Observation of the Parliamentary elections in Montenegro (29 March 2009)
Election observation report
| Doc. 11867
| 27 April 2009
- Author(s):
- Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Andreas GROSS,
Switzerland, SOC
- Thesaurus
1 Introduction
1. On 30 January 2009, the Bureau
of the Parliamentary Assembly decided to set up an Ad hoc Committee to
observe the parliamentary elections in Montenegro (29 March 2009),
subject to receipt of an invitation. Following an invitation from
the Speaker of the Parliament of Montenegro, the Ad hoc Committee
was set up and, further to the Bureau’s authorisation of 30 January
2009, the President of the Assembly appointed me as its Chair.
2. Based on the proposals by the political groups of the Assembly,
the Ad hoc Committee was composed as follows:
- Mr Andreas Gross, Head of
Delegation
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Mr Renato
Farina, Italy
- Mr Jean Charles Gardetto, Monaco
- Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, France
- Mr Dariusz Lipiński, Poland
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Mr Andreas Gross, Switzerland
- Mr Jean-Claude Frecon, France
- Mr Maximiano Martins, Portugal
- Mr Fidias Sarikas, Cyprus
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Mr Bernard
Marquet, Monaco
- Mr Mark Oaten, United Kingdom
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Mr Øyvind Vaksdal, Norway
- Ms Tatiana Volozhinskaya, Russian Federation
- Secretariat
- Mr Bogdan Torcatoriu, Administrator
- Ms Anne Godfrey, Assistant
3. The Bureau also authorised a pre-electoral mission. Its members
were: Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC), Head of delegation, Jean-Charles
Gardetto (Monaco, EPP/CD), Andrej Zernovski («the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia», ALDE), Øyvind Vaksdal (Norway, EDG). The
secretariat of the pre-electoral mission was ensured by Mr Vladimir
Dronov, Head of secretariat, Interparliamentary co-operation and
election observation and Ms Danièle Gastl, assistant.
4. The pre-electoral mission took place from 23 to 25 February
2009. It concluded that, with the necessary political will, Montenegro
was capable of holding elections in line with European standards,
despite the discrepancies that remained between the Constitution
and the electoral legislation. It noted that the election administration
demonstrated efficiency and represented a plurality of political
views. The delegation was pleased with the active involvement of
civil society and the print media in the process and praised the
quality of their work.
5. The delegation expressed its concern over the fact that the
Montenegrin authorities had not taken corrective action in line
with recommendations made by the Parliamentary Assembly and other
international observers in the wake of elections held in the country
earlier. This concerns, in particular, the continuing possibility
of changes to fifty percent of the order of the candidates on proportional
lists after the closure of the polls, which contravenes Council
of Europe standards in respect of democratic elections and the principles
of parliamentary democracy. The delegation underlined that this
possibility needed to be expressly prohibited by law. The delegation
welcomed the assurances it received from the Speaker of the parliament
that this concern would be duly addressed when the relevant legislation
is revised. Another concern related to a rather vague constitutional
provision regarding authentic representation for people belonging
to national minorities. The delegation stressed that Montenegro
would be well advised to work on these legal issues with the European Commission
for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) of the Council of
Europe.
6. The programme of the pre-electoral mission is reproduced in
Appendix 1 and the statement of the delegation is in Appendix 2.
7. The Ad hoc Committee which observed the elections worked as
part of an International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) alongside
the election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) and a delegation from the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly (OSCE PA).
8. The Ad hoc Committee met in Podgorica from 27 to 30 March
2009 and held meetings with the Head of the OSCE Mission to Montenegro,
the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Mission, OSCE/ODIHR analysts, the Head of
the State Election Commission of Montenegro (SEC), representatives
of political parties, as well as with representatives of civil society
and the media. The programme of the meetings of the Ad hoc Committee appears
in Appendix 3.
9. On Election Day, the Ad hoc Committee split into seven teams
which observed the elections in and around Podgorica, Kolasin, Danilovgrad,
Niksic, Bar, Ulcinj, Cetije and Kotor.
10. The Ad hoc Committee concluded that the parliamentary elections
in Montenegro on 29 March 2009 met almost all international commitments
and standards, but that the process again revealed the need for
further democratic development. In the press release issued after
the elections, as well as during the press conference organised
on Monday 30 March, I took the opportunity to stress that “the organisation
of the elections was remarkably efficient. But to gain legitimacy
and build confidence among the entire electorate, especially among voters
supporting those who lost the elections, the winners have to be
more inclusive, pluralistic and fair”. The press release appears
in Appendix 4.
11. The Ad hoc Committee wishes to thank the Montenegrin authorities,
the OSCE/ODIHR, as well as the SRSG and the staff of the Council
of Europe Office in Podgorica for their co-operation and their support.
2 Political and legal framework
12. Early parliamentary elections
were called by the President of Montenegro on 27 January 2009, the
day after the parliament voted to shorten its mandate. These were
the first parliamentary elections held under the new Montenegrin
Constitution, which was adopted in October 2007. Although elections
were expected before the end of 2009, certain groups in the opposition
criticised the timing and some parties challenged the legal framework.
13. The Montenegrin Constitution establishes a unicameral parliament
of 81 deputies, elected for four-year terms. The Law on the Election
of Councilors and Representatives (Election Law) provides for the
allocation of mandates, with a 3 per cent threshold, on the basis
of a proportional list system, within a single nationwide constituency.
Five of these mandates, however, are allocated to a ‘special’ constituency
comprising 70 polling stations designated for these elections by
parliament; these are in areas populated primarily by ethnic-Albanians.
14. By law, one half of the mandates won by an electoral list
must be awarded to candidates in the order in which they appear
on the list, while the other half can be allocated to the remaining
list of candidates in any order by the party leadership. This mechanism
has already been criticised both by the Assembly and the OSCE/ODIHR,
as it limits transparency and may be misleading to voters who cannot
be certain which candidates will represent them. This way of a “party
leaders parliamentary seats administration” is inacceptable because
it is in contradiction with the principle of a free mandate and
undermines the potential of parliamentary democracy.
15. The 2007 Constitution generally guarantees fundamental civil,
political, and human rights and freedoms. The Constitution provides
that the right to elect and stand for office shall be granted to
every Montenegrin citizen (državljanin)
aged 18 years or older, with at least two years of residence in
the country. The two-year residency requirement, inherited from
the pre-independence period, is, however, not consistent with the principle
of universal suffrage. The right to elect and be elected should
be granted to all citizens as a fundamental human right, and any
practical considerations for the implementation of this right should
be addressed in legislation.
16. Parliamentary elections are regulated by a comprehensive legal
framework that generally provides an adequate basis for the conduct
of democratic elections. However, the legal framework has yet to
be fully harmonised with the Constitution, and most issues in the
recommendations made in the past by the Assembly and other international
observers have not been fully addressed. Concerns included issues
with voter lists, candidate registration, voter education, voting,
count and tabulation, complaints and appeals, campaign financing
and the blurring of state and party structures.
17. The Election Law is the primary piece of legislation regulating
parliamentary elections. It was initially adopted in 1998 and amended
several times, most recently in 2006. Discussions to harmonise the
Election Law with the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds
parliamentary majority, stalled in the parliamentary working group,
mainly due to a lack of consensus over implementation of the Constitutional
provision for “authentic representation” of national minorities
in parliament. Political parties have disparate views of the mechanism
that would best enshrine this principle. The current deadline for
finalising this harmonisation process is October 2009, but this
is an extension from the initial deadline of January 2008.
3 Election administration
18. Elections are administered
by three levels of election commissions; the State Election Commission (SEC)
and 21 Municipal Election Commissions (MECs) are professional bodies,
while some 1,155 Polling Boards (PBs) were appointed just prior
to the elections. All bodies have a ‘permanent’ composition, which includes
a minority nominated by opposition parties and that generally reflect
the political composition of the body that appointed them and to
which they are responsible: the SEC to Parliament and the MECs to
municipal assemblies. By law, these commissions are appointed for
four-year terms, although in practice they are reappointed after
each election. Although not prohibited by legislation, some permanent
members concurrently held local government appointments, or were
members of the judiciary, which could lead to potential conflicts of
interest.
19. Submitters of candidate lists can appoint authorised representatives
as ‘extended’ members of election administration bodies. This promotes
inclusiveness and transparency, although these members join SEC
and MECs after many decisions have already been made. The law does
not require remuneration for these members; however, in the last
elections, the SEC took a decision to do so. In these elections,
the SEC determined that there were insufficient public funds to
pay these members.
20. The elections were professionally organised and there is confidence
in the election administration bodies. SEC sessions were open to
domestic and international observers; on occasion, lively discussions
took place among SEC members. There was a high degree of transparency
regarding commission activities, such as ballot printing. Election
commissions at all levels met most deadlines required by the law.
As was the case in past elections, there were no information programmes
organised by the SEC regarding citizens’ electoral rights.
Voter registration
21. The 2008 Law on Registers of
Electors (LRE) does not fundamentally alter the voter registration procedures,
nor does it provide for the creation of new electoral registers.
However, it does provide that državljanin (citizens)
rather than građanin (residents),
are eligible for registration as electors. This brings the LRE into
line with the Constitution and the Law on Citizenship.
22. After the adoption of the new LRE, four municipal authorities
began to delete entries of people who had not acquired Montenegrin
citizenship but who had previously voted, causing several individual
appeals to be filed to the Administrative Court. In all cases, the
court upheld the appeals on grounds including that the LRE does
not provide explicitly for deletion of pre-existing entries. Thus,
a significant number of people who are not citizens of Montenegro
remain on the voter registers and were able to vote in these elections.
There is also a large number of people whose citizenship is unknown.
23. There is a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the
voter registers. The 2008 LRE retains provisions that afford a high
degree of transparency in the registration of electors and election
contestants’ access to voter registration source data, the latter
of which raises concerns over data protection. The LRE improves
procedures for resolving registration-related complaints and appeals.
Very few appeals were filed with regard to voter registration. On
19 March, the day after the closing of the registers, it was announced
that 498,305 electors were registered to vote; an increase of some
1.6 per cent since the April 2008 presidential election.
Candidate registration
24. Political parties and groups
of citizens may register to contest elections separately or in coalition
on the basis of election (candidate) lists. Lists must be supported
by the signatures of 1 per cent of the electorate, except for lists
who “represent Albanians in Montenegro”, who are required to provide
only 1,000 supporting signatures. The Election Law does not require
the SEC to scrutinise the lists of signatures. SEC only has to confirm
that the required number was submitted.
25. All major parties contested the election. Ten parties and
six coalitions were registered by the SEC. In total, 24 parties
and 970 candidates contested 81 parliamentary seats. The SEC took
an inclusive approach in the registration of all candidate lists
and no political contestants were rejected; the provision allowing
for corrections of errors within 48 hours was applied reasonably
by the SEC.
Participation of women
26. According to the Constitution,
members of both genders enjoy equal rights, freedoms and opportunities. The
2007 Law on Gender Equality provides measures for achieving balanced
representation of women and men at all levels in the legislative
and executive branches of the state. No legally established electoral
quotas for women are currently in place.
27. Political party membership is predominantly male. In the outgoing
parliament, only 11 per cent of all deputies were women (9 of 81).
The Vice Prime Minister for European Integration is the only woman
currently in government. Women were under-represented on the candidate
lists for these elections (15 per cent, overall). The majority of
parties / coalitions had no female candidates in their top five
places on the lists and only five lists contained more than one
woman among their top ten contestants.
28. In the election administration, 3 of 11 SEC members were women.
In polling stations visited on Election Day by observers, 19 per
cent of polling board chairpersons were women and there were only
two female MEC chairpersons.
Participation of national minorities
29. Montenegro’s ethnic composition,
according to the 2003 census, is 43 per cent Montenegrin, 32 per
cent Serbian, 8 per cent Bosniak, 5 per cent Albanian, 4 per cent
Muslim, 1 per cent Croat, and a further 7 per cent of people belonging
to other ethnic groups. The ethnic Albanian population is concentrated
mainly in the municipalities of Ulcinj, Plav and the Tuzi district
of Podgorica. The Bosniak population lives predominantly in the
northern part of the country in the municipalities of Berane, Rožaje
and Bijelo Polje. A sizeable population of Roma also exists, spread
throughout the country, with the biggest concentration around Podgorica.
30. A large percentage of Roma still do not possess personal identity
documents; the situation is even more complicated when it comes
to the Roma, Egyptians and Ashkali who fled Kosovo. On 8 November
2007, the government endorsed the Strategy for the Improvement of
the Position of Roma Population. The participation and integration
of national minorities in Montenegro into the country’s electoral
and political processes has generally been positive.
Domestic observers
31. The legislative framework provides
for access of international and domestic observers to observe the preparation
and the conduct of the election. Two domestic non-party observer
organisations – the Centre for Democratic Transition (CDT) and the
Centre for Election Monitoring (CEMI) – engaged in election observation activities
during the election period. This included observation of the pre-campaign
period, the campaign and Election Day, as well as a partial parallel
vote tabulation. Domestic non-party observers were present in 40
per cent of polling stations visited by IEOM observers.
4 The media environment
32. Montenegro has a diverse media
environment, offering voters a wide range of political views. However, there
are a number of unresolved issues, such as the downgrading of the
competences and autonomy of the broadcast media regulator, unresolved
cases of violence against media professionals and disproportionately high
fines in defamation cases.
33. Television is, by far, the most important source of news and
information. Publicly funded Radio Television Crna Gora (RTCG1),
in particular, offered voters an opportunity to compare contestants
on four televised debates and with free coverage, provided equally
as per adopted rules to all registered contestants and often with
political parties criticising the government. Private broadcasters
aired talk shows and special election programmes attended by different
political parties and candidates. Paid advertising was used extensively
by a number of contestants, although some complained to the IEOM
about high advertising prices.
34. Despite the pluralistic media environment, most outlets remain
strongly influenced by their owners and questions exist about the
broadcast media’s independence from political influence. In primetime
news, all monitored TV stations provided extensive coverage of the
activities of the authorities, many of who were standing as candidates,
outside of the campaign context. There was a notable tendency to
cover their work and activities positively, often pointing out results
achieved and successes. Critical and independent opinions on the
authorities’ performance were generally absent in the news programmes
of monitored broadcast media.
35. During the media monitoring of the four weeks preceding the
elections, Public TV devoted 61 per cent of its political and election
prime time news coverage to governing bodies. This included 40 per
cent of time going to the government, 3 per cent to the president,
4 per cent to the speaker of the parliament and 14 per cent to the
ruling coalition. 80 per cent of the government’s coverage was positive
in tone. By comparison, the coalition “For a Different Montenegro”,
PzP and SNP received 6 per cent respectively. This coverage was mainly
positive or neutral in tone.
36. Private broadcasters monitored adopted a similar approach
and devoted extensive, favorable coverage to the incumbents. The
most popular private broadcaster, TV IN, devoted 67 per cent of
its political and election prime time news coverage to governing
bodies. This included 37 per cent of time going to the government,
1 per cent to the president, 3 per cent to the speaker of the parliament
and 26 per cent to the ruling coalition, which was mainly positive
or neutral in tone. The second most-featured political party was
the SNP (11 per cent, mainly positive coverage), followed by the
“For a Different Montenegro” coalition (10 per cent, mainly positive
coverage).
37. Other private TV stations devoted more than half of their
political and election-related prime time news to the activities
of government ministers, all of which was overwhelmingly positive
or neutral in tone. On the other hand, regular talk shows and special
programmes provided contestants with the opportunity to inform voters
of their policies and platforms.
38. The Broadcasting Agency, which deals with media-related complaints,
received only one official complaint on media coverage of the campaign.
39. Print media provided lively coverage of the election campaign
and a plurality of views. State-funded Pobjeda supported
the government and their coalition parties. By contrast, the private
newspapers Dan and Vijesti provided their readers with
more analysis and critical reporting of the government. Opposition
parties (especially NOVA and SNP) received the bulk of coverage
in Dan, whereas Vijesti gave comparable coverage to
opposition and incumbent parties.
5 Complaints and appeals
40. The Election Law does not comprehensively
and clearly address the mechanisms for processing complaints about
various electoral violations and there is an apparent confusion
among interlocutors as to the procedures for filing complaints on
certain issues.
41. A number of challenges to the legal framework’s constitutionality
were brought by the SNP. They included legal arguments that the
extension of the deadline for harmonisation of the Election Law
with the Constitution by a simple majority was not legitimate and
that the Election Law was, thus, unconstitutional. These cases,
as well as others challenging the constitutionality of the LRE and
the five mandates for the ethnic Albanian areas, were all rejected
by the Constitutional Court.
42. Two complaints were filed by opposition parties to the SEC
challenging MEC appointments of PBs in Kolašin and Herceg Novi.
The parties argued that they were not given representation on PBs,
as was their apparent right under the Election Law. The SEC held
that the issue was beyond its competence, although in the Kolašin
case the SEC recommended that the MEC act on the proposal of the
complaining party. In this case, the Constitutional Court confirmed
the SEC decision on 20 March. The Administrative Court also held that
it had no jurisdiction over this complaint, a decision confirmed
by the Supreme Court on 27 March. The substance of these complaints
was left unconsidered before the election, thus limiting the ability
to seek legal redress against actions of the election administration.
Furthermore, the fact that the SEC was found not to be responsible
for such complaints underscores its lack of oversight of lower level
election administration bodies.
43. Hearings of the Constitutional Court and Administrative Court
were not always open to parties in the dispute, the public or election
observers. This was in apparent contravention of the Law on the
Constitutional Court and the Election Law and undermined important
principles of transparency and due process in the adjudication of
electoral disputes.
44. No election-related criminal conduct was reported to the authorities.
Political parties and NGOs told the IEOM that citizens feared for
their economic security (i.e., losing jobs in public institutions)
if they were to come forward as witnesses. Certain opposition parties
also expressed a lack of confidence in the election administration,
law enforcement bodies and courts to effectively protect their rights.
6 The campaign
45. For these elections, the governing
Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) – the Social Democratic Party (SDP)
remained in coalition, joined by the Croatian Civic Initiative (HGI)
and the Bosniak Party (BS) under the banner, “European Montenegro–Milo
Ðukanović”. The Democratic Centre (DC) entered a coalition with
the Liberal Party (LP) to contest the vote as “For a Different Montenegro”
coalition. New Serb Democracy (NOVA) ran separately from a new Serb
National List (SNL) coalition composed of the Serb Radical Party
(SSR) and the Party of Serb People (SSN). The Socialist People’s
Party (SNP) and the Movement for Change (PzP) also ran independently.
The Montenegrin Communists, a new Party of Pensioners and Invalids
(SPI) and a coalition between the People’s Party (NS) and the Democratic
Serb Party (DSS) also stood. Four parties and two coalitions from
national minority groups also participated in the elections.
46. Overall, the campaign environment was peaceful and parties/coalitions
campaigned freely throughout the country. The campaigns of most
contestants focused on the economy, crime and corruption, and the financial
crisis. Local issues also featured prominently. Political parties
seemed to have largely reached a consensus over the desirability
of Montenegro’s movement towards EU integration. Positions regarding membership
in NATO remained ambivalent. The recent recognition of Kosovo’s
independence by the Montenegrin government did not appear to be
a major feature of the campaign. Rallies ranged from 50 to 1,000 participants
and parties reported that they were focusing on door-to-door campaigning.
47. Small opposition parties tended to advertise themselves through
local broadcasters, while the large parties ran their media campaigns
centrally, on national TV stations. Billboards were used extensively
by a number of different parties and coalitions. Most appeared after
the drawing of the list order by the SEC on 11 March and featured
the contestants’ list number.
48. Many opposition parties complained to the IEOM about the new
campaign financing system, established by the 2008 Law on Financing
of Political Parties; certain parties noted their income had been
reduced by some 30 per cent. Although the law provides an initial
state subvention (17,000 euro in these elections) to each electoral
list, parties could also expect 13,500 euro in additional subvention
for each mandate won. Also, the new law establishes criteria for
soliciting individual and corporate donations for campaigns.
49. Financing of political parties has, however, been a longstanding
concern among the opposition. They believe that they are at a disadvantage
vis-à-vis the ruling parties, as the DPS rents its party building
to the government for a reportedly substantial fee. This also creates
a blurring between state and party structures, contradicting Montenegro’s
commitment under paragraph 5.4 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document.
It is expected that the new Law on State Property, which took effect
on 28 March 2009, should remedy the issue in the future.
50. As in previous elections, some opposition parties claimed
that vulnerable groups (including teachers, students and state workers)
were intimidated by the governing DPS. A news report by Vijesti
on teachers being pressured to support the DPS resulted in the Ministry
of Education issuing a letter to all educational establishments
stressing that such actions are illegal and that appropriate measures
would be taken in any such cases. In a national interview, the Parliamentary
Speaker did not rule out that isolated instances of intimidation
may have occurred. However, to the knowledge of the IEOM, no official
investigations over the allegations were conducted.
51. Allegations that the authorities engaged in buying ID cards
from opposition supporters and undecided voters to suppress voting
were common among certain opposition parties and were covered by
certain newspapers. The IEOM looked into the matter extensively,
with only one individual stating first-hand that she had been approached
as part of such a scheme. Although these allegations (which are
a regular opposition concern) are notoriously difficult to quantify
and mostly not substantiated, the authorities again failed to take sufficient
measures to properly address such allegations, which would have
enhanced public confidence in the electoral process.
7 Election day
52. Election day was well organised
with very few incidents reported. IEOM observers attended 60 opening procedures
and all observers evaluated the overall conduct of the openings
as good or very good. Voting was observed in some 700 polling stations
and observers evaluated the conduct of voting as good or very good
in 98 per cent of them. The process of closing and counting was
observed by 67 observer teams and was evaluated positively in all
but one case.
53. Certain problems during the opening of polling stations included
mainly procedural issues such as not drawing lots to determine responsibilities
of polling board (PB) members, ballot boxes not being sealed in
the presence of the first voter, and control slips not being signed
by all PB members and the first voter.
54. The voting process was also evaluated in highly positive terms
by observers with only limited irregularities noted. Authorised
party representatives were noted in 93 per cent of polling stations
visited. However, the legal requirement to have two PB members appointed
from opposition parties was not respected in 5 per cent of cases.
As well, ballot boxes were reported not to have been properly sealed
in 5 per cent of polling stations visited. Procedural issues were
again not always followed in the order established by law, especially
regarding the signing of voter lists, inking, and receipt of ballots.
Group voting was observed in 6 per cent of cases, giving rise to
some concern. Proxy voting and identical signatures in the voter
lists were both noted in 3 per cent of polling stations observed.
Three instances of tension or unrest were noted inside polling stations,
as were two cases of voters taking photographs of their ballots.
Very positively, observers reported high levels of transparency
in all aspects of election day procedures.
55. During the 67 closing and counting procedures observed, all
but two teams noted the following of procedures positively, and
organisation was also assessed positively in all but two polling
stations. Transparency of the count was evaluated as good or very
good in all polling stations observed. Procedures were not always
followed in the order established by law, but this did not appear
to impact the overall transparency of the counts. In a limited number
of cases, observer teams reported that people were waiting to vote
at closing time but were not allowed to do so. Domestic observers
were observed as being present in 55 per cent of cases. There were
five cases of special marks on ballots (circles, squares, triangles,
etc.) observed. Observers were given unrestricted access in all
cases.
56. Although the number of teams that observed the entire tabulation
process at MEC was limited, 13 MEC tabulations were followed and
all were evaluated as good or very good. In 5 cases, MECs instructed
PBs to correct their Records of Work and in one case the MEC itself
made a change to a PB Record. However, this did not appear to impact
on the overall transparency of the process.
57. According to the preliminary results of the elections, as
announced by SEC on 31 March 2009, the 81 seats in the new Parliament
of Montenegro will be distributed as follows: DPS-SDP-HGI-BS (Democratic
Party of Socialists, Social Democratic Party, Croatian civic initiative,
Bosniac party) will have 48 seats; SNP (Socialists People’s Party)
16 seats; Nova (New Serb Democracy) 8 seats; PzP (Movement for changes)
5 seats; Albanian party – DUA (Democratic Union of Albanians), DSCG-AA
(Democratic alliance, Albanian alternative), Forca, and coalition
‘Perspektiva’ each 1 seat.
8 Conclusions
and recommendations
58. A key challenge in this election
was public confidence; frequent allegations of electoral fraud and
a blurring of state and party structures created a negative atmosphere
among many voters.
59. Other important issues included harmonisation and reform of
the electoral framework, lack of adequate legal redress, and insufficient
critical reporting by most broadcast media.
60. The election campaign allowed a wide range of electoral lists
to present their programmes to voters freely. Meetings, door-to-door
canvassing and rallies were common features of the campaign. Again
this year, issues regarding party financing and the blurring of
state and party resources were raised by most opposition parties,
especially in regard to buildings owned by the governing party and
rented to the government. However, the recent passage of a new Law
on State Property should remedy the issue in the future.
61. As in previous years, allegations of pressure on voters and
ID buying were commonly reported by some opposition parties, the
media and a number of individuals. Although allegations (which are
a regular opposition concern) are difficult to quantify and are
mostly not substantiated, the authorities again failed to take sufficient measures
to properly address such allegations, which would have enhanced
public confidence in the electoral process.
62. The media offered extensive and informative coverage of all
contestants in election-related programming, providing voters a
wide array of viewpoints, including those critical of the government.
However, the news programming on all TV stations monitored predominantly
covered the activities of government and state officials, mainly
in an uncritical light.
63. Overall, the elections were professionally organised and there
is confidence in the election administration bodies. State Election
Commission (SEC) sessions were open to observers and there was a high
degree of transparency regarding its activities.
64. The parliamentary elections are regulated by a comprehensive
legal framework that generally provides an adequate basis for the
conduct of democratic elections. However, the legal framework has
yet to be fully harmonised with the new Constitution and does not
provide adequate mechanisms for processing election-related complaints.
The Constitutional requirement of two-year residency is not consistent
with the principle of universal suffrage. The right to elect and
be elected should be granted to all citizens as a fundamental human right,
and any practical considerations for the implementation of this
right should be addressed in legislation. Also, the fact that half
of the mandates won by an electoral list can be allocated to the
candidates in any order by the party leadership is limiting transparency
and potentially misleading voters.
65. Positive aspects of the election process included,
inter alia:
- A variety of safeguards are in place to protect the integrity
of the ballot;
- The SEC took an inclusive approach during candidate registration,
with no political contestants rejected;
- The voter registration system has benefitted from an improved
legal framework, voter registers are generally accurate and the
process for registration and review was well organised and transparent;
- Regular debates and talk shows on public and private TV
broadcasters provided a broad opportunity for electoral contestants
to present their platforms to voters.
66. Shortcomings that were noted included
inter
alia:
- The right
to seek legal redress in election disputes was undermined by a lack
of clarity in complaint procedures and a failure to substantively
consider some complaints;
- The courts’ consideration of election cases could have
benefitted from a higher degree of transparency and due process
by allowing greater access to the proceedings;
- Half of the mandates won by an electoral list can be allocated
to the candidates in any order by the party leadership, limiting
transparency and potentially misleading voters;
- A general lack of civic information programmes, in particular
on the protection of voting rights, either on the part of election
commissions or civil society.
67. Overall, IEOM observers assessed the voting process positively
in 98 per cent of polling stations visited. However, IEOM observers
noted a small number of irregularities. Procedures were not always
followed in the order established by law, especially regarding the
signing of voter lists, inking, and receipt of ballots. Group voting
was observed in 6 per cent of cases, and there were three instances
of tension or unrest noted inside polling stations, as well as two
cases of voters taking photographs of their ballots and then passing
on the photographical evidence on their vote to unknown persons
outside the polling stations. The process of closing and counting
was observed by 67 observer teams and was evaluated positively in
all but one case.
68. The Ad hoc Committee recommends to the authorities of Montenegro
to take all appropriate measures in order to build confidence across
the entire electorate – especially among voters supporting those
who lost the elections and in particular to:
- revise the Law on the Election of Councilors and Representatives
(Election Law) by harmonising it with the Constitution;
- clarify legal provisions regarding authentic representation
for people belonging to national minorities;
- eliminate the possibility of changes to fifty percent
of the order of the candidates on proportional lists after the closure
of the polls:
- work on all legal issues concerning elections in co-operation
with the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission;
- investigate all allegations of electoral fraud and violence
(not least, those against journalists) and make public the results
of investigations;
- draw a clear distinction between the state administration
and political parties.
Appendix 1 –
Ad hoc Committee to observe the parliamentary elections in Montenegro
(Pre-electoral mission)
Pre-electoral
mission, 24-26 February 2009 – Programme
Tuesday, 24 February
2009
9.30-10.00 Meeting of the Ad hoc Committee
10.00-11.45 Meeting with Ambassador Vladimir Philipov, Special
Representative of the Secretary General, and Ambassador Leopold
Maurer, Head of the European Commission in Podgorica and Ms Jana
Pavlic, Expert in political and trade section, European Commission
delegation
12.00-13.00 Meeting with Mr Branislav Radulović, CEC Chair
13.00-14.00 Meeting with the delegation of Montenegro to the
Assembly
14.00 -15.00 Meeting with Mr Ranko Krivokapić, Speaker of
the Parliament
16.15-17.15 Roundtable meeting with representatives of the
civil society:
- Center for Democracy
and Human Rights – CEDEM
- Center for Monitoring – CEMI
- Center for Democratic Transition – CDT
17.15-18.15 Roundtable meeting with representatives of the
medias:
- Pobjeda daily newspaper
- Vijesti daily newspaper
- Dan daily newspaper
- Monitor weekly
Wednesday, 25
February 2009
8.45-9.00 Departure for the Parliament
9.00-12.30 Meetings with political parties running in these
elections:
9.00-10.00:
- Democratic
Party of Socialists
- Social Democratic Party
- Croatian Civil Initiative
- Democratic Union of Albanians
- Bosnian Party
10.00-11.00:
- People's
Party
- Democratic Serbian Party
- Democratic Center
- Liberal Party
11.00-12.00:
- Serbian
National List
- Movement for Changes
- New Serbian Democracy
- Albanian Alternative
- Democratic Alliance in Montenegro
12.00-12.30:
Appendix 2 –
Montenegro: Statement by the PACE pre-election delegation
Strasbourg, 25.02.2009 – The pre-election
delegationNote of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) took
note of the preparations underway for the upcoming early parliamentary
elections in Montenegro, to be held on 29 March 2009.
The delegation concluded that, with the necessary political
will, Montenegro was capable of holding elections in line with European
standards, despite the discrepancies that remain between the Constitution
and the electoral legislation. It noted that the election administration
demonstrates efficiency and represents a plurality of political
views. The delegation was pleased with the active involvement of
civil society and the print media in the process and praised the
quality of their work.
At the same time, the delegation was concerned over the fact
that the Montenegrin authorities have not taken corrective action
in line with recommendations made by PACE and other international
observers in the wake of elections held in the country earlier.
This concerns, in particular, the continuing possibility of changes
to fifty percent of the order of the candidates on proportional
lists after the closure of the polls, which contravenes Council
of Europe standards in respect of democratic elections and the principles
of parliamentary democracy. This possibility needs to be expressly
prohibited by the election law. The delegation welcomed the assurances it
received from the Speaker of the Parliament that this concern will
be duly addressed when the relevant legislation is revised. Another
concern relates to a rather vague constitutional provision regarding
authentic representation for people belonging to national minorities.
Montenegro would be well advised to work on these legal issues with
the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
Appendix 3 –
Ad hoc Committee to observe the Parliamentary elections in Montenegro
(29 March 2009)
Programme
– 27-30 March 2009
Friday, 27 March
2009
10:00-11:00 PACE preliminary meeting
13:00-14:00 Meeting with Mr Branislav Radulović, Head of the
Central Electoral Commission
14:00-15:30 ODIHR briefing:
- Head of Mission Dr. Artis Pabriks
- Deputy Head of Mission Ms Beata Martin Rozumilowicz
- Mr Paul O’Grady, Election Analyst
- Ms Marla Morry, Legal Analyst;
- Mr Rasto Kuzel, Media Analyst;
- Mr Hans Schmeets, Statistics Analyst
15:30-16:00 Meeting with Ambassador Paraschiva Badescu, OSCE
Mission to Montenegro
16:30-17:00 Meeting with Mr. Srđan Darmanović, PhD, President
of the Steering Committee of the Centre for Democracy and Human
Rights (CEDEM)
17:00-17:30 Meeting with Mr Dragan Koprivica, Deputy Director
of Centre for Democratic Transition (CDT)
17:30-18:30 Meeting with:
- Mr Mladen
Milutinović, Acting Director and Editor-in-Chief of daily “DAN”,
- Mr. Mihailo JOVOVIĆ, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of daily ”Vijesti”
- Ms. Marina VUKOVIĆ, Deputy Director of TVCG
Saturday, 28
March 2009
9:00- 9:30 Meeting with Mr Goran Batrićević, President of
Democratic Centre (DC)
9:30-10:00 Meeting with Mr Predrag Sekulić, Political Director
and MP of Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS)
10:00-10:30 Meeting with Mr Borislav Banović, Member of Presidency
and MP of Social Democratic Party (SDP)
10:30-11:00 Meeting with Mr Predrag Popović, President of
the People’s Party (NS)
11:00-11:30 Meeting with Mr Goran Danilović, Vice-President,
and Veljo Čađenović, Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board of New
Serbian Democracy (Nova)
11:30-12:00 Meeting with Mr Nebojša Medojević, President of
the Movement for Changes (PZP)
12:00-12:30 Meeting with Mr Srđan Milć, President of Socialist
People’ Party (SNP)
12:30-13:00 Meeting with the “Democratic Union in Montenegro
– Albanian Alternative” coalition: Mr Mehmet Bardhi, President of
Democratic League of Montenegro (DSCG), and Mr Nik Gjeloshaj, Member
of Presidency of Albanian Alternative
13:15 Meeting with drivers and interpreters; meeting with
LTOs in Podgorica, Hotel Crna Gora lobby
LTO team for Podgorica will
also be available for questions: Ms Elaine Thro and Mr Randall Harbour
Sunday, 29 March
2009
Observation of the Parliamentary Elections
Monday, 30 March
2009
8:30 Parliamentary Assembly debriefing
14:00 Press conference
Appendix 4 –
Montenegro’s elections met almost all international standards, but
further democratic development is needed, observers say
PODGORICA, 30.03.2009 – Yesterday’s parliamentary
elections in Montenegro met almost all international commitments
and standards, but the process again underscored the need for further
democratic development, the international election observation mission
concluded in a statement issued today.
Overall, the elections were organized professionally, and
political parties were able to present their programmes to voters
freely. The voting and counting process was evaluated highly positively
by the observers, with very few incidents reported.
The observers noted, however, that lack of public confidence
remained a key challenge, as frequent allegations of electoral fraud
and a blurring of state and party structures created a negative
atmosphere among many voters. Other challenges include the need
to harmonize and reform the electoral framework, lack of adequate legal
redress, and insufficient critical reporting by most broadcast media.
“I have long watched Montenegro’s political and economic development,
both before and after its independence. In those years, the country
has made steady democratic progress and election day yesterday was
truly impressive. There is no doubt in my mind that these elections
further strengthened Montenegro’s democracy”, said Roberto Battelli,
Head of the delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE
PA) and Special Co-ordinator of the OSCE short-term observer mission.
“The organization of the elections was remarkably efficient.
But to gain legitimacy and build confidence among the entire electorate,
especially among voters supporting those who lost the elections,
the winners have to be more inclusive, pluralistic and fair”, said
Andreas Gross, Head of the delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE).
“These elections were very well organized. But democracy also
needs high public trust in its institutions. It is therefore important
to strengthen confidence in the electoral process, in particular
by investigating in serious way persisting allegations of fraud
and implementing long-standing recommendations. This is particularly important
in the context of Montenegro’s further democratic development and
the process of European integration”, said Artis Pabriks, Head of
the long-term election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR).
