Observation of the presidential election (13 and 27 April 2014) and of the early parliamentary elections (27 April 2014) in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
Election observation report
| Doc. 13517
| 26 May 2014
1 Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly, at its
meeting on 16 December 2013, decided to observe the presidential
election in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, subject
to the receipt of an invitation and confirmation of the date, and
to constitute an ad hoc committee composed of 21 members and the rapporteur
of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments
by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).
The Bureau also authorised a pre-electoral mission. On 4 February 2014,
the Bureau approved the composition of the ad hoc committee and
appointed Mr Stefan Schennach as Chairperson. On 11 February 2014,
Mr Trajko Veljanovski, President of the Assembly of “the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, invited the Parliamentary Assembly
to observe the presidential election on 13 April 2014. On 5 March
2014, the Bureau decided that the same ad hoc committee should also
observe the early parliamentary elections scheduled for 27 April
2014 (at the same time as the possible second round of the presidential
election). On 11 April 2014, the Bureau approved the final composition
of the ad hoc committee (see Appendix 1).
2. Under the terms of Article 15 of the co-operation agreement
signed between the Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) on 4 October 2004, “[w]hen the Bureau
of the Assembly decides to observe an election in a country in which
electoral legislation was previously examined by the Venice Commission,
one of the rapporteurs of the Venice Commission on this issue may
be invited to join the Assembly's election observation mission as
legal adviser”. In accordance with this provision, the Bureau of
the Assembly invited an expert from the Venice Commission to join
the ad hoc committee as an adviser.
3. The pre-electoral delegation went to “the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia” on 11 and 12 March 2014 to evaluate the state
of preparations and the political climate in the run-up to the presidential
election. The programme of the visit (Appendix 2) included meetings
with the presidential candidates, including the incumbent President,
the President of the Assembly, members of the delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Chairperson
of the State Election Commission, the Minister of the Interior,
the Minister of Information Society and Administration, the Vice-President
of the Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services, the Deputy
Auditor General, the President of the State Commission for Preventing
Corruption, representatives of the civil society and of the media,
the Head of 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), diplomats and representatives
of international organisations present in Skopje. At the end of its
mission, the pre-electoral delegation issued a press release (Appendix
3).
4. For the observation of the presidential election, the ad hoc
committee operated in the framework of an International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM) together with the election observation
mission of the OSCE/ODIHR.
5. The ad hoc committee met in Skopje from 10 to 14 April 2014
to observe the first round of the presidential election on 13 April.
The programme of the ad hoc committee’s meetings, is set out in
Appendix 4. On election day, the ad hoc committee split into eight
teams which observed the elections in Skopje and the surrounding areas
as well as in the following regions and municipalities: Gostivar,
Veles, Tetovo, Kumanovo, Kriva Palanka, Ohrid, Bitola and Struga.
6. The following day, the IEOM held a joint press conference
and issued a “statement of preliminary findings and conclusions”
and a press release (Appendix 5).
7. For the observation of the early parliamentary elections on
27 April 2014 (date coinciding with the second round of the presidential
election), an observation mission of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
joined the IEOM.
8. The ad hoc committee returned to Skopje from 25 to 28 April
2014 to observe the second round of the presidential election and
the early parliamentary elections, both on 27 April. The programme
of the ad hoc committee’s meetings, similar to those of the previous
two missions but including meetings with representatives of the
main political parties, is set out in Appendix 6. On election day,
the ad hoc committee split into eight teams which observed the elections
in Skopje and its surrounding areas, as well as in the following
regions and municipalities: Gostivar, Veles, Tetovo, Kumanovo, Kriva
Palanka, Gjorce Petrov, Petrovec, Ilinden, Zelenikovo, Ohrid, Bitola
and Struga.
9. The following day, the IEOM held a joint press conference
and issued a “statement of preliminary findings and conclusions”
and a press release (Appendix 7).
2 Background
10. In line with constitutional and legal provisions,
the first round of the presidential election was held on 13 April
and the second round on 27 April 2014, at the same time as the early
parliamentary elections further to the dissolution of the parliament
on 5 March.
11. The incumbent president, Gjorge Ivanov, affiliated with the
Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation – Democratic Party
for Macedonian National Unity (VMRO-DPMNE), was running for a second term
and was challenged by Stevo Pendarovski, affiliated with the opposition
party Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), Iljaz Halimi,
affiliated with the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA), and Zoran
Popovski, affiliated with the recently-formed party Citizens Option
for Macedonia (GROM).
12. The Democratic Union for Integration (DUI) party, a member
in the governing coalition with the VMRO-DPMNE, boycotted the presidential
election, alleging that its coalition partner VMRO-DPMNE had ignored
its calls to nominate a consensual presidential candidate who would
represent both the ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian communities.
The DUI called for its supporters to refrain from voting and thus
invalidate the presidential election, as a threshold of 40% of the
registered voters was required in the second round to validate the
election (a requirement previously criticised by the Venice Commission).
3 Legal framework
13. Elections are regulated by the Constitution, the
Electoral Code and the Criminal Code. These were all amended on
24 January 2014 and some recommendations of the Venice Commission
were partly addressed. Among the amendments are regulations with
respect to the use of administrative resources, financing of campaigns,
media coverage and out-of-country voting.
14. However, a number of inconsistencies remain, for example a
lack of clarity on the definition of campaigning and on the use
of public resources during the campaign. Safeguards for the separation
of party and State are insufficient. The 40% turnout requirement
in the second round of the presidential election, as already mentioned,
could lead to cycles of failed elections. The complaints procedure
was ineffective.
15. The president is elected in a single constituency by general
and direct suffrage by secret ballot for a five-year term under
a majoritarian system. To be elected in the first round, a candidate
must receive more than 50% of the votes of the total number of registered
voters. Should there be a second round, the candidate with the most
votes wins, provided the turnout is greater than 40%, otherwise
the entire election process must be repeated.
16. The parliament has 123 members elected for a four-year term.
120 members are elected under a proportional system in six electoral
districts and three are elected in a majoritarian system in three
out-of-country districts (Europe and Africa, North and South America,
Australia and Asia). The uneven distribution of voters in the out-of-country
districts and the difference between the number of voters in the
domestic and in the out-of-country districts does not ensure genuine
equality of the vote. This was already criticised in the 2011 Joint
Opinion of the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission.
4 Electoral administration,
voters lists and registration of candidates
17. The presidential and the parliamentary elections
were administered by a three-level election administration: the
State Electoral Commission (SEC), 80 municipal election commissions
(MEC), 3 480 in-country election boards and 34 diplomatic–consular
offices.
18. The SEC is composed of seven members appointed by the parliament
for a four-year term. The President and two members are nominated
by the parliamentary opposition parties and the vice-president and three
members are nominated by the governing parties. The MECs have a
President, four members and their deputies, randomly selected from
public service employees for a five-year term. Election boards are
formed by MECs and have one member nominated by the governing political
parties, one by the opposition parties and three randomly selected
from public service employees.
19. The SEC sessions were generally open for accredited observers
and the media. However, they were characterised by division among
members and voting along party lines.
20. As presidential and parliamentary elections were announced
on different dates, the deadlines for public scrutiny and for closing
the voters lists were different; this resulted in two separate voters
lists, with 1 779 572 citizens registered to vote in the presidential
election and 1 780 128 in the early parliamentary elections.
21. A number of the IEOM’s interlocutors raised the issue of large
numbers of voters residing at the same address and both the DUI
and the SDSM filed complaints with the SEC requesting the deletion
of voters from the voters lists, alleging that they were registered
at fictitious addresses. As the legal provisions do not clearly specify
which agency is responsible for investigating such complaints, the
issue remained unsolved and led to mistrust in the accuracy of voters
lists.
22. To stand as a presidential candidate, a citizen must have
the right to vote, be at least 40 years old, and have lived in the
country for at least 10 of the last 15 years. The duration of 10
years appears excessive and disproportionate with the principle
of equality. Nominations for the presidential election must be supported either
by 10 000 voters or 30 members of parliament.
23. Candidate registration was inclusive. Out of six nominees,
two failed to collect the required number of signatures.
24. Candidates in the parliamentary elections had to be nominated
by political parties, coalition of political parties or by groups
of voters. In order to encourage the participation of women, and
in accordance with legal provisions, one in every three consecutive
places on candidate lists was reserved for the under-represented sex.
25. Nine political parties and five coalitions were registered
by the SEC. All the Albanian parties, including the DUI and DPA,
ran separately.
5 Election campaign
and media environment
26. The presidential campaign for the first round officially
started on 24 March and ended on 11 April at midnight. The campaign
for the second round started on 14 April and that for the early
parliamentary elections started on 5 April, with a two-day interruption
during the campaign silence for the first round of the presidential election,
as decided by the SEC.
27. The campaigns were active, candidates being able to campaign
without hindrance. However, the campaign of the VMRO-DPMNE was largely
dominant, as the governing party did not properly separate party from
State activities, contrary to the Venice Commission’s Code of Good
Practice in Electoral Matters. Interlocutors of the IEOM provided
credible allegations of voter intimidation, in particular among
public sector employees, including pressure to attend campaign events,
pressure not to attend opposition events, pressure linked to jobs,
etc. There were also credible allegations of vote-buying, in particular
among economically disadvantaged groups.
28. The DUI appealed to the Albanians to refrain from voting in
the presidential election.
29. The presidential campaign witnessed a steady stream of accusations
of past and present corruption between adversaries within the ethnic
blocks. The DPA and DUI attacked each other for their respective decisions
to run a candidate and boycott the election. The DPA criticised
the DUI for jeopardising the secrecy of the vote for ethnic Albanians,
especially in small villages.
30. These trends continued during the parliamentary election campaign,
the only difference being that the DUI asked its supporters to turn
out in large numbers for the parliamentary elections. The IEOM received credible
information on the DUI exerting pressure on its voters to refrain
from taking a presidential ballot paper on 27 April.
31. The legislation on campaign financing was amended in January
2014, but the system, as currently implemented, is not adequate
to ensure the transparency, integrity and accountability of the
process.
32. There are a large number of media outlets in the country,
but the most important ones are under the indirect control of the
ruling party, and the government appears to be the largest single
advertiser. Consequently, a majority of media were biased in favour
of the ruling party VMRO-DPMNE and its presidential candidate and
mainly negative towards SDSM and its candidate. Albanian language
media also favoured the DUI over the other ethnic Albanian contestants.
33. The media were characterised during both campaigns by a lack
of political analysis and independent reporting, combined with a
widespread phenomenon of self-censorship.
34. In the presidential campaign, there were very limited opportunities
for other candidates to confront the incumbent President Gjorge
Ivanov. Only one debate featuring all four presidential candidates
was organised by the Macedonian Radio and Television MRT1. After
the debate, the public broadcaster organised a discussion which
focused mainly on perceived failures of the main opposition candidate,
Stevo Pendarovski.
35. The electoral dispute resolution mechanism is ineffective
and the lack of deadlines for courts to solve various election-related
cases, combined with a limited right of voters to legal redress
at every stage of the electoral process, is at odds with the Venice
Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters.
6 Election day
36. The election days were generally calm and peaceful
both on 13 and on 27 April.
37. However, on 27 April, in some ethnic Albanian areas, it was
observed that voters were discouraged by election board members
from taking a presidential ballot paper, whereas in ethnic Macedonian
areas voters were automatically given both ballot papers.
38. Members of the Assembly delegation observed both on 13 and
on 27 April in the municipality of Suto Orizari practices contrary
to democratic requirements (organised voting and voters who had
obviously been given a paper with an indication of how to vote,
as they were consulting this paper while in the polling booths). Group
voting seemed to be the most frequent irregularity, in particular
on 27 April, where IEOM observers noted it in 9% of the polling
stations observed.
39. In the first round of the presidential election none of the
candidates received the required majority of the total number of
registered voters to be elected. According to the SEC, the incumbent
president Gjorge Ivanov received 51% of votes cast, Stevo Pendarovski
37.51%, Iljaz Halimi 4.49% and Zoran Popovski 3.61%. The turnout
was 48%, but voter participation remained low in the ethnic Albanian
areas.
40. The results of the second round was therefore held between
Gjorge Ivanov and Stevo Pendarovski. According to the SEC, Gjorge
Ivanov was elected with 55.28% of cast votes. The turnout for the
second round of the presidential election was 54.38%.
41. The results obtained by the major coalitions and parties in
the early parliamentary elections are as follows: VMRO-DPMNE etc.
42.97% of cast votes, SDSM etc. 25.34%, DUI 13.71%, DPA 5.92%, GROM 2.82%,
NDP (National Democratic Revival) 1,59%. The turnout for the early
parliamentary elections was 62.96%.
7 Conclusions
42. In general, the election day was conducted efficiently
and, in principle, in accordance with the national legislation.
However, in one municipality observed, the voting process was problematic
and a greater number of irregularities were witnessed (in particular
organised voting). Other procedural irregularities were observed, particularly
during the opening of the polling stations and during the counting,
but they were rather of a technical nature and with no discernable
influence on the results.
43. During the election campaigns, the media displayed a lack
of political analysis and independent reporting. There were no proper
separation of party and State resources concerning the main ruling
party, and there were credible allegations of voter intimidation,
in particular as regards public sector employees.
44. Furthermore, the Assembly delegation noted that the election
process as a whole did not contribute to reducing the tensions that
exist between and within ethnic communities. The election process
was a missed opportunity for political stakeholders to demonstrate
a genuine wish to integrate all ethnic communities and minorities.
45. As declared during the joint press conference on 28 April,
the Parliamentary Assembly stands ready, with the support of the
Venice Commission, to offer assistance to further improve the electoral
framework for the further democratic consolidation of the country.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
Based on proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Stefan SCHENNACH* (Austria,
SOC), Head of the delegation
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Andreas GROSS,** Switzerland
- Luc RECORDON,** Switzerland
- Deniza KARADJOVA,** Bulgaria
- Melita MULIĆ,*** Croatia
- Deniz BAYKAL,*** Turkey
- Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ,*** Croatia
- Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Werner AMON,** Austria
- Şaban DİŞLİ,* Turkey
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)
- André BUGNON, Switzerland
- Margus HANSON,* Estonia
- Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI,*** Georgia
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Reha DENEMEÇ, Turkey
- Sir Roger GALE,** United Kingdom
- Group of the Unified European Left (UEL)
- Rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee (ex officio)
- Robert WALTER,* United Kingdom
- Venice Commission
- Secretariat
- Bogdan
TORCĂTORIU, Administrative Officer, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division, secretariat of the Parliamentary
Assembly
- Ivi-Triin ODRATS,*** Administrative Officer, secretariat
of the Parliamentary Assembly
- Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Secretariat of the Venice Commission
- Franck DAESCHLER,* Principal Administrative Assistant,
Interparliamentary Co-operation and Election Observation Division
- Anne GODFREY,** Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
__________
* members of the pre-electoral delegation (11-12 March 2014)
** participation on 11-14 April only
*** participation on 25-28 April only
Appendix 2 – Programme of
the pre-electoral mission
Tuesday,
11 March 2014
08:15-09:00 Meeting with Mr Gjorge Ivanov, President of
the Republic
09:30-10:00 Delegation meeting
10:15-11:00 Meeting with Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens,
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission, Mr Don Bisson,
Deputy Head of Mission, and Ms Tamara Otiashvili, Election adviser
11:00-11:50 Meeting with representatives of civil society:
- Human Rights Institute: Ms Margarita
Tsatsa Nikolovska, President, former judge at the European Court
of Human Rights
- Most: Mr Zlatko Dimitrioski, Political Analyst
- Civil Center for Freedom: Mr Xhabir Deralla, Director
- Center for Institutional Development: Mr Zoran Bogdanovski,
Institutional Development Manager
- Helsinki Committee: Ms Neda Calovska, Legal Adviser
- Foundation Metamorphosis: Mr Zoran Stojanovski, Programme
Coordinator
- Macedonian Center for International Co-operation MCMS :
Mr Aleksandar Krzalovski, First Executive Director
12:00-12:30 Meeting with Mr Trajko Veljanovski, President
of the Assembly
12:40-13:15 Meeting with representatives of the media (part
1):
- Association of Journalists
of Macedonia (ZNM): Mr Dragan Sekulovski, Executive Director
- Trade Union of Journalists: Ms Tamara Causidis, President
- Macedonian Institute for Media (MIM): Ms Biljana Petkovska,
Director
- Media Development Center: Mr Dejan Georgievski, President
13:15-13:50 Meeting
with representatives of the media (part 2):
14:30-16:00 Meeting with members of the diplomatic corps and
representatives of international organisations present in Skopje:
- Mr Thomas Michael Baier, Ambassador
of Austria
- Mr Halil Gürol Sökmensüer, Ambassador of Turkey
- Mr Christopher Yvon, Ambassador of the United Kingdom
- Mr Ralf Breth, Head of the OSCE mission
- Mr Aivo Orav, Head of the Delegation of the European Union
16:35-18:30 Individual meetings with presidential candidates:
- Mr Zoran Popovski, GROM
- Mr Iliaz Halimi, DPA
- Stevo Pendarovski, SDSM
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
09:30-10:30 Meeting with members of the delegation of
“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to the Parliamentary
Assembly:
- Mr Aleksandar Nikoloski,
Head of the delegation
- Mr Igor Ivanovski
- Mr Aleksandar Spasenovski
- Ms Sonja Mirakovska
10:40-11:40
Meeting with Mr Nikola Rilkoski, Chairperson of the State Election
Commission
11:50-12:20 Meeting with Ms Gordana Jankulovska, Minister
of the Interior
12:30-13:00 Meeting with Mr Ivo Ivanovski, Minister
of Information Society and Administration
13:10-13:40 Meeting with Mr Milaim Fetai, Vice-President
of the Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services, and Ms Adriana
Skerlev-Cakar, Head of Department
15:05-15:35 Meeting with Mr Naser Adimi, Deputy Auditor
General, State Audit Office
15:45-16:15 Meeting with Mr Gjorgi Slamkov, President
of the State Commission for Preventing Corruption
18:00-18:30 Press conference
Appendix 3 – Press release
of the pre-electoral mission for the observation of the presidential
election
PACE delegation
hopes that the presidential election will represent a smooth process,
despite the strong polarisation of public life along political and
ethnic lines
Strasbourg, 12.03.2014 – The intention of the authorities
of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to organise, on 13
April 2014, its fifth presidential election since independence has
been welcomed by a delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE) visiting the country to assess the pre-electoral
climate.
The delegation, led by Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), welcomed
the fact that the Electoral Code has been improved since the last
election. However, following its discussion with various interlocutors,
it considers it necessary to underline the importance of implementing
all provisions of the new Electoral Code in good faith.
The delegation feels that the decision of the largest Albanian
party, which is also part of the ruling coalition, to try to make
the presidential election fail is not a constructive one and is
at odds with the rules of democracy.
The country will hold early parliamentary elections on the
same day as the expected second round of the presidential election,
on 27 April 2014. This appears to cause a series of organisational
problems, which, hopefully, will not negatively affect the two parallel
electoral processes.
The delegation regretted the obvious polarisation of the media,
which appears to be more a tool for propaganda than a means to disseminate
information to the public. It stressed that, in particular during
the electoral campaign, media must be in a position to deliver objective
information to the public, so that citizens can make an informed
choice on election day.
In fact, the delegation was informed by the highest authorities
themselves about a general lack of trust both in the media and in
the judicial system. It hopes that no effort will be spared during
the electoral process to restore this trust, which is essential
in any democracy.
The delegation expressed concerns about various issues raised
by its interlocutors, such as the alleged growth of pressure on
the media, unclear differentiation between the state and the governing
parties which has allegedly led to the extensive use of administrative
resources during the electoral campaign, and financing of the campaign.
It fully understood that some of these issues cannot be dealt
with in the short time left before election day, but hoped that
those which can still be addressed, such as providing in time biometric
identity cards to all voters, will indeed be addressed.
The delegation was also informed about a certain lack of trust
in the quality of the voters list, as the number of voters was considered
by some interlocutors as being abnormally high. It thinks that the
responsibilities for compiling on accurate voters list should be
better defined between the institutions involved.
The delegation expressed the hope that, despite the strong
polarisation of public life along political and ethnic lines, the
electoral campaign will be a smooth one without any deviations towards
nationalistic and ethnocentric paths, and will focus on debating
concrete political programmes.
The PACE pre-electoral delegation was in Skopje at the invitation
of the President of the Assembly. It met with the presidential candidates,
including the incumbent President, with the President of the Assembly,
with members of the delegation to PACE, with the Chairman of the
State Election Commission, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister
of Information Society and Administration, the Vice President of
the Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services, the Deputy
Auditor General, the President of the State Commission for Preventing Corruption,
with representatives of the civil society and of the media, with
the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission and with
diplomats and representatives of international organisations present
in Skopje.
A full 21-member delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe will arrive in Skopje prior to the presidential
election to observe the vote.
Appendix 4 – Programme of
the presidential election observation mission (first round, 13 April
2014)
Friday,
11 April 2014
09:30-10:00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee:
- Opening and briefing on the
pre-electoral mission by Mr Stefan Schennach, Head of Delegation
- Briefing by members
of the pre-electoral mission
- Briefing by Mr Robert
Walter, rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee
- Briefing on election legislation, by Mr Owen Masters,
Expert, Venice Commission
- Practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
10:00-11:00 Briefing
by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (part 1):
11:00-11:30 Meeting with representatives of international
organisations present in Skopje:
- Ambassador
Ralf Breth, Head of the OSCE mission
- Mr Aivo Orav, Head of the Delegation of the European Union
11:30-12:30 Meeting
with representatives of civil society
14:30-15:15 Meeting with representatives of the media (part
1):
- Association of Journalists
of Macedonia (ZNM): Mr Dragan Sekulovski, Executive Director and
Mr Naser Selmani
- Trade Union of Journalists: Mr Vlado Apostolov
- Media Development Center: Mr Dejan Georgievski, President
15:15-16:00 Meeting
with representatives of the media (part 2)
16:00-16:30 Meeting with Mr Nikola Rilkoski, Chairperson
of the State Election Commission
16:30-17:00 Meeting with Ms Gordana Jankulovska, Minister
of the Interior
17:00-17:30 Meeting with Mr Zoran Trajchevski, President
of the Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services
17:30-18:00 Meeting with Mr Gjorgi Slamkov, President
of the State Commission for Preventing Corruption
Saturday, 12 April 2014
09:30-11:00 Individual meetings with presidential candidates:
– Mr Zoran Popovski, GROM
– Mr Iliaz Halimi, DPA
– Mr Jovan Despotovksi, International Secretary, representing
Mr Stevo Pendarovski, SDSM
11:00-13:00 Meetings with leaders of the main political
parties (to discuss issues linked to the early parliamentary elections
of 27 April)
- VMRO-DPMNE: Mr
Nikola Todorov, Minister of Health and Head of Electoral Office, Ms
Biljana Briškovksa, Deputy Minister of Justice
- DUI: Mr Abdulakiu Ademi, Minister of the Environment,
Head of Electoral Office
- SDSM: Mr Damjan Manchevski, Vice-President
- DPA: Mr Imer Aliu, MP
13:00-13:30 Meeting
with Mr Gjorge Ivanov, VMRO-DPMNE, incumbent President of the Republic
13:30-14:00 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission (part 2):
- Mr Don Bisson,
Deputy Head of Mission
- Mr Ovidiu Craiu, Election Analyst
- Mr Anders Eriksson, Statistics Expert
13h45
Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday, 13 April 2014
Election day: observation of the opening, voting, closing
and tabulation.
Monday, 14 April 2014
08:30-09:30 Delegation meeting (debriefing)
13:30 Joint press conference
Appendix 5 – Press release
on the observation of the presidential election (first round, 13
April 2014)
Presidential
candidates able to campaign freely and fundamental freedoms respected,
but campaign playing field not level, international observers say
in Skopje
Strasbourg, 14.04.2014 – Fundamental freedoms were respected
and candidates were able to campaign freely in the efficiently-administered
13 April 2014 presidential election in “the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia”, although biased and unbalanced media coverage and
a blurring of state and party activities created an unbalanced playing
field, international observers said in a statement issued today.
“The campaign was active and the candidates engaged in a vigorous
schedule of rallies, however, the playing field was not level,”
said Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Head of the election observation
mission from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights (OSCE/ODIHR). “This is one of the issues we will continue
to look at by observing the campaign and the media coverage in the
lead-up to the early parliamentary elections and the second round
of the presidential vote in two weeks, for which we will also be
joined by 160 short-term observers.”
In general, the State Electoral Commission (SEC) functioned
efficiently and most of its sessions were open to observers and
the media, although tensions were evident when particular members
made political statements or when voting on politically contentious
issues followed party lines. In addition, the SEC failed to communicate effectively
with the Municipal Election Commissions, causing some confusion
regarding procedures.
Despite the large number of media outlets, many stakeholders
with whom the observers met alleged there is indirect control over
the media by the ruling party, through the government’s dominance
in the advertising market. There was a lack of political analysis
and independent reporting, and the public broadcaster failed to provide
balanced coverage.
The incumbent enjoyed a significant advantage in resources
and predominance in paid advertising. The government’s clear support
during the campaign did not fully respect the separation of party
and the state.
“The conduct of the campaign divided society along ethnic
lines, and the call by one ethnic-Albanian party on members of this
community not to vote is a matter of concern,” said Stefan Schennach,
Head of the delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE). “We also saw instances of organised voting, as
well as some small procedural irregularities. These issues cast
a shadow over what was largely a well-conducted process on election
day.”
Four candidates were registered and the campaign was active.
Although the tone of campaigning was mostly moderate, negative rhetoric
was heard increasingly from the governing and main opposition parties
as the campaign progressed. There was a stream of strong negative
allegations within the ethnic-Albanian bloc, as well as an appeal
not to vote made by one party to ethnic Albanians.
All four candidates were men. While gender-representation
criteria were respected in election-administration bodies, gender
issues were not addressed in candidates’ programmes.
Recent amendments to the Electoral Code addressed some recommendations
from prior OSCE/ODIHR election reports. Although their introduction
less than a year before this election went against good practice, they
enjoyed cross-party support and were passed following public consultations.
A number of inconsistencies and issues of concern remain, however.
The 40 per cent turnout requirement in the second round of the presidential
contest could lead to cycles of failed elections, and the lengthy
residency requirement for candidates contradicts OSCE commitments
and Council of Europe standards and other international obligations.
The mechanism for resolving electoral disputes is ineffective.
In addition, the lack of deadlines for the resolution of election-related
cases does not guarantee timely legal redress and voters can only
challenge decisions on voter registration and the violation of their
voting rights on election day.
On election day, the administration in the limited number
of polling stations visited was procedurally well-prepared and the
voting process was administered efficiently, however, in one municipality
the voting process was problematic and a greater number of irregularities
were noted. The vote count was carried out in a professional and
transparent manner. The tabulation process was generally well organised,
although there were many small discrepancies in the results protocols,
which were corrected by the MECs.
Appendix 6 – Programme of
the observation mission for the second round of the presidential
election and of the early parliamentary elections (27 April 2014)
Friday,
25 April 2014
11:00-12:00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee:
- Opening and briefing on the
pre-electoral mission by Mr Stefan Schennach, Head of Delegation
- Briefing on election legislation, by Mr Owen Masters,
Expert, Venice Commission
- Exchange of views based on the findings of the electoral
mission of 11-14 April
- Practical and logistical arrangements (information from
the Secretariat)
JOINT PARLIAMENTARY BRIEFING
13:00-13:20 Opening by the Heads of Delegations:
- Ms Christine Muttonen, Special
Coordinator of the short-term OSCE observer mission
- Ms Isabel Santos, Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
Delegation
- Mr Stefan Schennach, Head of the Delegation of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe
13:20-13:45 Welcoming
remarks
13:45-14:45 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission
Introduction and overview of findings to date:
- Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens,
Head of Mission
Political background:
- Ms Ellen Shustik, Political
Analyst
Complaints and appeals:
- Ms
Elissavet Karagiannidou, Legal Analyst
Media environment:
- Mr Iegor Tilpunov, Media Analyst
Election day procedures:
- Mr
Ovidiu Craiu, Election Analyst
Observation forms:
- Mr Anders Eriksson, Statistics
Analyst
15:00-16:00 Panel discussion with NGOs/INGOs
- Mr Darko Aleksov, Executive
Director of MOST
- Mr Xhabir Deralla, Director Civil Center for Freedom
- Ms Uranija Pirovska, Director of the Helsinki Committee
for Human Rights
16:00-17:00 Panel discussion with
media representatives
Saturday, 26 April 2014
09:30-10:15 Election Administration:
- Mr Subhi Jakupi, Vice-President of the State Election
Commission
10:15-12:45 Meetings with political
parties:
- Ms Biljana Briskoska,
Head of Legal Commission, VMRO-DPMNE
- Mr Damjan Manchevski, Vice President, and Mr Jovan Despotovski,
International Secretary, SDSM
- Mr Abdilaqim Ademi, General Secretary, DUI
- Mr Imer Aliu, Member of the Central Presidency, DPA
- Mr Gikten Aziri, Vice-President, NDR
12:45-12:50 Closing remarks
12:50-13:50 Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday, 27 April 2014
Election day: observation of the opening, voting, closing
and tabulation.
Monday, 28 April 2014
08:00-09:00 PACE delegation meeting (debriefing)
15:00 Joint press conference
Appendix 7 – Press release
on the observation of the second round of the presidential election
and of the early parliamentary elections (27 April 2014)
Shortcomings
during campaign overshadow generally well-run election day, international
observers say in Skopje
Strasbourg, 28.04.2014 – Fundamental freedoms were respected
and candidates were able to campaign without obstruction in the
27 April elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
but shortcomings identified in the first round of the presidential
election two weeks earlier, including the blurring of state and
party activities and biased and unbalanced media coverage in favour
of the ruling party, either persisted or were more pronounced, international
observers said in a statement issued today.
“Yesterday’s elections were effectively administered and election
day went smoothly, but there were real problems before and, unfortunately,
after the vote,” said Christine Muttonen, the Special Co-ordinator
who led the short-term OSCE observer mission. “The governing party
did not adequately separate its party and state activities while,
regrettably, the major opposition party announced it would not recognize
the election results. I strongly encourage all political actors
to work together to create a positive post-election environment.”
The observers noted that there continued to be credible allegations
of voter intimidation, including pressure by one party on ethnic
Albanian voters to boycott the presidential ballot.
“This election process did not contribute to reducing the
tensions that exist between and within ethnic communities,” said
Stefan Schennach, Head of the delegation from the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). “The election was a missed
opportunity for political stakeholders to demonstrate a genuine commitment
to integrating all ethnic communities and minorities. PACE, with
the support of the Venice Commission, remains ready to provide support
for electoral improvements and further democratic consolidation
in the country.”
Media monitoring during the campaign period identified a bias
in favour of the ruling party and its presidential candidate in
the majority of monitored media, accompanied by negative reporting
on the main opposition party and its presidential candidate. The
lack of analysis and independent reporting identified in the first
round of the presidential election continued during the second round
and the parliamentary election, the statement said.
“The media monitored were largely biased in favour of the
ruling party and the incumbent presidential candidate, while reporting
negatively on the campaign of the main opposition party,” said Isabel
Santos, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. “All stakeholders should
take a serious look at these findings, and then work together to
create the conditions for a freer and impartial media environment.”
Both the parliamentary and second round presidential campaigns
were active, and all parties engaged in a vigorous schedule of rallies,
the statement said. A significant advantage in resources and predominance
in political advertising meant, however, that the ruling party and
its presidential candidate dominated the campaign environment. The
clear support they received from the government during the campaign
did not respect the separation of party and the state. As in the
first round of the presidential election, there was a steady stream
of accusations of corruption within the ethnic blocs.
The State Electoral Commission (SEC) met most of its legal
deadlines and held regular sessions, most of which were open to
observers and the media, but continued to be divided along party
lines on all contentious issues. As in the first round, the SEC
did not communicate effectively with the Municipal Election Commissions (MECs),
causing some confusion regarding procedures. The MECs did carry
out their duties in a professional manner, the observers said.
A number of Electoral Code provisions regulating the parliamentary
elections were amended in January 2014, addressing some prior OSCE/ODIHR
recommendations. Inconsistencies and ambiguities remained, however, including
in the legal definition of campaigning and the length of the campaign,
as well as provisions on the use of public resources during the
campaign.
“To characterize the elections in a nutshell, the run-up failed
to meet important OSCE commitments, including on the separation
of state and party, on ensuring a level playing field, on the neutrality
of the media, on the accuracy of the voters list and on the possibility
of gaining redress through an effective complaints procedure,” said
Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Head of the election observation
mission from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights (OSCE/ODIHR). “All of this, unfortunately, overshadowed an election
day that did meet commitments and was orderly and peaceful.”
The electoral dispute-resolution mechanism remained ineffective.
There is a lack of deadlines for courts to resolve several types
of election-related cases and the right of voters to legal redress
is limited in all stages of the electoral process, the statement
said.
Election day was conducted in a smooth and professional manner,
although some technical irregularities were noted. The overall assessment
of polling station openings, voting, and the counting and tabulation
of votes was positive.
