Doc. 9111

1 June 2001

Ad Hoc Committee for the observation of the elections to the Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro/Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Report

Bureau of the Assembly

Rapporteur: Ms Vera Squarcialupi, Italy, Socialist Group

Introduction

1.       At the request of the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro, the Bureau set up an ad hoc committee to observe the elections to that Assembly, which took place on 22 April 2001. The Parliamentary Assembly's observers performed their task in close co-operation with the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR).

2.       A delegation from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) also monitored the elections. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) sent observers to municipalities with which it has, or intends to establish, special relations.

3.       The members of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau were:

Socialist Group (SOC)

Mr Andreas GROSS       Switzerland

Ms Vera SQUARCIALUPI       Italy

Group of the European People's Party (EPP/CD)

Mr Lauri VAHTRE       Estonia

Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group (LDR)

Mr Claude FREY       Switzerland

European Democratic Group (EDG)

Mr Cevdet AKÇALI       Turkey

Group of the United European Left (UEL)

Mr Pierre GOLDBERG       France

Secretariat:

John Hartland, Counsellor

Vladimir Dronov, Counsellor

David Ćupina, Secretary

4.       The ad hoc committee held a meeting on Saturday 21 April 2001, the second day of the briefing sessions organised by OSCE/ODIHR for the international observers. I was elected Rapporteur, and Mr Frey was elected Chairman of the delegation.

5.       Apart from observing the elections, we held talks with a number of public figures. A list of the persons whom we met is to be found in Appendix I.

6.       The Parliamentary Assembly's observers were assigned to five teams, which visited some one hundred polling stations. The teams travelled to Podgorica, Nikšić, Cetinje and Kolašin.

7.       The ad hoc committee wishes to thank the OSCE/ODIHR for its logistical support and, in particular, its long-term observers for the briefings they gave in locations where the teams were deployed.

The election campaign

8.       Following a government crisis in Montenegro, precipitated by the withdrawal of the third partner in the governing coalition, the People's Party (NS), the parties represented in parliament agreed on 24 January 2001 that an early general election would be held on 22 April 2001. The President of the Republic, Mr Milo Đukanović, officially called the election on 20 February 2001.

9.       The early elections of 22 April could be described as an advance referendum, in that they were to serve as a barometer of voter support for the option proposed by President Đukanović's coalition concerning the future status of the Republic of Montenegro and show, in particular, whether the two-thirds majority required for amendment of the Constitution could already be raised in the new parliament. If the Assembly of the Republic was to call a referendum (during the summer of 2001 or later), resulting in a change in Montenegro's status, under the Constitution a new general election would be held after the referendum and the constitutional amendments would have to be voted by a two-thirds majority of the new parliament.

10.       The parliamentary television channel gave all candidate lists the opportunity to present their programmes in the course of the campaign. The state-owned media were generally for the government and independence. However, Montenegro has a wide variety of media, and the public had access to the entire range of opinions.

11.       The election campaign ended on 19 April at midnight. All the parties and coalitions held meetings around the country. The future status of Montenegro was virtually the sole theme of the campaign.

12.       A number of complaints were lodged with the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission (EOM). The EOM nonetheless showed that these were unfounded and, in both its briefings and its preliminary conclusions, in fact drew attention to the transparency of the entire electoral process.

Observation of the elections

13.       The Republic constituted a single constituency. The ballot took place under the list system, with seats being allotted on a proportional basis subject to a 3% threshold. Half of the seats allotted to a party or coalition were distributed according to the order in which candidates were listed, and half at the discretion of the party or coalition. A "special district" with five seats was set up to safeguard the voting rights of national minorities. Here too, lists were required to win at least 3% of the vote. The five seats were filled on the basis of the outcome of the ballot at 70 polling stations located in the regions inhabited by minorities, according to a calculation allowing the combination of the results obtained at these polling stations with the parties' scores at national level.

14.       The electoral register included 447,673 voters, about one-third of whom were in the capital, Podgorica. Sixteen lists were in competition for the 77 seats. Two major coalitions had been formed: the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) coalition «Pobjeda je Crne Gore – Demokratska koalicija Milo Đukanović» (Victory for Montenegro), which was pro-independence, and the Socialist People's Party (SNP), People's Party (NS) and Serbian People's Party (SNS) coalition «Zajedno za Jugoslaviju» (Together for Yugoslavia), in favour of Montenegro's remaining within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The other main parties were the Montenegro Liberal Alliance (LSCG), in favour of immediate secession, those representing minorities (Bosnian Muslims and Albanians), regarded as pro-independence, and the People's Socialist Party (NSS), which was for maintaining the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia resulting from the 1992 Constitution, as amended in 2000.

15.       Voting took place in a calm, pleasant atmosphere; no incidents were reported. Our teams were well received in all polling stations, although the welcome was somewhat cool in most polling stations in the town of Nikšić, regarded as a conservative stronghold. There was no police presence in the immediate vicinity of polling stations, and no noticeable tension, despite what was at stake. Counting of the votes was also problem-free. The electorate must be praised for its maturity and dignity, not always observed in west European countries.

16.       As a result of accreditations granted by the Election Commission to the Centre for Democratic Transition (CDT), the Centre for Monitoring (CEMI), the CeSID in Belgrade (see Mr Gross's report on the elections in Serbia), the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee for Human Rights and 273 international observers, some 3,000 observers were present in polling stations to monitor the voting and counting processes. All of the international observers were impressed by the professionalism and competence of the members of the electoral boards and the sense of responsibility shown by their Chairs. The scrutineers were well familiar with the procedure to be followed before, during and after the opening of polling stations. The OSCE/ODIHR's short-term observers recorded all information of relevance to the proper conduct of the elections on special forms intended for the headquarters of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission (EOM) in the different municipalities. For the international observers' assessment of the elections, reference should be made to the preliminary conclusions contained in Appendix 2 of this document.

17.       To prevent people from voting twice, voters had a special ink, which could be detected with an ultra-violet lamp, applied to one of their fingers (see Mr Gross's report on the elections in Serbia). The team deployed in Nikšić noted that, because party logos were not shown on the ballot papers, some illiterate Roma families experienced difficulty in voting.

Results of the ballot

18. Total turnout stood at almost 81%, an indication of voters' confidence in the transparency and fairness of the electoral process.

19.       The final results published by the Republic Election Commission gave 42.04% of votes and 36 seats to the "Victory for Montenegro" coalition, 40.56 % of votes and 33 seats to the "Together for Yugoslavia" coalition, 7.85% of votes and 6 seats to the Liberal Alliance, and respectively 1.15% and 0.97 % of votes, and 1 seat out of the five allotted to the "special district", to the two Albanian parties in Montenegro, the Democratic Union of Albanians and the Democratic Alliance in Montenegro. On the other hand, the People's Socialist Party fell somewhat short of the 3% threshold.

Observations

20.       The results of the elections did not help to unravel the Gordian knot of relations between the two republics which, de jure, make up the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). A more serious cause for concern is that the people of Montenegro still seem to be divided on the question of the republic's independence, although, on totalising the scores obtained by parties in favour of secession (either immediately or after fresh consultations with the Serb and Yugoslav governments), it can be seen that there is an, albeit slight, majority for independence.

21.       It would therefore seem that President Đukanović's room for manœuvre is reduced, and his choice of ruling coalition will necessarily determine the trend of future relations with the two authorities in Belgrade, which is the capital of both the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade has well understood the message, and, despite its firm stance in principle (it still appears to rule out the possibility of a union of two sovereign, internationally recognised states), it has shown signs of being willing to renegotiate the terms of the federal pact between the two republics. President Đukanović is playing for time and will doubtless seek to postpone the referendum, which his coalition must propose as a duty to its electors, until he has obtained the greatest possible number of concessions from the FRY and Serbia.

22.       The results of the elections are being closely analysed in the neighbouring states of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. In Kosovo, where all the Kosovar political parties are pro independence, although no mention is made of the word in the mandate of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the idea that the future status of Kosovo might be linked to secession of the Republic of Montenegro or its maintenance within the FRY is rejected. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the political situation has recently been difficult, the Republic of Srpska would seem to be deriving political and economic advantage from the lack of relations between the two federate states.

Conclusions

23.       In general, the elections in Montenegro were conducted in accordance with relevant Council of Europe and OSCE standards. They confirmed the progress already noted during the municipal by-elections held in 2000.

24.       Through their votes members of the public showed that they entertain some doubts about the governing coalition's independence platform. Although the balance of power confirms that the country is moving closer to this option, the trend in favour of independence is not significantly reinforced. The situation therefore still seems to be at a standstill, although in many respects Montenegro in fact already functions as a sovereign state. A great deal will depend on further consultation between the two republics members of the FRY, which in any case agree that there is a need for a more or less fundamental overhaul of their relations.

25.       In order to call a referendum on the future status of Montenegro, the new parliament needs only a simple majority, which it already has. Nonetheless, instead of a referendum, the country could hold a popular consultation offering people a direct choice between two options for the future status of Montenegro, viz.:

i. independence,

ii. a reorganisation of confederate relations between Montenegro and Serbia, allowing Montenegro the widest possible autonomy.

Appendix 1

PROGRAMME

20 – 23 April 2001

Friday 20 April

Crna Gora Hotel

16:00       Panel of international organisations, NGOs and analysts: the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee for Human Rights (MCHR), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Centre for Monitoring (CEMI), the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM), the Centre for Democratic Transition (CDT) and the Institute for Strategic Studies (ISSP)

18:00       Close of the discussion

Saturday 21 April

Crna Gora Hotel

08:30       Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM

10:00       Briefing by Mr Stevan Damjanović, Chairman of the Republic Election Commission

10:30       Briefing by Mr Svetozar Marović, Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic

11:00       Briefing by Mr Branko Lukovac, Minister for Foreign Affairs

11:30       Briefing by media representatives - Crna Gora and Montena TV channels

12:30       Meeting of the ad hoc committee

13:30       Briefings by political parties

16:00       Briefing on logistics and deployment

17:00       Deployment of observers outside Podgorica

Sunday 22 April

Election day

Monday 23 April

Joint debriefing session with the OSCE/ODIHR EOM

14:00 Joint OSCE/Council of Europe press conference

   
 


INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION
Republic of Montenegro / Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Parliamentary Election - 22 April 2001

Preliminary Conclusions (Excerpt from the statement of preliminary findings and conclusions) 1

The 22 April 2001 election of Representatives to the Assembly in the Republic of Montenegro, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was generally conducted in accordance with OSCE commitments for democratic elections formulated in the 1990 Copenhagen Document and the Council of Europe standards. This assessment confirmed the progress noted during the 2000 municipal by-elections in the Republic, though shortcomings remain.

The election was held prior to the expiration of the term for which the Assembly was elected in 1998. The Assembly was dissolved in February as a result of a split in the ruling coalition that left the remaining parties without a majority. The split occurred over the future of Montenegro within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an issue that fully dominated the election campaign.

Positive features of the electoral process in Montenegro include:

    • Broad participation of diverse political parties and coalitions in the election, including parties representing minority interests;

    • Large number of electronic and print media, including a parliamentary TV channel devoted exclusively to the pre-election campaign, giving voters access to a broad range of information and opinions;

    • Exceptional transparency regarding access to and scrutiny of the voter register by political parties and citizens;

    • Inclusive representation of political parties on election commissions at all levels;

    • Publication of detailed voting results at polling station, municipality and central levels; and

    • Broad access for domestic observer organizations to monitor the polling and counting.

While noting the overall strengths of the electoral framework in Montenegro, shortcomings remain:

    • Control of election mandates by political parties and coalitions;

    • Insufficient transparency for the allocation of five parliamentary seats reserved for specially designated polling stations serving national minorities;

    • Indications of political pressure on State employees, particularly police, on one hand, and involvement of police in campaign related activities including isolated incidents of violence against opponents on the other;

    • Rhetoric, using language beyond acceptable limits, during the final stage of the campaign;

    • Inflammatory campaign statements from some members of the opposition, stressing the risk of ethnic tension and urging members of the Albanian and Bosniak Muslim minorities not to vote should a referendum election be called;

    • Questionable interpretation of laws relating to the composition of municipal election commissions and polling boards;

    • Small number of errors in the voter register that must be remedied before any future polls in Montenegro;

    • Election propaganda during the 48-hour campaign silence period on 20-21 April in all print media; and

    • Lower proportion of women candidates than in some OSCE participating States, resulting in fewer women having the opportunity to be elected.

The IEOM received numerous complaints from the opposition regarding large numbers of falsified ID, and duplicates, "phantom voters", names of deceased persons, and omissions in the voter register. The IEOM investigated these complaints and found that a small number of errors (less than 1% of the total number of voters) exist in the voter register, although a significant effort was undertaken to improve the register during the past year. However, the IEOM found that the degree of accuracy of the voter register falls within the parameters of established democracies with similar registration systems. Similarly, allegations that the Montenegro Ministry of Interior had received 50,000 blank ID forms to hand over to ineligible voters proved groundless. Thus, the IEOM found no evidence to support allegations that the voter register was manipulated.

Based on the observations of 214 international observers visiting 738 polling stations in all 21 Municipalities on election day, the voting process and counting were carried out largely in accordance with the legal and procedural requirements and in a calm atmosphere for an overwhelming proportion of cases. Most significantly, the turnout was high, indicating voter confidence in the process, and voters appear to have been able to exercise their right to vote freely. The main difficulty noted on election day was with some individuals not finding their names on the voter registers and consequently not allowed to vote. This appears to be mainly as a result of an inadequate understanding of the proper procedures for eligibility and for updating their data on the voter register. These cases seem isolated and not related to any particular group.

 
 

1 The statement of preliminary findings and conclusions was issued by the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) for the 22 April 2001 early election of Representatives to the Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The IEOM represented a joint effort of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - including the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Parliamentary Assembly, and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly and its Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe.