Observation of the early parliamentary elections in Montenegro (14 October 2012)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13069
| 29 November 2012
- Author(s):
- Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Christopher CHOPE,
United Kingdom, EDG
- Thesaurus
1 Introduction
1. On 3 September 2012, the Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly decided to constitute an ad hoc committee to observe the
early parliamentary elections in Montenegro on 14 October 2012.
To this end, the Bureau appointed an ad hoc committee composed of
11 members and the two co-rapporteurs of the Committee on the Honouring
of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of
Europe (Monitoring Committee). At its meeting on 1 October 2012,
the Bureau appointed Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG)
as Chairperson of the ad hoc committee. The composition of the ad
hoc committee can be found in Appendix 1.
2. The ad hoc committee observed the elections as part of an
International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), in which the
election observation mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) and a delegation from the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly (OSCE PA) also participated.
3. The ad hoc committee had meetings in Podgorica from 12 to
15 October 2012, including with the Head of the European Union delegation
to Podgorica, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR mission and members of
his team, the Political Adviser of the OSCE mission to Montenegro,
the Chairperson of Montenegro's State Election Commission (SEC),
political party representatives and representatives of civil society
and the media. The ad hoc committee's programme of meetings can
be found in Appendix 2.
4. On election day, the ad hoc committee was divided into six
teams which observed the elections in Podgorica and the surrounding
area, Tuzi, Kolasin, Golubovici, Vranija, Niksic, Bar, Ulcinj and
Cetije.
5. The ad hoc committee concluded that the early parliamentary
elections held on 14 October 2012 “took place in a peaceful and
pluralistic environment with respect for fundamental rights, although
the continued lack of confidence needs to be addressed”. In the
press release published following the elections and at the press conference
held on 15 October, the head of the Parliamentary Assembly delegation
underlined that “the citizens of Montenegro made their choice in
a free way from a large number of political parties. The abuse of administrative
resources and a lack of transparency in campaign and political party
financing are a matter of concern that should be addressed by the
authorities”. The Parliamentary Assembly will continue its close
co-operation with the Montenegrin Parliament and institutions, through
its monitoring procedures and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission), with a view to the further consolidation
of democracy. The press release is set out in Appendix 3.
6. The ad hoc committee wishes to thank the Montenegrin Parliament
and the OSCE/ODIHR for their co-operation and support.
2 Political
and legal framework
7. These are the third parliamentary elections since
the country declared its independence in June 2006. On 26 June 2012,
the European Union announced that it was opening accession negotiations
with Montenegro. According to the governing coalition, a full four-year
mandate was needed in order to permit the calm, untroubled conduct
of these accession talks. On 26 July, the coalition therefore tabled
a motion on the dissolution of parliament, which was adopted by
47 votes for and 27 against. On 31 July, the President of Montenegro,
Filip Vujanovic, called the early parliamentary elections for 14
October 2012, bringing forward the end of the parliamentary term,
initially scheduled for spring 2013.
8. As regards the legal framework, these early elections were
held in accordance with Article 105 of the Law on the Election of
Councillors and Members of Parliament, which provides that early
elections shall be governed by the same provisions as elections
held according to the regular mandate. The early parliamentary elections
were regulated by a comprehensive legal framework that generally
provides an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections.
9. In addition to the Law on the Election of Councillors and
Members of Parliament, the relevant pieces of legislation concerning
elections are the constitution, the Law on Electoral Lists and the
Law on Financing of Political Parties (also amended in 2012, primarily
concerning supervision of compliance, which is carried out by both
the State Election Commission and the State Audit Institution).
10. Montenegro was required to bring its electoral legislation
into conformity with the Constitution of 2007 and with European
standards by 31 May 2011. This concerned, in particular, the issue
of who could vote (according to the Constitution “citizens” are
entitled to vote, whereas the electoral law refers to “inhabitants”, which
affected the status of persons living in Montenegro but originating
from the former Yugoslav republics) and the “authentic representation”
of minorities under Article 79.9 of the constitution.
11. The electoral law was amended on 8 September 2011, bringing
it into line with the Constitution of 2007. This legal framework
was given a positive assessment by the Venice Commission and the
OSCE/ODIHR in their most recent joint opinion on the draft law amending
the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament of
Montenegro.
Note Overall, the amendments consisted
in technical improvements to voting and a reinforcement of the protection
of fundamental rights, such as non-discrimination. A number of issues
raised in the previous opinion by the Venice Commission and the
OSCE/ODIHR were also addressed.
12. Montenegro's unicameral parliament has 81 seats. Members are
elected for a four-year term in a single nation-wide constituency
under a proportional system (with a seat allocation threshold of
3% of the valid votes). Political parties can submit lists either
individually or, if they are part of a coalition, jointly.
13. The amendments also involved changes to the electoral system.
Previously, under Article 96 of the electoral law, half of the seats
won by an electoral list were allocated according to the candidates'
order on the list, and the other half at the discretion of the list's
submitters. These arrangements had drawn constant criticism from
the Parliamentary Assembly's election observation missions. The
amended law ensures that all seats won by a list are allocated on
the basis of the list's order. The same applies to Articles 104
and 105 concerning the filling of vacant seats.
14. The new rules on national minorities' participation in parliament
reflect the constitutional requirement of “authentic” representation
(Article 79.9 of the constitution). National minorities recognised
by the constitution benefit from provisions facilitating their authentic
representation in parliament. Under the electoral law, a contestant
(list of candidates) is regarded as a minority contestant if it
represents a specific minority or a minority national community
constituting not more than 15% of the population at the time of
the latest census.
15. The most recent changes to the electoral law have brought
further positive developments that improve national minorities'
representation in parliament:
- a
decrease in the number of signatures required: 1 000 signatures
of registered voters, instead of 1% of the total number of voters,
and 300 signatures for specific minorities constituting up to 2%
of the total population;
- a decrease in the seat allocation threshold to 0.7% of
the valid votes, and 0.35% for the Croat minority.
16. Generally speaking, the Constitution of 2007 guarantees fundamental
civil and political freedoms and human rights. It provides that
every Montenegrin citizen aged 18 or over and resident in the country
for at least two years shall be entitled to vote and to stand as
a candidate in elections. However, the 24-month residence requirement
inherited from the pre-independence period cannot be regarded as
a reasonable restriction, in keeping with the principle of universal
suffrage, as the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR underlined in
their previously cited opinion.
Note All citizens
must enjoy the right to vote and to be elected, in so far as this
is a fundamental human right, and the law must put in place all
the practical measures for exercising this right.
3 Election administration
and registration of lists and candidates
17. Elections are administered by a three-level system
of electoral commissions: a State Election Commission (SEC), 21
Municipal Election Commissions (MECs) and 1 165 Polling Boards (PBs).
The SEC and MECs are appointed for a four-year term by a newly elected
parliament, while the Polling Boards are appointed for each election
of councillors or MPs.
18. The recent amendments to the electoral legislation ensure
a balanced representation of political parties in the election administration.
The 11 members of the SEC are appointed by parliament, including
the Chairperson and four members representing the ruling coalition,
while the secretary and the other members represent opposition parties
and national minority parties.
19. The seven members of an MEC are appointed by the relevant
municipal assembly. PBs have five members. In addition to the appointed
members, the SEC, MECs and PBs include representatives of the political
parties present in parliament, not least the opposition parties,
and of the candidate lists standing in elections. While the SEC
organises and administers the electoral process as a whole, the
PBs are responsible for directly administering the vote. For the
early parliamentary elections of 14 October, the governing coalition had
a majority in 17 out of 21 MECs and had appointed 64.7% of the members
of the PBs. The assessment of the impartiality of election administration
was nonetheless globally positive.
20. The elections were organised in a professional, transparent
manner, although the SEC did not do everything it could to ensure
the due implementation of the party funding legislation and general
oversight of the election campaign; it primarily confined its role
to consideration of the very small number of complaints lodged with
it. The SEC's other activities, such as the printing of ballot papers,
were performed in a very transparent manner in the presence of the
media and observers. The electoral commissions at all levels complied
with most of the deadlines laid down by law.
21. According to the latest census of the population of Montenegro,
conducted in 2011, the country has 625 266 inhabitants. For the
early elections of 14 October, 514 055 voters were registered on
the electoral lists. Montenegro has 21 separate voter registers
managed by the respective municipal authorities. The voter registration
process is passive in that voter data are updated automatically
on the basis of information provided by the local offices of the
Ministry of the Interior.
22. The decentralised system for registering voters on the electoral
lists is fairly complex to run, particularly regarding identification
of deceased persons and updating of the lists. In addition, the
system fails to offer sufficient guarantees regarding personal data
protection. Representatives of opposition parties and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) raised concerns as to the accuracy of the electoral
lists and the fact that many Montenegrins residing abroad were still
included on the lists. Some of the persons with whom the ad hoc committee
spoke also mentioned cases of persons included on the electoral
lists whose nationality was not known. A situation of this kind
does not enhance political and civil society stakeholders' confidence
in the democratic nature of the election process.
23. Political parties and groups of citizens can register to stand
in the elections separately or as a coalition, on the basis of the
electoral lists. Party and coalition lists must have the supporting
signatures of 1% of the total number of voters (for the elections
of 14 October, the requirement was accordingly 4 983 signatures),
apart from lists of parties and groups of voters representing specific
minorities or a national minority community, which must have 1 000
supporting signatures (or 300 for specific minorities constituting
up to 2% of the population).
24. Under the system for allocating seats, an exceptional rule
continues to apply for participation by lists of candidates representing
minorities. If none of the lists of candidates representing the
same minority or same national minority community reaches the general
threshold of 3%, but certain lists individually gain at least 0.7%
of the valid votes, these lists are taken into consideration in
the distribution of seats corresponding to a maximum of 3% of the
total number of valid votes. This upper limit applies whatever the
actual number of votes scored individually by the lists: the “aggregated”
list will participate in the allocation of seats only within the
3% limit.
25. The ethnic composition of the population of Montenegro is
as follows: 43% Montenegrins, 32% Serbs, 8% Bosnians, 5% Albanians,
4% Muslims, 1% Croats and 7% people belonging to other ethnic groups.
The population of Albanian origin is mainly concentrated in the
towns of Ulcinj, Plav and Tuzi in the Podgorica district. The Bosnian
population mostly lives in the northern part of the country, in
the municipalities of Berane, Rožaje and Bijelo Polje. There is
also a significant Roma population, which is disseminated all over
the country although the greatest concentration of Roma is to be
found in the vicinity of Podgorica.
26. The SEC registered 13 lists of political parties or coalitions.
A total of 841 candidates took part in the elections, competing
for 81 parliamentary seats. The SEC adopted an inclusive approach
to registering all the lists of candidates, and no political party
was rejected. The provision allowing 48 hours for rectifying errors
was applied in a reasonable manner.
27. As in the parliamentary elections of 2009, women were under-represented
on the lists of candidates for these elections. Under the legislation
in force, the quota for women was set at 30% of candidates on a
list. Three of the lists registered complied with this legal requirement,
and one list, the Croatian Civic Initiative, was led by a woman.
The first woman on the outgoing ruling coalition's list was in 14th
position, and of the 81 candidates on this list only nine were women.
4 The election campaign
and the media environment
28. For the elections, the ruling Democratic Party of
Socialists/Social Democratic Party maintained its coalition under
the banner “European Montenegro – Milo Ðukanović”. The opposition
was grouped around the Democratic Front headed by Modrac Lekic,
Positive Montenegro headed by Darko Pajovic and the Socialist People’s
Party of Montenegro. The main national minority parties taking part
in the elections were the Bosniak Party, the Croatian Civic Initiative
and the Albanian parties.
29. The election campaign began on 20 September. On the whole,
the campaign took place in a peaceful environment and the parties/coalitions
campaigned freely throughout the country. Most of the candidates focused
on the issues of European Union and NATO accession, the economic
crisis and unemployment and organised crime and corruption. Local
issues were also important. Election meetings were attended by 50
to 1 000 participants, and the parties stated that they had given
priority to doorstep campaigning.
30. The funding of political parties and election campaigns is
an issue which the opposition has been raising for many years. Representatives
of the opposition parties, NGOs and the media told the ad hoc committee
that there was a lack of transparency concerning party and campaign
funding. This situation also blurs the distinction between the activities
of State bodies and those of the ruling political parties.
31. In its 2010 report on Montenegro, the Council of Europe’s
Group of States against Corruption (GRECO)
Note recommended
that:
- clear rules and guidance
concerning the use of public resources for party activity and election
campaigns be introduced;
- an institution, whether new or existing, be given appropriate
independent authority and resources to monitor the funding of political
parties and electoral campaigns (both from private and public sources);
- a practical working arrangement ensuring effective implementation
of party/campaign funding rules be developed;
- that arrangement be described publicly on the websites
of the Ministry of Finance and the State Election Commission (and
the local commissions where appropriate) and clear information to
the public be included regarding how and where to lodge complaints.
32. The ad hoc committee believes that GRECO’s next report on
Montenegro’s implementation of the recommendations on party and
campaign funding, which will be discussed in December 2012, will
also complete the assessment of the situation in this connection
during the elections on 14 October 2012.
33. As in the previous elections, some opposition parties, NGOs
and media outlets mentioned cases of abuse of administrative resources
by the ruling parties and pressure and intimidation being exerted
on vulnerable groups, including teachers and officials working in
government bodies, so that they voted for the ruling parties. According
to the OSCE/ODIHR limited mission, during the election campaign,
the ruling coalition announced the creation of 45 temporary civil
service posts, allegedly for its supporters. In this connection,
it should be noted that approximately 40% of jobs in Montenegro
are in government bodies of various levels.
34. The members of the ad hoc committee were told that, during
doorstep campaigning, representatives of the governing coalition
had apparently drawn up a list of voters supporting the coalition,
who later received targeted welfare benefits from the relevant public
bodies. The ad hoc committee does not have the resources to check
all these allegations, but nevertheless believes that the relevant
authorities in Montenegro should conduct investigations to shed
light on the cases reported and inform the public of the findings.
Action of this kind by the authorities would help strengthen public
trust in the democratic process.
35. Frequent allegations were made that the authorities had bought
identity cards of opposition supporters and undecided voters so
as to eliminate their votes; this matter was raised in various newspapers. Unfortunately,
these allegations (which are a constant concern for the opposition)
are hard to quantify and, above all, prove; once again, however,
the authorities failed to take appropriate measures to shed light
on these allegations. By responding, they would have strengthened
public trust in the electoral process.
36. The media environment in Montenegro is diverse, which means
that a wide range of political opinions were voiced, but it is divided
along political lines. Television is by far the most important source
of news and information. Public-service radio and television, Crna
Gora (RTCG 1) in particular, enabled voters to compare the candidates
in six 90-minute free-view televised debates in which a large number
of the registered candidates took part on an equal footing and in
accordance with the applicable rules.
37. The private media broadcast debates and special programmes
about the elections involving various political parties and candidates,
some of whom questioned the impartiality of the private media and
the lack of transparency concerning their funding and their owners.
In spite of the pluralist media environment, most programmes are
still strongly influenced by the owners, which raises questions
about the independence of radio and television broadcasting in the
private sector.
38. During the election campaign, public-service television devoted
57% of political and news programmes to the activities of the various
organs of government. Private channels devoted 54% of their air
time to covering the activities of the government and the governing
coalition, but often in negative terms. In general, the four main
political parties and coalitions received most coverage (European
Montenegro – Milo Ðukanović, the Democratic Front, Positive Montenegro
and the People’s Socialist Party of Montenegro). The written press produced
interesting reports on the election campaign and reflected political
pluralism.
5 Polling day
39. Polling day was calm. The members of the ad hoc committee
visited a substantial number of polling stations and were able to
confirm that the ballot proceeded in an orderly manner. The voting
and counting operations were conducted, on the whole, in a professional
manner. Some tension was noted by one of the teams which visited
polling stations in Albanian-speaking areas.
40. The members of the ad hoc committee identified a number of
technical problems in the polling stations visited:
- the design of the booths did
not ensure voting secrecy. Nevertheless, no attempt to take advantage
of this deficiency was noted;
- the ballot boxes were not transparent and there were no
mobile ballot boxes: people who voted at home placed their ballot
papers in envelopes, which did not ensure voting secrecy;
- the fact that the political parties’ logos were not on
the ballot papers made voting difficult for illiterate voters, mainly
in rural areas with Albanian-speaking inhabitants, and for Roma;
- there were very few observers in polling stations in Albanian-speaking
areas;
- there were a considerable number of people in the polling
stations, including representatives of political parties, often
without badges;
- in general, polling stations were not, or were not easily,
accessible for people with disabilities;
- cases of unintentional non-compliance with the counting
procedures in certain polling stations were observed, particularly
in rural areas.
41. According to the preliminary election results announced by
the SEC on 15 October 2012, the allocation of the 81 seats in the
new Parliament of Montenegro is as follows: European Montenegro
– Milo Ðukanović: 39 seats; Democratic Front: 20 seats; the People’s
Socialist Party: 9 seats; Positive Montenegro: 7 seats; the Bosniak
Party: 3 seats; the Albanian parties: 2 seats; and the Croatian
Civic Initiative: 1 seat. The turnout was 70.55%.
6 Conclusions
and recommendations
42. The ad hoc committee concluded that Montenegro’s
early parliamentary elections on 14 October 2012 took place in a
peaceful and pluralistic environment with respect for fundamental
rights and that the citizens of Montenegro made their choice freely
from a large number of political parties. Nevertheless, the abuse
of administrative resources and a lack of transparency in campaign
and political party financing were a matter of concern that should
be addressed as soon as possible by the authorities.
43. Polling day was calm. The members of the ad hoc committee
visited 71 polling stations and observed that the ballot proceeded
in an orderly manner and the voting and counting operations were
generally conducted in a professional manner and with composure.
44. The ad hoc committee points out that, in the conclusions of
the report on the 2009 parliamentary elections, it was recommended
that the Montenegrin authorities bring the legal framework into
line with the country’s constitution. The ad hoc committee is therefore
pleased to note that Montenegro, on 8 September 2011, amended the
electoral law and brought it into line with the 2007 constitution.
This amended legal framework was assessed positively by the Venice
Commission, as, on the whole, the amendments involved technical
improvements to voting and strengthened the protection of fundamental
rights.
45. Many discussion partners informed the ad hoc committee of
cases of abuse of administrative resources by the ruling parties
and of pressure and intimidation being exerted on teachers and government
officials to vote for the ruling parties. During the election campaign,
the ruling coalition allegedly announced the creation of 45 temporary
civil service posts for its supporters.
46. As the ad hoc committee does not have the resources to check
all these allegations, it asks the relevant authorities in Montenegro
to investigate them and, should they prove founded, to identify
those responsible and inform the public and the Parliamentary Assembly
as quickly as possible. The ad hoc committee believes that any recurrence
of practices of this kind in future elections must be averted at
all costs; otherwise, it would be difficult to strengthen the confidence
of Montenegrin citizens in the democratic functioning of institutions
and the electoral process.
47. The ad hoc committee notes that the transparency of party
and campaign funding remains a problem which the opposition has
been raising for many years, in spite of the fact that the parliament
passed a law on political party financing in January 2012. The members
of the ad hoc committee were informed by representatives of the
opposition parties, NGOs and the media that there was blurring of
the distinction between the activities of State bodies and those
of the ruling political parties in this respect.
48. The media environment is now more diverse, but it is divided
along political lines. The media provided broad coverage of election
programmes and differing opinions. Television was by far the most
important source of news and information. In spite of the pluralist
media environment, however, most programmes were still strongly
influenced by the owners, which raises questions about the independence
of radio and television broadcasting in the private sector.
49. The ad hoc committee believes that the Parliamentary Assembly
should pursue its close co-operation with the Parliament and institutions
of Montenegro, through its monitoring procedure and the Venice Commission,
in order to consolidate still further the entire electoral process.
To continue improving the electoral process in Montenegro, the ad hoc
committee calls on the Montenegrin authorities to:
- implement the recommendations
of the Assembly and GRECO in full in order to increase the transparency
of election campaign and political party funding;
- strengthen the legal status of government officials in
order to avoid cases of their being subjected to undue pressure
or intimidation during election campaigns or on polling day;
- conduct investigations into all the allegations of abuse
of administrative resources by the ruling parties and publish the
findings of the investigations;
- make a clear distinction between the government and the
ruling parties;
- improve electoral legislation in order to guarantee the
right of universal suffrage for all citizens of Montenegro without
the 24-month residence requirement inherited from the pre-independence
period;
- improve polling booth design to enhance voting secrecy,
and install transparent ballot boxes;
- arrange training for polling board members, in particular
in rural areas, so as to improve their command of procedures on
polling day.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
Based on proposals by the political groups,
the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
– Christopher CHOPE, Head of the Delegation
- Group
of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS, Greece
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Josette DURRIEU, France
- Tudor PANŢIRU, Romania
- Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS, Greece
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Doris
FIALA, Switzerland
- Bernard MARQUET, Monaco
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Dimitrios
PAPADIMOULIS, Greece
- Co-rapporteur of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Secretariat
- Chemavon Chahbazian, Deputy
to the Head of the Interparliamentary Co-operation and Election Observation
Division
- Daniele Gastl, Assistant
- Gaël Martin-Micallef, Secretariat of the Venice Commission
Appendix 2 – Programme for
the observation of the early parliamentary elections (14 October
2012)
Friday
12 October 2012
11:00 – 12:00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee
Opening of the meeting of the parliamentarian delegations
by Mr Roberto Battelli, OSCE Special Representative, Head of the
OSCE PA, and by Mr Christopher Chope, Head of the PACE delegation,
followed by Mr Ranko Krivokapić, Speaker of the Parliament of Montenegro
14:00 – 14:30 Meeting with Mr Alan Toberts, Political advisor
of the OSCE Mission to Montenegro and with Ambassador Mitja Drobnic,
Head of the European Union Mission to Montenegro
14:30 –15:30 Meeting with Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens,
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR limited mission and members of his team
15:30 – 16:15 Meeting with representatives of the media:
- Mr Mihailo Jovović, Deputy to
the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper Vijesti
- Mr Esad Kocan, Editor-in-Chief, Monitor
17:00
– 17:45 Meeting with the representatives of civil society:
17:45 – 18:30 Meetings with representatives of the main political
parties running in the elections:
- Mr
Branimir Gvozdenovic, Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS)
- Mr Ivan Vujovic, Social Democratic Party (SDP)
- Mr Dragan Ivanovic, Socialist People's Party (SNP)
- Mr Slaven Radunovic, New Serb Democracy (NOVA)
Saturday 13 October 2012
9:30 – 11:30 Continuation of the meetings with representatives
of the main political parties running in the elections:
- Mr Koca Pavlovic, Movement for
Changes (PzP)
- Mr Mehmet Bardhi, Albanian Coalition
- Mr Mladen Bojanic, Positive Montenegro
- Mr Stojanovic, People’s Party
- Ms Ljerka Dragicevic, Croatian Civic Initiative (HGI)
- Mr Suljo Mustafic, Bosniak Party (BS)
11:30
– 12:15 Meeting with Mr Ivan Kalezic, President of the State Election
Commission
12:30 – 13:30 Meeting with drivers and interpreters
Sunday 14 October 2012
Observation of the parliamentary elections
Monday 15 October 2012
8:30 – 9:30 Debriefing of the ad hoc committee
12:30 Press conference
Appendix 3 – Statement by
the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
Montenegro elections
pluralistic with respect for fundamental rights, although confidence-building
is needed, observers say
Podgorica, 15 October 2012 – Montenegro’s early parliamentary
elections on 14 October took place in a peaceful and pluralistic
environment with respect for fundamental rights, although continued
lack of confidence needs to be addressed, international observers
said in a statement issued today.
“These elections further consolidated the democratic process.
Voters and polling board members have demonstrated a good understanding
of their responsibilities”, said Roberto Battelli, the Special Co-ordinator who
led the short-term OSCE observer mission and Head of the OSCE PA
delegation. “However, during the election campaign, all participants
in the process have a responsibility to focus on democratic substance
in order to strengthen trust in the process instead of undermining
it.”
“Yesterday the citizens of Montenegro made their choice in
a free way from a large number of political parties. The abuse of
administrative resources and a lack of transparency in campaign
and political party financing are a matter of concern that should
be addressed by the authorities,” said Christopher Chope, the Head
of the PACE delegation. “Our Assembly will continue its close co-operation,
through its monitoring procedures and the Venice Commission, with
the Montenegrin parliament and institutions for the further consolidation
of democracy.”
Observers noted that electoral contestants were able to campaign
freely, and that the candidate-registration process was inclusive
and transparent. Interlocutors alleged the abuse of State resources
and reported violations of a public sector recruitment ban during
the campaign. There were also concerns over the quality of the voter
lists.
Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR limited election
observation mission (LEOM), said: “The OSCE/ODIHR limited election
observation mission’s interlocutors noted that the small number
of complaints brought to the attention of the authorities reflected
a lack of trust in the complaint system. Often stakeholders informed
the LEOM about concerns they had, without seeking legal redress
through this system. This situation is not satisfactory and needs
to be addressed.”
The State Election Commission operated professionally and
transparently, but with a limited interpretation of its role. The
right in the amended electoral law to appoint authorized representatives
at all levels of the election administration was not fully exercised,
with some parties citing limited financial and human resources.
The legal framework is comprehensive and generally provides
an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections, the statement
says, and the introduction of a gender quota for candidate lists
represents a marked improvement. The residency requirement continues
to unduly restrict voting rights and was inconsistently applied.
Despite amendments to party financing laws, further improvements
and better implementation would increase transparency.
The media environment is diverse and divided along political
lines. There was extensive television coverage of the elections,
and obligations to guarantee equal coverage were respected.
In polling stations observed the election administration conducted
the process professionally and transparently. Observers noted that
the new status of authorised representatives with voting privileges
was often neglected.
