Observation of the constitutional referendum in Moldova (5 September 2010)
Election observation report
| Doc. 12379
| 04 October 2010
1 Introduction
1. At its meeting on 25 June 2010,
the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly agreed to set up a 30-member
ad hoc committee to observe the constitutional referendum in Moldova
on 5 September 2010, subject to further developments. Once the official
invitation had been received from the Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament,
Mr Andreas Gross was appointed chairperson of the ad hoc committee.
However, as he was finally unavailable, Mr Egidijus Vareikis was
subsequently appointed chairperson of the ad hoc committee.
2. In accordance with Article 15 of the co-operation agreement
signed on 4 October 2004 between the Parliamentary Assembly and
the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission),
an expert from the Venice Commission was invited to join the ad hoc
committee as an adviser.
3. Based on the proposals from the Assembly’s political groups,
the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Egidijus VAREIKIS, Head of delegation
- Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD):
- Jorge BACELAR GOUVEIA, Portugal
- Márton BRAUN, Hungary
- Nikolaos DENDIAS, Greece
- Anna LILLIEHÖÖK, Sweden
- Dariusz LIPIŃSKI, Poland
- Kent OLSSON, Sweden
- Maria STAVROSITU, Romania
- Egidijus VAREIKIS, Lithuania
- Socialist Group (SOC):
- Lise
CHRISTOFFERSEN, Norway
- Angelika GRAF, Germany
- Geert LAMBERT, Belgium
- Doris STUMP, Switzerland
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE):
- Cecilia KEAVENEY, Ireland
- Unified European Left Group (UEL):
- Venice Commission:
- Secretariat:
- Chemavon
CHAHBAZIAN, Deputy Head of the Interparliamentary Co-operation and
Election Observation Unit
- Yann DE BUYER, Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly
- Franck DAESCHLER, Interparliamentary Co-operation and
Election Observation Unit
- Nathalie BARGELLINI, Press Officer, Secretariat of the
Parliamentary Assembly
- Gaël MARTIN-MICALEFF, Elections and Referendums Division,
Venice Commission
4. The Assembly’s ad hoc committee was the only European parliamentary
body to observe the constitutional referendum in Moldova.
5. The ad hoc committee met in Chisinau from 3 to 6 September
2010. The programme of the meetings is set out in Appendix 1.
6. On 3 and 4 September, the ad hoc committee met Mr Ghimpu,
acting President, Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament, representatives
of the main political parties registered by the Central Electoral Commission
(CEC) to take part in the referendum campaign, the Chairperson of
the Central Electoral Commission, the President of the Constitutional
Court, the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the
Council of Europe in Chisinau, representatives of the international
community and representatives of civil society and the media.
7. On polling day, the ad hoc committee split up into ten teams
and observed the voting in the capital, Chisinau, and the surrounding
areas and in the following towns and regions: Calarasi, Cornesti,
Ungheni, Falesti, Singerei, Nisporeni, Balti, Comrat, Orhei, Dubasari,
Criuleni, Corjova, Bender and Anenii Noi, as well as in a large
number of villages. The ad hoc committee visited 147 polling stations,
or approximately 7.5% of the 1 957 polling stations throughout Moldova.
8. The ad hoc committee concluded that the voting was calm and
orderly. The citizens who participated in the referendum were generally
able to make their choice freely. However, the delegation did regret
the low turnout and stressed that it was now up to the political
stakeholders, regardless of their political positions, to propose
solutions to make the functioning of institutions more stable in
the general interest of the country, looking beyond their personal
or political quarrels. The press release is set out in Appendix 2.
9. The ad hoc committee to observe the constitutional referendum
wishes to thank the Special Representative of the Secretary General
in Moldova and the staff of the Council of Europe office in Chisinau for
their co-operation and their efficient logistical support.
2 Political and legal context
in the run-up to the constitutional referendum
10. The Parliament elected on 5 April
2009 proved unable to elect a new President of the Republic of Moldova.
Under the Constitution, the election of the President requires a
two-thirds majority or at least 61 of the 101 members of parliament
voting in favour. The Communist Party of the Republic of Moldova
(PCRM) won 60 seats in the election of 5 April; however, on two
occasions, it fell short of the one decisive vote that would have
enabled a new President to be elected. The acting President therefore
dissolved Parliament on 16 June 2009.
11. In the early parliamentary elections held on 29 July 2009,
five parties passed the 5% electoral threshold and won seats in
parliament: the Communist Party of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM)
with 48 seats, the Liberal Democratic Party (PLDM) with 18 seats,
the Liberal Party (PL) with 15 seats, the Democratic Party of Moldova
(PDM) with 13 seats and the Moldova Noastra Alliance (AMN) with
seven seats.
12. On 8 August 2009, the four “non-communist” parties which had
passed the minimum threshold (PLDM, PL, PDM and AMN) established
a coalition called the “Alliance for European Integration” (AEI).
Together, these parties held 53 seats, but they were eight votes
short of the number required to elect a President. At the same time,
the PCRM, which had won 48 seats, announced that it was willing
to go into opposition. On 14 August, the Constitutional Court confirmed
the lawfulness of the elections and the results.
13. The newly elected parliament made two attempts to elect the
President of the Republic. The first attempt took place on 10 November
2009, but failed because the members of the PCRM did not take part
in the vote. The candidate presented by the AEI (the leader of the
Democratic Party, Mr Lupu) obtained 53 votes (the minimum under
the Constitution being 61). On 1 December 2009, the acting President
set up a committee on constitutional reform, but the PCRM refused
to take part in its work.
14. The second attempt took place on 7 December 2009, after lengthy
consultations between the majority and the PCRM. It also failed,
with Mr Lupu obtaining only 53 votes from the members of the majority
coalition. Once again, the PCRM did not take part in the vote.
15. In December 2009, the Constitutional Court asked the Venice
Commission to give an opinion on a case brought by a group of Communist
Party members of parliament concerning the interpretation of the
articles of the Constitution relating to the election of the President
and the dissolution of the Parliament of Moldova. At its 82nd plenary
session, the Venice Commission adopted an opinion for the Moldovan
Constitutional Court.
16. On 15 March 2010, the Venice Commission decided to publish
its recommendations concerning possible ways of resolving the institutional
crisis. In a press release, the Venice Commission made a proposal on
the steps to be taken concerning constitutional reform, which it
believed was in line with the requirements of the current Constitution.
It contained the following elements:
- A proposal to revise Article 78 of the Constitution to
make it easier to elect the President of the Republic, which should
be agreed as soon as possible by the leaders of the political parties
represented in parliament. Such an agreement could be witnessed
by representatives of the Council of Europe and the European Union;
- The proposal could provide for a lower majority in parliament
to elect the President of the Republic as from the third round of
voting or for direct election of the President by the people;
- The proposal should be voted by the current parliament
as soon as possible following its approval by the Constitutional
Court, but would take effect only for the next parliament;
- Parliament should be dissolved after this vote. This would
still be in accordance with the requirement to dissolve parliament
within a reasonable timeframe, namely the time needed by parliament
to pass amendments to the Constitution to avoid the current crisis
recurring in future;
- A more comprehensive revision of the Constitution could
take place during the term of office of the newly elected parliament.
17. During his official visit to Moldova from 22 to 25 March 2010,
the President of the Parliamentary Assembly called on all political
stakeholders to sit down at the negotiating table and come to an
agreement about the steps to be taken and the amendments to be made
to the Constitution to overcome the institutional deadlock in the
light of the Venice Commission’s recommendations. On 25 March, the
Moldovan Parliament set up an ad hoc committee to prepare amendments
to Article 78 of the Constitution. It included representatives of
all the political parties in Parliament.
18. The PCRM and the AEI each subsequently drew up their own proposed
amendments to Article 78 and submitted them to the Constitutional
Court. The Court considered the two proposals on 29 April and 4 May 2010
and concluded that both were consistent with the current Constitution,
although they were diametrically opposed.
19. The PCRM proposed that the system of the President of the
Republic being elected by parliament be retained, but with the addition
of a third round of voting and a gradual reduction in the majority
required. Accordingly, the number of votes required would be 61
in the first round and 57 in the second, while an absolute majority
would suffice to elect the President of the Republic in the third
round. If parliament failed to elect the head of state after three
rounds of voting, the acting President would be required to dissolve
parliament within ten working days and early elections would have
to be held within 60 days of the dissolution.
20. The AEI proposed that direct elections be introduced for the
President of the Republic. The amendments proposed by the Alliance
concerned only Article 78 of the Constitution.
21. Under the current Constitution, parliament must wait for a
period of at least six months before voting on proposed amendments
to the Constitution. The majority required to pass a law amending
the constitution is two-thirds (67 votes). Neither the AEI nor the
PCRM has a sufficiently large majority to pass constitutional amendments.
An alternative would be to submit to referendum a proposal to amend
Article 78 of the Constitution and introduce direct elections for
the President of the Republic.
22. The solution to the political crisis was the culmination of
lengthy mediation efforts by the Council of Europe. The Council
of Europe’s Secretary General, Thorbjørn Jagland, was invited to
Chisinau on 2 and 3 June 2010 to mediate between the two sides in
the search for a solution to end the political crisis. At the end of
his visit he said: “I have been in contact with all four leaders
of the Alliance and the leader of the Communist Party in an effort
to find a way to amend Article 78. It was not possible to reach
a broad compromise between the Alliance and the Communist Party
on this and the only way forward was to bring the decision to the
people, which is normal in any democracy. The solution is supported
by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and the European Union.
I appeal to all citizens in Moldova to exercise their right to vote
in the coming referendum.”
23. On 6 July, the Constitutional Court ruled that the bill on
the revision of Article 78 on the method of electing the President
of the Republic was constitutional. On 7 July, the AEI set 5 September
as the date for the constitutional referendum, with the following
question: “Would you agree with the Constitutional amendment, which
would allow the election of the President of the Republic of Moldova
by the entire population?” Voters could reply yes or no. The ballot
paper also set out the four paragraphs of the new wording of Article 78
of the Constitution.
24. Alongside the debates and decisions concerning the method
of electing the President of the Republic, the Moldovan authorities
officially requested the Venice Commission to prepare an opinion
on the amendments to the Electoral Code. The Venice Commission approved
its opinion on 4 June 2010. It found that the proposed amendments
improved the Electoral Code and enhanced the quality and integrity
of the election process, taking into account the earlier recommendations
by the Venice Commission and the Parliamentary Assembly concerning
electoral thresholds and formation of electoral blocs, lifting of
the disqualification from election to parliament imposed on Moldovan
citizens also holding the nationality of another country, and the
introduction of a national voters’ roll and the cases where supplementary
voters’ rolls are to be used at the poll.
25. The referendum would pass if 50% of the votes cast plus one
were in favour. On 18 June 2010, parliament amended the Electoral
Code and reduced the turnout requirement for the results to be valid
from 60% to 33% of the voters on the voters’ roll.
3 Electoral administration
26. The constitutional referendum
in Moldova was administered by a three-tier structure comprising
the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), district electoral councils
(DECs) and Precinct Electoral Bureaux (polling stations) (PEBs).
The CEC is a permanent body with nine members serving a five-year
term of office. Some arrangements for the formation and operation
of the CEC were altered in the revision of the Electoral Code. From
now on, one member is appointed by the President and the other eight
are appointed by the political parties represented in Parliament
according to the number of seats they hold. If a member of the CEC’s
term expires during an election campaign, it is automatically extended
by 90 days until a new member is appointed.
27. The CEC established 35 district electoral councils; the other
two usually established in Bender and on the left bank of the Dniestr
(in Nistru) were not set up. The DECs comprise 11 members, two of
whom are appointed by the district court and the others by the parties
represented in parliament. Those appointed by the courts must not
be affiliated to any political party. The polling stations have
five to 11 members, depending on the number of voters registered
with them. The chairpersons, vice-chairpersons and secretaries of
the various electoral bodies are elected by their members by secret
ballot.
28. The timeframe for holding the referendum was shortened from
60 days to 44 days, which meant that all electoral deadlines were
automatically reduced by a quarter. The CEC altered the rules concerning
the operation of the PEBs, with the effect that only the secretaries
of the relevant polling stations could draw up the supplementary
rolls on polling day.
29. The CEC had no experience of holding referendums, this being
the first referendum held in Moldova since 1999. In this respect,
the ad hoc committee concluded that the operation of the CEC was
professional and transparent in overall terms and that the complaints
and appeals process was open and transparent both at CEC and at
court level. Overall, the CEC met its responsibilities as regards
the consideration of pre-polling day complaints and adjudicated
them in a timely manner and in compliance with the law.
4 Registration of voters and
political parties participating in the referendum
30. According to the CEC’s official
figures, 2 662 052 constituents in all were on the rolls for the
referendum of 5 September, about 83 000 more than in the previous
elections on 29 July 2009. The number of constituents on the supplementary
rolls was 59 571.
31. In accordance with the government’s recommendations, the CEC
opened 75 PEBs in foreign countries including 43 PEBs outside diplomatic
representations. According to the CEC data, some 130 000 ballot
papers were dispatched for the PEBs abroad, and some 200 000 according
to the representatives of the opposition. The ad hoc committee was
not able to verify the accuracy of these figures. For the first
time, Moldovan citizens abroad could vote in PEBs outside diplomatic
representations. This new facility brought criticism from the opposition
concerning possible manipulation of votes in these PEBs and absence
of oversight by observers from the opposition parties.
32. As to the functioning of the PEBs outside diplomatic representations,
they each had seven members, five of them representing the five
parliamentary parties, one representative of the CEC and the president appointed
by the Moldovan embassy in the country concerned. The largest number
of PEBs (20) was opened in Italy. From 27 July onwards, nationals
of Moldova in foreign countries could have themselves entered in
the register on the CEC’s website. The Council of Europe, in close
co-operation with the European Union, established an action plan
intended to help the Moldovan authorities with the organisation
and observation of the referendum abroad.
33. The voter registration system used gives the local authorities
responsibility for keeping the registers up to date before the referendum,
resulting in non-uniformity of arrangements for carrying out this
process. The voters’ rolls were drawn up by the local authorities
before 10 August, then, after verification, transmitted to the district
electoral councils. The updated rolls were meant to be posted in
the polling stations and on the CEC website on 16 August, but this
deadline was not met in a considerable number of polling stations
owing to administrative delays. Voters could report any inaccuracies
up to 30 August.
34. The inaccuracies of the rolls remained one of the disturbing
questions of the 5 September referendum. The CEC created a national
database for the electoral register to allow centralised examination
of the voters’ rolls and detection of multiple entries and other
errors therein. For that purpose, the local executive authorities were
asked to submit an electronic copy of their electoral rolls to the
CEC by 20 August, but the deadline was not met.
35. The inaccuracy of electoral rolls in Moldova remains a matter
of concern which must be settled as speedily as possible, for at
least two obvious reasons: to obviate the risk of double voting
and to increase the confidence of Moldovan citizens in the electoral
process.
36. As happened in the previous elections, there was no ballot
in Transnistria, which since 1992 has for practical purposes evaded
the Moldovan Government’s control. The CEC opened 11 regular polling
stations in the security zone for Moldovan citizens resident in
Transnistria. Voters resident in Transnistria, in the municipality
of Bender and a number of villages in the Causeni region and who,
on the date of the referendum, were in Chisinau, were able to vote
at its polling station No. 113.
37. On a trial basis, the CEC introduced for the first time a
computerised electoral register for this referendum in 43 PEBs in
the centre of Chisinau so as to avert the danger of multiple voting
and improve the polling system.
38. Of the 30 political parties registered with the Moldovan Ministry
of Justice, 25 registered with the CEC to take part in the referendum
campaign and 16 of these, including the four belonging to the AEI
stated that they would conduct the campaign for a “Yes” vote, and
one for a “No” vote, while the PCRM, with two other parties, were
in favour of boycott; at the time of registration with the CEC,
five parties had not yet determined their position.
5 Referendum campaign
39. The referendum campaign took
place in the continuum of the political and institutional crisis
which Moldova entered after the parliamentary elections on 5 April
and 29 July 2009. The campaign was pluralist, but its atmosphere
was tense as a result of the political polarisation and accusations
aimed chiefly at identifying culprits for the political crisis.
40. The official campaign commenced after the Moldovan Parliament’s
decision on 7 July to organise the constitutional referendum on
5 September. The decision was carried by 52 votes, the PCRM parliamentarians not
having taken part in the vote. Thereafter the PCRM also reversed
its position by stating that it would drop its protest agenda and
would be ready to support the adoption in parliament of amendments
to Article 78 of the Constitution instituting direct election of
the President of the Republic. The AEI leaders said that they would
not countermand their decision to hold the referendum on the choice
of balloting method.
41. Throughout the referendum campaign, the PCRM accused the authorities
of infringing Article 143 of the Constitution and Article 150 of
the Electoral Code requiring parliament to consider the Constitutional
Court’s decision on constitutional amendments six months after the
date of delivery of the Court’s decision. Another important event
during the referendum campaign was the Constitutional Court’s decision
of 3 August that the PCRM leader, former national President, Mr
Voronin, could not seek a third mandate at the next presidential election
if the results of the referendum were positive. Other accusations
concerned the non-dissolution of Parliament after 16 June, and the
creation of the additional PEBs abroad, outside the Moldovan diplomatic representations.
According to the PCRM representatives, it was possible for the authorities
to commit fraud in these PEBs, where the political parties would
have no representatives.
42. Concurrently, the PCRM organised a series of protests and
called on its sympathisers to boycott the referendum with a clear
aim: if the turnout was less than 33.33% of the constituents on
the rolls, the results of the referendum would be invalidated. The
representatives of some 70 PCRM-controlled villages and localities signed
a declaration asking the citizens not to participate in the referendum.
43. According to the representatives of the AEI, since the PCRM
controlled the local authorities in certain regions, it used the
administrative resources and staff to carry out the boycotting campaign.
The Prime Minister, Mr Vladimir Filat, issued a warning to the local
government representatives, asking them to refrain from participating
in the boycott; otherwise the competent authorities might undertake
judicial investigations.
44. The PCRM lodged a complaint against the Prime Minister, who
had asked the security services to conduct investigations of local
government representatives engaging in the boycotting campaign.
On 20 August, the CEC dismissed the PCRM’s complaint, holding that
the Prime Minister’s warning was in accordance with the law. In
the same decision, the CEC also considered that the Communist opposition
was entitled to boycott the referendum by virtue of its right to
express “disagreement”.
45. The ad hoc committee wishes to point out that in a referendum
campaign, the administrative authorities have a duty of neutrality.
In that respect, it stresses the importance of Article 3.1, paragraph
b), of the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice on Referendums,
which stipulates: “Contrary to the case of elections, it is not
necessary to prohibit completely intervention by the authorities
in support of or against the proposal submitted to a referendum.
However, the public authorities (national, regional and local) must
not influence the outcome of the vote by excessive, one-sided campaigning.
The use of public funds by the authorities for campaigning purposes
must be prohibited”.
46. The referendum campaign featured other issues or events that
divide Moldovan society. For example, the National Liberal Party
(PNL) distributed an advertisement asking its voters to return a
Head of State who would promote union with Romania. After the complaint
lodged by the PCRM, the CEC instructed the PNL to withdraw this
advertisement from all media. The PNL appealed before the Chisinau
Court of Appeal, which overturned the CEC’s decision on 24 August.
The PCRM challenged the Court of Appeal ruling before the Supreme
Court, which upheld it on 28 August.
47. Another divisive issue during the referendum campaign was
the communist legacy. The acting President of Moldova, Mr Ghimpu,
signed a decree on the commemoration of 28 June as a “Day of Soviet
Occupation”. The Constitutional Court, after hearing the complaint
of the PCRM, ruled that the Presidential decree was unconstitutional
on the ground that the acting President had attempted to assess
the historical facts from a legal standpoint. During the referendum
campaign, the acting President said that he contemplated signing another
decree on the condemnation of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, and that
it was necessary to draft a law on lustration.
48. While the parties of the Alliance showed their united resolve
to censure the policy of the PCRM and to reach the decision to hold
the constitutional referendum, they seemed far less convincing and
often divided on the questions of evaluating the communist legacy
or the future AEI candidatures for the presidential election.
6 Media environment
49. The media coverage of the election
campaign is regulated by the Electoral Code, the Broadcasting Code and
the regulations of the CEC. Audiovisual media, particularly the
public television channel Moldova 1 and Radio Moldova, are the country’s
chief sources of information, especially in the rural regions, since
they cover virtually the entire country.
50. On 16 July 2010, the CEC approved the regulations on the media
coverage of the referendum campaign. The CEC asked the Audiovisual
Co-ordinating Council (CCA) to carry out surveillance of the media
coverage and submit twice-monthly reports on the media coverage
to the CEC. Under the regulations on media coverage, the media are
required to ensure equal conditions for all participants in the
referendum, and the debates should not be reserved for political
parties alone but also open to the representatives of civil society.
51. The CCA published the list of media in charge of coverage
at national level (over 60% of the population), required to devote
a proportion of their air time to the debates on the referendum.
These are four TV channels (Moldova-1, Prime, 2 Plus, NIT TV) and
six radio stations (Radio Moldova, Antenne-C, Vocea Basarabiei, Noroc,
Hit FM and Europe Plus Moldova). Surveillance was applied as from
26 July. The first televised debate on the public channel “Moldova
1”, presenting a series of ten debates, began on 13 August, and
the last took place on 3 September.
52. Some NGOs criticised the work of the CCA which allegedly did
not comply with deadlines for publication of the list of media required
to ensure the media coverage of the referendum campaign. Moreover,
the CCA website contained no information on the names of the owners
of the media.
53. In general, the ad hoc committee found that the media made
efforts to provide coverage for all political parties, ensuring
the pluralism of the opinions expressed, particularly in the printed
press, and readier access for the opposition parties to nationwide
public television channels. The Council of Europe and CEC experts arranged
training for the journalists handling the media coverage of the
referendum.
7 Polling day
54. The members of the ad hoc committee
acknowledged that the ballot was well organised and took place in
a calm and orderly manner in an untroubled atmosphere. The polling
stations opened and closed on time (7 am-9 pm). None of the teams
reported a want of electoral material at the opening. No campaigning
activity or material or any unauthorised presence were reported
inside or in the immediate vicinity of the polling stations visited.
All teams observed the low turnout both in towns and in rural localities,
but no instance of pressure on voters was reported. In some villages
they observed rare cases of voters who held their ballot papers
open on leaving the polling booth and before placing them in the
ballot box, so that their choice was visible to all.
55. The members of various teams criticised the present procedure
of stamping voters’ identity documents to prevent multiple votes,
which is inimical to the secrecy of the ballot. The question of
secrecy during the constitutional referendum was of major importance
given that certain political forces had called for a boycott of the
referendum, and the presence or absence of a stamp on an identity
card could furnish proof of participation or otherwise in the boycotting
of the referendum.
56. Throughout the day, the members of the ad hoc committee noted
the presence of many observers from the principal political parties
participating in the referendum, and of non-party national observers.
57. In the polling stations where the teams were present for the
count, this took place openly, speedily and generally in accordance
with the procedures.
58. The turnout at the referendum was 30.29%, representing 818
429 voters of whom 707 468 voted in favour and 97 999 against. The
biggest turnouts were in Telenesi (41.12%), Nisporeni (37.65%),
Orhei (37.60%) and Chisinau (30.7%). The lowest turnout was observed
in the Gagauz region (8.62%), in Taracila (12.10%) and in Balti
(18.90%). In compliance with the Electoral Code, the results of
the constitutional referendum are invalid because the minimum threshold
of 33.33% was not reached.
8 Conclusions
59. The Assembly’s ad hoc committee
responsible for observing the constitutional referendum in Moldova concludes
that polling day took place in a calm and orderly manner. The citizens
participating in the referendum were generally able to make their
choice freely. The ad hoc committee, however, deplores the low turnout
at the referendum.
60. The ad hoc committee notes that since the last parliamentary
elections on 29 July 2009 and during the period leading up to the
constitutional referendum, the various Council of Europe bodies
made considerable efforts to help Moldova out of the institutional
crisis. In that regard, the ad hoc committee would emphasise that it
henceforth rests with the political players, whatever their stance,
to propose solutions for bringing stability to the operation of
the institutions in the general interest of the nation, overcoming
their personal or political quarrels, and to restore trust between
the principal political forces as well as the population’s confidence
in the electoral process.
61. Moldova’s political leaders, irrespective of their political
affiliations, should conscientiously analyse the results of the
referendum of 5 September and draw the appropriate lessons at political
level.
62. A referendum is an exercise in direct democracy not limited
to polling day. The referendum campaign took place in the context
of the political and institutional crisis that followed the two
parliamentary elections of 2009. The ad hoc committee found that
the atmosphere of the referendum campaign was marred by accusations
levelled at political leaders of all persuasions, chiefly intended
to single out culprits for the political crisis. The following factors
probably had an impact on the citizens’ poor participation in the
referendum, although on the evidence of various credible public
opinion polls, about two thirds of the population are believed to
be in favour of directly electing the country’s President:
- the referendum campaign coincided
with the spell of intensive activities in the agricultural sector
of an agrarian country;
- the referendum campaign was short;
- some political leaders and potential candidates for the
presidential election, convinced that the positive results of the
referendum were in no doubt, conducted a presidential campaign during
the referendum campaign;
- the lack of effective co-ordination between different
political forces who came out in favour of changing the balloting
method for the presidential election;
- the campaign for a boycott conducted by the PCRM and its
allies.
63. The ad hoc committee would emphasise that during a referendum
campaign, the administrative authorities have a duty of neutrality.
In that respect, it stresses the importance of Article 3.1, paragraph
b), of the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice on Referendums
(see paragraph 45).
64. The call for boycott issued by certain political parties to
some extent accounts for a large number of voters not taking part
in the referendum. The ad hoc committee considers that while boycotting
the referendum may be regarded as the choice of a given political
force for expressing its disagreement with the referendum, that
choice nevertheless commits the responsibility of the political
forces which have discouraged their electorate from exercising its
right to vote.
65. The electoral administration as a whole displayed professionalism
and acted in a transparent manner. Despite the efforts made to improve
the quality of the electoral rolls, their accuracy remains problematic.
The proper management of lists of voters is essential for guaranteeing
equity in the conduct of elections and referendums and strengthening
the public’s confidence in the electoral process.
66. Overall, media coverage was balanced. The ad hoc committee
noted that the media made an effort to deliver coverage of all political
parties, ensuring the pluralism of the opinions expressed, particularly
in the printed press, and give the opposition readier access to
the nationwide public television channels.
67. The ad hoc committee calls upon the Moldovan authorities to
hold early parliamentary elections in 2010 as the political players
undertook to do vis-à-vis the Council of Europe, in order to guarantee
all the conditions required for all citizens of Moldova to freely
express their will.
68. The Parliamentary Assembly will keep close watch on the development
of the situation in Moldova as part of its monitoring procedure.
9 Recommendations
69. To bolster the citizens’ confidence
in the democratic process in Moldova, the ad hoc committee recommends
the following measures:
- The
Parliament newly elected after the early parliamentary elections
is encouraged to increase its co-operation with the Monitoring Committee
in order to improve the functioning of the democratic institutions in
Moldova still further and proceed with stringent reforms;
- After the early parliamentary elections, the leaders of
the main political forces should straightway enter into a constructive,
responsible dialogue on the country’s political system in order
to achieve the broadest possible consensus on the amendments to
the present Constitution that may be required before the actual
procedure is addressed. The Parliamentary Assembly would be ready
to make a contribution to this;
- Considering the imminence of the early parliamentary elections,
the Central Electoral Commission should promptly carry out an analysis
of certain procedures which were tested during the referendum of 5
September, namely the functioning of the electronic electoral register
in 43 polling stations in Chisinau and the functioning of the polling
stations opened for the first time in foreign countries outside
diplomatic representations. This work, together with improvements
of a technical kind to the Electoral Code, should be performed in
close co-operation with the experts of the Venice Commission;
- The newly elected Parliament is strongly encouraged to
resolve the political and institutional crisis in compliance with
the constitution of Moldova.
- The ad hoc committee recommends that the Parliamentary
Assembly observe the early parliamentary elections with a 30-member
delegation.
Appendix 1 –
Programme
Friday,
3 September 2010
09.00-10.00 Ad hoc committee meeting
- Opening of the meeting and information on the mission
by Mr. J. Laakso, Head ad interim of the Delegation
- Political situation and background, Mrs. B. Abraitiene,
Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of
Europe to Moldova
- Recent developments in the field of election legislation
and constitutional amendments, Mr. K. Olszewski, Expert of the Venice
Commission
- Council of Europe Action Plan to support the referendum
and early elections in Moldova in 2010, Mr O. Masters, Expert
- Practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
10.00-10.45 Meeting with Mr C. Neukirch, Deputy Head of the
OSCE mission to Moldova
10.45-11.30 Meeting with Mr D. Lorenz, Political adviser,
European Union Delegation to Moldova
11.30-12.15 Round table with NGO representatives involved
in referendum observation:
- Mr
I. Manole, Chairman of the Association "Promo-LEX"
- Ms S. Livădaru, Institute for Human Rights (IDOM)
- Ms N. Gogu, Director of the Centre for Independent Journalism
- Mr I. Boţan, Director of the Association for Participatory
Democracy (ADEPT)
12.30-13.15 Round table with representatives of mass media
from Moldova:
- Mr A. Dorogan,
Director Radio, Teleradio Moldova
- Ms A. Sîrbu, Director TV, Teleradio Moldova
- Mr G. Saghin, Deputy Director Publika TV
- Ms R. Mahu, Jurnal de Chisinau
13.15-14.45 Lunch
15.15-16.15 Meeting with the leaders of four-party Alliance
for European Integration (AEI)
16.15-17.00 Meeting with the leaders of the Party of Communists
of the Republic of Moldova
17.15-17.45 Meeting with Mr M. Ghimpu, President of the Parliament,
Acting President of the Republic of Moldova
Saturday, 4 September
2010
9.30-10.15 Meeting with Mr E. Stirbu, President of the Central
Electoral Commission and members of the Central Electoral Commission
10.30-11.15 Meeting with Mr D. Pulbere, President of the Constitutional
Court of Moldova
11.30 Pre-deployment meeting and meeting with interpreters
and drivers
Sunday, 5 September
2010
Election day Observation of opening, voting and vote count
Monday, 6 September
2010
09.00-10.00 Debriefing of the Parliamentary Assembly delegation
12.00 Press conference
Appendix 2 –
Declaration of the PACE delegation: low turnout of the Constitutional
Referendum in Moldova
Strasbourg, 06.09.2010 – A delegation from
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has observed
the constitutional referendum in Moldova on 5 September. This delegation
was the only European parliamentary organisation to observe this
referendum.
The delegation considered that the voting day was calm and
orderly. The citizens who participated in the referendum could in
general make their choice freely. However, this delegation regrets
the low turnout. It is now up to political stakeholders, regardless
of their political positions, to propose solutions to make the functioning of
institutions more stable in the general interest of the country
and to look beyond their personal or political quarrels.
A referendum is a democratic exercise which is not only limited
to the voting day. The referendum campaign took place in the context
of the political and institutional crisis which followed the 2009
Parliamentary elections. The delegation noted that the referendum
campaign had been negatively affected by constant accusations by political
stakeholders of different sides who were responsible for the political
crisis.
The observation delegation notes however with satisfaction
that this did not have a negative impact on the behaviour of the
supporters either “for” or “against” the referendum, and there were
no cases of violence reported during the campaign.
The election administration generally demonstrated professionalism
and acted in a transparent way. The delegation welcomes the efforts
to improve the quality of the voters’ list. However, significant
problems with accuracy of voters’ register continue to persist.
The observation delegation welcomes the authorities’ efforts
aimed at facilitating the participation of the citizens of Moldova,
including those citizens residing in foreign countries.
The media coverage was generally well balanced, reflecting
different points of view. PACE delegation notes with satisfaction
the improvements in media coverage of the pre-referendum campaign.
According to the PACE delegation, the recommendation by some
political parties to boycott the referendum contributed in part
to the non-participation of a significant number of voters.
The PACE delegation stresses the fact that, contrary to the
case of elections, it is not completely prohibited for the authorities
to intervene in order to support the proposal submitted to referendum.
Nevertheless, the delegation strongly condemns all attempts aiming
to influence the outcome of the referendum by the authorities (national,
regional or local) using excessive and one-sided campaigning or
by any other means.
The PACE delegation calls on the authorities of Moldova to
hold early parliamentary elections in 2010 as the political stakeholders
of Moldova committed themselves towards the Council of Europe. This
is to ensure all necessary conditions for the free expression of
the will of all citizens of Moldova.
This delegation expects all political leaders to resolve the
political and constitutional deadlock on the election of the President
of the Republic of Moldova.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will follow
closely the further developments in Moldova through its monitoring
procedure and will observe the forthcoming elections in 2010.
The complete report on the observation of the constitutional
referendum on 5 September will be adopted by the Assembly in the
2010 October part-session (4-8 October 2010) in Strasbourg.
