Observation of the presidential election in the Republic of Moldova (30 October and 13 November 2016)
Election observation report
| Doc. 14202
| 24 November 2016
1 Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly decided, at its meeting on 26 May 2016, to set up an ad
hoc committee of 20 members, plus the two co-rapporteurs of the
Monitoring Committee, to observe the presidential election of 30
October 2016, subject to receiving an invitation from the authorities
of the Republic of Moldova. The Bureau also authorised a pre-electoral
visit by a five-member delegation – one member from each political
group represented on the ad hoc committee plus the two co-rapporteurs
of the Monitoring Committee. On 8 June 2016, the Chair of the Central
Election Commission (CEC) of the Republic of Moldova sent the Parliamentary
Assembly a letter of invitation to observe the presidential election
of 30 October. On 24 June 2016, the Bureau approved the composition
of the ad hoc committee (see Appendix 1) and appointed Ms Elisabeth
Schneider-Schneiter (Switzerland, EPP/CD) as its Chairperson.
2. In line with the co-operation agreement signed between the
Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (“Venice Commission”) on 4 October 2004, a member of
the Venice Commission joined the ad hoc committee as a legal adviser.
3. The ad hoc committee operated in the framework of an International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM), which also included delegations
from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the European Parliament and the
Election Observation Mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights of the OSCE (OSCE/ODIHR).
4. The Bureau had authorised a pre-electoral visit to the Republic
of Moldova which took place from 26 to 29 September 2016 to assess
the organisation of the election campaign and the prevailing political
climate in the run-up to the election. The cross-party delegation
consisted of Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter (Switzerland, EPP/CD),
head of delegation, Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), Meritxell Mateu
(Andorra, ALDE), Suat Önal (Turkey, EC) and Lotta Johnsson Fornave
(Sweden, UEL). The statement issued by the pre-electoral delegation
following its visit is reproduced in Appendix 2.
5. On 28 and 29 October 2016, the ad hoc committee met in Chisinau
the presidential candidates and their representatives, the Chair
of the Central Election Commission (CEC), the head of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission and his staff, the heads of the Council
of Europe Office in the Republic of Moldova, of the OSCE Mission
in the Republic of Moldova and of the European Union delegation,
and representatives of civil society and the media. The programme
of the ad hoc committee’s meetings is set out in Appendix 3.
6. On polling day, the ad hoc committee split into 12 teams which
observed the election in the cities and regions of Chisinau, Comrat,
Balti, Orhei, Edinet and Bender.
7. The IEOM concluded that the first round of the Republic of
Moldova’s first direct presidential election since 1996 provided
ample opportunity for voters to express their preference for a new
head of State. Fundamental freedoms were respected. The Head of
the Delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
pointed out that “the primary concern of the Assembly observation
delegation was not the outcome of the election, but the functioning
of the electoral process. In this regard, we noted that the Moldovan people
made their choice in a free manner and that the voting day was very
well organised. However, some serious and long-standing issues remain
unaddressed. Of particular concern are politically biased media, strongly
associated with major political parties, and serving as a tool for
propaganda; the use of huge sums of money for the election campaign;
the lack of transparency of sources of funding and the weakness
of State control mechanisms in this regard. These and other concerns,
unless addressed in a timely and effective manner, will erode citizens’
trust in the democratic electoral process”. The press release issued
by the IEOM after the elections appears in Appendix 4.
8. The ad hoc committee wishes to thank the OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission and the Council of Europe Office in Chisinau
for their co-operation and support.
2 Political context and legal
framework
9. The political context was marked
by distrust, following a number of corruption scandals including
the disappearance of around 1 billion euros from three Moldovan
banks – that is approximately 15% of the gross domestic product
(GDP) of the Republic of Moldova, and also divisions remaining within
the society over geopolitical issues between Moldovan citizens.
10. The presidential election is regulated by the 1994 Constitution,
the 1997 Election Code and the 2007 Law on Political Parties, all
amended in 2016, and other relevant legislation. In 2000 the Constitution
of the Republic of Moldova was revised and, as a result, since that
date the President of Moldova has been elected indirectly by the
Parliament. The Presidential election on 30 October 2016 was the
first direct presidential election since 1996.
11. On 4 March 2016, the Constitutional Court of the Republic
of Moldova took a decision on the unconstitutionality of the 2000
constitutional revision that led to the president being indirectly
elected by parliament. The Court made the decision in response to
a complaint filed by opposition lawmakers, who argued that the amendment
had violated the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s decision
was the latest chapter in the continuing political crisis that erupted
in 2009 when President Vladimir Voronin's second constitutional term
expired.
12. The Constitutional Court decision of 4 March 2016 necessitated
amendments to the Election Code. The final version of the amendments
to the Electoral Code, which were focused on the re-introduction
of a direct presidential election, was adopted on 29 July 2016.
Note The authorities had previously submitted
a draft text
Note for a joint opinion of the Venice
Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR.
Note Several previous OSCE/ODIHR and
Venice Commission recommendations were partially addressed, but
a number of issues remain outstanding, in particular:
- procedures for the collection
and verification of supporting signatures;
- financing and conduct of the electoral campaign;
- sanctions on election violations and campaign restrictions.
13. With regard to the election legislation in general, the Assembly
pre-electoral delegation noted that the recent amendments to the
election legislation in 2016 should, if properly implemented, enable
the presidential election to take place in conformity with Council
of Europe standards.
3 Electoral administration
and registration of voters and candidates
14. The presidential election was
administered by a three-level system of election commissions: the
Central Election Commission (CEC), the 35 district electoral councils
(DECs) and 2 081 precinct electoral bureaus (PEBs). PEBs are managed
by five to eleven members; three of them being nominated by local
councils and the reminder by parties represented in the parliament,
one from each party.
15. On 17 June 2016, the parliament approved a new composition
of the Central Election Commission. The CEC is a permanent body
composed of nine members, appointed for a five-year term of office.
According to the legislation, eight of the nine CEC members are
proposed by the parliamentary factions, depending on the size of
the faction, while the ninth member is proposed by the President
of the Republic of Moldova.
16. Citizens of the Republic of Moldova who have reached the age
of 18, except those declared incapable by a final decision of a
court of law, have the right to vote. The Electoral Code concerning
the voters lists was changed in April 2014. Registration is passive.
The centralised State Register of Voters (SRV) was used for the
first time for the 2014 parliamentary elections. The CEC supervises
the SRV maintenance. Voters may ask the CEC or the election bureau
to amend the list at the latest on the day before the day of the
election. Voters can check their data and request corrections to
the voters lists, which should be displayed at polling stations for
20 days. Voters can also check their data online.
17. According to the CEC, 3 247 106 voters were registered to
vote (3 072 000 in the 2014 parliamentary elections). However, only
2 819 787 citizens were registered on the voters lists, the others
residing abroad (about 160 000) or living in Transnistria (about
220 000). Only 3 570 people were registered in the provisional registry
of voters abroad. The increased number of voters in 2014 was mainly
the result of including voters residing in Transnistria. The CEC
provided extracts of the SRV to local administrations to perform
checks and to update the lists. On election day, voters omitted
from the voter list who could prove residence within the boundaries
of the precinct, voters with an absentee voter certificate and voters
who did not have a registered domicile or residence could be entered
on a supplementary voters list and vote.
18. For the polling stations established abroad, the lists of
voters were created based on the data collected by the heads of
diplomatic missions and of consular offices on the territory of
the respective States. The CEC designated 30 polling stations for
voters residing in Transnistria and established 100 polling stations
in other countries – 25 in Italy; 11 in Romania; 8 in Russia; 7
in the United States, 6 in France, 2 in Germany; 2 in Ukraine, 1
in Belarus and some in other countries. Each polling station covers
between 30 and 3 000 voters.
19. Concerning voter registration, the CEC expressed its confidence
in the integrity of the voter registration system. Nevertheless,
a number of the Assembly pre-electoral delegation’s interlocutors
raised concerns about the fact that voter numbers have consistently
grown since 2005 while the number of Moldovans emigrating abroad
has increased. The Parliamentary Assembly, in its previous observation
reports, and the Venice Commission, in its opinions, expressed concern
at the lack of transparency over the criteria to determine the number
of polling stations abroad. In response to these concerns, recent
amendments to the law established two criteria for determining the
number of polling stations abroad: the number of voters who participated
in previous elections and the result of voluntary online pre-registration
of voters abroad. For many stakeholders, these criteria seem to
be insufficient to ensure the voters’ right to participate effectively
in an election. And the resulting number of polling stations is
not proportionate to the number of voters living in different countries.
20. Despite a climate of distrust in State institutions, the main
stakeholders largely affirmed their confidence in the impartiality
of the CEC and its work, as well as in the work of the lower-level
election administration. The technical aspects of the election were
managed by the election administration in a professional manner.
The members of the Assembly observation delegation noted with satisfaction
the openness of the members of the polling stations on election
day and their spirit of sincere co-operation with the international
observers.
21. The president is elected for a four-year term through a single
nationwide constituency. For the election to be valid, participation
is required from at least one third of registered voters. A candidate
is considered to be elected if he or she is supported by at least
half of the valid votes cast. If no candidate obtains the required number
of votes, a second round is held two weeks later between the two
candidates who obtained the most votes. In the second round, the
candidate who obtains the highest number of votes is considered
elected, regardless of voter turnout.
22. With regard to the registration of the presidential candidates,
eligible voters of at least 40 years of age who have resided in
the Republic of Moldova for a minimum of 10 years and are proficient
in the State language are eligible to stand for office. The limitations
on the right to be elected are quite broad; in particular, the requirement
of 10 years’ residence is overly restrictive and the latest Venice
Commission opinion states that, while the constitutional requirement
of State language proficiency is not unreasonable, the Election
Code should provide that the testing of language proficiency should
be reasonable, objective, verifiable and subject to effective review.
Note According to the Statement of Preliminary
Findings and Conclusions of the IEOM, the 40 years age requirement
can be considered as a politically motivated restriction, aimed
in the current context at excluding certain prospective candidates.
Note
23. According to Article 102 of the Election Code, candidates
for the office of President of the Republic must submit lists with
between 15 000 and 25 000 support signatures of voters from at least
half of the second level administrative and territorial divisions
of the country. Independent candidates or those from small political parties
complained to the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation about the
high number of signatures required, the fact that voters can only
sign in support of one candidate and the regulations concerning
their geographical distribution, as well as the short campaign period.
24. Out of 24 initiative groups registered by the CEC for collecting
support signatures of voters, 10 represented political parties and
14 represented independent candidates. The CEC verified the support signatures
by 6 October and registered 12 candidates, including five women.
Later, two candidates, Mr Marian Lupu and Mr Andrei Năstase, withdrew.
The presidential candidate, Ms Inna Popenco, was de-registered following
a complaint submitted by another candidate, Ms Silvia Radu, for
violation of campaign finance requirements. Presidential candidates
could begin campaigning once the CEC had approved the signatures collected
by the initiative group; as a result, campaign periods ranged from
25 to 40 days – less than the two months provided for by the Election
Code.
25. According to the joint opinion by the Venice Commission and
the OSCE/ODIHR adopted on 13 June 2016,
Note recent
amendments to the Election Code did not address previous recommendations
to ensure that campaigning begins on the same day for all contestants
in order to provide equal campaign opportunities.
26. Upon receipt of the candidate's certificates, the candidates
could start campaigning as from 1 October. Some independent presidential
candidates complained that the Republic of Moldova’s election law disadvantages
independent candidates through complicated nomination requirements:
a potential candidate must collect a minimum of 15 000 signatures,
including 600 signatures from at least 18 districts of the country.
27. Finally, the following nine candidates participated in the
election
Note:
- Mr Dmitry Chubashenko was appointed as the candidate of
the Political Party “Our Party” (PPPN). He is the editor-in-chief
of the newspaper Moldavschie Vedomosti.
In the 2009 parliamentary elections he was a candidate of the Liberal
Democratic Party of Moldova. The leader of the PPPN is the Mayor
of Balti, Renato Usatyi, who could not participate in this election;
- Mr Igor Dodon was appointed as the candidate of the Party
of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM). He is the leader
of the PSRM. Between 2005 and 2011, the party was known as the Party
of Socialists of Moldova «Motherland». In 2011, Mr. Dodon, former
member of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova, joined
the PSRM and was elected as chairperson. Mr Dodon is in favour of closer
relations with the Russian Federation and with the Euro-Asian Union;
- Mr Valeriu Ghilețchi was registered as an independent
candidate; he is a member of the Moldovan Parliament and a member
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Mr Ghilețchi
formed an initiative group and, despite some difficulties, succeeded
in collecting the necessary number of signatures;
- Mr Mihai Ghimpu was appointed as the candidate of the
Liberal Party (PL); he is the leader of the Liberal party which
is considered a conservative party. Mr Ghimpu was Speaker of Parliament
from August 2009 to December 2010 and Acting President from September
2009 until December 2010;
- Ms Ana Gutu was registered as the candidate from the “The
Right” Party; she is the leader of the party. She was a member of
the Moldovan Parliament from 2009 until 2014 and a member of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. She is in favour
of the reunification of the Republic of Moldova with Romania;
- Ms Maia Laguta was registered as an independent candidate;
she is an actor and producer. She is known in the Republic of Moldova
for her activities in the field of the defence of human rights;
- Mr IIurie Leancă was appointed as a candidate of the European
People’s Party of Moldova (EPPM); he is the leader of the party.
The EPPM is a centre-right party founded in March 2015. Mr Leancă
was Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova from 2013 to 2015;
- Mr Marian Lupu was appointed as the candidate of the Democratic
Party of Moldova (DP). He is a leader of the DP. Mr Lupu was a high-ranking
member of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM).
After the communists won the elections in 2005, Mr Lupu was promoted
to the position of Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament and occupied
this post until 2009 when he left the PCRM. On 26 October, to everyone’s
surprise, he withdrew from the election and called the electors
to support the pro-EU candidate, Maia Sandu. It was the first time
since the independence of the country that the ruling party, the
DP, did not have a candidate for the presidential election;
- Ms Silvia Radu was registered as an independent candidate;
she is the former president of the Moldovan company “Gas Natural
Fenosa”;
- Ms Maia Sandu was appointed as a candidate by the “Action
and Solidarity” Party (PAS), of which she is the leader. From 2012
until 2015 she was Minister of Education in the Government of Prime
Minister Vlad Filat. In December 2015, she launched a platform “Keep
Assembly with Maia Sandu”, which later became the Action and Solidarity
Party. She is in favour of the creation of a pro-EU reformist government.
28. The Communist Party of the Republic of Moldova did not put
forward a candidate and called for a boycott of the election.
29. The CEC informed the Assembly delegation that the registration
of presidential candidates had been inclusive. Concerning the procedure
for collecting signatures, the pre-electoral delegation was informed
by different interlocutors about allegations of misuse of administrative
resources, mostly in favour of the Democratic Party’s candidate.
Cases were also reported of misuse of administrative resources in
favour of some other potential candidates at the level of local
authorities. The Assembly’s delegation strongly condemned such practices,
which must be excluded from the election campaign, and recalled
the need to depoliticise State institutions, as previously requested
by the Assembly.
4 Election campaign, campaign
funding and media coverage
30. The Election Code re-established
the 60-day election campaign period used prior to 2000; the presidential
campaign started on 30 August 2016.
31. One of the main reasons for the long-standing political crisis
in the Republic of Moldova is the lack of confidence in the State
institutions resulting from multiple corruption scandals, including
one major bank scandal which had a political impact. This aspect
is particularly worrying in a country that faces serious economic
and social problems and a high level of poverty. A considerable
proportion of the general public is convinced that corruption is
common in the Republic of Moldova.
32. The election campaign environment was mostly characterised
by a geopolitical division between “pro-EU” and “pro-Russia” orientations.
It was not in the mandate of the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation
to assess the geopolitical preferences in Moldovan society. The
delegation noted that, no matter the geopolitical sensibilities,
a number of long-standing serious concerns, identified in the Parliamentary
Assembly’s resolutions and election observation reports, still remain
unaddressed. In particular, the lack of results in the fight against
corruption, the obscure system of funding of political parties and
election campaigns, including external funding, the monopolisation
of many media outlets and lack of transparency concerning their
sources of funding, and the role played by oligarchic structures
in the country’s political life, especially in the electoral process.
The pre-electoral delegation was also informed about the involvement
of the Orthodox Church in the election campaigns of some candidates.
In this regard, the delegation recalls that the principle of separation between
State and religious institutions must be respected.
33. On 15 October 2016, the European People’s Party (EPP) issued
a statement welcoming the decision of three Moldovan centre-right
pro-EU political parties to agree on putting forward a common candidate
at the presidential election and expressing its concern about the
leader of the European People’s Party of Moldova, Iurie Leancă,
who had decided to maintain his candidacy. In this regard, some
members of the Assembly observation delegation questioned the appropriateness
of issuing a statement which suggested which presidential candidates
should remain in the running and which should not.
34. With regard to campaign financing, substantial legal amendments
were adopted in 2015 addressing some recommendations of the Council
of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). While legal regulations
concerning campaign and party finance have improved, for many interlocutors
significant financial resources can still be used for electoral
purposes without any control.
35. Campaign financing is regulated mainly by the Election Code
and the Law on Political Parties. Achieving better accountability
of the political institutions towards the citizens is a key goal
in the Republic of Moldova. To that end, the Venice Commission and
the OSCE/ODIHR strongly recommended revising the legislation regarding
political parties and electoral campaign finance. In April 2015,
legal amendments to six laws pertaining to campaign finance were
adopted. Campaign finance irregularities were criminalised and some previous
recommendations by the OSCE/ODIHR, the Venice Commission and GRECO
were addressed, including enhancing oversight, introducing more
comprehensive reporting requirements and stipulating criteria for
spending limits. However, the regulatory system, the enhancement
of campaign finance oversight and its current implementation were
insufficient to ensure the transparency, integrity and accountability
of campaign finances, and did not enjoy public confidence.
36. The Election Code provides a general prohibition of abuse
of administrative resources. The Assembly observation delegation
was informed about a number of cases of misuse of administrative
resources, including pressure on State employees and other voters
during the candidate signature collection procedures and campaign
activities. There were allegations that administrations of some
State institutions, such as Moldova’s Post Office, Moldtelecom,
Moldova-Gaz, as well as schools and hospitals, put pressure on their
employees to sign the lists. Cases were also reported of misuse
of administrative resources in favour of potential candidates at
the level of local authorities. The Assembly’s delegation strongly
condemned such practices, which must be excluded from the election
campaign, and recalled the need to depoliticise State institutions,
as previously requested by the Assembly.
37. The Electoral Code and the Audiovisual Code establish the
framework for media conduct during the election campaign. Broadcasters
are obliged to cover elections in an accurate, balanced and impartial
manner. Each contestant is entitled to five minutes free airtime
on each national television and 10 minutes on each radio channel.
Contestants are entitled to participate in debates that national
broadcasters are obliged to organise free of charge. Additional
paid airtime, up to two minutes a day per broadcaster, can be purchased.
However, the current concentration of media and the lack of transparency
concerning their financial sources have been raised as a matter
of concern in current and previous elections.
38. According to the Statement of the Preliminary Findings and
Conclusions of the IEOM,
Note “the first channel of the public broadcaster
Moldova 1 provided largely balanced coverage to Mr Dodon (22% of
total news coverage), Mr Lupu (15%), and Ms Sandu (32%). Each of
the other candidates received less than 8% of coverage. However,
four of the six monitored commercial TV stations displayed explicitly
biased coverage of contestants. Prime and Publika TV favoured Mr
Lupu by devoting 49% and 53% of their news coverage respectively,
while devoting 19% and 14% respectively to Mr Dodon. Ms Sandu received
20% and 21% of news coverage respectively, largely negative in tone.
Journal TV devoted 58% of its news coverage to Ms Sandu, while giving
only 12% and 15% to Mr Dodon and Mr Lupu respectively”.
39. Concerning media coverage of the election campaign, the Assembly
observation delegation expressed its concern about some serious
and long-standing issues which remained unaddressed. Of particular
concern are politically biased media, strongly associated with major
political parties, and serving as a tool for propaganda, the spending
of huge sums of money for the election campaign, and the lack of
transparency of sources of funding.
5 Polling day
40. In the first round, polling
day was calm and the voting was well organised. Voting operations
and vote counting generally took place in a professional manner
and in a calm atmosphere. Polling station staff fully co-operated
with the observers. The members of the Assembly delegation noted
the presence of a large number of women among the polling station
staff, as well as of representatives of the main presidential candidates
in all the polling stations visited. Some members of the delegation
observed the voting in special polling stations: in hospitals and
in the prison of Branesti where the voting was also very well organised,
in the presence of representatives of presidential candidates.
41. The Assembly’s ad hoc committee identified a number of technical
issues in the polling stations visited:
- overall, for people with reduced mobility the polling
stations were either inaccessible or difficult to access;
- cases were noted of unintended non-compliance with vote
counting procedures in some polling stations;
- cases were noted of unintended non-compliance with procedures
for drawing up protocols and the failure to declare this fact after
the count.
42. On 31 October 2016, the CEC announced the preliminary results
of the presidential election. The turnout was 49%. Mr Dodon obtained
48% of the votes cast; Ms Sandu 39%; Mr Chubashenko 6.03%; Mr Leancă 3.11%;
Mr Ghimpu 1.8% and Mr Ghilețchi 1.08%. The other candidates obtained
less than 1%. The two best-placed candidates, Igor Dodon and Maia
Sandun, took part in the second round of the presidential election
on 13 November 2016.
43. According to the CEC, 67 150 Moldovan citizens cast their
vote outside of Moldova in 100 polling stations established in 34
countries. The highest number of voters – 21 904 – was in Italy;
in Romania – 9 440; in France – 5 139; in Russia – 4 578 and in
Great Britain – 4 002. According to the CEC, more than 80% of the voters
abroad voted for Maia Sandu, while the majority of voters residing
in the Russian Federation supported Igor Dodon.
44. After the first round of the presidential election, the Bureau
of the Assembly decided to set up an ad hoc committee of five members
– one member from each political group, plus the two co-rapporteurs
of the Monitoring Committee, to observe the second round of the
presidential election on 13 November 2016. The cross-party delegation
consisted of Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter (Switzerland, EPP/CD),
head of delegation, Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), Suat Önal (Turkey,
EC) and the two-corapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee: Ms Valentina
Leskaj and Mr Ögmundur Jonasson. Unfortunately, the groups ALDE
and UEL were not able to appoint members to observe the second round
of election.
45. On 12 November 2016, the ad hoc committee for the observation
of the second round of the election met in Chisinau the two presidential
candidates, Mr Dodon and Ms Sandu, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission and his staff. On polling day, the ad hoc committee
split into three teams which observed the second round in Chisinau
and in the regions.
46. The ad hoc committee operated in the framework of an International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM), which also included delegations
from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament and
the election observation mission of the OSCE/ODIHR.
47. The IEOM concluded that the second round of the presidential
election in the Republic of Moldova was competitive, and that fundamental
freedoms had been respected. Technical preparations for the second
round were generally administered professionally and, overall, the
observers assessed election day positively. On election day, the
people made their choice freely and voting day was very well organised.
Despite some efforts to prepare for a high turnout in specific polling
stations abroad and for voters from Transnistria, many citizens were
unable to vote because these polling stations ran out of ballots.
48. On 14 November, the CEC announced the preliminary results
of the second round of the presidential election: Mr Dodon obtained
52.29% of the votes cast and Ms Sandu 47.71%. The turnout was 53%,
which represents 1 610 527 registered voters, including 202 882
voters added to the supplementary voters lists on election day;
around 135 000 citizens voted abroad from whom around 86% voted
for Ms Sandu and 14% for Mr Dodon.
6 Conclusions
and recommendations
49. The Assembly’s observation
delegation concluded that the first round of the Republic of Moldova’s
first direct presidential election in 20 years provided citizens
with ample opportunity to express their preference for a new head
of State. Fundamental freedoms were respected. The primary concern
of the Assembly’s observation delegation was not the outcome of
the election, but the functioning of the democratic electoral process.
In this regard, the delegation noted that the Moldovan people made
their choice in a free manner and that the voting day was very well
organised.
50. However, some serious and long-standing issues remain unaddressed.
Of particular concern are: politically biased media, strongly associated
with major political parties, and serving as a tool for propaganda; the
spending of huge sums of money for the election campaign; the lack
of transparency of sources of funding and the weakness of State
control mechanisms in this regard. The Assembly’s observation delegation considers
that if these and other concerns are not addressed in a timely and
effective manner, the citizens’ trust in the democratic electoral
process could be eroded.
51. After the second round, the Assembly’s ad hoc committee noted
that on 13 November in the Republic of Moldova the people made their
choice freely and voting day was very well organised. Unfortunately,
the serious and long-standing concerns from the first round campaign
were observed also in the second round. Of particular concern were
politically biased media, strongly associated with major political
parties and serving as a tool for propaganda.
52. The Assembly’s ad hoc committee noted that the recent amendments
to the election legislation in 2016, if properly implemented, should
have enabled the presidential election to take place in conformity
with Council of Europe standards. Regrettably, several previous
Venice Commission recommendations were only partially addressed
and a number of issues remain unaddressed, in particular complicated
procedures on supporting signature collection and verification;
financing and conduct of the electoral campaign; sanctions on election violations
and campaign restrictions. Despite the adoption of the law limiting
the concentration of media ownership, this law does not become fully
effective until current licenses have expired.
53. The Assembly delegation noted that the election campaign took
place in a calm atmosphere. It was mostly characterised by a geopolitical
division between “pro-EU” and “pro-Russia” orientations. It was
not in the mandate of the Assembly’s observation delegation to assess
the geopolitical preferences in Moldovan society. The delegation
noted that, no matter the geopolitical sensibilities, a number of
long-standing serious concerns, identified in the Parliamentary
Assembly’s resolutions and election observation reports, remain unaddressed.
54. In this regard, the delegation noted in particular: the lack
of results in the fight against corruption; the obscure system of
funding of political parties and election campaigns including external
funding; the monopolisation of many media outlets and lack of transparency
concerning their sources of funding; and the role played by oligarchic
structures in the country’s political life, especially in the electoral
process.
55. The Assembly’s observation delegation noted with satisfaction
that the main stakeholders largely affirmed their confidence in
the impartiality of the CEC and its work, as well as in the work
of the lower-level election administration. It also welcomed the
openness of the members of the polling stations on election day and
their spirit of sincere co-operation with the international observers.
56. Concerning registration of voters and presidential candidates,
the Assembly delegation was informed about the integrity of the
voter registration system and about the fact that in general the
registration of candidates was inclusive. Nevertheless, for a number
of stakeholders the criteria for establishing the number of polling
stations abroad seem to be insufficient to ensure the voters’ right
to participate effectively in the election. And the resulting number
of polling stations was not proportionate to the number of voters
living in different countries.
57. In this regard, after the second round, the ad hoc committee
expressed its concern, declaring that despite some efforts aiming
better preparation for a high turnout in the second round of election
in specific polling stations abroad and for Transnistria, many citizens
were unable to vote. The second round of the presidential election
proved once again that, in general, the manner in which voting abroad
is organised is a matter of concern.
58. The Assembly’s observation delegation was informed about a
number of cases of misuse of administrative resources, including
pressure on State employees and other voters during the candidate signature
collection procedures and campaign activities. Cases were also reported
of misuse of administrative resources in favour of potential candidates
at the level of local authorities, as well as cases of involvement
of the Orthodox Church in the election campaigns in favour of some
candidates. The Assembly delegation condemned such practices, which
must be excluded from the election campaign, and recalled the need
to depoliticise State institutions, as previously requested by the
Assembly. It also recalled that the principle of separation between
State and religious institutions must be respected.
59. The Assembly’s ad hoc committee noted improvements in the
media coverage of the election campaign by public service broadcasters,
especially the television channel Moldova 1 and Radio Moldova, but
the commercial television stations displayed explicitly biased coverage
of presidential candidates’ activities. In this regard, the Assembly
observation delegation expressed its concern about some serious
and long-standing issues which remained unaddressed. Of particular
concern are politically biased media, strongly associated with major
political parties and serving as a tool for propaganda, and the
lack of transparency of sources of funding.
60. The Assembly’s ad hoc committee believes that the Parliamentary
Assembly should continue its close co-operation with the authorities
of the Republic of Moldova, through its monitoring procedure, and
with the Venice Commission, in order to improve the election legislation
and, most importantly, its effective implementation. The Council
of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly should, through their various
co-operation programmes, continue to help the Republic of Moldova
to implement reforms in the field of elections.
Appendix 1 –
Composition of the ad hoc committee
Based on the proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
Chairperson: Elisabeth SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland, EPP/CD)
Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Viorel
Riceard BADEA, Romania
- Colm BROPHY, Ireland
- Marie-Christine DALLOZ, France
- Elisabeth SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Switzerland
- Aleksander POCIEJ, Poland
- Andrzej HALICKI, Poland
Socialist Group (SOC)
- Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria
- Predrag SEKULIĆ, Montenegro
- Maryvonne BLONDIN, France
- Claude ADAM, Luxembourg
- Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Switzerland
- Catherine QUERE, France
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Alain
DESTEXHE, Belgium
- Luis Alberto ORELLANA, Italy
European Conservatives Group (EC)
- Erkan KANDEMIR, Turkey
- Suat ÖNAL, Turkey
Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
Co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee
- Valentina
LESKAJ, Albania
- Ögmundur JȮNASSON, Iceland
Venice Commission
- Oliver KASK, Member
- Pierre GARRONE, Head of the Division on Elections and
Political Parties
Secretariat of the Parliamentary
Assembly
- Chemavon
CHAHBAZIAN, Head of Division, Election observation and Interparliamentary
Co-operation Division
- Franck DAESCHLER, Principal Administrative Assistant
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant
.
Appendix 2 –
Statement by the pre-electoral delegation
Republic
of Moldova: statement by the pre-electoral delegation ahead of the
Presidential election
29.09.2016 – A pre-electoral delegation from the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) visited Chisinau to assess
the election campaign and the preparations for the Presidential
election to be held on 30 October 2016.
The election campaign environment is mostly characterised
by a geopolitical division between “pro-EU” and “pro-Russia” orientations.
It is not in the mandate of the Assembly’s pre-electoral delegation
to assess the geopolitical preferences in Moldovan society. The
delegation noted that, no matter the geopolitical sensibilities, a
number of long-standing serious concerns, identified in the Parliamentary
Assembly’s resolutions and election observation reports still remain
unaddressed. In particular, the lack of results in the fight against corruption;
the obscure system of funding of political parties and election
campaigns including external funding; the monopolisation of many
media outlets and lack of transparency concerning their sources
of funding; and the role played by oligarchic structures in the
country’s political life, especially in the electoral process. The
pre-electoral delegation was also informed about the involvement
of the Orthodox churches in the election campaigns of some candidates.
In this regard, the delegation recalls that the principle of separation
between State and religious institutions must be respected.
With regard to the election legislation, the Assembly pre-electoral
delegation noted that the recent amendments to the election legislation
in 2016, if properly implemented, should enable the presidential
election to take place in conformity with Council of Europe standards.
Nevertheless, despite the adoption of a law limiting the concentration
of media ownership, this law will not be fully effective until current
licenses have expired.
The Central Election Commission informed the delegation that
the registration of presidential candidates was inclusive. Concerning
the procedure for collecting signatures, the pre-electoral delegation
was informed by different interlocutors about misuse of administrative
resources, mostly in favour of the Democratic Party’s candidate.
In particular, there were allegations that administrations of some
State institutions, such as Moldova’s Post Office, Moldtelecom,
Moldovagaz, as well as schools and hospitals, put pressure on their
own employees to sign the lists. Cases were also reported of misuse
of administrative resources in favour of some other potential candidates
at the level of local authorities. The Assembly’s delegation strongly
condemns such practices, which must be excluded from the election
campaign, and recalls the need to depoliticise State institutions,
as previously requested by the Assembly. Independent candidates
or those from small political parties complained about the high
number of signatures required and the regulations concerning their geographical
distribution, as well as the short campaign period.
Concerning voter registration, the Central Election Commission
expressed confidence in the integrity of the voter registration
system. Nevertheless, a number of interlocutors raised concerns
about the fact that voter numbers have consistently grown since
2005 while the number of Moldovans emigrating abroad has increased. The
Parliamentary Assembly, in its previous observation reports, and
the Venice Commission, in its opinions, expressed concern at the
lack of transparency over the criteria to determine the number of
polling stations abroad. In response to these concerns, recent amendments
to the law established two criteria for determining the number of
polling stations abroad: the number of voters who participated in
previous elections and the result of voluntary online pre-registration
of voters abroad. For many stakeholders these criteria seem to be insufficient
to ensure the voter’s right to participate effectively to the election.
And the resulting number of polling stations does not represent
proportionally the voters living in different countries.
Concerning media coverage of the election campaign environment,
despite a large number of media outlets with dozens of television
channels, according to many interlocutors, media pluralism can be
considered as limited because of the dominant role of one media
holding group affiliated to one of the political parties. In this regard
the Assembly’s delegation recalls that the Audio-visual Code of
Moldova obliges all broadcasters to ensure equal, fair and impartial
media coverage for all presidential candidates. Unbalanced media
coverage and a very high degree of ownership concentration were
mentioned in previous Assembly reports as a matter of serious concern.
The Assembly delegation regrets that, despite its invitation to
different media, including the public broadcasters, most of them
were not able to meet with the delegation. The delegation asks in
particular the public broadcaster to ensure equal access and fair
coverage for all registered presidential candidates.
One of the main reasons for the long-standing political crisis
in Moldova is the lack of confidence in the State institutions resulting
from multiple corruption scandals, including one major bank scandal
which had a political impact. This aspect is particularly worrying
in a country that faces serious economic and social problems and a
high level of poverty. A considerable proportion of the general
public is convinced that corruption is common in the Republic of
Moldova. With regard to campaign financing, substantial legal amendments
were adopted in 2015 addressing some recommendations of the Council
of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). While campaign
and party finance legal regulations have improved, for many interlocutors, significant
financial resources can still be used for electoral purposes without
any control.
The Assembly’s delegation calls on the relevant authorities
to take the necessary steps to ensure equal campaign conditions
for all registered presidential candidates.
The delegation had meetings with the Prime Minister, with
eleven potential presidential candidates or their representatives,
the Moldovan parliamentary delegation to Assembly, the Chairperson
and members of the Central Election Commission, the Chairperson
and members of the Audio-visual Co-ordinating Council, representatives
of civil society and the media, and representatives of the international
community.
The Parliamentary Assembly will send a 22-member delegation
to observe the Presidential election on 30 October 2016.
Members of the delegation: Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter (Switzerland,
EPP/CD), Head of the delegation; Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC);
Meritxell Mateu (Andorra, ALDE); Suat Önal (Turkey, EC); Lotta Johnsson Fornave
(Sweden, UEL).
Appendix 3 –
Programme of the election observation mission (28-31 October 2016)
Friday
28 October 2016
09:00-10:00 Assembly delegation internal meeting:
- Briefing on the pre-electoral
mission by Elisabeth Schneider‑Schneiter, Head of the Delegation
- Briefing by members of the pre-electoral mission
- Briefing on the pre-election campaign by Jose-Luis Herrero,
Head of the Council of Europe Office in Chisinau
- Briefing on legal framework and recent modifications of
election legislation, by the secretariat of the Venice Commission
- Practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
Joint parliamentary briefing meetings:
10:30-10:40 Opening:
- Arta
Dade, Special Coordinator of the OSCE Short-Term Observers
- Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter, Head of the PACE delegation
- Geir Joergen Bekkevold, Head of OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
delegation
- Igor Soltes, Head of the European Parliament delegation
10:40-10:50 Welcome:
- Ambassador
Pirkka Tapiola, Head of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova
- Jose Luis Herrero, Head of the Council of Europe Office
in Chisinau
- Stephen Young, Deputy Chief of the OSCE Mission to Moldova
10:50-12:45 Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR Election observation mission
14:00-14:45 Meeting with Alina Russu, Chairperson of the Central
Electoral Commission (CEC)
15:00-16:00 Civil society roundtable:
- Pavel Postica, Promo Lex (election observation and civic
education)
- Nadine Gogu, Director of the Independent Journalism Center
(CIJ)
- Alexei Buzu, National Women's Studies and Information
Center “Partnership for Development”
16:00-17:00 Media roundtable:
- Alina Radu, Ziarul de Garda
- Mircea Surdu, Moldova 1
- Eugenia Nastase, Jurnal TV
- Vladimir Soloviov, Director of Newsmaker
17:15 Deployment information and meeting with drivers and
linguistic assistants for the Assembly delegation
Saturday 29 October
2016
09:30-10:30 Meetings with presidential candidates (Panel I):
- Roman Botan, representative
of Mihai Ghimpu, Liberal Party
- Eugen Carpov, Vice-President of the European Peoples Party
of Moldova, representative of Iurie Leanca
- Ion Ceban, representative of Igor Dodon, Socialist Party
of Moldova
10:30-11:30 Presidential candidates (Panel II):
- Liliana Nicolaescu, representative
of Maia Sandu, Action and Solidarity Party
- Silvia Radu, independent candidate
- Maia Laguta, independent candidate
- Ana Gutu, Drupta party
- Valeriu Ghilețchi, independent candidate
11:30-12:15 OSCE/ODIHR briefing (security, co-ordination,
forms)
12:15-12:45 Regional briefing by LTOs for teams deployed in
Chisinau city and region
Sunday 30 October
2016
07:00-21:00 Opening of polling stations
Observation of the election
Closing of polling stations – Counting
Monday 31 October
2016
08:30- 09:20 PACE delegation debriefing meeting
09:30-11:30 Meeting of the Heads of delegation
15:00 Press conference
Appendix 4 –
Press release of the International Election Observation Mission
(IEOM)
Moldova
presidential election competitive and fundamental freedoms respected,
but biased media coverage and lack of transparent financing marred
campaign, international election observers say
Chisinau, 31.10.2016 – The first round of Moldova’s first
direct presidential election in 20 years provided ample opportunity
for voters to express their preference for a new head of State.
Fundamental freedoms were respected. The campaign was competitive,
though marred by widespread abuse of State resources, biased media
coverage and a lack of transparency in campaign finance, the international
observers concluded in a preliminary statement released today. The
election administration worked in a professional and transparent manner,
and voting and counting were largely assessed positively by the
observers.
“We were impressed to see the citizens of Moldova participate
in the electoral process yesterday. This is proof that Moldovans
want an active voice in significant decisions in their country,”
said Arta Dade, Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term
OSCE observer mission. “While the voters were provided with real choices
in a competitive campaign, some negative aspects of the process,
if not addressed, could further undermine voters’ trust that their
voices are being heard.”
The competitive campaign took place against a backdrop of
economic hardship and a climate of mistrust in State institutions.
The numerous cases of abuse of State resources by parties holding
elected office included pressure on State employees and other voters
during the collection of signatures to support candidates and the
campaign.
“The primary concern of the Assembly observation delegation
was not the outcome of the election, but the functioning of the
electoral process. In this regard, we noted that the Moldovan people
made their choice in a free manner and that the voting day was very
well organised”, said Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter, Head of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe delegation. “However, some serious
and long-standing issues remain unaddressed. Of particular concern
are politically biased media, strongly associated with major political
parties, and serving as a tool for propaganda; the use of huge sums
of money for the election campaign; the lack of transparency of
sources of funding and the weakness of State control mechanisms
in this regard. These and other concerns, unless addressed in a
timely and effective manner, will erode citizens’ trust in the democratic
electoral process.”
Twelve candidates were initially registered, providing voters
with a wide range of political alternatives. Two candidates withdrew
before the election and one was de-registered for violating campaign
finance rules. Inconsistent signature verification processes, conflicting
legal deadlines and disproportionate sanctions for campaign violations
limited the equal right to stand for elections, the observers said.
The election administration, led by the Central Election Commission,
worked in an open manner, met legal deadlines and generally handled
technical aspects of the election professionally at all levels.
Despite a climate of distrust in State institutions, there was wide
public confidence in the election administration, although there were
some concerns whether the CEC was impartial in considering complaints.
“Moldova has once more proven its commitment to democratic
values and administered the election in a professional manner. Unfortunately,
I was concerned to see that the elderly and people with disabilities
had to face substantial challenges to express their right to vote”,
Geir Jøergen Bekkevold, Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
delegation. “I encourage the election administration to redouble
efforts to guarantee an inclusive process.”
Media outlets are strongly associated with major political
parties, and the concentration of ownership diminishes political
pluralism on television, the statement says. Media monitoring by
the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
mission and by the regulatory body revealed clear political bias
in the campaign coverage of major broadcasters.
The legal framework largely provides an adequate basis for
conducting democratic elections. Following the 4 March 2016 Constitutional
Court decision that reintroduced direct presidential elections,
the Election Code was amended in an expedited manner. However, despite
longstanding concerns raised by ODIHR and the Council of Europe,
a number of gaps and ambiguities remain.
There was general public trust in the voter register and voters
may be added on supplementary voter lists on election day, provided
they prove their identity. Questions were raised about the continued
inclusion in the register both of a large number of citizens living
abroad but still associated with their former residences, and of deceased
persons. The nationwide electronic voter verification system in
all polling stations provided a safeguard against multiple voting,
the observers said.
“There are concerns over the lack of transparency in the area
of campaign finance and the possibilities that this provides for
manipulating the media”, said Igor Soltes, Head of the European
Parliament delegation. “This issue requires urgent reform – both
in political campaigns and in the funding of political parties.”
The CEC is responsible for campaign finance oversight, but
lacks sufficient resources for effective monitoring. Recent legal
amendments addressed some previous recommendations by providing
comprehensive reporting requirements and criteria for spending limits.
Nevertheless, a lack of effective oversight and sanctions for violations
proved to be problematic and concerns were raised about the transparency
of financing.
Of the 12 candidates initially registered, five were women.
The CEC chairperson and deputy are women, and women are well represented
in lower level election administration bodies. More than three quarters
of commissioners at polling stations observed, including chairpersons,
were women. Instances of gender stereotyping and sexist language
in the coverage of one woman candidate were observed in some media during
the campaign period.
Complaints and appeals were generally handled in an open manner
within legal deadlines. However, inconsistent interpretation of
the law in cases regarding candidate de-registration diminished
overall trust in the impartiality of the election administration
and judiciary.
The law provides for observation by international and citizen
organizations, as well as by candidate representatives. More than
3 700 citizen and international observers were accredited and were
able to conduct their activities freely.
“The election process has so far confirmed that Moldova has
an adequate legal framework for holding democratic elections but
also that further work is needed to fill gaps and address inconsistencies,
in areas such as signature collection for candidate registration,
and in ensuring appropriate sanctions for violating campaign rules,”
said Douglas Wake, Head of the ODIHR election observation mission.
“The aim of election observation is to assist in further improving
electoral processes. Even in areas where there are solid laws, including
those designed to ensure campaign finance transparency and media
pluralism, oversight institutions need strengthened capacity to
work effectively.”
