Observation of the early parliamentary and presidential elections in Serbia (3 April 2022)
Election observation report
| Doc. 15534
| 23 May 2022
1 Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly, at its meeting on 21 January 2022, decided to observe
the early parliamentary and presidential elections in Serbia, subject
to the receipt of an invitation, to constitute an ad hoc committee composed of 20
members and the two co-rapporteurs of the Committee on the Honouring of
Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe
(Monitoring Committee) and to conduct a pre-electoral mission. At
its meeting on 28 January, the Bureau approved the composition of
the ad hoc committee and appointed
Mr Aleksander Pociej (Poland, EPP/CD) as chairperson (see Appendix
1). On 15 February, Mr Ivica Dačić, President of the National Assembly
of Serbia, invited the Assembly to observe the presidential election.
2. In line with the co-operation agreement signed between the
Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice
Commission) on 4 October 2004, a representative of the Venice Commission
was invited to join the ad hoc committee
as legal adviser.
3. A pre-electoral delegation was in Belgrade on 2 and 3 March
2022. It met with the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Serbian
delegation to the Assembly, leaders and representatives of political
parties and coalitions, members 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
EOM), the chairperson and members of the Republic Electoral Commission,
members of the diplomatic corps in Belgrade and representatives
of civil society and the media. The programme of the pre-electoral
mission is set out in Appendix 2 and its statement in Appendix 3.
4. The full Assembly ad hoc committee (PACE delegation) worked
from 1 to 4 April 2022. It operated as part of an International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM) together with a delegation from
the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE (OSCE-PA), a delegation from
the European Parliament and the OSCE/ODIHR EOM. The programme of
the delegation’s meetings is set out in Appendix 4.
5. The IEOM concluded that the fundamental freedoms were largely
respected and voters were presented with diverse political options.
However, a number of shortcomings resulted in an uneven playing
field, favouring the incumbents. The combined impact of unbalanced
access to the media, undue pressure on public sector employees to
support the incumbents, significant campaign finance disparities
and misuse of State resources resulted in unequal conditions for
contestants. The joint press release is set out in Appendix 5.
2 Political
context
6. On 15 February 2022, the President
of the Republic of Serbia dissolved the parliament and set early parliamentary
elections for 3 April. On 2 March the Speaker of the parliament
called the regularly scheduled presidential election. In the months
leading up to the elections, extensive consultations took place
resulting in a political agreement between the government and some
opposition parties to amend the electoral legal framework.
7. The Serbian political landscape is dominated by the Serbian
Progressive Party (SNS) and its leader, the incumbent President
Aleksandar Vučić. In 2017, then Prime Minister Vučić, nominated
by SNS, won the presidential election. The June 2020 parliamentary
elections were boycotted by most of the opposition, including the
Democratic Party, the People’s Party, the Party for Freedom and
Justice, the Serbian Movement Dveri, and the Social Democratic Party,
citing a lack of conditions for holding democratic elections and
limited media freedom. The parties belonging to the ruling coalition
obtained 231 of the 250 parliamentary mandates.
8. There is a strong polarisation between the ruling parties
and the opposition and numerous citizens’ protests occurred between
July 2020 and January 2022. Between September and December 2021,
prolonged street protests took place across the country, related
to environmental issues and the adoption of the Law on Expropriation
and the Law on the Referendum and the People’s Initiative.
9. An inter-party dialogue process between the government and
opposition, mediated by members of the European Parliament, resulted
in the adoption on 18 September 2021 of a number of measures aimed
at improving the electoral process. A second dialogue was launched
under the auspices of the speaker of the parliament, held in parallel
without foreign mediation, and led to an agreement on 29 October.
While a number of opposition parties expressed dissatisfaction with
the dialogue processes and considered the outcomes limited, all
of them decided to participate in these elections. On 16 January,
a constitutional referendum related to the appointment of judges
and prosecutors was held, and the Constitution was subsequently
amended on 9 February.
10. The representation of women in the outgoing parliament was
40%. Women held 11 ministerial positions out of 24 in the outgoing
government, including the prime minister. However, women remain
generally under-represented in elected and appointed offices, especially
at local level.
3 Electoral system
and legal framework
11. The president is directly elected
for a five-year term from a single nationwide constituency. A candidate needs
a majority of the votes cast to be elected; if this is not achieved,
a second round is organised between the two leading candidates within
15 days. The 250 members of the parliament are elected for a four-year
term through a proportional system with closed candidate lists from
a single nationwide constituency. Mandates are distributed among
candidate lists that receive at least 3% of the votes cast. Lists
representing national minorities are exempt from the threshold requirement.
12. The election-related legal framework consists of the Law on
the Election of the President, the Law on Election of Members of
the Parliament (election law), the Law on Unified Voter Register
and decisions and instructions of the Republic Electoral Commission.
After wide-ranging inter-party consultations, several aspects of
the legal framework were significantly revised on 4 February 2022,
by passing new laws but largely based on the existing laws. A number
of changes enhanced the representation of the opposition in election commissions
for these elections and enhanced the transparency of their work;
extended the timeframes and legal standing for dispute resolution;
enhanced the transparency and disclosure of political party and
campaign finance; provided for post-election audits of the voter
lists and scrutiny of election material; and changed some regulations
on the media coverage of the campaign and the media oversight mechanism.
13. The legal framework overall provides an adequate basis for
the conduct of democratic elections, but effective implementation
and a number of additional measures are indispensable to fully ensure
a level playing field. A number of long-standing recommendations
remain unaddressed, including those pertaining to the independence
and effectiveness of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media,
measures aimed at tackling the misuse of administrative resources
and pressure on voters and public scrutiny and the audit of voter
lists. Some gaps, inconsistencies and ambiguous provisions remain
in the legislation. While some welcomed the February 2022 legislative
changes as an improvement, most representatives of the civil society
and of the opposition considered that these changes and their implementation
failed to address systemic challenges to the integrity of the elections.
4 Election administration,
voters lists and registration of candidates
14. The elections were administered
by a three-tiered structure led by the Republic Electoral Commission (REC)
and comprising 166 local electoral commissions (LECs) and 8 267
polling boards (PBs). Commission members were nominated by political
parties in proportion to their representation in the parliament
or local assemblies. For these elections, the composition of all
commissions was altered to provide for temporary representation
of the non-parliamentary opposition. Despite the compressed timeframe
for holding two national electoral contests in parallel, the election
administration carried out its duties efficiently and within the
legal deadlines.
15. The REC is a permanent body and consists of 23 permanent members,
including the chairperson. Its current composition was nominated
in October 2020 and amended in November 2021. The extended composition
of the REC, which in addition to permanent members includes representatives
of the electoral contestants, comprises 88 members or substitutes;
of them, 34 (39%) are women. The REC held regular sessions, which
were open to the media and observers and streamed online. Some REC
members noted that not all background material necessary for meaningful
discussions was shared in time before sessions. The REC held regular
sessions open to observers. While most decisions were adopted unanimously,
some REC members from the opposition asserted that there was a lack
of internal communication within the commission. As prescribed by
law, decisions and instructions adopted by the REC and LECs were
published online within 24 hours, enhancing the transparency of
the process.
16. All LECs and PBs were appointed within the legal deadlines.
In most LECs observed by the ODIHR EOM, the technical and administrative
preparations were managed in a transparent and professional manner, but
some LECs claimed to have received information from the REC on certain
issues late, including on training of PB members. Women accounted
for 41% of the permanent compositions of the LECs and presided over 67 commissions
(40%). Some contestants reported difficulties in appointing their
representatives to the extended compositions of the LECs and PBs.
Several opposition and civil society interlocutors of the IEOM raised
concerns about the technical capacity of the LECs with regard to
their new responsibilities, such as the post-electoral audit of
election material.
17. The REC formed 5 LECs and 46 PBs for voters residing in Kosovo*.
Note
18. The REC developed a hybrid online and in-person training programme
for lower-level commissions, focusing on election day procedures,
determination of election results and adjudication of complaints.
In line with the legal provisions, participation in training sessions
was not mandatory for PB members. The quality of training sessions
varied, with some trainers not providing sufficient opportunity
for questions and comprehensive clarifications.
19. Voter education efforts by the REC were very limited, visible
primarily on its website, social networks and, to a limited extent,
in the broadcast and online media. Some civil society organisations,
most notably the Centre for Research, Transparency and Accountability,
posted voter educational material on billboards and in media platforms
focusing primarily on raising awareness of electoral offences and
the right to vote in secret.
20. While the election law requires polling stations to be accessible
for voters with physical disabilities, interlocutors representing
persons with disabilities pointed out a long-standing issue of lack
of inclusion in the electoral process for persons with various types
of disabilities.
21. All citizens aged at least 18 years on election day have the
right to vote, except those who have lost legal capacity through
a court decision. The disenfranchisement of citizens based on intellectual
and psychosocial disabilities is at odds with international standards.
22. Voter registration is passive. The Unified Voter Register
(UVR) is a permanent database maintained electronically by the Ministry
of Public Administration and Local Self-Government and updated on
the basis of municipal records, input by other State institutions,
and voters’ requests for corrections. While the election law does
not prescribe a permanent address as a prerequisite for electoral
rights, inclusion in the UVR is in practice based on voters’ permanent
residence in the country. Voters whose permanent addresses are removed
from the register of permanent residence of citizens for any reason
are automatically removed from the UVR. In some cases, this may
lead to voters being unduly disenfranchised. According to the Ministry
of Interior, since 2011, a total of 43 907 entries of citizens’
permanent residence have been deregistered, through a procedure in
which police established that those citizens do not reside at those
addresses. Some IEOM interlocutors raised concerns about the accuracy
of the UVR and many drew attention to the continued presence of
entries of deceased persons.
23. Voters could inspect their entries at local administration
premises or online and request corrections between 16 February and
30 March 2022. On 18 March, according to the Ministry of Public
Administration and Local Self-Government, precinct voter lists were
made accessible for scrutiny online. By 12 March, voters were entitled
to request inclusion in the voter list at their temporary residence
and abroad. Special voter lists were compiled for military voters,
detainees and prisoners. Voters could request mobile voting due
to illness, age or disability at their respective LEC or PB, without
providing a justification, until 11 am on election day. On 1 April, the
REC published the final number of registered voters: 6 502 307.
24. By a decision of 18 November 2021, the government established
an interparty working group to scrutinise the Unified Voter Register.
Some members of the group said that the limited mandate of the entity did
not provide a clear objective, timeframe, and conditions for meaningful
scrutiny. Some opposition representatives stepped down from the
working group before election day, citing a lack of clear mandate
and resources.
25. Citizens eligible to vote may stand for president or member
of parliament, without any additional eligibility requirements.
Political parties, pre-electoral coalitions and ad hoc groups of at least ten voters
could register presidential candidates and parliamentary candidate
lists with the REC, supported by 10 000 signatures from voters (5 000
for lists representing national minorities). Two out of every five
consecutive candidates on each list must belong to the less represented
gender; all candidate lists satisfied this legal requirement.
26. The candidate registration period for the early parliamentary
and presidential elections started with the call for the corresponding
elections, respectively, on 15 February and 2 March 2022 and ended
on 13 March. Contrary to international good practice and previous
Venice Commission and ODIHR recommendations, a voter may sign in
support of only one presidential candidate and one parliamentary
candidate list.
27. Overall, candidate registration was inclusive. The REC registered
8 presidential candidates and 19 parliamentary candidate lists.
Four requests to register parliamentary candidate lists, with a
status of national minority list, were rejected for not being supported
by the required numbers of signatures. The REC’s decision on the
rejection of the coalition Russian Minority Alliance was appealed
and overturned by the Administrative Court, and the REC subsequently
registered the coalition. Three of the eight presidential candidates
were women. A total of 2 912 parliamentary candidates nominated
by seven political parties, ten coalitions and two groups of voters
registered to contest the early parliamentary elections; 1 229 (42%)
were women. Women headed 4 (22%) of the candidate lists.
5 Election campaigns
and their financing
28. The election campaigns officially
started with the call for the respective elections and ended on
31 March 2022 at midnight. While fundamental freedoms in the campaign
were broadly respected, some challenges limited the ability of voters
to make an informed choice free from undue pressure and inducement.
Pressure on public sector employees to support the incumbent and
the ruling coalition, and misuse of administrative resources by
State and municipal actors prior to the elections blurred the line
between the State and the party. Many IEOM interlocutors described
what they perceived as excessive budgetary allocations and distribution
of goods to different categories of voters prior to the elections.
Concerns were expressed about a narrowing space for as well as intimidation
and harassment of civil society organisations.
29. The campaign was low-key in most regions, except Belgrade,
and focused on individual candidates rather than political platforms.
Most contestants campaigned through gatherings, door-to-door canvassing, distribution
of flyers, posters or billboards, and online. Only SNS and the Socialist
Party of Serbia (SPS) organised large-scale rallies. Campaign platforms
focused on the economy, agriculture, foreign investments, the cost
of living, environmental issues and the status of Kosovo*. The Russian
Federation’s aggression against Ukraine largely overshadowed the
campaign, especially early in the campaign, and shifted the public discourse
to European security and its impact on Serbia. With the exception
of isolated incidents of violence and hate speech, the campaign
period was peaceful. The restrictions on public gatherings due to
Covid-19 pandemic did not negatively affect the possibility of campaigning.
30. Women were active as candidates; however, party platforms
and campaign messages rarely addressed issues related to gender
equality.
31. Despite some existing regulation for public officials participating
in the campaign, the legislation does not provide sufficient safeguards
against the misuse of administrative resources or office during
the campaign. The law allows most public officials to engage in
public activities, including campaigning, unless it conflicts with
their public duties. A large number of public infrastructure projects
were announced, initiated or inaugurated during the campaign by
the incumbent President or government representatives who were also
candidates. Candidates sometimes failed to distinguish their official
functions from political party campaigns, thus attributing government
achievements to the ruling coalition. The use of administrative
resources gave the ruling coalition a significant advantage of incumbency,
benefiting from extensive media coverage and echoed in the social
networks.
32. There were many credible reports with regard to pressure on
voters to support the ruling coalition. Several opposition party
representatives, civil society organisations and voters said that
municipal and public company workers were coerced to vote and mobilise
new voters for the ruling coalition, to attend rallies or post comments
in support of the coalition on social networks. Some opposition
representatives claimed that they had limited access to campaign
venues. While voters were generally free to obtain information on
all contestants, some opposition representatives said that their
supporters feared attending their campaign events or being seen
taking their leaflets. The widespread allegations of pressure and
intimidation of voters raised concerns about voters’ ability to
cast their votes free of retribution.
33. Digital campaigning was used particularly by the opposition,
to compensate for their limited financial means and limited access
to media. Candidates and political parties mainly promoted manifestos
and meetings with voters. Representatives of the ruling coalition
frequently posted about the inauguration of infrastructure projects
and other achievements as public officials. Accounts connected to
the ruling party and some opposition representative accounts, such
as leaders and candidates of the United for the Victory of Serbia, generated
significant engagement with voters. Credible allegations were made
of an operation of organised groups on social networks, active in
promoting ruling party policies and discrediting the opposition,
including through the use of disinformation.
34. Campaign finance is primarily regulated by the Law on Financing
Political Activities and the 2019 Law on Prevention of Corruption
(last amended in 2022), supplemented by regulations of the Anti-Corruption Agency
(ACA). The Law on Financing Political Activities adopted in February
2022 addressed several Venice Commission and ODIHR recommendations,
including lowering donation limits, introducing interim reporting
on donations and expenditure for electoral contestants and establishing
ceilings on political party membership fees and loans. However,
some previous Venice Commission and ODIHR recommendations remain unaddressed,
including those pertaining to the improvement of the oversight mechanism
and the introduction of a campaign expenditure limit. The remaining
shortcomings and limited enforcement diminish the transparency and
effectiveness of the campaign finance framework. Many interlocutors
reported mistrust in the effectiveness of the regulatory system,
as currently implemented.
35. Political entities represented in the parliament are eligible
for annual public funding. In addition, public funds are allocated
to election campaigns of political entities nominating presidential
and parliamentary contestants. In 2022, the total subsidy for campaigns
amounts to some RSD 1.8 billion (around €15 million). By law, the
first disbursements of public funds for campaigning were made available
only nine days before the elections. In addition, many representatives
of the opposition said that they had limited opportunities for fundraising,
as donors were discouraged from supporting their campaigns due to
fear of retribution, while access to loans was limited due to lack
of business interests from banks. This, combined with the late disbursement
of public funds for the campaign further undermined the possibility
of effective campaigning and contributed to an uneven playing field.
36. Contestants may also finance their political activities, including
campaigns, from their own funds, monetary and in-kind donations
and loans. Donations from anonymous and foreign donors, public contractors, public
entities, some civil servants, religious institutions, non-profit
organisations, trade unions and through third parties are prohibited.
Only four contestants published information on donations. A new
provision of the Law on Financing Political Activities prescribes
that donors of funds and services to political entities are subject to
tax control by the Tax Administration. Without clear legal criteria,
the selection of donors is within the discretion of the ACA, which
many opposition representatives alleged may have discouraged potential
donors from supporting opposition parties.
37. The ACA is mandated with the oversight of political finance
and prevention of corruption. Pursuant to the February 2022 legislative
changes, contestants must submit an interim campaign finance report
to the ACA 5 days prior to elections, which is published by the
ACA online 3 days after submission. The interim report only covers
the period until 15 days prior to elections, which limits transparency
and accountability, in particular by leaving the expenditure of
public funds unreported. The ACA deployed 130 observers around the
country to monitor campaign events and material. The findings of
observers were not published, missing an opportunity to increase
the transparency of campaign financing.
38. While the ACA may initiate additional audits, issue warnings,
and launch misdemeanour or criminal proceedings ex officio or upon complaints, leading
to financial sanctions, it did not effectively respond to alleged violations.
In the absence of expedited deadlines for complaints, some complaints
on alleged misuse of administrative resources were not reviewed
during the campaign. The ACA’s decisions on complaints were not legally
substantiated; in some cases, the ACA established its decisions
based on the explanation of the respondent. Some deliberations on
complaints were adopted in the form of conclusions rather than administrative
decisions, which did not allow for appeals.
6 Media environment
39. The media environment comprises
a large number of outlets. However, access to diverse views is restricted
due to the limited reach of media which are not closely associated
with the governing parties. Television remains the primary source
of political information, followed by social networks and online
media. Most dominant private TV channels with national coverage
support government policies, which influences the public debate
and undermines the media’s watchdog role. Most opposition party
representatives highlighted their chronic lack of access to the
national public and private broadcasters to present their views.
Many journalists acknowledged prevailing self-censorship, mainly
due to media outlets’ dependence on public funding. While there
were only isolated cases of journalists facing threats or intimidation
during the campaign, many IEOM interlocutors noted a climate of
vilification of journalists, reinforcing the chilling effect on
critical voices. Several journalists reported that access to information
from State entities is increasingly difficult.
40. The law obliges all broadcasters to provide information about
contestants in a non-discriminatory and objective manner. The national
public broadcaster Radio Television of Serbia and the provincial
Radio Television of Vojvodina covered campaign activities of all
election contestants in line with the law and granted them access
to special election programmes. In the run up to the elections,
public broadcasters provided an opportunity for contestants to participate
in debates. However, the uncritical and sometimes extensive news coverage
of public officials who were also candidates, President Vučić in
particular, was not fully in line with the regulatory framework
that prohibits public media from granting such officials a privileged
status. Recent legislative changes introduced a ban on the media
coverage of opening or inaugurating events of projects of public
benefit by State officials, who are also candidates, in a period
of 10 days prior to election day. The provision was respected on
most media monitored but this period is too short to be an effective
safeguard of a level playing field.
41. Most broadcast media presented campaign activities mainly
in their regular news programmes, through short clips produced directly
by the contestants, lacking any editorial input. Influential private
media with national coverage (especially TV B92 and RTV Pink) focused
their news coverage on State officials often promoting governmental
projects in the campaign period, many of them standing as candidates.
Among the news programmes monitored on cable TV networks, most provided
mainly positive and neutral coverage of the election contestants
and authorities, with TV Vesti largely demonstrating a pro-government
editorial approach; while TV Nova S presented a more critical portrait
of the authorities. Most newspapers openly promoted the authorities,
whose image was critical only in two out of ten newspapers monitored.
42. Some private broadcast media outlets invited the contestants
to present their views in interviews or talk shows, in which some
participants from the opposition refused to participate, citing
an overall bias. The ruling coalition’s candidates remained largely
absent from cable TV channels with more critical editorial policies, narrowing
voters’ possibility to compare different views.
43. The Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) is vested
with oversight of the broadcast media and adjudication of media-related
complaints. Reflecting concerns of the opposition regarding the
impartiality of the existing oversight bodies, in October 2021,
a Temporary Supervisory Authority for Media Monitoring during the Election
Campaign (TSA) was set up by the government to monitor the media’s
compliance with campaign regulations. Despite the generally collegial
decision making of the TSA in the pre-campaign period, during the campaign,
disagreements between members nominated by the opposition and the
REM and the lack of enforcement powers significantly undermined
the TSA’s effectiveness. The critical issue was the coverage of State
officials, which REM’s media monitoring reports failed to report
on, and the fact that the REM did not address this. The REM remained,
overall, passive in regulating media conduct during the campaign
but swiftly reacted to a case of campaign silence breach.
7 Complaints and
appeals
44. Submitters of candidate lists,
political parties, candidates, parliamentary groups and voters are
entitled to file complaints against decisions, actions and omissions
of the election administration as well as other election violations.
Prior to election day, complaints could be filed with the REC and
the Administrative Court in Belgrade. Complaints about irregularities
during voting may be filed with the corresponding LECs. Complaints
concerning the decision of the parliament to confirm the mandates
of the new deputies may be filed with the Constitutional Court.
45. The complaints and appeals mechanism provided for expedited
dispute resolution on matters related to the administration of elections.
The February 2022 legislative changes addressed a number of previous
Venice Commission and ODIHR recommendations to enhance the effectiveness
of dispute resolution by extending legal standing to voters registered
in a polling station and prolonging the timeframes for filing and
reviewing complaints from 24 to 48 and 72 hours; prescribing an
obligation for the REC and LECs to publish their decisions within
24 hours; and introducing a mechanism for complaints against PB
result protocols and LEC decisions on tabulation of results.
46. Prior to elections, eight complaints were filed with the REC,
including five by contestants and three by voters. Of these, five
complaints challenged the registration of three candidate lists
and a presidential candidate and two complaints were against the
denial of registration of a contestant. One complaint challenged an
LEC decision to establish several polling stations without REC approval,
as required by law. All complaints were reviewed on merits and were
rejected by the REC as unsubstantiated, while one was dismissed
on technical grounds and one was upheld. The REC reviewed complaints
in open sessions, respecting due process. It maintained a publicly
available complaints database filed to election commissions and
the administrative court, updated in a timely manner and contributing
to transparency.
47. All REC decisions were appealed to the Administrative Court.
The court dismissed two appeals on technical grounds, rejected four
on merits and upheld one appeal.
48. Despite numerous allegations of serious electoral offences,
including voter intimidation, misuse of administrative resources
and vote-buying, the Prosecutor’s Office and the police did not
clarify whether they initiated investigations related to these elections.
Some IEOM interlocutors expressed a lack of trust in the ability
and will of the prosecutor, law enforcement bodies and courts to
impartially and effectively handle such cases.
8 Election day
49. Election day was smoothly conducted
and peaceful overall; however, several incidents took place, including
physical attacks on two candidates and one polling board member.
While the REC published turnout figures throughout the day, it failed
to announce any figures following the closing of the polls. President
Vučić claimed victory on election night, based on unofficial data.
50. The PACE observation delegation split into 13 teams and visited
polling stations in Belgrade and the surrounding areas as well as
in Novi Sad, Kragujevac, Nis, Vranje and Novi Pazar. Their observations
were in general similar to the ones of the other IEOM teams, and
statistical analyses based on data provided by observer teams are
as follows:
- The opening of
polls was assessed positively in 121 of the 137 polling stations
observed. Opening procedures were generally followed, although in
21 polling stations, the PB did not properly seal the ballot boxes.
In six cases, the control sheets were not signed or inserted in
the ballot boxes in line with the procedures. 70 polling stations
experienced mostly minor delays in opening for voting.
- The voting process was overall well-organised and smooth.
However, it was assessed negatively in 11% of the polling stations,
which indicated systemic deficiencies related to polling station
layout, overcrowding, breaches in secrecy of the vote and family
voting. In a few isolated cases, the IEOM observers noted the same
persons assisting multiple voters when voting and observed vote
buying.
- The polling station layout was inadequate in 12% of the
1 411 polling stations where it was observed, mainly due to the
small size of voting premises. This, combined with the high number
of PB members, intended to increase transparency, resulted in queuing
and overcrowding in some 16% of the PB observed. In line with the
national health protocols, there were no specific Covid-19 related
measures in place. Some 63% of the polling stations did not provide
for independent access for persons with physical disabilities and
in 27% the layout was not suitable for such voters. In total, 46%
of the membership of PBs observed by the IEOM were women, including
40% of the chairpersons.
- Citizen observers monitored the electoral process in some
25% of the polling stations observed, enhancing transparency.
- Voting procedures were generally respected; however, insufficient
understanding of the procedures by PBs resulted in inconsistent
implementation of important safeguards related to the integrity
of the process. In 16% of observations, ballot boxes were not properly
sealed. In some 10% of the observations, voters’ fingers were not
always checked for traces of invisible ink. In some 4% of the polling
stations observed, the voters’ identity was not always properly
checked. Also, voters’ fingers were not always inked at the time
of voting in 6% of the observations. While PBs must by law inform
voters about the voting process and their right to vote in secret,
this was not applied in almost half of the polling stations observed.
Instances of family voting were observed in some 20% of the polling
stations, potentially impacting independent voting for women and
elderly voters.
- In 28% of the observations, not all voters marked their
ballots in secrecy, due to inappropriate positioning of voting screens
in 23% of polling stations and to overcrowding or insufficient distance
from voters and PB members in 18%. In 11% of the observations, voters
did not fold the ballots before casting them. In 2% of the observed
polling stations (27 cases), persons other than the designated PB
member were keeping track of who voted. Voters were taking pictures
of their ballot in some 2% of the observed polling stations (30
cases). In a few isolated cases PB members or party supporters were
seen to influence the will of voters.
- The vote count was assessed overall positively in 96 of
121 of the polling stations observed. In some cases, in their effort
to speed up the vote count, PBs omitted important procedural steps
put in place to safeguard the integrity of the process. PBs did
not determine the number of voters who signed the voter list before
opening the ballot box (20 observations), did not respect the legally
required order of elections counted (28 observations), and opened
the ballot boxes and other materials of the presidential contest before
finishing the vote count of the parliamentary race (21 cases). In
28 observations, the transparency during the vote count was undermined
by rushed or concurrently conducted procedures and overcrowding,
limiting the possibility for all present to see the marking on each
ballot properly. In 34 cases, PBs had difficulties to reconcile
the results; in 16 cases, the results did not reconcile. In 17 polling
stations, PB members pre-signed the results protocols before the
count was finished; in 12 not all PB members signed them, as required
by the law. Thirteen PBs observed did not properly pack and seal
the election material before transferring it to LECs.
- Citizen observers were present during the count in one
third of polling stations observed.
- The handover of the election material and the initial
phase of the tabulation process, observed in 89 LECs, was generally
well-organised. Due to inadequate premises and overcrowding, the
procedures were negatively assessed in 7 cases. Discrepancies in
some of the results protocols submitted by PBs were observed in
33 LECs visited.
51. On 6 April, the REC, on the basis of 98,93% counted ballots,
proclaimed the incumbent President Vučić (the joint presidential
candidate of the SNS coalition, the SPS, and the Alliance of Vojvodina
Hungarians) as winner of the presidential election, with 59.5% of
votes. The SNS won 42,91% of votes (120 seats). The opposition presidential
candidate Zdravko Ponos, received around 18%, while his alliance
United for Victory of Serbia obtained around 13,69% (38 seats).
The presidential candidate of the green-left coalition Moramo (“We must”),
Prof. Biljana Stojkovic, gained 3.25% and her coalition 4,63% (12
seats). The SPS, a long time SNS coalition partner, came third with
11,34% (32 seats). The Nada (“Hope”) coalition around the Democratic
Party of Serbia (DSS) won more than 5% of the vote and 15 seats.
Dveri and Zavetnici (“Oath-Keepers”) obtained around 3,8% of the
vote each (10 seats for each).
52. According to the preliminary results the turnout was of around
59%.
9 Conclusions and recommendations
53. The Assembly has observed all
elections in Serbia since 2000 (with the exception of the parliamentary elections
of 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemics). Since 2000 all but one parliamentary
election in Serbia have been early elections. In this regard, the
PACE delegation felt that, while legally possible, the “culture”
of early elections impacts the efficient autonomous functioning
of the parliament according to the constitutional term of office,
no matter which political forces are in power.
54. The 3 April 2022 elections took place against the backdrop
of intense polarisation between the ruling coalition and opposition
parties, which had been reflected in an opposition boycott of the
2020 parliamentary elections and numerous public protests between
July 2020 and January 2022.
55. The PACE delegation noted that the Russian Federation’s aggression
against Ukraine largely overshadowed the campaign, especially early
on, and shifted the public discourse to European security developments
and their impact on Serbia.
56. The PACE delegation felt that, overall, the legal framework
provides an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections.
However, it stresses that its effective implementation is indispensable
to fully ensure a level playing field.
57. The PACE delegation took note of the recent legislative changes
resulting from an extensive dialogue between the ruling parties
and some of the opposition, addressing some prior recommendations
from the Venice Commission and the ODIHR. Nevertheless, the delegation
stresses that some issues remain unaddressed, mainly concerning
the access to media, campaign finance, measures to tackle pressure
on voters, and the public scrutiny and audit of voter lists.
58. The election administration carried out its duties efficiently
and all election commissions included representatives of the non-parliamentary
opposition. There were, however, varying levels of confidence in
the election administration bodies, and doubts existed about the
technical capacity of lower-level commissions to cope with new responsibilities.
59. The Assembly, in its previous election observation reports,
has been very critical concerning the media coverage of elections
in Serbia. Regrettably, many serious concerns in this field remain
unaddressed. The delegation noted that, while media covered all
electoral contestants, most public and private broadcasters with national
coverage favoured the incumbent president and the ruling coalition,
limiting the opportunity of voters to make a fully informed choice.
60. Most opposition representatives heard by the PACE delegation
cited a long-standing lack of opportunity to present their views
on both public and private national broadcasters, and many journalists
highlighted prevailing self-censorship and, often, the vilification
of journalists. During the campaign, the public broadcasters covered
the campaign activities of all election contestants in line with
the law but provided uncritical news coverage of some candidates
in their capacities as State officials. The Electronic Media Regulatory
Authority did not address these issues and the effectiveness of
the temporary authority established to supervise media compliance
in coverage of the campaign was significantly undermined by its
lack of enforcement powers.
61. The Assembly observation delegation stressed that the election
is not limited to election day and regretted that during the campaign
period, some key challenges limited voters’ ability to choose free
from pressure or inducement. As well as pressure on public sector
employees and the misuse of State resources by State and municipal
actors, excessive budgetary allocations seemed to have been made
to certain categories of voters prior to the elections.
62. The delegation noted that the transparency and effectiveness
of campaign finance regulation is limited and, despite recent legislative
changes, concerns remain concerning the campaign expenditure limit
and the improvement of the oversight mechanism. The late disbursement
of public funds for the campaign undermined the ability to campaign
effectively. The newly introduced tax audit of donors to political
parties discouraged financial support for the campaigns of some
opposition parties. The Anti-Corruption Agency did not respond effectively
to potential violations.
63. The PACE delegation regretted that party platforms and campaign
messages rarely addressed issues related to gender equality.
64. The PACE delegation felt that the election day was smoothly
conducted and peaceful overall but, despite solid preparations,
was marked by a number of systematic procedural deficiencies related
to polling station layout, overcrowding, breaches in secrecy of
the vote and numerous instances of family voting, as well as cases
of vote buying.
65. To conclude, the PACE delegation identified a number of irregularities
and shortcomings during the whole electoral process of the early
parliamentary and presidential elections of 3 April. It stresses
that key aspects of the electoral process require further reform
and implementation and feels that concrete measures should be taken
by Serbia in order to improve its electoral legal framework, as
well as certain electoral practices. This should be accomplished
within the framework of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure and
in close co-operation with the Venice Commission.
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: Aleksander
POCIEJ, Poland
* members of the pre-election delegation
Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group
(SOC)
- Ms Petra BAYR, Austria
*
- Ms Heike ENGELHARDT, Germany
- Mr Mogens JENSEN, Denmark
- Mr André VALLINI, France
- Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Switzerland
- Mr Andrzej SZEJNA, Poland
- Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI, Italy
Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Mr Uldis BUDRIĶIS, Latvia
- Mr Christian KLINGER, France
- Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Lithuania
- Mr Aleksander POCIEJ, Poland *
- Mr Birgir THORARINSSON, Iceland
European Conservatives Group and Democratic
Alliance (EC/DA)
- Mr Alberto RIBOLLA,
Italy *
- Mr Norbert KLEINWÄCHTER, Germany
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for
Europe (ALDE)
- Ms Liliana TANGUY, France
*
- Mr Iulian BULAI, Romania
- Ms Krista BAUMANE, Latvia
Group of the Unified European Left (UEL)
- Mr Andrej HUNKO, Germany
*
Venice Commission
- Mr Eirik HOLMǾYVIK,
Norway
Secretariat
- Mr Bogdan TORCĂTORIU,
Administrator, Election Observation and Interparliamentary Cooperation Division
- Ms Daniele GASTL, Assistant, Election Observation and
Interparliamentary Cooperation Division
- Ms Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Election Observation and Interparliamentary
Cooperation Division
- Mr Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Legal advisor, Venice Commission
Appendix 2 – Programme of the pre-electoral
delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly
Wednesday, 2 March 2022
9.30-10.45 Delegation meeting
- Welcome by the Head of the delegation,
Mr Aleksander Pociej
- Interventions of the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee
- Presentation by Mr Tobias Flessenkemper, Head of the Council
of Europe Office in Belgrade
- Practical information by the secretariat
11.00-12.30 Meeting with Mr Douglas Wake, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission and Mr Marcell Nagy, Deputy Head of
Mission, and members of the core team
14.30-15.30 Meeting with representatives of the civil society:
- Mr Raša Nedeljkov, Center for
Research, Transparency and Accountability
- Ms Maja Stojanović, Gradjanske Inicijative (Civic Initiatives)
- Ms Izabela Kisic, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
in Serbia
- Mr Zlatko Minic, Transparency International Serbia
15.45-16.45 Meeting with representatives of the media:
Journalists:
- Mr Zoran
Stanojević, RTS
- Ms Ljiljana Smajlović, Nedeljnik
- Mr Igor Božić, N1
- Ms Vesna Mališić, NIN
Representatives of media associations:
- Mr Živojin Rakočević, President, Journalists’ Association
of Serbia
- Mr Željko Bodrožić, President, Independent Association
of Journalists of Serbia
- Mr Velijko Milic, Executive Director, Independent Journalists’
Association of Vojvodina
17.00-19.00 Consecutive meetings with leaders and representatives
of the main non-parliamentary parties:
17.00-17.30 United Opposition / Đilas coalition
17.30-18.00 Dveri/POKS coalition: Ms Tamara Milenković-Jerković,
Vice-president of SP Dveri, Mr Andrej Mitić, International Secretary
of SP Dveri, Ms Irina Bogunović, General Secretary of POKS
18.00-18.30 Moramo / Green-left coalition
18.30-19.00 SDS / Tadić coalition: Mr Konstantin Samofalov
(Secretary General of the Social Democratic Party), Ms Jovana Jovanović
(Vice-President of the Social Democratic Party)
20.00 Working dinner hosted by H.E. Carlo Lo Cascio, Ambassador
of Italy, with members of the diplomatic corps (ambassadors of countries
represented in the preelectoral delegation: Poland, Austria, France,
Germany)
Thursday, 3 March 2022
09.30-10.00 Meeting with the representatives
of the parliamentary group “Aleksandar Vučić – for our children”
10.10-10.40 Meeting with the representatives of the parliamentary
group of the Socialist Party of Serbia
10.50-11.20 Meeting with representatives of parliamentary
groups: PUPS (Party of United Pensioners of Serbia), ЈС (United
Serbia), SDPS (Social Democrat Party of Serbia, SVM (Alliance of
Vojvodina Hungarians), SPP-USS (Justice and Reconciliation Party
– United Peasant Party)
11.30-12.55 Meeting with the representatives of the parliamentary
group “United Valley – SDA of Sandžak” (Party of Democratic Action
of Sandžak)
13.00-13.45 Meeting with the Speaker of the National Assembly
of the Republic of Serbia, H.E. Mr Ivica Dačić, with the participation
of the members of the Serbian delegation to the PACE
15.30-16.30 Meeting with the Chairperson of the Republic Electoral
Commission Mr Vladimir Dimitrijević
17.00-18.00 Ad hoc committee
meeting (preparation of a statement)
Appendix 3 – Statement of the pre-electoral
delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly
A pre-electoral delegation* of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), led by Aleksander Pociej
(Poland, EPP/CD), was in Belgrade to assess the pre-electoral climate
and the state of preparation a month before the presidential and
early parliamentary elections in Serbia scheduled for 3 April 2022.
The PACE delegation met with the Speaker of the Parliament
and the Serbian delegation to PACE, leaders and representatives
of political parties and coalitions, members of the ODIHR Election
Observation Mission, the Chairperson and members of the Republic
Electoral Commission, members of the diplomatic corps in Belgrade
and representatives of civil society and the media.
The Assembly has observed all elections in Serbia since 2000
(with the exception of the parliamentary elections of 2020). The
Assembly pre-electoral delegation notes that since 2000 all but
one parliamentary election in Serbia have been early elections.
In this regard, the delegation considers that, while legally possible, the
“culture” of early elections impacts the efficient autonomous functioning
of the Parliament according to the constitutional term of office,
no matter which political forces are in power. The delegation notes
that the reasoning of the government for proposing to the President
the dissolution of Parliament according to Article 109 of the Constitution
has not been made public.
Regarding the legal framework for the presidential and early
parliamentary elections, substantial changes were made early in
2022. Their effectiveness in realising international standards and
commitments remains to be tested. This includes issues relating
to voter, party and candidate registration, the organisation of
polling, provisions for national minorities and people with disabilities,
and access to the media. It should be stressed that, even if the
recent changes implement international recommendations, late amendments
to the electoral legislation limit the time needed for electoral
preparations, including training and voter education, and might make
it difficult to apply the electoral legislation properly and uniformly.
Representatives of civil society and the media described a
tense political situation and the dominant position in the public
sphere of the main government political party led by the President
of the Republic, in particular in public broadcast media.
Domestic election observation organisations informed the delegation
of problems and intimidation during the constitutional referendum
held on 16 January 2022. The delegation heard, from different interlocutors, concerns
about pressure put on voters and fears of possible irregularities
on election day.
The Assembly pre-electoral delegation notes that the presidential
and early parliamentary election campaigns are at early stages and
might be affected by Serbia’s position on the war against Ukraine.
The delegation noted that the general atmosphere is calm,
and that all political contestants can campaign freely without restriction.
It also took note of the legal obligation to bring forward lists
with a minimum of 40% of the under-represented gender. The delegation
was also informed about the polarisation of society before these elections
and the growing popularity of extremist opinions, which could cause
additional tension.
A full-fledged 22-member PACE delegation, accompanied by representatives
of the Venice Commission, will travel to Serbia to observe the vote on
3 April.
* Composition of the delegation: Aleksander
Pociej, Poland (EPP/CD), head of the delegation; Petra Bayr, Austria
(SOC); Alberto Ribolla, Italy (EC-DA); Liliana Tanguy, France (ALDE); Andrej
Hunko, Germany (UEL).
Appendix 4 – Programme of the meetings of
the International Electoral Observation Mission, Belgrade 1-4 April
2022
Friday 1 April
09.00-10.00 PACE internal meeting
- Opening by Mr Aleksander Pociej,
Head of Delegation
- Briefing on the early parliamentary elections by Mr Eirik
Holmøyvik, Venice Commission
- Practical and logistical aspects, deployment plan – Secretariat
10.15-10.30 Welcoming remarks by the heads of parliamentary
delegations
- Mr Kyriakos Hadjiyianni,
Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term OSCE observer
mission
- Mr Aleksander Pociej, Head of the PACE Delegation
- Mr Thijs Reuten, Head of the European Parliament Delegation
- Ms Bryndis Haraldsdottir, Head of the OSCE PA Delegation
10.30-10.50 Introduction to the country
- Ambassador Jan Braathu, Head of the OSCE Mission to Serbia
- Mr Tobias Flessenkemper, Head of the Council of Europe
Office in Belgrade
- Ambassador Emanuele Giaufret, Head of the European Union
Delegation to Serbia
11.00-13.00 Briefing by ODIHR Election Observation Mission
– Core Team – part 1
- Welcome
and Overview of the EOM – Mr
Douglas Wake, Head of Mission; Mr Marcell Nagy, Deputy Head of Mission
- Political Overview, Contestants and Campaign – Ms Aliénor
Benoist, Political Analyst
- Legal Framework, Electoral System and Dispute Resolution
– Ms Elissavet Karagiannidou, Legal Analyst
- Election Administration – Ms Marcela Mašková, Election
Analyst; Mr Thomas Leszke, Junior Election Analyst
- Campaign Finance – Ms Elena Kovalyova, Campaign Finance
Analyst
- Media Landscape – Mr Marek Mračka, Media Analyst; Mr Dumitru
Lazur, Junior Media Analyst
14.00-15.00 Panel on election administration and legislation
- Mr Vladimir Dimitrijević, President,
Republic Electoral Commission
- Ms Marina Dražić, Assistant Minister, Register Section,
Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government
- Ms Ivana Cvetković, Assistant Director for External Affairs
and Strategic Development, Anti-Corruption Agency
- Mr Gradimir Nenadović, Deputy Director of the Republic
Secretariat for Legislation
15.15-16.30 Panel on election campaign context and civil society
- Mr Bojan Klačar, Executive Director,
Center for Free Elections and Democracy
- Ms Tamara Branković, Policy Lab Manager Center for Research,
Transparency and Accountability
- Mr Nemanja Nenadić, Program Director, Transparency Serbia
- Ms Biljana Stepanov, Program Coordinator, Center for Support
of Women
- Mr Zoran Gavrilović, Executive Director, Bureau for Social
Research
- Ms Dragana Žarković Obradović, Director, Balkan Investigative
Reporting Network, Serbia
16.30-17.45 Media Panel
- Mr
Rade Veljanovski, Chairperson, Temporary Supervisory Body for Media Monitoring
during Elections
- Ms Safeta Biševac, Editor of the Foreign Policy Section
and Columnist, Danas
- Mr Zoran Stanojević, Assistant to Editor-in-Chief, Radio
and Television of Serbia
- Ms Tatjana Aleksić, Executive Producer, N1 Television
- Mr Rade Đurić, Lawyer-Researcher, Independent Journalists’
Association of Serbia
- Mr Milan Todorović, General Secretary, Regulatory Authority
of Electronic Media
- Mr Saša Mirković, Deputy President, Association of Independent
Electronic Media
Saturday 2 April
09.15-11.00 Briefings with representatives of the
political parties (in separate slots)
- Mr Vladimir Orlić, Serbian Progressive Party
- Ms Nataša Gaćeša, Socialist Party of Serbia
- Ms Marinika Tepić, United for the Victory of Serbia Coalition
- Ms Vesna Rakić Vodinelić, Moramo Coalition
- Mr Merfid Kamešnićanin, Party of Democratic Action of
Sandžak
- Mr Nebojša Marjanović, Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians
11.15-12.45 Observation Procedure – ODIHR – part 2
- Safety and Security – Mr Davor
Ćorluka, Security Expert
- Election day procedures and observation forms – Ms Marcela
Mašková, Election Analyst, Mr Thomas Leszke, Junior Election Analyst,
and Mr Max Bader, Statistical Analyst
- Work of long-term observers (LTO) – Ms Kerstin Dokter,
LTO co-ordinator
- Briefing with OSCE PA Staff on information sharing, communication,
and other modalities
- Briefing with Belgrade LTOs
- LTO Team 5 – Ms Anja Bronny and Mr Valdemar Uruba
- LTO Team 6 – Ms Lucrezia Aresi and Mr Mario Barfus
Sunday 3 April
All day Observation of the elections
Monday 4 April
08.00-09.00 PACE delegation debriefing meeting
15.30-16.30 Press conference
Appendix 5 – Press release of the International
Election Observation Mission
BELGRADE, 4 April 2022 – Fundamental freedoms
were largely respected in Serbia’s 3 April presidential and early
parliamentary elections, and voters were presented diverse political
options, but a number of shortcomings resulted in an uneven playing
field, favouring the incumbents, international observers said in a statement today.
The combined impact of unbalanced access to the media, undue pressure
on public sector employees to support the incumbents, significant
campaign finance disparities and misuse of state resources resulted
in unequal conditions for contestants, the statement says.
Recent legislative changes, adopted following extensive dialogue
among the ruling parties and some of the opposition, included some
welcome improvements, but key aspects of the electoral process require
further reform and implementation, the statement says. While media
covered all electoral contestants, most public and private broadcasters
with national coverage favoured the incumbent president and the
ruling coalition, limiting the opportunity of voters to make a fully
informed choice, the observers said.
“This was a competitive campaign
and, importantly, included opposition candidates this time, but
the pervasive influence of the ruling parties gave them undue advantage,”
said Kyriakos Hadjiyianni, special co-ordinator and leader of the
OSCE short-term observers.
The elections took place against the backdrop of intense polarization
between the ruling coalition and opposition parties, which had been
reflected in an opposition boycott of the 2020 parliamentary elections
and numerous public protests between July 2020 and January 2022.
“The recurring cycle of early parliamentary
elections led to the creation of a ‘culture’ of early elections,
which impacts the efficient functioning of the Parliament, no matter
which political forces are in power,” said Aleksander Pociej, Head
of the delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe. “It is regrettable that the public broadcaster and the
majority of media outlets were not balanced in their coverage during
the campaign.”
During the campaign period, some key challenges limited voters’
ability to choose free from pressure or inducement. Along with pressure
on public sector employees and the misuse of state resources by
state and municipal actors, the observers were also told that excessive
budgetary allocations were made to certain categories of voters
prior to the elections. The war caused by the Russian Federation’s
invasion of Ukraine largely overshadowed the campaign, especially
early on, and shifted the public discourse to European security developments
and their impact on Serbia.
Eight presidential candidates, including 3 women, and 19 parliamentary
lists totalling 2,912 candidates (42% women, including in winnable
positions), were registered. Party platforms and campaign messages
rarely addressed issues related to gender equality.
“We welcome the return to a more
pluralistic and diverse Parliament in Serbia following yesterday's
elections, where voter turnout was higher. However, we condemn the
violent attack on election day against one opposition leader,” said Thijs
Reuten, Head of the delegation from the European Parliament. “We
regret that the campaign was held in a highly polarized political
environment, marked by limited media freedom and pluralism and government
pressure on voters. We look forward to working together with the
newly composed Serbian Parliament on concrete measures to strengthen
democracy and the rule of law in Serbia on its EU path.”
“While I wish to emphasize that
parties that previously boycotted elections participated this time,
after extensive inter-party dialogue that led to a set of reforms,
this should be seen as only the starting point for a more transparent
dialogue towards broader and much needed further reform,” said Bryndis
Haraldsdottir, Head of the delegation from the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly. “This approach through dialogue, the core of democracy,
has to be the way forward, as part of restoring trust in the system.”
Most opposition representatives cited a long-standing lack
of opportunity to present their views on both public and private
national broadcasters, and many journalists highlighted prevailing
self-censorship and, often, their vilification. During the campaign,
the public broadcasters covered the campaign activities of all election contestants
in line with the law, but provided uncritical news coverage to some
candidates in their capacities as state officials. The Electronic
Media Regulatory Authority (REM) did not address these issues, and
the effectiveness of the temporary authority established to supervise
media compliance in coverage of the campaign was significantly undermined
by its lack of enforcement powers.
Overall, the legal framework provides an adequate basis for
the conduct of democratic elections, but effective implementation
and additional measures are indispensable to fully ensure a level
playing field. Positively, the February 2022 legislative changes
addressed some prior ODIHR and the Council of Europe Venice Commission
recommendations, but a number of these remain, including on access
to media, campaign finance, measures to tackle pressure on voters,
and the public scrutiny and audit of voter lists.
The election administration carried out its duties efficiently
and, for these elections, all election commissions included representatives
of the non-parliamentary opposition. There were varying levels of
confidence in the election administration bodies, and concerns were
voiced about the technical capacity of lower-level commissions to
cope with new responsibilities. Election day was smoothly conducted
and peaceful overall but, despite solid preparations, was marked
by a number of systematic procedural deficiencies related to polling station
layout, overcrowding, breaches in secrecy of the vote and numerous
instances of family voting.
The transparency and effectiveness of campaign finance regulation
is limited and, while the February 2022 legislative changes addressed
ODIHR and Venice Commission recommendations on donation limits and interim
reporting, some issues remain, including on a campaign expenditure
limit and on improvement of the oversight mechanism. Many political
party representatives raised concerns that the late disbursement
of public funds for the campaign undermined the ability to campaign
effectively, and opposition parties asserted that the newly introduced
tax audit of donors to political parties discouraged financial support
for their campaigns. The Anti-Corruption Agency did not respond
effectively to potential violations.
“A number of welcome changes to
electoral legislation and practice were introduced recently, some
addressing previous ODIHR recommendations.” said Douglas Wake, Head
of the election observation mission from the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights. “However, much more fundamental reform
in such areas as media access, accountability for campaign offences,
and campaign finance regulation – and their effective implementation
– are indispensable to ensure that all contestants can compete in
elections on an equal basis, civil society and media can contribute
effectively to political debate, and all voters have the opportunity
to make fully informed choices.”
