreign
and anonymous donations, as well as those from State-owned, religious
and charitable organisations, are prohibited. Contestants could
spend a maximum of €1.80 per registered voter in a district. Lists
will be reimbursed by €0.25 for each vote won, provided it obtains
at least 1.5% of the votes cast in the district.
41. All 11 electoral contestants submitted interim campaign finance
reports on 1 and 10 December, declaring donations received and expenditure,
which were published online. The expenditure in nine reports exceeded
the contributions, with VMRO-DPMNE having the highest discrepancy
amounting to more than €600 000 in the first report and €1 million
in the second. The reports submitted by BESA and VMRO-PP contained
donations that exceeded the permitted limit. All contestants are
obliged to submit final reports within 30 days of the closing of
the account, which can be up to four months after the elections.
42. The campaign finance regulations are comprehensive and require
frequent reporting by contestants. However, transparency is diminished
by the lack of a requirement to support the reports with bank statements and
receipts. The State Audit Office stated that it can conduct an audit,
including a cross-check of expenses at local level, but only following
complaints.
43. Numerous media, including over 130 broadcasters, operate in
a relatively small market with media outlets divided along political
and ethnic lines. Substantial media reforms foreseen in the Przino
Agreement have yet to be agreed upon.
44. The Electoral Code governs the media coverage of elections.
All broadcasters are required to provide balanced coverage during
the campaign period. The public broadcaster, Macedonian Radio and
Television (MRT), is required to grant access to free airtime, organise
debates and provide contestants with prescribed shares of news coverage.
Amendments in 2015 prohibit government-financed advertising and
coverage of State officials favouring political parties during elections.
Additional amendments in 2016, applicable only for these elections,
provided for the appointment of an MRT1 editor-in-chief nominated
by the opposition 100 days prior to elections (whose mandate ends
on election night), and the formation of a temporary commission
to oversee media coverage during the pre-electoral period.
45. The temporary commission was mandated to supervise the media
for more than three months prior to elections. However, certain
legal provisions were not fully harmonised with other sections of
the Electoral Code, which strictly regulate the coverage of contestants
only during the official 20-day campaign, creating uncertainty about
its mandate. The commission has proposed 57 misdemeanour procedures,
primarily in connection with unbalanced coverage, hidden campaigning
by government officials and paid political advertising. Before election
day, the court decided on two cases by rejecting them. Although
required by law, the commission did not supervise the election coverage
in the electronic media, due to unclear regulations.
46. All electoral contestants were able to access the media for
campaigning, including through free airtime in public broadcast
media and paid advertising. Some non-parliamentary parties complained
about insufficient opportunities to present their messages in the
media, including limits on advertising in private broadcast media. Attempts
to organise debates with all key contestants were largely unsuccessful
due to refusals of candidates to participate.
47. Many interlocutors of the International Election Observation
Mission, including journalists, noted self-censorship and lack of
editorial independence of media due to the political or business
interests of the owners. During the campaign, the OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission was informed of one case of alleged intimidation
of a news editor by a DUI representative. Interlocutors also raised
concerns about the use of government-financed media campaigns (on
hold during the electoral period) as a way to sustain and reward friendly
outlets.
48. The media monitoring results showed that both public television
channels complied with the regulation on distribution of coverage
between the groups in the campaign period. In MRT1 news programmes,
the VMRO-DPMNE-led coalition and the DUI received 20% of coverage
each, while the opposition parties were allocated 42%, and non-parliamentary
parties 11%. On MRT2, the distribution of coverage between governing and
opposition parties was similarly equitable, with more time dedicated
to the ethnic Albanian parties. MRT1 and MRT2 portrayed the competitors
overall in a positive and uncritical manner.
49. The private Sitel, Kanal 5 and Alfa failed to provide balanced
and impartial coverage in their news. Although they allocated equitable
portions of airtime mainly to VMRO-DPMNE and SDSM, the airtime allocated to
VMRO-DPMNE was very positive in tone and that allocated to SDSM
was often negative, in particular on Sitel. All three channels were
openly supporting the ruling party and focusing on VMRO-DPMNE campaign topics.
Dubious information originating from the internet was occasionally
presented as political news on these channels.
50. Other private channels, Alsat-M, Telma and 24 Vesti, offered
diverse and frequently critical coverage of the main contestants
and political actors in their news programmes, and also granted
contestants the opportunity to present their programmes in debates
or interviews. Monitored newspapers generally provided a variety
of views, while leaning towards particular parties.
51. Parties and coalitions primarily representing the ethnic Albanian
community ran independently, whereas parties and candidates representing
smaller communities joined coalitions led by parties representing
larger communities. Both the SDSM-led and VMRO-DPMNE-led coalitions
included in their lists representatives of almost all smaller communities,
some in likely winnable positions. As in the past, the majority
of parties representing smaller communities ran under the VMRO-DPMNE-led
coalition. The SDSM-led coalition actively sought votes from the
ethnic Albanian community, including by fielding ethnic Albanian
candidates in winnable positions, which unfortunately was not well
received by established ethnic Albanian parties.
52. Topics related to inter-ethnic relations featured prominently
in the campaign, including institutional relations between the ethnic
Albanian and Macedonian communities and the official use of languages.
The electoral contest was particularly competitive in the ethnic
Albanian communities. The Alliance for Albanians and BESA challenged
the dominant position of the DUI. Media coverage of smaller communities
and their participation in the elections, including rallies and
statements by parties, was limited. Reporting on political activities
by smaller communities, particularly Roma, often used negative stereotypes.
While electoral materials were provided in national minority languages,
there was no specific voter education campaign to reach out to smaller
communities or in their languages.
53. The SEC dealt with most administrative disputes related to
elections, and the State Audit Office and the State Commission for
Prevention of Corruption (SCPC) handled complaints related to campaign
finance and misuse of administrative resources respectively. Amendments
to the Electoral Code in 2015 strengthened legal guarantees for
electoral dispute resolution. In line with previous Venice Commission
recommendations, this included shorter deadlines, publication of
administrative decisions within 24 hours, and guaranteeing the right to
appeal all administrative decisions to the Administrative Court.
In addition, following previous recommendations, the SEC adopted
a rulebook on procedures for dealing with complaints.
54. The SEC received 11 complaints prior to election day, the
majority of which were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction or
evidence. Despite the legal obligation, the SEC did not implement
an electronic system for case and complaint management. Two decisions
regarding the rejection of the SDPM and NDM lists were appealed
to the Administrative Court and both were rejected, in closed session,
as ungrounded. Although both decisions were published on its website,
the lack of public hearings is contrary to international obligations.
55. In addition, a number of interlocutors raised concerns about
judicial independence. Overall, despite improvements in the law,
the implementation of electoral dispute resolution procedures did
not fully provide for an effective system of redress, which is at
odds with Council of Europe standards.
56. The SCPC received some 1 000 requests for clarification on
issues related to misuse of administrative resources, many of which
were anonymous or submitted with little evidence. On 1 December,
the SCPC requested the Basic Public Prosecution to initiate an investigation
into two cases. In addition, the Ombudsman initiated 10 investigations
related to allegations of pressure on public employees and corrections
in voters lists, which are ongoing.
57. Two other initiatives were submitted to the Constitutional
Court challenging the constitutionality of election-related provisions;
the Constitutional Court rejected both of them on 9 November. One
was from BESA, challenging the provision which required voters with
“questionable” voter registration data to re-register, and the other
was from NDM, challenging the composition of the temporary commission.
58. The Electoral Code allows for citizen, party and international
observation. Two citizen observer groups observed the elections:
MOST deployed 80 long-term observers (LTOs) and some 3 300 short-term
observers (STOs), and CIVIL deployed 35 LTOs and some 300 STOs.
MOST also conducted parallel vote tabulation. The participation
of citizen observers at all stages of the electoral process contributed
to the transparency of the elections. Ten civil society organisations
working on voter awareness campaign, were notified of forthcoming financial
audits before and soon after election day. These organisations questioned
the timing of such an inquiry.
6. Early voting and polling
day
59. Early voting and election day
generally proceeded in an orderly manner and without major incidents
or tensions. Transparency benefited from the presence of numerous
citizen and party observers throughout the day in the polling stations
observed.
60. Early voting took place on 7 December for members of out-of-country
electoral boards and on 10 December for homebound voters, internally
displaced persons, detainees and prisoners. Early voting was mostly
assessed positively. However, during voting at the country’s largest
prison, Idrizovo, the observers noted that several prisoners with
valid ID were unable to vote because they were not on the voters
list. Over 500 prisoners were not included in the list due to expired
ID cards. There is no procedure for renewing the expired ID cards
of prisoners.
61. On election day, the opening process was assessed positively
in most areas. However, observers noted procedural problems: in
some cases the required protocol was not filled in prior to voting,
the ballot boxes were not shown to be empty, or the serial numbers
of ballot box security seals were not recorded.
62. The voting process was assessed positively in 97% of observations.
Procedures were generally followed, including those to safeguard
against multiple voting such as inking of voters’ fingers and checking
the photos on the voters list. In a limited number of cases, shortcomings
were however observed: the layout of some polling stations was inadequate
(which sometimes impacted on the secrecy of the vote) and overcrowding
was noted in some polling stations. More than half of the polling
stations observed did not allow for independent access for voters
with disabilities.
63. Significantly, in 16% of the polling stations observed, people
were not allowed to vote as they were not on the voters lists. While
some of these citizens were redirected to other polling stations,
others stated that they were part of the 28 341 records deleted
in July 2016. A total of 335 of the affected persons submitted complaints
to the SEC on this matter. This highlights the continued need to
sustainably address the structural flaws in the voters register.
64. Some serious irregularities were observed during voting: group
voting (4%), proxy voting (2%), ballot boxes not sealed properly
(2%). Incidents of voters being pressured and unauthorised persons
directing the work of electoral boards were also observed. During
election day, a number of police and media reports informed about
irregularities related to vote buying and photographing of ballots.
At least six people were arrested.
65. A Parliamentary Assembly team heard credible allegations about
online films showing evidence of vote-buying in the Suto Orizari
municipality of Skopje the day prior to election day; the films
were allegedly made by unhappy voters who received only 1 000 MKD
(around €16) while other voters had received twice as much earlier
in the day. Another Assembly team observed in Gostivar that voters
were obviously following instructions on how to vote and that they
became confused when told discreetly by members of the electoral board
not to expect any instructions while international observers were
present in the polling station.
66. The counting process was assessed as efficient and transparent.
However, significant procedural omissions were observed in a number
of polling stations and the counting was assessed negatively in
some cases. This primarily related to steps taken prior to opening
the ballot boxes, including counting the number of signatures and
unused ballots, and verifying the serial numbers of the ballot box
security seals. Following the count, some electoral boards had difficulties
filling in the results protocols and some did not follow the procedures
for packing sensitive election materials and ballots. Copies of
the protocol were given to most of those who requested them; however,
some electoral boards observed did not post the protocols, as required by
law.
67. Tabulation proceeded in a timely manner but was assessed negatively
in some observations. The main problems noted related to the conditions
at MECs: insufficient space, overcrowding and poor organisation. During
the observation, a number of counting protocols contained discrepancies
and the ballots from some polling stations were recounted.
68. While not required by law, preliminary results by polling
station and district were published online by the SEC throughout
the night, which contributed to the transparency of the process.
69. The results of the early parliamentary elections of 11 December
are as follows: VMRO-DPMNE coalition: 39.39% of the votes cast (51
seats in the parliament); SDSM coalition: 37.85% (49 seats); DUI:
7.53% (10 seats); BESA: 5.02% (5 seats); Alliance for the Albanians:
3.05% (3 seats); DPA: 2.69% (2 seats).
7. Conclusions
70. The 11 December early parliamentary
elections were an essential step in resolving two years of deep political
crisis. The main political forces agreed to a series of legal and
institutional changes to provide a level playing field for these
elections. Underlying issues, such as voter registration and media,
are yet to be addressed in a sustainable manner. The campaign was
competitive but took place in an environment characterised by public
mistrust in institutions and the political establishment, and allegations
of voter coercion. The election administration struggled with the
preparations for the elections and missed a number of deadlines, but
election day was generally well administered and proceeded without
major incidents.
71. The legal framework is generally conducive for the conduct
of democratic elections. Significant improvements to electoral legislation
in 2015 addressed most previous OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission recommendations.
Additional amendments in 2016 introduced temporary mechanisms for
cross-party oversight of key aspects of the electoral process. However,
some recommendations remain unaddressed and certain provisions are
ambiguous or conflict with other laws. In addition, while the reform
process enjoyed support from the four largest political parties,
decisions were taken under time pressure and without consulting the
relevant electoral stakeholders.
72. The SEC preparations for the elections were hampered by inefficient
internal organisation, politicised decision making and shortened
legal deadlines. Several deadlines were missed and some procedures
were not clarified. SEC activities were not always transparent,
as it often held closed sessions and did not always publish its
decisions. The lower-level commissions generally worked in a professional
manner, although some lacked adequate premises, timely funding and
equipment.
73. In total, 1 784 416 voters were registered. To address long-standing
mistrust in the accuracy of voters lists, for the first time the
SEC reviewed the voters register by cross-checking several databases
and conducting field checks. The review does not guarantee sustainable
improvement as it applied only to these elections. The legal and
structural flaws for maintaining the voters register are yet to
be addressed. The review process improved the accuracy of the voters
register, but it appears to have led to some citizens being deprived of
the opportunity to vote in these elections.
74. The SEC registered six political parties and five coalitions
for these elections. Registration was generally inclusive, but was
negatively affected by a lack of legal clarity on procedures and
the rejection of candidate lists of two parties on inconsistent
grounds. In line with an enhanced quota for women’s participation,
41% of candidates were women, although they topped only four of
the 58 lists.
75. While fundamental freedoms were generally respected and contestants
were able to campaign freely, the elections took place in an environment
characterised by a lack of public trust in institutions and the
political establishment. Credible allegations of voter intimidation,
widespread pressure on civil servants (for example teachers, doctors,
nurses …), vote buying, coercion and misuse of administrative resources
persisted throughout the campaign. This included direct threats
about losing jobs for not voting as requested.
76. The campaign finance regulations are comprehensive and require
frequent reporting by candidates. However, transparency is diminished
by the lack of a requirement to support the reports with bank statements and
receipts. Reports submitted by candidates on 1 and 10 December revealed
significant overspending, particularly by the VMRO-DPMNE.
77. The diverse media environment is split along political and
ethnic lines. Candidates could campaign on public and private media
through free and paid political advertising. Public media largely
provided candidates with equitable news coverage. Some of the private
media demonstrated bias in favour of the ruling party. A number
of interlocutors of the IEOM, including journalists, expressed concern
about self-censorship and editorial independence due to political
and business interests favouring ruling parties. While recent amendments
prohibited government-financed advertising and coverage of State
officials during the campaign, significant media reforms foreseen
in the Przino Agreement have yet to be implemented.
78. Topics related to inter-ethnic relations featured prominently
in the campaign, including institutional relations between the ethnic
Albanian and ethnic Macedonian communities. The Social Democratic
Union of Macedonia actively sought votes from the ethnic Albanian
community, including by fielding ethnic Albanian candidates. Media
reporting of Roma candidates often used stereotypes.
79. The changes in the law and the adoption of a SEC rulebook
on procedures strengthened legal guarantees for dispute resolution.
The majority of complaints to the elections administration and courts
were, however, rejected on procedural or jurisdictional grounds.
The Administrative Court held its hearings in closed sessions. A
number of interlocutors of the IEOM raised concerns with respect
to judicial independence. Despite noted improvements in the law,
the implementation of electoral dispute resolution procedures did
not fully provide for an effective legal redress.
80. Election day proceeded in an orderly manner and without major
incidents, albeit with some procedural irregularities observed,
particularly during the count. Voters participated in large numbers
and voting was generally assessed positively by observers. Observers
noted a number of people not allowed to vote after having been deleted
from the voters list during the recent review of the voters register.
Transparency of the electoral process benefited from the active
presence of numerous citizen and party observers.
81. The Parliamentary Assembly and the Venice Commission will
continue to work alongside the authorities of “the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia” in the field of elections and more generally
on the reinforcement of democratic institutions through co-operation
activities.
Appendix 1 –
Statement by the pre-electoral delegation
(open)
In Skopje,
PACE pre-electoral delegation, concerned by revived tensions, urges
all political forces to show responsibility towards the elections
and implement the Przino Agreement
Strasbourg, 28.04.2016 – A delegation of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) was in Skopje on 26 and
27 April 2016 to assess the pre-electoral climate of the early parliamentary
elections scheduled for 5 June 2016.
The delegation*, led by Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), recalled
that these early elections were called in the framework of the implementation
of the EU-brokered Przino Agreement to put an end to the political
crisis that followed the April 2014 presidential and early parliamentary
elections. The main opposition party had challenged the results
of the elections and boycotted the parliament until September 2015.
The delegation noted that the election campaign was marked
by long-standing contentious issues such as the accuracy of the
voters list and media reforms. It observed that the climate had
significantly deteriorated after the decision by the President of
the Republic to pardon 56 persons, including those prosecuted by
the Special Prosecutor established by the Przino Agreement to investigate
the serious allegations – including electoral frauds – contained
in the illegally wire-taped conversations released by the opposition.
This decision had provoked major street protests, increased polarisation
in society and seriously undermined the work of the Special Prosecutor.
The delegation urges the authorities to find a way to revoke the
Presidential pardon as soon as possible.
The delegation was aware that all political parties had, originally,
shared the view that early elections would be the only way to solve
the on-going political crisis. It therefore regretted the decision
by the “Social Democratic Union Of Macedonia” (SDSM) to boycott
the elections and was concerned by the position of the Albanian parties
DUI and DPA which were considering boycotting the elections as well.
The delegation reiterated the PACE position that boycotting elections
is not a constructive approach to good governance, and is at odds
with the rules of democracy.
The delegation expressed serious concerns about the accuracy
of the voters list, which is essential to restore public confidence
in the electoral process. It took note of the concerns expressed
by the parties about media coverage of the campaign, despite the
recent changes in the electoral code. It also considered that concrete measures
to separate state and political party activities, and to prevent
intimidation of voters, had to be taken. The misuse of administrative
resources – an issue raised by PACE in previous election observations
– was also a matter of concern for the delegation.
The delegation called on all parties to fully implement the
Przino Agreement, which offered a path to lead the country out of
the crisis and tackled, in the long term, systemic issues. They
urged them to reach a political agreement to ensure a smooth electoral
campaign, to show responsibility and accountability in lowering tensions
within society in the interest of the citizens, and for the sake
of the country’s stability.
The delegation noted with satisfaction that demonstrations,
in which participated, inter alia, student organisations together
with NGOs, did not result in serious clashes, either with the police
or with simultaneous counter demonstrations.
The delegation also urged the authorities to make sure that
all conditions would be in place to allow political parties to rally
and campaign peacefully.
The PACE pre-electoral delegation was in Skopje at the invitation
of the President of the Assembly. It met with the President of the
Assembly, with the Chairman and members of the State Election Commission,
the Minister of the Interior, the Special Prosecutor and the Public
Prosecutor, with leaders of political parties, representatives of
civil society, of student organisations and of the media, with the
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission and with diplomats
and representatives of international organisations present in Skopje.
A fully-fledged 22-member PACE will arrive in Skopje prior
to the early parliamentary elections to observe the vote.
Members of the delegation: Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC),
Head of delegation; Frank J. Jenssen (Norway, EPP/CD); Eerik-Niiles
Kross (Estonia, ALDE); Tom Packalén (Finland, EC); Andrej Hunko
(Germany, UEL); Lise Christoffersen (Norway), PACE rapporteur for
the post-monitoring dialogue; Valeriu Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova),
PACE rapporteur for the post-monitoring dialogue
Appendix 2 –
Programme of the pre-electoral mission (21-22 November 2016)
(open)
Monday,
21 November 2016
09:30-10:00 Delegation meeting
10:15-11:15 Meeting with members of the diplomatic corps:
- Ambassador of Italy, HE Carlo
Romeo
- Ambassador of Slovenia HE Milan Jazbec
- Ms Anıl Özge Ertay – Counsellor at the Turkish Embassy
in Skopje
11:30-12:30 Meeting with Ms Tana de Zulueta, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission and members of the team
14:00-14:30 Meeting with representatives of the media (part
1):
- Media Development Center:
Mr Dejan Georgievski
- Telma TV: Ms Sanja Vasic
14:30-15:00 Meeting with leaders and representatives of the
“Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party
for Macedonian National Unity” (VRMO-DPMNE)
15:15-15:40 Meeting with Mr Afrim Gashi, Leader of BESA movement,
and Mr Zekiria Ibraimi, Vice- President
15:45-17:00 Meeting with representatives of civil society:
- Human Rights Institute: Mr Miroslav
Draganov
- NGO Most: Mr Zlatko Dimitrioski
- NGO Civil: Mr Xhabir Derala
- Centre for Research and Policy Making (CRPM): Mr Zdravko
Veljanov
17:30-18:00 Meeting with representatives of the media (part
2):
- Macedonian Association
of Journalists (MAN): Ms Ivona Talevska
- Kanal 5 TV: Mr Ivan Mircevski
- Kurir (on-line magazine): Ms Anastasija Bodanoska
18:00-18:10 Meeting with representatives of the media (part
3):
- Macedonian Radio and Television
(MRT): Ms Santa Argirova, Editor-in-chief of News Program
Tuesday,
22 November 2016
09:15-10:00 Meeting with Mr Nikola Poposki, Minister
of Foreign Affairs
10:15-10:45 Meeting with Mr Trajko Veljanovski, President
of the Assembly of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
11:00-11:30 Meeting with Ms Ivana Tufegdjich
11:30-12:00 Meeting with Mr Goce Markoski, Levica
12:15-12:45 Meeting with leaders and representatives of the
Democratic Union for Integration (DUI)
13:00-13:30 Meeting with leaders and representatives of the
“Social Democratic Union of Macedonia” (SDSM)
13:45-14:15 Meeting with leaders and representatives of the
“Democratic Party of Albanians” (DPA)
16:00-16:30 Meeting with Mr Oliver Spasovski, Minister of
the Interior
16:45-17:15 Meeting with Ms Katica Janeva, Special Prosecutor
17:30-18:00 Meeting with Mr Aleksandar Chichakovski, Chairperson
of the State Election Commission, and members
18:30 Committee meeting (preparation of a statement)
Appendix 3 –
Statement by the pre-electoral delegation
(open)
In Skopje,
PACE pre-electoral delegation hopes that forthcoming elections will
provide a way out of the profound crisis
Strasbourg, 23.11.2016 – A delegation of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) was in Skopje on 21 and
22 November 2016 to assess the pre-electoral climate of the early
parliamentary elections scheduled for 11 December 2016.
The delegation*, led by Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), recalled
that these early elections were called in the framework of the implementation
of the EU-brokered Przino Agreement to put an end to the political
crisis that followed the April 2014 presidential and early parliamentary
elections. It also recalled that they had been postponed twice in
2016 and hoped that they will be held in a peaceful environment.
The main political parties considered that the minimum conditions
for the holding of elections had been met, the delegation noted.
However, several of its interlocutors mentioned, among the issues
still to be resolved, the accuracy of the voters list (now acknowledged
to be better than before but still having room for improvement) and
the continued misuse of administrative resources. The delegation
welcomed the fact that all political parties supported the holding
of these elections as scheduled on 11 December.
It took note of the concerns expressed by interlocutors about
media coverage of the campaign and regretted the polarisation of
the media, used more as a tool for propaganda than for informing
the public. It hoped that before polling day the main media outlets
will organise direct debates between candidates which would enable citizens
to make a more informed choice.
The delegation was concerned by the fact that the temporary
commission working within the framework of the Agency for Audio
and Visual Media Services, mandated with the task of monitoring
media representation, will last only until the completion of the
electoral process. Moreover, the delegation called on the public
broadcaster MRT to continue its efforts to ensure balanced coverage
even after the elections.
The delegation also called for concrete measures to be taken
to separate state and political party activities, and to prevent
intimidation of voters. The delegation also underlined the importance
of the work of the Special Prosecutor which should be continued
into the next legislature.
The fact that the electoral campaign had started calmly and
without incident was noted with satisfaction by the delegation,
which hopes that the forthcoming elections will provide a way out
of the prolonged crisis affecting the country.
The PACE pre-electoral delegation was in Skopje at the invitation
of the President of the Assembly. It met with the President of the
Assembly, with the Chairman and members of the State Election Commission,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of the Interior, the
Special Prosecutor, with leaders of political parties, representatives
of civil society, and of the media, with the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
election observation mission and with diplomats present in Skopje.
A fully-fledged 22-member PACE will arrive in Skopje prior
to the early parliamentary elections to observe the vote on 11 December.
* Members of the delegation: Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC),
Head of delegation; Egidijus Vareikis (Lithuania, EPP/CD); Cristina
De Pietro (Italy, ALDE); Suat Önal (Turkey, EC); Matjaz Hanzek (Slovenia,
UEL); Valeriu Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), PACE rapporteur for
the post-monitoring dialogue.
Appendix 4 –
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:
Stefan SCHENNACH (Austria, SOC), Chairperson
Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Vladyslav
GOLUB, Ukraine
- Vusal HUSEYNOV, Azerbaijan
- Frank JENSSEN, Norway
- Luís LEITE RAMOS, Portugal
- Şaban DÍŞLİ, Turkey
Socialist Group (SOC)
- Valeri JABLIANOV, Bulgaria
- George FOULKES, United Kingdom
- Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ, Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Muslum MAMMADOV, Azerbaijan
- Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria*
- Predrag SEKULIĆ, Montenegro
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Pauline
KRIKKE, Netherlands
Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
Venice Commission
Secretariat
- Bogdan TORCĂTORIU, Administrator,
Election Observation and Interparliamentary Co-operation Division
- Franck DAESCHLER, Principal Administrative Assistant,
Election Observation and Interparliamentary Co-operation Division
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Election Observation and Interparliamentary
Co-operation Division
- Domenico VALLARIO, Assistant Lawyer, Venice Commission
* members of the pre-electoral delegation
Appendix 5 –
Programme of the election observation mission (9-12 December 2016)
(open)
Friday
9 December 2016
09:00-09:45 PACE delegation internal meeting:
- Briefing on the pre-electoral
mission by Mr Stefan Schennach, Head of the Delegation
- Briefing by members of the pre-electoral mission
- Briefing on legal framework and recent modifications of
election legislation, by Mr Kåre Vollan, Expert of the Venice Commission
- Practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
Joint briefing with the OSCE-PA and European Parliament delegations:
10:00-10:20 Opening by the Heads of Delegations:
- Mr Roberto Battelli, Special
Co-ordinator
- Mr Azay Guliyev, Head of the OSCE-PA Delegation
- Mr Stefan Schennach, Head of the PACE Delegation
- Mr Igor Soltes, Head of the European Parliament Delegation
10:20-11:00 International community:
- Mr Jeff Goldstein, Acting Head of Mission, OSCE Mission
to Skopje
- Ambassador Samuel Žbogar, Head of the Delegation of the
European Union
11:00-11:15 Minister of the Interior, Mr Oliver Spasovski
11:15-11:30 Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Nikola Poposki
11:30-13:30 Meetings with political parties:
Leaders and representatives of the “Internal Macedonian Revolutionary
Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity” (VRMO-DPMNE)
Mr Aleksandar Nikolovski MP, VMRO-DPMNE
Leaders and representatives of the Democratic Union for Integration
(DUI), Mr Bekim Neziri, Chief of President’s Cabinet
Leaders and representatives of the “Social Democratic Union
of Macedonia” (SDSM), Mr Damjan Mancevski, Vice-President
Leaders and representatives of the “Democratic Party of Albanians”
(DPA)
Leaders and representatives of “BESA’’ Mr Kastriot Rexhepi,
member of the central leadership, and of the Headquarters for relations
with international community
Leaders and representatives of “Levica’’ Ms Marija Jones,
member of the Presidency and candidate
15:00-17-30 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission (Part I):
- Introduction
and overview of findings to date: Ms Tana de Zulueta, Head of Mission
- Political overview, election campaign, participation of
women and of national minorities: Ms Saša Pajević, Political Analyst
- Electoral system, legal framework, campaign finance, complaints
and appeals: Ms Tania Marques, Legal Analyst
- Election administration, candidate registration, election
observation: Ms Maša Janjušević, Election Analyst
- Voter registration: Mr Ovidiu Craiu, Voter Registration
Analyst
- Media environment and media monitoring findings: Mr Marek
Mračka, Media Analyst
- Security overview: Mr Peter Booker, Security Expert
Saturday,
10 December 2016
09:00-09:20 Special Prosecutor, Ms Katica Janeva
09:20-09:40 Public Prosecutor, Mr Malko Zvrlevski
09:40-11:45 Panel Discussion with media representatives
09:40-10:15 Part 1: Meeting with representatives of the media:
- Macedonian Institute for Media
(MIM): Ms Biljana Petkovska
- Media Development Center (MDC): Mr Dejan Georgievski
10:15-11:45 Part 2: Meeting with representatives of the media:
- Macedonian Association of Journalists
(MAN): Ms Ivona Talevska
- Kanal 5 TV: Mr Ivan Mircevski
- Telma TV: Ms Sanja Vasic
- Utrinski Vesnik (newspaper): Ms Slobodana Jovanovska
- MRT: Ms. Santa Agirova, Editor-in-chief
- Kurir: Ms Anastasija Bodanoska
11:45-12:45 Panel discussion with NGOs/INGOs:
- Human Rights Institute: Mr Miroslav
Draganov
- NGO Most: Mr Zlatko Dimitrioski
- NGO Civil: Mr Xhabir Derala
- Helsinki Committee: Mr Voislav Stojanovski
- Centre for Research and Policy Making (CRPM): Mr Zlatko
Simonovski and Mr Emil Shurkov
12:45-13:15 State Election Commission, Mr. Alexander Chichakovski,
President, and Mr Rexhep Prekopuca, Vice-President
13:15-14:45 Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR (Part II):
- Election day procedures: Ms Maša
Janjušević, Election Analyst
- Statistics and observation forms: Ms Karolina Riedel and
Mr Jonathan Mellon, Statistical analysts, and Mr Raul Mureșan, Deputy
Head of Mission
14:45-15:15 Meeting with OSCE/ODIHR EOM Long-Term Observers
based in Skopje
15:15-16:00 Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday,
11 December 2016
07:00 Opening of polling stations
19:00 Closing of polling stations
Monday,
12 December 2016
08:00 -09:00 PACE delegation debriefing meeting
14:30 Joint press conference
Appendix 6 –
Press release of the International Election Observation Mission
(IEOM)
(open)
Competitive
elections follow cross-party co-operation to end political crisis,
though need for sustainable reforms remains, international election
observers say in Skopje
Skopje, 12.12.2016 – The 11 December parliamentary elections
in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were competitive and
an essential step in resolving two years of deep political crisis,
but took place in an environment characterised by widespread public
mistrust in institutions and the political establishment, international
election observers concluded in a preliminary statement released
today.
While the main political forces agreed to a series of legal
and institutional changes to provide for a level playing field,
underlying issues such as those related to the media and voter registration
have yet to be addressed in a sustainable manner, the statement
says.
“The high turnout testifies that the voters understood the
crucial role good elections play in the future of their country,”
said Roberto Battelli, Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term
OSCE observer mission. “The political establishment now has a responsibility
to live up to these expectations. They have to make use of this momentum
and the mandate they have been given to carry on with reforms necessary
for the country’s future.”
Significant improvements to electoral legislation addressed
most previous recommendations by ODIHR and the Council of Europe’s
Venice Commission, and introduced temporary mechanisms for cross-party
oversight of key aspects of the electoral process. However, the
statement says, some recommendations remain unaddressed and certain
provisions are ambiguous.
“The country is at a new crossroads, which opens a path towards
normality in political life. All stakeholders must now prove their
commitment to directing the country along this path,” said Stefan
Schennach, Head of the delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe. “The different ethnic communities already
proved, during last summer’s street protests, that co-operation
towards a common political goal is possible. Now the entire country
must replace ethnic separation with nation-building co-operation.”
While fundamental freedoms were generally respected and contestants
were able to campaign freely, there were allegations of voter intimidation
and widespread pressure on civil servants, verified by observers
in a dozen cases.
“We saw an overwhelming number of people who wished for better
for their country and the generations to come. The positive trends
we observed now have to be turned into sustainable mechanisms, and
the shortcomings we list need to be addressed through meaningful
dialogue within the relevant State institutions, and the parliament
in particular,” said Azay Guliyev, Head of the delegation from the
OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. “All political forces need to work
to ensure there is no backsliding into political crisis.”
The State Election Commission (SEC) preparations for the elections
were hampered by inefficient internal organisation, politicised
decision-making and shortened legal deadlines, the observers said.
The Commission’s activities were not always transparent, as it often
held closed sessions and did not always publish its decisions. Election
day was generally well administered and proceeded without major
incidents.
“We believe these elections have shown the people of this
country want, and fully deserve, to see an end to the long period
of political crisis. We expect to see a clear signal from the new
government that it will work with all political parties in the parliament
to carry out urgently needed reforms,” said Igor Šoltes, Head of
the European Parliament delegation. “We call on all parties to provide
the necessary support for judicial institutions, and the Special
Prosecutor’s Office in particular, as its work must be carried out
in full.”
To address long-standing concerns about the accuracy of voters’
lists, for the first time the SEC reviewed the voters register,
by cross-checking several databases and conducting door-to-door
checks, the statement says. As the legal and structural flaws in
maintaining the voters register have yet to be addressed, the Commission’s review,
which applied only to these elections, does not guarantee sustainable
improvement.
The diverse media environment is split along political and
ethnic lines and media monitoring showed that, while the public
media largely provided contestants with equitable news coverage,
some private media outlets demonstrated bias in favour of the ruling
party. Significant foreseen media reforms have yet to be implemented.
“The events in the lead-up to these elections required cross-party
co-operation to find temporary mechanisms to address pressing issues.
As a result, the process was improved, particularly as regards the
media and the legal framework”, said Tana de Zulueta, Head of the
ODIHR election observation mission. “For these improvements to be
durable, underlying shortcomings will have to be addressed. This
will require further co-operation and commitment to systematic and,
most importantly, inclusive electoral reform efforts.”