See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 13920
| 17 November 2015
Observation of the parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan (4 October 2015)
1. Introduction
1. At its meeting on 22 June 2015,
the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly decided, subject to receiving an
invitation, to observe the parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan
on 4 October 2015; for this purpose, it constituted an ad hoc committee
composed of 20 members and also including the rapporteur of the
Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on “Evaluation of the
Partnership for Democracy in respect of the Parliament of the Kyrgyz
Republic”. On 7 August 2015, the Assembly received the invitation
from the Kyrgyz authorities to observe the parliamentary elections.
On 31 August 2015, the Bureau took note of the declarations by the candidates
for the observation mission confirming the absence of any conflict
of interest, approved the composition of the ad hoc committee and
appointed Ms Meritxell Mateu Pi (Andorra, ALDE) as its Chairperson (see
Appendix 1).
2. On 4 October 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly and the European
Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) signed
a co-operation agreement. Under Article 15 of the agreement, “[w]hen
the Bureau of the Assembly decides to observe an election in a country
in which electoral legislation was previously examined by the Venice
Commission, one of the rapporteurs of the Venice Commission on this
issue may be invited to join the Assembly’s election observation
mission as legal adviser”. The Bureau of the Assembly therefore
invited a member of the Venice Commission to join the ad hoc committee
as legal adviser.
3. The ad hoc committee operated as part of an international
election observation mission which also included observers from
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the European Parliament and the election
observation mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights of the OSCE (OSCE/ODIHR).
4. The ad hoc committee met in Bishkek from 2 to 5 October 2015.
Under the briefing programme appended hereto, it met with leaders
and representatives of the main political parties contesting the
elections, the Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission,
the head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission and his
team, and representatives of civil society, international organisations
and the media. The programme of the ad hoc committee’s meetings
is set out in Appendix 2.
5. On polling day, 4 October 2015, the ad hoc committee split
into 11 teams which were deployed in Bishkek and the surrounding
areas and in the localities of Kara Balta, Stepnoy, Ysyk-Köl and
Chaek, Talas, Balykchy, Osh and Jalal-Abad.
6. The international election observation mission concluded that
the parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan were competitive and provided
voters with a wide choice. Voting was transparent, and voters made
their choice freely among a large number of contestants. Nevertheless,
Kyrgyzstan needs to improve its electoral legal framework, and more
particularly its implementation, to guarantee the constitutional
right of all citizens to participate in elections, to improve their
biometric data protection and to make strict regulations concerning their
use. The transparency of election campaign and political party financing
should be reinforced. The press release issued by the international
election observation mission after the election can be found in
Appendix 3.
2. Political context and legal
framework
7. The Parliamentary Assembly
observed the 2011 presidential election in the Kyrgyz Republic as
part of an international election observation mission (IEOM) which
concluded that “[t]he presidential election in Kyrgyzstan was conducted
in a peaceful manner, but shortcomings underscored that the integrity
of the electoral process should be improved to consolidate democratic
practice in line with international commitments”.
8. On 27 October 2011, the President of the Parliament of the
Kyrgyz Republic submitted an official request for partner for democracy
status with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The Assembly welcomed this request, the first from a country of
Central Asia.
9. On 8 April 2014, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted
Resolution 1984 (2014) on the request for Partner for Democracy status with
the Parliamentary Assembly by the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic,
in which it underlined the following issues relating to elections:
- holding free and fair elections
in accordance with relevant international standards and improving
the electoral legal framework in co-operation with the Venice Commission;
- enhancing public interest in, and awareness of, the democratic
process, as well as ensuring a higher level of participation in
elections and involvement of citizens in political life;
- strengthening public monitoring of elections by independent
observers, including strengthening the capacities of domestic observer
networks.
10. On 25 July 2015, the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, Almazbek
Atambayev, called parliamentary elections to the Supreme Council
(Jogorku Kenesh), which were
scheduled for 4 October 2015.
11. In 2010, Kyrgyzstan adopted its new Constitution. The Venice
Commission, in its 2010 opinion on the draft Constitution,
welcomed
“the effort of the Provisional Government and the Constitutional
Assembly of Kyrgyzstan aimed at drafting a new Constitution that
is fully in line with democratic standards”. However, it noted a
number of constitutional provisions which could be further improved:
- additional measures to ensure
the independence of the judiciary should be introduced into the
text;
- the complex rules for the formation of the government,
which could lead to various, sometimes widely differing interpretations,
should be revised;
- the role of the Procuratura should be reconsidered;
- the limits of the powers of the President to issue decrees
and orders could be defined in a clearer way.
12. The legal framework consists essentially of two laws: the
2010 Constitutional Law on Parliamentary and Presidential Elections
(“the Electoral Law”), which was revised in April 2015, and the
Law on Election Commissions to Conduct Elections and Referenda,
which was revised in June 2015. There are also provisions dealing
with electoral processes in the Code of Administrative Procedures
and the Criminal Code as well as instructions and decisions issued
by the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda.
13. The Electoral Law was considerably amended in 2011 and 2015.
The Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR issued two joint electoral
opinions respectively in
2011 and
in
2014 .
Despite the progress made, they expressed concerns with regard to
significant limitations to certain civil and political rights. They particularly
underlined the following concerns:
- the Electoral Law places limitations on the right to be
a candidate for persons participating in representative government;
- certain provisions regulating the formation of election
commissions at various levels could benefit from clearer delineation;
- some provisions of the Electoral Law lead to limitations
on the rights to freedom of expression and association;
- the process for filing and adjudicating complaints and
appeals should be revised to ensure better protection of suffrage
rights;
- certain provisions do not facilitate the representation
of women and persons belonging to national minorities; in particular,
the rules on allocation of seats to candidates on a list should
be revised and the double threshold should be reconsidered.
- the Electoral Law provides for possibilities of cancelling
a candidate’s registration for a variety of reasons;
- some provisions of the Electoral Law lead to excessive
control of an elected deputy’s mandate, resulting de facto in an imperative mandate;
- the Electoral Law provides for increased electoral deposits
and continues to require both supporting signatures and electoral
deposits for some candidacies;
- the Electoral Law should include effective provisions
for ensuring equitable media access and coverage;
- the Electoral Law should also include effective provisions
for transparency and accountability in campaign finance.
14. The amendments to the Electoral Law adopted in April 2015
provide for compulsory biometric identification of voters and the
use of ballot paper scanners, streamlining of the procedures for
settling electoral disputes, increased electoral deposits and higher
upper limits on campaign financing and expenditure. These amendments
were not submitted to the Venice Commission for legal review and
were therefore not assessed by it.
15. The Kyrgyz Parliament is a 120-member unicameral parliament.
Its members are elected for a five-year term through a closed-list
proportional representation system in a single nationwide constituency
with a double threshold (see paragraph 16). Independent candidates
are not allowed to run for parliamentary elections. Registered voters
who have reached the age of 21 on polling day may be elected to
parliament unless they have a criminal record which has not been
cancelled.
16. To win seats, a party must obtain at least 7% of the votes
cast nationwide and at least 0.7% of the votes in each of the seven
regions (
oblasts), as well
as in the cities of Bishkek and Osh. Under the Constitution, the representation
of a political party in parliament is limited to 65 seats in order
to avoid the dominance of a party. The Venice Commission and the
OSCE/ODIHR criticised the double threshold rule and the limit on
the number of seats in their 2014 Opinion.
17. The government led by the Prime Minister is formed by the
party holding more than 50% of the seats in parliament. However,
if no party holds such a majority, the President selects a party
to form the coalition majority and government. In the 2010 parliamentary
elections, five parties obtained seats in parliament and three of
them formed a coalition, the other two becoming opposition parties.
Since 2010, the ruling coalition has been re-formed three times.
The current ruling coalition consists of the Social Democratic Party
of Kyrgyzstan (SDPK), with 26 seats in parliament, Ar-Namys (25
seats) and Ata Meken (18 seats). Ata Jurt (28 seats) and Respublika
(23 seats) form the opposition.
3. Electoral administration
and registration of voters and candidates
18. The elections of 4 October
2015 were administered by a three-tier system of electoral commissions.
The Central Electoral Commission (CEC) is a permanent body elected
by parliament for a five-year term of office. It has 12 members:
the President, the parliamentary majority and the parliamentary
opposition each appoint four members. The current CEC was formed
in July 2011.
19. The parliamentary elections of 4 October 2015 were organised
by 54 territorial election commissions (TECs) and 2 374 precinct
election commissions (PECs), including 36 in 26 foreign countries.
The TECs and PECs are formed for two-year terms from political parties
and local authorities. The appointments made by local authorities
are based on proposals from non-governmental organisations and groups
of voters.
20. The ad hoc committee of the Parliamentary Assembly was informed
that the meetings of the CEC were open to representatives of political
parties, the media and observers. A less positive aspect was that
the meeting agendas were not published in advance and that the CEC
did not always inform the international observers about future meetings.
Moreover, on 2 October 2015, the Chair of the CEC hurriedly left
a meeting with the international observers without answering all
the questions. Some decisions of the CEC were not published in full
or were published belatedly. Most of the recommendations in the
Venice Commission’s 2011 Opinion concerning electoral administration
were focused on improved transparency, training and the implementation
in good faith of existing provisions. The problems observed stemmed
above all from unsatisfactory implementation, not from the law itself.
21. All citizens aged 18 or over on polling day are entitled to
participate in elections. In all, 2 761 297 voters were registered
on the electoral rolls. However, the total number of citizens enjoying
the constitutional right to vote remains uncertain. Different institutions
give very different figures. It appears that a certain number of citizens
were not registered during the biometric registration campaign.
According to figures provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
612 747 Kyrgyz citizens of voting age live out of the country. Only
10% of them were able to register their biometric data in order
to participate in the elections. 15 322 voters were registered to
vote in Kyrgyz diplomatic missions.
22. For the first time, voter lists were drawn up on the basis
of the Unified Population Register (UPR), for which the State Registration
Department is responsible. This measure was mainly intended to eliminate
errors in the population register and should make it easier to combat
electoral fraud; citizens have to provide their biometric data to
the State Registration Department in order to be registered to vote.
Biometric data required, amongst other things, an imprint of the
ten fingers of the hands.
23. Most people with whom the ad hoc committee spoke were in favour
of the idea of biometric identification, but some were deeply concerned
about the short time available for carrying out such a complex procedure. Others
also expressed concern over the inadequacy of the guarantees regarding
protection of their personal data. Only biometric passports and
identity cards were accepted as voter ID on polling day. It would
appear that some 28 000 voters still have the old identity cards
(known as “1994 passports”).
24. The ad hoc committee noted that the use of new technologies
for biometric registration of voters and electronic scanning of
ballot papers showed the desire of the Kyrgyz authorities to improve
the electoral process and make it more transparent and was, generally
speaking, a success.
25. However, the hasty introduction of biometric registration
of voters led to considerable problems regarding inclusiveness of
voter lists and raised legitimate concerns as to the safeguards
put in place to protect personal data. According to figures provided
by the OSCE/ODIHR observers, some 15% of all voters were not registered
at the polling station where, according to their home addresses,
they should have been registered.
26. The deadline for registration of party lists was set at 25
August 2015. Initially, 34 parties announced their intention of
participating in the election, but many failed to provide the necessary
documentation, including proof that they had paid the electoral
deposit; consequently, they were not registered. Fourteen political
parties were registered by the CEC for the parliamentary elections.
All submitted their list of candidates and paid the required electoral
deposit of KGS 5 million (about €72 800). This deposit is refunded
only to parties which obtain at least 5% of the votes cast.
27. All registered party lists complied with the quotas established
by the Electoral Law concerning gender, national minorities, youth
and persons with disabilities. Registration of lists of candidates
is conditional on compliance with the following quotas:
- lists must include at least
30% men and 30% women, and the under-represented sex must appear
at least once in each group of four candidates on the list;
- at least 15% of candidates on each list must be from national
minorities;
- at least 15% of candidates on each list must be under
the age of 35, and at least two must be people with disabilities.
28. Article 3 of the Electoral Law withdraws the right to stand
from any citizen who has been the subject of a conviction, regardless
of the nature of the offence committed. This article was the main
reason for the rejection of individual candidates for these elections.
The Assembly regrets this restrictive approach of the electoral
legislation. In their 2011 and 2014 opinions, the Venice Commission
and OSCE/ODIHR recommended that the law should be amended so that
the right to stand can only be withdrawn where a person has been
convicted of committing a crime of such a serious nature that the
loss of political rights is proportionate to the crime committed,
and only where a judge has made a specific determination that the circumstances
of the individual case require forfeiture of rights.
4. Election campaign, campaign
financing and media coverage
29. The election campaign began
on 4 September and ended 24 hours before the start of voting. In
the early stages of the campaign, the most prominent parties were
Ata Meken, Bir Bol, Onuugu-Progress and the SDPK. Ar-Namys, Butun
Kyrgyzstan-Emgek, Kyrgyzstan, Meken Yntymagy, Respublika-Ata Jurt
and Uluu Kirghizistan were also active in some geographical regions.
30. The election campaign was calm and peaceful. According to
the observers, the main parties mounted highly visible campaigns
throughout the country and for the entire campaign period. The President
of the Republic was highly visible during the campaign, and the
SDPK used his popularity to its advantage. According to the international
long-term observers, the misuse of State resources in favour of
particular parties, which had been a concern in the past, was not
raised as a major issue in these elections.
31. A number of people with whom the Assembly’s ad hoc committee
spoke mentioned cases of vote buying. Addressing a gathering of
political parties in Bishkek on 15 September, Prime Minister Temir
Sariyev called on political parties to stop trying to buy votes
and collecting voters’ passports. According to the OSCE/ODIHR observers,
five residents of Jalal-Abad stated on 3 October that they had received
money from a political party to vote for it.
32. The main political parties built their election campaigns
around the themes of the fight to reduce unemployment and foster
economic development, the fight against corruption and organised
crime, and the fight against the dangers of mounting religious tensions
and religious extremism.
33. The election campaign was financed from political parties’
election funds. These funds may receive contributions from the party
and the candidates and voluntary donations from individuals or legal
entities. Candidates on party lists cannot set up their own election
fund. Parties do not receive any public funding. The Electoral Law
prohibits donations from State-owned or anonymous foreign sources
and from religious or charitable organisations, and sets limits
on the amount of contributions, donations and total campaign expenditure.
According to the audit report of 14 September 2015, the Onuguu-Progress
Party had spent the largest amount since its election fund was started
(KGS 92.6 million, or around €1.2 million), followed by Respublika-Ata
Jurt, Ata Meken and the SDPK.
34. The Electoral Law also limits the amount of contributions,
donations and total campaign expenditure. In the 2014 Opinion, the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR emphasised the need for transparency
and accountability in campaign finance and effective mechanisms
for monitoring legal compliance through audits. According to many
people with whom the ad hoc committee spoke, the real campaign expenditure
of political parties and their candidates is far in excess of the
official figures contained in the audit reports.
35. Articles 22 to 28 of the Electoral Law regulate the media
during elections. Television is the main source of political information
for the population. The majority of television stations with nationwide
coverage are fully or partly State-owned and the Electoral Law requires
these television stations to allocate at least one hour of free
airtime per working day to parties competing in the upcoming elections.
According to the OSCE/ODIHR media monitoring report, the public
channels complied with this legislative requirement. However, the
channels TV 5 and Piramida, which were nationalised in 2011 and
received public funding in 2015, did not comply with the legislation
and did not allocate one hour of free airtime to political parties.
36. Election campaign coverage is seen by the media as an opportunity
to make money. It allows the media to sell airtime and space to
contestants, provided that prices are equal for all contestants
and are published within ten days after elections are announced.
The CEC has established special accreditation for media outlets that
offer paid political advertisements and can suspend the right to
publish paid political advertisements if a media outlet fails to
provide objective coverage of the campaign or the elections, or
if it attempts to damage the honour or dignity of election commissioners.
37. Generally, the ad hoc committee found that media coverage
was balanced. However, it draws attention to the Venice Commission’s
2014 opinion on the need for improvement in the provisions regulating
the media in elections, particularly as regards the following points:
providing equitable coverage of contestants; respecting the right
of the media to exercise independent editorial coverage of campaign
events; and removing the requirement for special accreditation for
media outlets to cover the electoral campaign.
5. Polling day
38. Polling day was calm and the
voting well organised. The ad hoc committee took note of the smooth running
of the election and of the presence of party representatives and
observers at a large number of the polling stations visited. Generally,
the voting process went smoothly. Polling station staff gave the
observers their full co-operation.
39. The ad hoc committee identified a number of technical shortcomings
in the polling stations visited:
- the
system for scanning ballot papers worked well on the whole, with
some problems noted; however, it gave rise to concerns over ballot
secrecy because voters’ choices were visible on the ballot papers
when they were scanned and placed in the ballot box; according to
ODIHR, voting secrecy was not guaranteed in 27% of the polling stations
visited;
- the secrecy of the vote was not respected: the ballot
papers had no envelopes and the booths no curtains; the voter was
not anonymous as his face and contact details appeared on the screens
of the polling station as soon as he received the ballot paper to
indicate the party of his choice; the ballots were entered into
the ballot box-scanner in full view of everyone;
- a considerable number of voters were registered at polling
stations which did not correspond to their place of residence, or
were not listed despite having completed the biometric registration
procedure;
- in some polling stations, voter information was lacking;
- there were some problems with regard to identity cards;
- cases were noted of unintentional failure to comply with
procedures for counting votes and preparing results protocols;
- many polling stations visited had an excessive number
of registered voters (as many as 4 000), which, in practice, would
have prevented many voters from voting in the event of a large turnout;
- in general, polling stations were inaccessible or accessible
only with difficulty for people with disabilities.
40. According to the official results announced by the CEC on
15 October, six parties obtained seats in the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan:
the SDPK – 38 seats; Respublika-Ata – 28 seats; the Kyrgyzstan Party
– 18 seats; Onuugu-Progress – 13 seats; Bir-Bol – 12 seats; and
Ata Meken – 11 seats.
6. Conclusions
and recommendations
41. The ad hoc committee of the
Parliamentary Assembly concluded that the parliamentary elections
of 4 October 2015 in Kyrgyzstan were competitive and offered voters
a wide choice; voters were able to choose freely from among a large
number of candidates. Voting was also transparent. Polling day was
calm and the voting quite well organised. The ad hoc committee noted
with satisfaction the presence of a large number of party representatives
and non-partisan domestic observers at the polling stations visited.
42. Regarding the legal framework, these elections were the first
to be held under the 2011 Electoral Law as amended at the beginning
of this year. The ad hoc committee regrets that a certain number
of Venice Commission recommendations were not taken into consideration
when the electoral legislation was amended. It considers that Kyrgyzstan
needs to considerably improve its legal framework governing elections,
and in particular the implementation thereof, in order to guarantee
the constitutional right of all citizens to participate in elections
in good conditions.
43. The ad hoc committee welcomes the fact that the election campaign
was conducted in a calm and peaceful manner without any of the tensions
and violence seen in previous elections. In this connection, it underlines
the maturity and sense of responsibility shown by the main political
players involved in the elections.
44. The Assembly’s observer delegation heard from various sources
about cases of irregularities during the election campaign, in particular
the misuse of administrative resources by candidates and allegations
of bribing of voters. The ad hoc committee calls on the competent
Kyrgyz authorities and political leaders to exclude such practices
from the electoral process in future because they undermine voter
confidence in the elections and the democratic values they embody.
45. With regard to the financing of political parties and the
election campaign, the ad hoc committee regrets that the Venice
Commission’s recommendations contained in the 2014 Opinion have
still, to a large extent, not been acted upon. This applies in particular
to the recommendations concerning the transparency and accountability
of campaign finance and the availability of effective mechanisms
for monitoring legal compliance through audits. According to many
sources, the real campaign expenditure of political parties and
their candidates was far in excess of the official figures contained
in the audit reports.
46. The ad hoc committee considers that the Parliamentary Assembly
should continue its close co-operation with the newly elected Kyrgyz
Parliament via its partner for democracy status, and with the Venice Commission,
in order to resolve the problems noted during the parliamentary
elections of 4 October 2015. The ad hoc committee therefore calls
on the Kyrgyz authorities to continue co-operating with the Parliamentary Assembly
in order to implement the recommendations contained in
Resolution 1984 (2014), as well as those of the Venice Commission contained
in the 2011 and 2014 Opinions, in order to improve its legal framework and
electoral practices.
47. The ad hoc committee considers that the Council of Europe
and its Parliamentary Assembly should continue to help Kyrgyzstan,
by means of their various co-operation programmes, to improve its
legal framework governing elections and the implementation thereof.
Appendix 1 –
Composition of the ad hoc committee
(open)
Based on proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
Meritxell MATEU PI (Andorra, ALDE), Chairperson
- Socialist
Group (SOC)
- Josette
DURRIEU, France
- Gisela WURM, Austria
- Group
of the European People’s Party (EEP/CD)
- Deborah BERGAMINI, Italy
- Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Latvia
- Stefaan VERCAMER, Belgium
- Andres HERKEL, Estonia
- Yves POZZO DI BORGO, France
- Attila TILKI, Hungary
- Alliance
of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
- André BUGNON, Switzerland
- Nellija KLEINBERGA, Latvia
- Meritxell MATEU PI, Andorra
- Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI, Georgia
- European
Conservatives Group (EC)
- Lord Richard BALFE, United Kingdom
- Ingebjørg GODSKESEN, Norway
- Venice
Commission
- Nicolae
ESANU (Republic of Moldova)
- Secretariat
- Chemavon CHAHBAZIAN, Head of
the Election observation and Interparliamentary co-operation Division,
Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Election observation and Interparliamentary
co-operation Division, Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly
- Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Administrator, Venice Commission
Appendix 2 –
Programme of the election observation mission (2-5 October 2015)
(open)
Friday
2 October 2015
10:30-11:30 PACE ad hoc committee internal meeting:
- Opening by Ms Meritxell Mateu
Pi, Head of the delegation
- Information by the Venice Commission secretariat on the
recent developments in the legal framework
- Information by the secretariat of PACE on the deployment,
logistic questions; distribution of files
Joint briefings OSCE-PA, EP and PACE
13:00-13:20 Opening by Heads of delegation:
- Mr Ignacio Sánchez-Amor, Special
Co-ordinator of the short-term OSCE observers
- Mr Ryszard Czarnnecki, Head of Delegation of the European
Parliament
- Ms Meritxell Mateu Pi, Head of Delegation of the PACE
- Ms Ivana Dobesova, Head of Delegation of the OSCE-PA
13:30-14:00 Introduction:
- Mr
John MacGregor, Head of the OSCE office in the Kyrgyz Republic
- Ambassadeur Cesare de Montis, Head of the European Commission
delegation in the Kyrgyz Republic
- Mr Alexander Avanessov, United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) representative in the Kyrgyz Republic
14:00-15:30 Information meeting with Ambassador Boris Frlec,
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission and members
of the core team
15:45-16:45 Meeting with Mr Tuigunaaly Abdraimov, Chairperson
of the Central Electoral Commission, and Mr Dastan Dogoev, Deputy
to the Chairperson of the State Registration Service
16:45-18:45 Chairpersons or candidates of political parties
represented in the parliament:
- Ms
Baktygul Kubanyhbekova and Mr Omurbek Addrakhmanova, Ar-Namys Party
- Ms Aijan Orozakunova, Respublika-Ata-Jurt Party
Saturday
3 October 2015
09:00-10:30 Chairpersons or candidates of political
parties:
- Mr Doslay Esenaliev,
Bir Bol “Be one” party for national unity and patriotism
- Mr Tokon Mamytov, Butun “United” Kyrgyzstan – Emgek “Labor”
10:45-12:00 NGO Round table. Theme: overview of the political
situation and key election-related issues of the 2015 election
- Valentyn Bogatyrev, Coordinator
analytical consortium “Perspektiva”
- Cholpon Omurkanova, NGO Eagl (gender and election monitoring)
- Aynura Usupbekova, NGO Taza Shailoo (trains local long-term
and short-term observers)
- Tolekan Ismailova, NGO Bir Duino
- Dinara Oshurakhunova, Head of Coalition for Democracy
and Society
- Bektur Osmonbaev, Legal clinic Adilet (contesting obligatory
biometrics)
12:00-13:00 Media Roundtable:
- Illiam Karypbekov, Director general of State TV and Radio
company (KTRK) and Adel Laisheva, Chair of the KTRK pre-election
campaign debates
- Bakyt Baketaev, political commentator and analyst
- Kabay Karabekov, “Kommercant”
newspaper
13:00-13:30 OSCE/ODIHR Briefing (security, co-ordination,
forms)
13:30-14:30 Deployment information and meeting with drivers
and interpreters
Sunday
4 October 2015
All day Opening of polling stations
Observation of elections
Closing of polling stations
Monday
5 October 2015
08:00- 08:45 PACE ad hoc committee debriefing
meeting
09:30-11:00 Meeting of Heads of delegation
14:00 Joint press conference of the Heads of delegation
Appendix 3 –
Press release issued by the international election observation mission
(IEOM)
(open)
Elections
in Kyrgyzstan were competitive and offered voters a wide range of
choice, while highlighting need for improved procedures and transparency,
international observers say
Bishkek, 5 October 2015 – The parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan
were competitive and provided voters with a wide range of choice,
while the manner in which they were administered highlighted the
need for better procedures and increased transparency, the international
observers concluded in a preliminary statement released today.
While the use of new voting technologies, signalling the political
will to improve elections, was successful in many respects, the
hurried introduction of biometric registration resulted in significant
problems in the inclusiveness of the voter list. This, concerns
over ballot secrecy and significant procedural problems during the
vote count were the main issues that tarnished what was a generally
smooth election day, the observers said. “These lively and competitive
elections were unique in this region as, until 8 o’clock last night,
nobody knew what the composition of the parliament would be,” said
Ignacio Sánchez Amor, Special Co-ordinator and Leader of the short-term
OSCE observer mission. “Impressive efforts were made to implement
biometric registration and new voting technologies, but procedural
shortcomings point to the need for further work.”
Yesterday’s parliamentary elections were keenly contested,
with the main parties in particular mounting highly visible campaigns
throughout the country and for the entire campaign period, the observers
said. The President was highly visible during the campaign, and
one political party used his prestige to its benefit. The misuse
of State resources in the favour of particular parties, a concern
in the past, was not raised as a major issue in these elections,
the statement says. “Yesterday, voting was transparent, and voters
made their choice freely among a large number of contestants,” said
Meritxell Mateu Pi, Head of the PACE Delegation. “Nevertheless, Kyrgyzstan
needs to improve its electoral legal framework and more particularly
its implementation to guaranty constitutional rights of all citizens
to participate in elections. Moreover, transparency of electoral
campaigns and political parties’ funding should be reinforced.”
The voter list was based on a unified, nationwide population
register, and these elections were the first in which biometric
data were used for voter identification, with the stated aim of
limiting electoral malfeasance and increasing voter trust. Despite
efforts to ensure that all citizens were included in the population
register, some did not submit biometric data, including due to concerns
over data protection. While there was a public information campaign
to familiarize voters with the new voter registration system, the
information provided was insufficient, the observers said.
Central Election Commission (CEC) sessions were open to party
representatives, the media, and citizen and international observers,
but the holding of informal “working meetings”, as a lack of complete,
up-to-date information on its website reduced the transparency of
its work, the statement says. The CEC’s decisions and resolutions
were not always firmly based in law, and directly contradicted the
law at times. There was a general level of trust in the work and
impartiality of commissions at the regional and precinct levels.
“The embrace of live debates, enabling voters to clearly compare
their candidates was a welcome addition to what became a vibrant
campaign,” said Ivana Dobešová, Head of the OSCE PA delegation.
“The expectation that politicians should be held accountable in
front of television audiences is, for this region, a rare but healthy
practice.”
The media provided contestants with the opportunity to present
their views through debates and political advertisements, but coverage
in news and current affairs programmes consisted largely of paid-for
reports. The limited news coverage of the campaign in most outlets,
as well as a lack of analytical reporting, reduced the amount of
impartial information available to voters, the statement says. The
lack of editorial coverage of contestants’ campaigns and platforms
was in contrast to extensive positive coverage of the President
and other State officials in all State-financed media. “The EU and
the European Parliament will continue to support Kyrgystan, and
stand ready to offer strong support to the country in the improvement
of its electoral system,” said Ryszard Czarnecki, Head of the EP
delegation. “This will be part of our economic assistance for further democratic
development.”
Candidate registration was inclusive, as the CEC registered
the lists of all 14 political parties that submitted the required
documents and paid the electoral deposit. Quotas to ensure representation
on party lists for women, minorities, youth and those with disabilities
were respected at the time of registration, but the effectiveness
of the quotas is undermined by the lack of provisions to maintain
them after registration, the observers said.
These elections were the first held under the 2011 election
law, amended earlier this year, and while the electoral framework
generally provides an adequate basis for holding democratic elections,
inconsistencies remain, and greater clarity could provide better
guidance and ensure uniform application of the law, the statement
says. The election law regulates campaign financing and sets contribution
and expenditure limits, but greater transparency, including through
regular publication of detailed reports that parties must submit
to the CEC prior to and after election day, would be of benefit.
“The election administration took extensive steps to try to streamline
the voting process. Nevertheless, better procedures and increased
transparency are essential for progress to take root,” said Ambassador
Boris Frlec, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR long-term election observation
mission. “This will also depend on the harmonization of electoral
legislation, including fundamental points such as the right for
independent candidates to stand and the removal of the dual threshold.
ODIHR stands ready to assist the Kyrgyz authorities in this regard.”
Civil society was actively involved in observing the elections.
However, the CEC only began accrediting foreign observers 30 days
before election day, thus limiting their ability to observe all
stages of the electoral process, the observers said.
Election day was peaceful and, while the voting process was
assessed positively in 95% of the polling stations observed, in
a significant number of stations not all voters could be found on
voter lists. The biometric identification equipment and ballot scanners
generally worked well, although occasional technical problems led to
regular temporary interruptions of the process, the statement says.
The vote count was assessed negatively in more than one third of
polling stations observed, which is a concern, and the tabulation
process was also assessed negatively at many of the territorial
election commissions observed.