Observation of the general elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2 October 2022)
Election observation report
| Doc. 15655
| 17 November 2022
1 Introduction
1. On 4 May 2022, the President
of the Central Election Commission (CEC) of Bosnia and Herzegovina invited
the Parliamentary Assembly to observe the general elections scheduled
for 2 October 2022.
2. The Bureau of the Assembly, at its meeting on 20 June 2022,
decided to observe these elections, to set up an ad hoc committee composed of 20
members (SOC-6; EPP/CD-6; EC/DA-4; ALDE-3; UEL-1), as well as 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. On 24 June,
the Bureau decided to revise the composition of the ad hoc committee (21 members (SOC-6;
EPP/CD-6; EC/DA-4; ALDE-3; UEL-1; NR-1), as well as the two co-rapporteurs
of the monitoring committee), and appointed Mr Stefan Schennach
(Austria, SOC) as its Chairperson. On 12 September, the Bureau approved
the final list of members of the ad hoc committee
to observe these elections (Appendix 1).
3. 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.
4. A pre-electoral delegation was in Sarajevo and Banja Luka
from 5 to 7 September 2022. It
had meetings in Sarajevo and in Banja Luka with representatives
of the Collegium of the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
leaders and representatives of parliamentary groups of the House
of Representatives of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
leaders and representatives of parliamentary groups of the National Assembly
of Republika Srpska, the delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to
the Assembly, the President and members of the CEC, members of the
diplomatic corps in Sarajevo, members of the Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) election observation mission, as well as
representatives of NGOs and the media. The programme of the pre-electoral
mission is set out in Appendix 2 and its statement in Appendix 3.
5. The full Assembly ad hoc committee
(PACE delegation) worked from 30 September to 3 October 2022. It
operated as part of an International Election Observation Mission
(IEOM) together with a delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE-PA),
a delegation from the European Parliament, a delegation from the
Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO-PA) and the electoral observation mission (EOM) of the OSCE/ODIHR.
The programme of the delegation’s meetings is set out in Appendix
4.
6. The IEOM concluded that the general elections were competitive
and overall well organised. Fundamental freedoms were respected
during the campaign. However, failed reform efforts, a widespread mistrust
in public institutions and ethnically divisive rhetoric continued
to mark the election environment. The joint press release is set
out in Appendix 5.
7. The PACE delegation wishes to express its gratitude towards
the secretariat of the parliamentary delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and to the Office of the Council of Europe in Sarajevo for the extremely valuable
assistance given in the organisation of the pre-electoral mission.
2 Political
context
8. Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)
is composed of two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH)
and the Republika Srpska (RS). In addition, the Brčko district has
a special status as a local self-government unit under direct State
sovereignty. The Constitution grants the status of constituent peoples
to Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs. Citizens who do not identify with
an ethnicity that has the status of a constituent people or who
choose not to affiliate themselves with any group or ethnicity may
declare themselves as “others”.
9. The complex State structure and legal and administrative framework
originate from the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in
BiH (Dayton Peace Agreement). The High Representative, who heads
the international body established by the Dayton Peace Agreement
to oversee the implementation of the civilian aspects of the peace
settlement, retains extensive powers to impose legislation and enforce
the law. Exercising these powers, the High Representative amended
the electoral legislation three times in 2022, including in July and
then on election day. In June, leading political parties reached
an agreement aimed at ensuring the functioning of the State and
advancing on the European path; however, this failed to result in
the reaching of an agreement on the issues of election reform and
the budget for elections.
10. Electoral contestants represent highly divergent visions of
the country’s future. While most major political parties promote
in their electoral doctrine a single constituent people, others
define themselves as multi-ethnic “civic” parties. The elections
took place amid years of deadlock among incumbent political parties
that established divisive, often inflammatory rhetoric as the standard
of political discourse and have blocked the functioning of key State-
and entity-level institutions. A government of the FBiH, based on
the results of the 2018 elections, has still not been formed; the
government formed in March 2015 remains in power under a technical
mandate. Four of the nine judicial seats on the FBiH Constitutional
Court remain vacant since 2019. BiH applied for European Union (EU)
membership in 2016 but has not yet received candidate status. In
2021, the European Commission assessed that the country still had
much to accomplish in order to meet the obligations of EU membership,
with limited progress noted in most key reform areas. On 12 October
2022, the European Commission recommended to grant BiH the status
of EU candidate, under the condition of implementing necessary reforms.
A Council debate and the eventual decision on BiH candidate status
are expected in December 2022.
11. While candidates repeatedly urged voters to consider these
elections as a decisive moment in the country’s history, many IEOM
interlocutors referred to a backdrop of overall disillusionment
with the political establishment, inefficiency of public administration,
pervasive corruption and exploitation of the public sector, the
largest single employer in BiH, for political gain. In late August
2022, the High Representative began a new round of meetings with
political parties, the CEC and other stakeholders. On 17 September,
he issued a statement reiterating that blocking of institutions
cannot continue after the elections.
3 Electoral system
and legal framework
12. The electoral legal framework
is generally conducive to democratic elections. However, certain
legal provisions challenge the principles of universal and equal
suffrage and non-discrimination, and its effectiveness is undermined
by a lack of uniformity between several laws at different levels
and a number of shortcomings in the legislation.
13. On 27 July, the High Representative imposed changes to the
Election Law, following failed discussions among major political
parties to amend the election-related legislation and introduce
constitutional changes. The amendments, inter
alia, introduced a definition of hate speech; banned
the misuse of administrative resources for executive office holders
and elected officials; prohibited the trade of polling station commission positions
among political parties; and increased fines for election-related
violations. Overall, the changes introduced important integrity
safeguards. Nevertheless, many IEOM interlocutors expressed dissatisfaction that
they were introduced by a decision of the High Representative rather
than passed in parliament with opportunity for proper public consultation.
Also, the late adoption of the amendments, after the elections had been
called, did not allow all stakeholders to become fully familiar
with the new provisions or for enforcement mechanisms to be fully
established, and certain provisions challenge legal certainty.
14. The current legislative framework continues to pose ethnicity
and residency-based restrictions on the right to stand as a candidate;
only voters self-declared as Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs may stand
as candidates for the State and entity presidencies and be indirectly
elected to the BiH House of Peoples (BiH HoP), provided that they
reside in the appropriate entity. The European Court of Human Rights
has repeatedly deemed these restrictions incompatible with the European
Convention of Human Rights (ETS No. 5). In 2015, the Constitutional
Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ruled that provisions of the FBiH
and RS entity constitutions concerning the election of entity presidency
members were discriminatory towards citizens not self-declaring as
belonging to any of the three constituent peoples and, therefore,
at odds with the State Constitution. These rulings of the European
Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and
Herzegovina remain unimplemented.
15. A 2016 judgement of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, mandating a review of the system for indirect elections
for the FBiH HoP had still not been implemented prior to the elections.
Furthermore some longstanding ODIHR recommendations remain unaddressed,
including on a comprehensive review of the legal framework and electoral
constituency boundaries, increasing transparency of electoral dispute resolution
and the formation of polling station commissions. Prior to these
elections, in the absence of amendments to the Election Law, the
CEC addressed various aspects of the electoral process through the adoption
of regulations. While overall positive, in some cases, the CEC used
wide discretionary power in interpreting its mandate to implement
the Election Law.
16. On election day, with the stated aim of unblocking the political
impasse and ensuring that institutions of the FBiH are formed following
the elections, the High Representative imposed additional changes
to the Election Law and the FBiH Constitution. The amendments, inter alia, increased the number
of seats in the FBiH HoP and introduced significant changes to the
body’s decision-making procedures with respect to the appointment
of the FBiH president and vice presidents as well as key judicial
positions. At the time of voting, the full impact of the cantonal
assembly vote was not foreseeable to electoral contestants and voters.
The FBiH HoP, although indirectly elected by the cantonal assemblies,
enjoys significant legislative powers.
17. Under a complex institutional and electoral system, six direct
electoral contests held on three levels took place in these elections.
At the State level, voters voted for the presidency and the BiH
House of Representatives (BiH HoR). At the entity level, voters
registered in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina voted for
the FBiH House of Representatives (FBiH HoR), while those registered
in the Republika Srpska cast their votes for the president and two
vice-presidents of the Republika Srpska, as well as the RS National Assembly
(RS NA). In addition, voters in the FBiH elected ten cantonal assemblies.
All mandates are allocated for four-year terms.
18. Members of the tripartite presidency of BiH are elected by
a simple majority with voters in the FBiH being able to choose one
candidate from either the Bosniak or Croat candidates, and voters
in the RS selecting from among Serb candidates. The RS president
and vice-presidents are also elected by a simple majority. Most
BiH HoR, FBiH HoR and RS NA members are elected through a preferential
voting system in multi-member constituencies. For the State and
entity-level parliamentary contests, compensatory mandates are allocated from
closed party lists to ensure the proportional representation of
parties or coalitions. Further, for the FBiH HoR and the RS NA,
the Election Law guarantees a minimum representation of four seats
per constituent people.
19. After the general elections, four indirect elections will
be held for the upper houses of parliaments of the State and both
entities, as well as for the president and two vice-presidents of
the FBiH.
20. The ten cantonal assemblies elect the delegates to the FBiH
HoP, while the RS NA elects the RS Council of Peoples (RS CoP).
The president and two vice-presidents of the FBiH are jointly elected
by the FBiH HoP and the FBiH HoR from candidates self-declared as
Bosniak, Croat or Serb.
21. There is a significantly inequitable distribution of registered
voters amongst the multi-member constituencies for all parliamentary
contests, with up to 68% deviation, contrary to the principle of
equality of the vote. Despite a legal requirement to review the
number of mandates per multi-member constituency every four years,
the delineation of multi-member constituencies has not changed since
2001, with the exception of the constituencies for the RS NA elections
which were last reviewed in 2012.
4 Election administration,
voters lists and registration of candidates
22. Elections were administered
by a three-tiered structure led by the CEC, comprising 143 municipal election
commissions (MECs) and 5 903 polling station commissions (PSCs).
By law, the CEC and MECs must reflect the ethnic composition of
their respective constituencies and include at least 40% of members
of each gender. At odds with the legal provisions, only two CEC
members are women. The CEC, a permanent body, consists of seven
members: two Bosniaks, two Croats, two Serbs and one “other”.
23. The CEC held regular sessions, which were open to the public
and broadcast online. Most decisions were taken unanimously and
published on the CEC website in a timely manner, except those related
to the adjudication of complaints and appeals.
24. Overall, the CEC administered the elections efficiently, transparently
and within the legal deadlines, despite initial delays caused by
the late disbursement of funds required to organise the elections.
There was independent decision making within the current composition
of the CEC, contributing to stakeholders’ trust in its work. Nevertheless,
a shortage of qualified staff affected the operational capacity
of several CEC departments leading to delays in complaints adjudication
and the review of campaign finance reports, and jeopardised the
functionality of some web applications operated by the election
administration.
25. Overall, MECs acted in a largely transparent and independent
manner. According to the CEC, 294 of the 571 members (some 48%)
of MEC members were women. This largely met legal requirements.
26. MECs had to appoint PSCs by 2 September based on nominations
from political subjects. Overall, political subjects only nominated
candidates for about half of the PSC seats. To fill the vacant positions,
many PSC members were appointed directly from reserve lists maintained
by MECs, in some cases after the legal deadline. Despite the July
2022 legal amendment prohibiting the trading of PSC positions between
political subjects, there were allegations of fictitious representation
of political parties in PSCs. In the week before election day, the
CEC adjudicated 10 cases related to the fictitious representation
of political subjects on PSCs; some 20 cases were still pending.
Public trust in the impartiality of PSCs remained low due to their
alleged political affiliation, and the CEC lacked time and resources
to develop effective mechanisms to implement and monitor the new
legal provisions.
27. The CEC conducted largely insufficient voter education activities,
consisting mainly of TV and radio spots on registration modalities
for internally displaced persons and voters abroad, as well as on
voting procedures. All audio-visual voter education material produced
by the CEC was supported by sign language interpretation. However,
most election materials, including ballot papers, were not adapted
for voters with visual, hearing or cognitive impairments.
28. Citizens aged 18 years or older on election day are eligible
to vote, except those convicted for serious crimes, including war
crimes, or deprived of legal capacity, including on the grounds
of intellectual and psychosocial disability. Restrictions on electoral
rights on the basis of intellectual disability are contrary to international
standards.
29. Voter registration is passive and continuous for in-country
voters. While the CEC has the overall responsibility for the integrity
and maintenance of the Central Voter Register, the accuracy of the
register depends on the data provided by other institutions responsible
for updating the civil register, on which the register is based.
There is a general trust in the accuracy of the register and the
CEC made continuous efforts to remove outdated entries from the
voter register. However, these efforts were hindered by the absence
of an effective mechanism to remove records of deceased citizens
from local civil register databases.
30. By law, voters in Brčko district vote either for the elections
of FBiH or the RS, depending on their entity citizenship. Residents
of Brčko district who had not chosen entity citizenship were not
eligible to vote in any elections.
31. Voter lists had to be posted for public scrutiny between 3
June and 3 July. Voters could also verify their records online and
at municipal Voter Registration Centres. Corrections could be made
until 18 August. On 25 August, the CEC announced the total number
of registered voters as 3 368 666.
32. Internally displaced persons could vote for electoral contests
taking place either in the municipality of their temporary residence,
or in the municipality where they had been registered before being
displaced. Mobile voting was available to homebound voters and those
in retirement or detention facilities. Voters registered for out-of-country
voting who were in the country on election day and those whose records
were entered in the Central Voter Register after 18 August could
vote by tendered ballot at special polling stations established
in each municipality.
33. Out-of-country voters could vote in person at embassies and
consulates or by mail, depending on the voters’ choice. On 25 August,
the CEC announced that 69 966 voters had registered to vote abroad
through a newly established online platform that streamlined the
registration process and reduced the possibility of human error
and fraudulent registration. On 16 September, the CEC referred to
the prosecutor some 20 cases of alleged fraudulent attempts to register
for out-of-country voting.
34. All citizens eligible to vote may stand as candidates, except
for the elections of the State presidency and the president and
vice-presidents of the RS, for which discriminatory ethnicity and
residence requirements remain in place. Candidates for all elections
may be nominated by political parties and coalitions or stand independently.
The candidate registration process started on 6 May and ended on
12 August and was overall conduced in an inclusive and timely manner.
35. By law, the CEC is mandated to certify eligibility to stand
in the elections and register candidate lists. In order to register,
political subjects had to submit a financial deposit and support
signatures. A voter may sign in support of only one political party
or independent candidate per contest, contrary to international
good practice. In line with legal provisions, the CEC only verified
10% of the support signatures submitted for each contestant. Nevertheless,
the verification of a sample rather than all signatures is at odds
with international good practice. In total, the CEC certified 90
parties and 17 independent candidates as “political subjects” to participate
in the elections. In a subsequent step, 38 coalitions were formed
by political parties.
36. Candidate lists must have at least 40% of candidates of each
gender, with specific placement requirements. However, there were
divergent approaches towards identifying and promoting women candidates
within political parties. Also, these requirements have so far not
been fully effective, as they do not translate in the 40% quota
in the allocated seats for the less represented gender. A new online
registration platform launched by the CEC only accepted candidate
lists that fulfilled the gender requirements. Overall, the CEC registered
7 258 candidates for all elections. Ten candidates (including 2
women) ran for the State presidency and 31 candidates (including
2 women) for the presidency of the RS. 752 candidates (39.36% women)
competed for 42 seats in the BiH HoR, 1 230 candidates (43.41% women)
for 98 seats in the FBiH HoR, and 1 429 candidates (42.76% women)
for 83 seats in the RS NA. In total, only 43 of the 613 candidate lists
(some 7%) exceeded the minimum number of women required by law.
Women headed 135 lists (22%); however, 53% of these were one-person
lists.
5 Election campaign
and its financing
37. The official 30-day campaign
period began on 2 September and ended on 1 October. Campaign related legal
provisions, including on the misuse of administrative resources
and the prohibition of hate speech only apply during the official
campaign period. Prior to this, only paid election campaigning in
electronic and print media is forbidden. While not explicitly prohibited,
a number of parties started campaigning several months earlier,
visiting local communities and using public events to present their
candidates and programmes. This left possible irregularities largely
unaddressed, due to the non-applicability of relevant legal provisions
in that period. The CEC imposed sanctions in 22 related cases of
early campaigning, mostly concerning paid advertisements on social
networks.
38. The campaign environment was overall calm, with fundamental
freedoms of association, assembly and expression respected. Positively,
the number of hate speech cases reported remained low. Nevertheless, some
isolated incidents of violence and harassment have been reported.
The campaign was competitive, particularly in the presidential elections
at the State level and in the RS. Contestants conducted rallies
and door-to-door meetings, distributed flyers and actively reached
out to the electorate through social networks. In the RS, the campaign
was polarised. The largest incumbent parties targeted their traditional
electorate, stressing the need for security, protection and continuity.
In their campaigns, references to separatism, past and current “wars,”
“dangers” and “attacks” were frequent. Opposition contestants mainly
addressed issues related to corruption, employment and emigration,
claiming to offer a political alternative to voters.
39. The 2022 July legal amendments introduced a prohibition on
the misuse of administrative resources for executive office holders
and elected officials. While a welcome improvement, the provisions
appear insufficient to adequately address related irregularities,
mainly because of their limited applicability timeframe and scope. In
the election period, a number of social welfare, development and
public infrastructure projects were initiated by the incumbent presidents
or governments. There were reports on pressuring public sector employees
to participate in campaign events of the incumbents or to not engage
in opposition activities. This raises concerns as to the level playing
field and voters’ ability to cast their vote free of fear of retribution.
40. Notwithstanding the legal provisions prescribing equal gender
representation at all levels of public administration and elected
bodies, women remain under-represented in public positions. More
efforts are needed from the authorities and political parties to
overcome longstanding stereotypes related to gender roles that remain
an obstacle to women’s political participation in BiH. Women candidates
were often targets of insult and ridicule on social networks. They
did not feature prominently in the campaign, with the exception
of the two candidates for the Croat and Serb members of the BiH
presidency and one candidate for the RS presidency.
41. Campaign finance is primarily regulated by the Election Law,
the Law on Political Party Financing, the laws on political parties
of the RS and Brčko district, and complemented by CEC regulations.
In January 2022, the CEC renewed the rules on campaign finance reporting
procedures, addressing some ODIHR and Council of Europe’s Group
of States against Corruption (GRECO) recommendations, including
those on the mandatory use of dedicated bank accounts for campaign
expenditures. Other previous ODIHR and GRECO recommendations, however,
remain unaddressed, for example, those related to reviewing and
consolidating the legislation on party and campaign funding. Overall,
the lack of a coherent and consistent regulatory framework diminishes
the effectiveness of the existing regulations and their implementation.
42. Political parties and election campaigns are primarily financed
from public funding, contestants’ own funds, party membership fees
and donations by individuals and legal entities. Direct public funding
for the election campaigns is only provided in the RS and Brčko
district. Public administration bodies, public institutions and
enterprises, religious and publicly funded organisations, anonymous
sources, foreign political and legal entities and private enterprises
with public procurement contracts exceeding 10 000 BAM (around 5 000
EUR) in the current year are not allowed to donate to political
subjects. Political subjects may spend up to 0,30 BAM (around 0,15
EUR) per registered voter in each electoral contest. Many political
party interlocutors stated the cap for State and entity levels was
too high, and expenditures of most contestants remained far below
the threshold.
43. The CEC is mandated with political party and campaign finance
oversight. The effectiveness of its review, control and audit procedures
is challenged by its limited resources. Further, it is also impacted
by the CEC’s inability to monitor actual campaign spending and detect
violations. Contestants are required to submit one pre-election
report prior to their registration for the elections, and one post-election
report within 30 days after the announcement of the final election
results. Despite prior ODIHR recommendations, there are no provisions
for interim reporting. By law, the CEC is only obliged to publish
the second campaign finance report on its website within 30 days
of receipt. The CEC informed that its audit department has been
severely understaffed; this causes delays in review process of all
political party and campaign finance reports.
44. The CEC may impose sanctions for irregularities and is obliged
to report any suspicion of criminal offences to law enforcement
agencies. Monetary penalties for financial violations appear insufficiently
effective, proportional and dissuasive, at odds with previous ODIHR
and GRECO recommendations. Overall, the campaign finance regulatory
system does not provide for adequate transparency and accountability.
6 Media environment
45. The significantly limited campaign
coverage on most media outlets, combined with the division along ethnic
lines and political partisanship provided the voters with only partial
information on the main contestants, thus limiting their opportunity
to make an informed choice. Many IEOM interlocutors alleged direct
and indirect political control over the major media outlets, noting
that the underdeveloped advertisement market, dominated mainly by
state-owned corporations, does not provide for financial sustainability
and leads to political influence over the media. The media legislation
does not provide for transparency of media ownership.
46. While defamation and libel are decriminalised, the legislation
does not impose an upper limit on financial compensation for defamation.
Many saw recent defamation cases brought against journalists as
a tool to discourage them from reporting about issues of public
importance. A number of recent cyber-attacks targeted the infrastructure
of prominent media outlets. Widespread practices of intimidation
and harassment of journalists, mostly online, undermined the media’s
ability to operate in an environment free of political pressure and
persecution.
47. The public broadcasting service is provided by two entity-based
public broadcasters and the Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(BHRT) at the State level. As currently implemented, the system
of financing through broadcast fees has left the BHRT significantly
underfunded. Broadcast media are required to respect the principles
of balance, fairness and impartiality in covering the election campaign.
During the campaign, public broadcasters complied with the obligation
to provide three minutes of free airtime to each political subject.
However, such time was provided outside of prime time, significantly
limiting the potential viewership. While public and some private
broadcasters offered political subjects a platform to present their views
through debates, many contestants chose not to participate, further
limiting the voters’ opportunity to make an informed choice.
48. The Communication Regulatory Authority is the broadcast media
regulator with a mandate to resolve media-related complaints and
apply sanctions for violations. The law does not provide clear deadlines
for the resolution of media-related complaints, limiting the right
to effective remedy. The Authority informed the ODIHR EOM that,
during the campaign period, it received nine complaints. It dismissed
five cases and did not adjudicate the remaining four prior to the
elections. Despite a previous ODIHR recommendation, the Communication
Regulatory Authority did not conduct media monitoring during the
campaign and thus was unable to perform active supervision of the
broadcast media.
7 Complaints and
appeals
49. The dispute resolution process,
as currently implemented, does not fully guarantee effective legal redress.
Deadlines for submitting and adjudicating complaints remain too
short, despite prior recommendations. The possibility to file complaints
and appeals is limited to voters and political subjects whose rights
were violated, and public associations including those observing
the elections have no legal standing. This limits access to legal
remedies and the effectiveness of the election dispute resolution
mechanism. The CEC acts as the first instance for most cases. Although
the election commissions may also act on possible irregularities ex officio upon receiving notifications
from any natural and legal entity, the law does not prescribe timeframes
for such proceedings.
50. Under the Election Law, there is no guarantee for public hearings
at any level of the electoral dispute resolution process. Positively,
most MECs and the CEC considered complaints in public sessions.
However, the complaints and subsequent decisions of the election
administration and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina were not
made public, diminishing the transparency of election dispute resolution.
In the majority of cases, the CEC did not respect the 48-hour deadline
for adjudicating complaints, citing a lack of human resources.
51. Prior to the election day, the CEC received some 560 complaints
and 38 appeals against MEC decisions; of which, 403 related to out-of-country
voting, 59 to early campaigning, some 35 challenged the appointment of
the PSC members and fictitious representation of political subjects
at the polling stations, and 40 cases related to prohibited speech
and the misuse of administrative resources. Of these, nearly 90
were dismissed on technical grounds. In 10 cases, the CEC imposed
fines for early campaigning, the misuse of administrative resources
and prohibited speech. In addition, acting ex
officio upon notifications of irregularities, the CEC reviewed
60 cases related to campaign irregularities and imposed fines in
16 cases. The Court reviewed some 350 appeals against the CEC decisions
on complaints and upheld all but 7 CEC decisions; 44 appeals were rejected
as inadmissible due to the lack of legal standing and missed deadlines.
52. An election-related violation may be referred to the prosecutor
if it contains elements of a criminal offence. In the pre-election
period, the prosecutors’ offices received some 25 cases. In addition,
20 individual cases related to falsified signatures from voters
registering for out-of-country voting forwarded by the CEC. A few
prosecutors at different levels noted a lack of clarity regarding
their competences pertaining to electoral criminal offences in the
context of general elections. Many IEOM interlocutors expressed
a lack of trust in the capacity of election commissions, courts
and the prosecutor’s offices to handle election-related disputes efficiently
and voiced concerns over the independence of the judiciary.
8 Citizen and international
observers
53. The Election Law provides for
observation of all stages of the election process at every level
of the election administration by observers nominated by civil society
organisations, political subjects, and international organisations.
In line with the Election Law, the number of citizen observers and
contestants observers was limited to one per organisation at every
polling station. For these elections, the CEC launched an online
application for observer registration, however, the application
could not effectively facilitate the process due to functionality
issues. In an inclusive process, the CEC accredited 3 586 citizen
and international observers, while MECs accredited some 50 000 observers
appointed by political subjects. The civil society coalition Pod
Lupom conducted long-term observation and deployed some 2 200 short-term
observers on election day.
9 Election day
54. On election day, the PACE delegation
split into 12 teams which observed the voting in Sarajevo and its surroundings,
in and around Banja Luka, Doboj, Gorazde, Mostar, Pale, Srebrenica
and Visegrad. Its general observations match overall the observations
of the other IEOM observers.
55. Election day was largely peaceful, with several disruptive
incidents in and around polling stations. While the campaign silence
period appeared to be generally respected by most contestants, on
election day, IEOM observers observed campaign material in the vicinity
of some 3% of the polling stations. The CEC shared updates about
the voting process throughout election day and published results
by polling station on election night on the CEC website, which enhanced
transparency. In total, 46% of the members of PSCs observed by the
IEOM were women, including 41% of the chairpersons.
56. The IEOM observed the opening in 190 polling stations. Polling
stations opened on time or with a slight delay in all but 12 stations
observed. The opening of polls was assessed positively in 172 polling
stations observed. Nevertheless, several procedural omissions were
noted, including no recording of the serial numbers of ballot box
seals (29 cases), not entering the total number of ballots received
(25 cases) and not showing the ballot box being empty to those present
(10 cases).
57. Observers positively assessed the voting process in 95% of
the 1 785 observations, and procedures, including voter identification,
were largely respected. The significant number of negative assessments
was largely due to issues of secrecy of the vote, and important
safeguards against interference not being respected. The secrecy
of the vote was not ensured due to the positioning of voting screens
(13%) or inadequate layout of the voting premises (15%). In 24%
of the observations, one or more voters did not mark their ballots
in secrecy. Overcrowding was reported in 6% of the observations.
58. PACE delegation members noted that, due to the complexity
of the voting procedure, many voters were spending long minutes
in the voting booth, which led in many cases to queuing. It also
observed a significant number of cases when the ballot boxes were
not properly sealed.
59. In 12% of the observed polling stations, persons other than
the designated PSC member were keeping track of who voted, which
is of concern. In a few cases (21 observations), PSCs were loudly
announcing the name of voters who voted. Unauthorised persons, mainly
contestant observers, were seen by IEOM observers to be interfering
in the electoral process or attempting to influence the voters whom
to vote for in some 3% of the observations. In addition, IEOM observers
also reported 10 cases of intimidation of voters or PSC members.
Prior to the elections, civil society IEOM interlocutors had raised
concerns about vote buying practices. On election day, indications
of vote buying were directly observed in 2 cases, indications of
carrousel voting in 6 cases and voters taking photos of their ballots
in 16 cases. Ballot boxes were not properly sealed in 6% and other
procedural problems were observed in 6% of observations.
60. To reduce family and group voting, prior to the elections,
the CEC had adopted a regulation which prescribes the submission
of a medical certificate or equivalent document to be eligible for
assisted voting, with the exception of cases where the disability
is “obvious”. IEOM observers noted an inconsistent application of this
regulation and observed several instances where voters were denied
the opportunity to vote with an assistant of their choice. On the
other hand, in some 2% of the polling stations observed, IEOM observers reported
that the same person provided assistance to more than one voter,
contrary to the law. Group and family voting was observed in 6%
of the polling stations visited. Some 51% of the polling stations
did not provide independent access for persons with physical disabilities
and in 19%, the layout was not suitable for such voters.
61. The contestant observers were present in some 97% of the observations,
mainly representing Party of Democratic Action (SDA), Social Democratic
Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SDP BiH), Serbian Democratic Party
(SDS) and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) and citizen
observers in 21%.
62. The IEOM assessed the counting negatively in 36 of the 168
polling stations observed, mostly due to procedural irregularities,
which indicates the PSC members’ insufficient understanding of the
procedures. PSCs had difficulties to complete results protocols
in 61 cases. Stamps and voter lists were not sealed and packed away
before the counting began in 70 and 83 cases, respectively. Contestant
observers were present in almost all polling stations observed during
counting and citizen observers in 28. In 23 cases, unauthorised persons,
mostly contestant observers, were interfering with the work of the
PSC. The IEOM observers were able to observe the counting without
restrictions in all observed polling stations. The initial stages
of tabulation, where observed, were largely assessed positively.
Nevertheless, some procedural omissions were observed, including
PSC protocols not always being checked for consistency.
63. The CEC received 68 complaints and information on irregularities,
mostly related to assisted voting, presence of unauthorised persons
in polling stations and undue influence on voters’ choice. The CEC forwarded
most cases to the MECs and three cases were sent to the prosecutors’
offices.
64. At the end of the vote on election day, just after the polling
stations closed, the High Representative announced measures to improve
the Federation’s functionality and to ensure timely implementation
of the results of the general elections, in a renewed use of his
executive powers (known as the “Bonn powers”). A number of PACE
delegation members felt that the moment for such an announcement
had been inappropriately chosen; others assessed the measures as
justified and necessary.
65. Preliminary results showed a voter turnout of 50% (4% down
compared to the 2018 general elections), with the turnout in the
FBiH being 48%, 53% in the RS, and 44% in the Brčko District. From
the FBiH, SDP member Denis Bećirović, the joint candidate of 11
opposition parties, won (57.26%) over Bakir Izetbegović (SDA leader,
37.52%) for the Bosniak position in the BiH Presidency. Željko Komšić,
the incumbent Croat member of the Presidency, won a new mandate
with 54.6% of the votes, ahead of the Croatian Democratic Union
of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH) candidate, Borjana Krišto (45.4%).
From the RS, Željka Cvijanović (SNSD, a close associate of party
leader and current presidency member Milorad Dodik) won by a large
margin (by nearly 95 000 votes, or 52.57% compared to 35.98%) over
Mirko Šarović (SDS), and is slated to be the next Serb member of
the BiH Presidency, which will make her the first woman member of
that institution.
66. As to the contest for the BiH HoR, in the FBiH, SDA made a
strong showing with 25.1% of the votes, followed by the HDZ BiH-led
coalition with 15.53% of the votes, and SDP with 13.3%. The Democratic
Front (DF) and the People and Justice party (Narod i Pravda, NiP)
also recorded good results (10.05% and 8.07% respectively), while
the People's European Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina party (NES)
and “Our Party” (Naša stranka) received just under 5% and might
obtain one seat each.
67. The race for the RS Presidency was relatively tight, with
only a five percentage points difference between Milorad Dodik (48.28%)
and Party of Democratic Progress (PDP) candidate Jelena Trivić (43.39%),
who had initially announced a victory on the evening on 2 October.
Citing serious fraud (illustrated inter
alia by the fact that in the village of Krajišnik – the
birthplace of Ms Trivić’s mother – not a single vote was recorded
for Ms Trivić), both PDP leader Branislav Borenović and Ms Trivić
have stated that their party would seek a repeat of the elections
for the RS Presidency.
68. Following the election day, a large number of contestants
described the electoral process as fraudulent and publicly questioned
the validity of the results. Some contestants alleged electoral
malpractices on election day, including “stealing” of votes during
counting, vote-buying, intentional invalidation of ballots, and
political involvement of MECs in the process. Intentions to demand
recounts of ballots or seek annulment of elections were expressed
in the media prior to the official announcement of complete preliminary
results, including by SDS and PDP in the RS, and SBB in the FBiH.
69. The CEC decided to count all ballots cast for the RS presidential
and vice-presidential elections in its Main Counting Centre in Sarajevo,
with the aim of establishing the electoral results. It has further
decided to count a more limited number of ballots cast also in the
FBiH. When announcing the re-count, the CEC did not specify the
number of invalid ballots as the reason for the re-count but rather
pointed to procedural irregularities.
70. On 23 October, the CEC announced the final election results
and a three-day deadline for all potential complaints, including
a recount of votes, entered into force. Complaints could be submitted
by representatives of political entities and independent candidates,
observers and municipal commissions. The results have also been
published on CEC’s website. The distribution of the mandates would
be announced after the publication of the verified results in case
of possible changes.
71. According to the announced results, the required 518 mandates
had been fulfilled and in the National Assembly of RS there were
two mandates still to be fulfilled: one for the Bosniak and the
other for the Croat people. As for the FBiH HoR, three deputy seats
from the ranks of the Serb people remained to be fulfilled. As for
the cantonal assemblies, all the necessary deputies had been elected.
Therefore it would be possible to fill the caucuses in the FBiH
HoP, except the Serb Caucus, because only 15 deputies (out of the
17 required) had been elected.
72. On 27 October, Milorad Dodik was declared the winner for the
RS Presidency contest, with Ćamil Duraković and Davor Pranjić elected
as Vice-Presidents. On 2 November, the CEC confirmed the results
of the general elections for all levels of government concerned:
BiH Presidency, BiH HoR, FBiH HoR, President and Vice-Presidents
of the RS, the RS NA, and the cantonal assemblies of each of the
ten cantons of the FBiH.
10 Conclusions and recommendations
73. The PACE delegation felt that
the general elections in BiH were overall well organised and competitive. However,
regrettably, the increasing segmentation along ethnic lines and
the corresponding divergent views on the future of the country remain
a concern for the functioning of democratic institutions. Universal
and equal suffrage is still not guaranteed. Failed negotiations
among political parties left the electoral legal framework without
needed reforms, nevertheless, recently introduced amendments strengthened
some aspects of the electoral process. Election preparations were
managed in an overall efficient and transparent manner by upper-level
election commissions. Political impasse, a general mistrust in public
institutions and references to the country’s wartime past marked
the electoral environment. Women’s active participation was undermined by
insufficient efforts to overcome long-standing gender stereotypes.
During the campaign, fundamental freedoms were respected. However,
the lack of public debate and the use of divisive rhetoric, also
reflected in the limited and biased media coverage, reduced voters’
opportunity to make an informed choice.
74. The general elections took place against the backdrop of ongoing
political deadlock and widespread disillusionment with the political
establishment, with some key institutions blocked. The largest parties
in power have frequently used ethnically divisive rhetoric as the
standard form of debate. The campaign was calm overall, but observers
noted incidents of pressure on public sector employees. The process
on election day itself was overall peaceful and orderly, although
there were some disruptive incidents in and around polling stations.
While voting procedures were observed to be generally followed,
the secrecy of the vote was often compromised, and there were also
cases of unauthorised people keeping track of voters and assisting
multiple voters. Observers assessed the counting procedures negatively
in numerous places, mainly due to procedural irregularities.
75. Restrictions on the right to become a candidate based on ethnicity
and residency go against both the principle of universal and equal
suffrage and international standards for democratic elections. Rulings
by both the European Court of Human Rights and the State Constitutional
Court against the discriminatory nature of these limitations remain
unimplemented.
76. The effectiveness of the legal framework is undermined by
a number of shortcomings, while failed negotiations between political
parties left it without needed reforms. Still, recent legislative
changes from 27 July have added important safeguards. However, the
fact that the changes were made so close to the elections meant
that not all enforcement mechanisms could be fully established.
Further changes announced on election day were not foreseeable at
the time of voting, leaving both voters and contestants uncertain
about the full impact of the cantonal assembly vote.
77. With a few notable exceptions, women did not feature prominently
in the campaign, and women candidates were often targets of insult
and ridicule on social networks. Long-standing gender stereotypes
still exist and efforts made to increase women’s active participation
in the elections were insufficient.
78. The upper-level election administration enjoyed election stakeholders’
trust and managed the elections efficiently and transparently. However,
there was little confidence in polling station commissions due to widespread
accusations that some political parties were trading positions to
control polling stations on election day.
79. Recent defamation cases brought against journalists, cyber-attacks
targeting prominent media outlets, and the intimidation and harassment
of journalists created a working environment of political pressure
or even persecution.
80. The PACE delegation noted that the President of Türkiye was
present in Sarajevo during the PACE pre-electoral mission, that
the President of Croatia attended the commemoration of the wartime
Croatian Military-Police Operation “Maestral” in Jajce on 13 September
and that the President of Serbia attended the Serbian Unity Day
ceremonies in Bijeljina on 15 September. It also noted that Milorad
Dodik had met the President of Russia on 20 September, then the
Prime Minister of Hungary on 24 September and that the Prime Minister
of Hungary returned the visit in Milorad Dodik’s hometown Laktasi
on 4 November.
81. The PACE delegation stresses that the politicians and political
parties in BiH should see the vote given to them as a mandate to
work for the future of their country and the perspective of European
integration. It is particularly important to give the younger generation
of voters the sense that their future lies within their own country.
For this, it is vital to bridge the gaps between different ethnic
groups. It should be sufficient for each citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina
to identify themselves as such without any further specification
being necessary.
82. To conclude, the PACE delegation identified a number of irregularities
and shortcomings during the whole electoral process of the general
elections of 2 October 2022, as described in detail in the body
of this report. It recommends to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina
to take concrete measures in order to improve the country’s 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 (* members of the pre-election delegation):
Chairperson: Mr
Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria
Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group
- Mr Stefan SCHENNACH,
Austria *
- Ms Edite ESTRELA, Portugal
- Ms Margreet DE BOER, Netherlands
- Mr Didier MARIE, France
- Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI, Italy
Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD)
- Mr Corneliu-Mugurel
COZMANCIUC, Romania *
- Mr Aleksander POCIEJ, Poland
- Mr Davor Ivo STIER, Croatia
- Ms Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN, Finland
- Ms Boriana ÅBERG, Sweden
European Conservatives Group and Democratic
Alliance (EC/DA)
- Lord Simon RUSSELL,
United Kingdom *
- Lord Richard KEEN, United Kingdom
- Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Italy
- Mr John HOWELL, United Kingdom
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for
Europe (ALDE)
- Mr Claude KERN, France
*
- Mr Arminas LYDEKA, Lithuania
- Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ukraine
Group of the Unified European Left (UEL)
- Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO,
Spain *
Members not belonging to a Political Group
(NR)
Co-rapporteur AS/MON (ex officio)
Venice Commission
- Mr Michael JANSSEN,
Administrator, Venice Commission
Secretariat
- Mr Bogdan TORCĂTORIU,
Administrator, Election Observation and Interparliamentary Cooperation Division
- Ms Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Election Observation and Interparliamentary
Cooperation Division
Appendix 2 – Programme of the pre-electoral
delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly
Monday, 5 September
16h00 – 17h00 Briefing
by Ms Bojana Urumova, Head of the Council of Europe Office in Sarajevo
17h00 – 18h00 Meeting with members
of the ODIHR Election Observation Mission, Ambassador Peter Tejler (Head
of Mission), Marcell Nagy (Deputy Head of Mission), Barbara Davis (Political
Analyst) and Nadine Haas (Election Analyst).
18h00 – 19h00 Meeting with members
of the diplomatic corps (from countries represented in the pre-electoral
delegation)
- Mr Julian
Reilly, Ambassador, United Kingdom
- Mr Urak Dominik, Deputy Head of Mission, Austria
- Mr Pavel Strahilov, Counselor, Bulgaria
- Mr Stéphane Maicon, Deputy Ambassador, France
- Mr Jordi Llorens, Chargé d’Affaires, Spain
- Ms Bojana Urumova, Head of the Council of Europe Office
in Sarajevo
Tuesday, 6 September (Banja Luka)
14h00 – 15h30 Meeting
with representatives of NGOs
- Perpetuum Mobile: Ilija Trninić
- Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Banja Luka: Bojana Ilić
- Tanja Topić, independent political analyst
- Transparency International: Ivana Korajlić, Executive
Director
16h00 – 18h00 Meetings with leaders
and representatives of parliamentary groups of the National Assembly
of Republika Srpska
16h00-16h20 Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD)
(Igor Žunić, president of the caucus, Srđjan Mazalica, vice-president
of the caucus)
16h25-16h45 Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) (Miladin Stanić,
president of the caucus)
16h50-17h10 Party of Democratic Progress (PDP)
17h15-17h35 Democratic People’s Alliance (DNS) (Dane Malešević,
member)
17h40-18h00 Socialist Party (SP)
18h05-18h25 Together for BiH coalition (Senad Bratić, member)
Wednesday, 7 September
09h00 – 09h45 Meeting with representatives
of NGOs
- Pod Lupom:
Dario Jovanović, Director
- Zasto Ne: Tijana Cvjetićanin, Emir Zulejhić, Dalio Sijah
- USAID: Eric Raymond, Democracy Officer
10h00 – 10h45 Meeting with representatives
of media
- (Balkan
Investigative Reporting Network) BIRN BiH: Denis Džidić
- BH Novinari: Maja Radevic
- CIN: Leila Bičakčić, Director
11h00 – 11h45 Meeting with the
President and members of the Central Election Commission (CEC) (Suad
Arnautović, President; members: Željko Bakalar, Ahmet Šantić, Jovan Kalaba,
Vanja Bjelica-Prutina)
12h00 – 13h45 Working lunch offered
by the delegation of BiH to PACE (Alma Ćolo, Chairperson of
the Delegation; members: Snježana Novaković-Bursać, Mladen Bosić,
Marina Pendeš)
14h00 – 16h00 Meetings with leaders
and representatives of parliamentary groups of the House of Representatives
of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
14h00-14h20 Party of Democratic Action (SDA) (Adnan Efendić,
president of the caucus; Aldin Šljivo and Emina Tufekčić, advisers
in the caucus)
14h25-14h45 Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(SDP BiH) - “Our Party” (NS) - People and Justice party (NiP) (Damir
Mašić, president of the caucus SDP; Mirsad Pindžo, NiP)
14h50-15h10 Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(HDZ BiH) (Marjan Klaić, president of the caucus; Mladen Bošković
and Mario Mikulić)
15h15-15h35 Democratic Front (DF) (Mara Đjukić)
15h40-16h00 Union for a Better Future of BiH (SBB) (Sanela
Prašović, president of the caucus; Mirsad Kacila)
16h10 – 17h00 Meeting with the
members of the Collegium of the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Nikola Špirić, Speaker (SNSD)
(Lazar Prodanović, member of the HoP)
- Bakir Izetbegović, First Deputy Speaker (SDA) (Asim Sarajlić,
member of the HoP)
- Dragan Čović, Second Deputy Speaker (HDZ BiH) (Lidija
Bradara, member of the HoP)
17h30 – 18h30 Preparation of a
statement of the pre-electoral delegation
Appendix 3 – Statement of the pre-electoral
delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly
SARAJEVO, 7 September 2022 – A pre-electoral
delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE)* visited Sarajevo and Banja Luka to assess the election campaign
and the state of preparation of the General Elections to be held
in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 2 October 2022.
The delegation had meetings in Sarajevo and in Banja Luka
with representatives of the Collegium of the House of Peoples of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, leaders and representatives of parliamentary
groups of the House of Representatives of the Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, leaders and representatives of parliamentary groups
of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, the delegation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina to PACE, the President and members of the
Central Election Commission, members of the diplomatic corps in
Sarajevo, members of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission,
as well as representatives of NGOs and the media.
The pre-electoral delegation recalled that an election is
a process not limited to voting day. It noticed a multitude of campaign
billboards and was told that campaigning was also conducted through
classic channels as well as social media. It heard concerns from
its interlocutors regarding the general lack of interest in the electoral
process among the young, which, combined with a perceived lack of
perspective, leads to many seeking to emigrate instead of envisaging
a future in their own country. It was also told about the existence
of hate speech, of pressure put on public employees and even on
employees from the private sector by political parties, which condition
the obtaining or the keeping of a secure job on the vote (jobs in
the public sector being widely perceived as being a merchandise
to be sold with votes as currency). The delegation was also informed of
the existence of different methods of vote-buying, including financial
support for young people, pensioners and veterans (paid using public
money in cash by post or even by bank transfer).
The delegation learned about the improvements introduced by
the CEC to the out-of-country voting process and about their efforts
to eliminate the practice of certain parties which create additional
fictitious parties in order to obtain more places on polling station
boards. It was also informed about issues such as political clientelism,
lack of transparency of campaign funding and about most of the media,
including public service broadcasters, being politically biased
and being transformed into a tool of party propaganda.
While being aware that long-standing issues are unlikely to
be resolved in the short time left until election day, the PACE
delegation expressed hope that some steps would be taken towards
the restoration of public interest and trust in the electoral process
as a whole, as this is a precondition for the further democratic
development of the country.
The delegation expressed the hope that in the newly-elected
parliamentary bodies, the number of women would be increased.
It also hoped that the newly-elected governments would work
together in a positive way with the High Representative and the
international community.
The Parliamentary Assembly will send a 22-member delegation,
accompanied by a member of the Venice Commission, to observe the
General Elections on 2 October 2022.
* Members of the delegation:
- Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), Head of Delegation
- Corneliu-Mugurel Cozmanciuc (Romania, EPP/CD)
- Claude Kern (France, ALDE)
- Lord Simon Russell (United Kingdom, EC/DA)
- Antón Gómez-Reino (Spain, UEL)
Appendix 4 – Programme of the meetings of
the International Electoral Observation Mission, Sarajevo, 30 September
– 3 October 2022
Friday, 30 September
08:00 – 09:00 PACE
Delegation meeting
- Welcome
by the Head of the delegation, Mr Stefan Schennach
- Presentation by the Venice Commission, Mr Michael Janssen
- Intervention by the Monitoring Committee co-rapporteur,
Mr Zsolt Németh
- Presentation by Ms Bojana Urumova, Head of the CoE Office
in Sarajevo
- Practical information by the secretariat
09:30 – 10:00 Opening by the
Heads of Parliamentary Delegations
- Mr Pascal Allizard, OSCE Special Co-ordinator
- Mr Stefan Schennach, PACE Head of Delegation
- Ms Mimi Kodheli, NATO PA Head of Delegation
- Mr Andreas Schieder, EP Head of Delegation
- Ms Irene Charalambides, OSCE PA Head of Delegation
10:00 – 10:30 Welcoming Remarks
by International Community representatives
- Mr Tobias Privitelli, Deputy
High Representative
- Ms Susan Penksa, Acting Head of the OSCE Mission to Bosnia
and Herzegovina
- Ms Bojana Urumova, Head of the Council of Europe Office
in Sarajevo
- Ambassador Johann Sattler, Head of the Delegation of the
European Union to Bosnia and Herzegovina
10:30 – 12:30 Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission Core Team (Part 1)
- Welcome and Overview – Ambassador
Peter Tejler, Head of Mission; Mr Marcell Nagy, Deputy Head of Mission
- Political Overview, Contestants, Campaign and Campaign
Finance – Ms Barbara Davis and Ms Deliana Popova, Political Analysts
- Legal Framework, Electoral System and Dispute Resolution
– Ms Mariam Tabatadze, Legal Analyst
- Election Administration – Ms Nadine Haas, Election Analyst;
Ms Maria Krause, Junior Election Analyst
- Media Landscape – Mr Egor Tilpunov, Media Analyst
14:00 – 15:00 Election Administration
and Oversight
- Mr Milanko
Kajganić, Acting Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of
Bosnia and Herzegovina
15:00 – 16:30 Campaign freedoms
and analysis panel
- Ms Anida
Šabanović, Project Manager, Centre for Civil Society Promotion (CPCD)
- Mr Darko Pandurević, Program and Advocacy Manager, Sarajevski
Otvoreni Centar/Sarajevo Open Centre
- Ms Marija Ćosić, Zašto Ne
16:45 – 18:15 Panel Discussion
with Media Representatives
- Ms Adisa Imamović, Reporter, N1
- Mr Dejan Petrović, Editor of the Information Program RTV
BiH
- Ms Nadina Malićbegović, Journalist – TV Reporter, Al Jazeera
Balkans
- Mr Semir Mujkic, Chief Editor, BIRN (Balkan Investigative
Reporting Network)
- Ms Amela Odobasić, Director of Broadcasting at Communications
Regulatory Agency
- Ms Maida Muminović, executive director of Mediacentar
Sarajevo
Saturday, 1 October
09:00 – 11:00 Roundtable
Meeting with Candidates and Political Party Representatives
- Mr Josip Brkić, International
Secretary of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(HDZ BiH)
- Ms Alma Čolo, parliamentarian in Parliamentary Assembly
BiH and the Presidency Member of the Party of Democratic Action
(SDA)
- Mr Vedad Gačanović, Secretary General of Independent Block
(Nezavisni blok)
- Mr Mirsad Hadžikadić, Candidate for Bosniak Member of
the Presidency, Platform for Progress (Platforma za progress)
- Ms Mia Karamehić Abazović, Member of Narod i Pravda (NiP)
Committee for International Relations and Candidate for the Parliamentary
Assembly BiH
- Mr Damir Arnaut, the Presidency Member of Naša Stranka
and Parliamentarian in the Parliamentary Assembly BiH
11:30 – 12:30 Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission Core Team (Part 2)
- Safety and Security – Mr Peter
Marron, Security Expert
- Election day procedures and observation forms – Ms Nadine
Haas, Election Analyst, Ms Maria Krause, Junior Election Analyst,
Mr Anders Eriksson and Mr Lukasz Widla-Domaradzki, Statistical Analysts
12:30 – 13:00 Briefing by OSCE/ODIHR
EOM Long-Term Observers based in Sarajevo
Sunday, 2 October
Observation of the elections all day
Opening of polling stations: 07:00
Closing of polling stations: 19:00
Monday, 3 October
07:30 Debriefing of
the PACE delegation
14:30 Joint Press Conference
Appendix 5 – Press release of the International
Election Observation Mission
Elections in
Bosnia and Herzegovina were competitive but concerns remained over
failed reforms and divisive rhetoric, international observers say
SARAJEVO, 3 October 2022 – The general elections in Bosnia
and Herzegovina were competitive and overall well organised with
fundamental freedoms respected during the campaign. However, failed
reform efforts, a widespread mistrust in public institutions, and
ethnically divisive rhetoric continued to mark the election environment,
international observers said in a statement today.
The joint observation mission from the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
(OSCE PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA), and the European Parliament
(EP) found that the legal framework forms an adequate basis for
holding democratic elections.
The elections took place against the backdrop of ongoing political
deadlock and widespread disillusionment with the political establishment,
with some key institutions blocked. The largest parties in power
have frequently used ethnically divisive rhetoric as the standard
form of debate. The campaign was calm overall, but observers noted
incidents of pressure on public sector employees. The process on
election day itself was largely peaceful, although there were some
disruptive incidents in and around polling stations. While voting procedures
were observed to be generally followed, the secrecy of the vote
was often compromised, and there were also cases of unauthorized
people keeping track of voters and assisting multiple voters. Observers assessed
the counting procedures negatively in numerous places, mainly due
to procedural irregularities.
“Serious efforts to manage this electoral process successfully
need to be accompanied by similar efforts to solve the continued
political deadlock which keeps undermining real democratic development
here,” said Pascal Allizard, Special Co-ordinator and leader of
the OSCE short-term observers. “Overall disillusionment towards
the political establishment is evident, but I have noticed efforts
of a few forward-looking candidates to ignite political and socioeconomic
change in the country, which is a positive trend I encourage the
newly elected representatives to develop.”
Restrictions on the right to become a candidate based on ethnicity
and residency go against both the principle of universal and equal
suffrage and international standards for democratic elections. Rulings
by both the European Court of Human Rights and the state constitutional
court against the discriminatory nature of these limitations remain
unimplemented.
“Now that the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina have voted,
the politicians and political parties should see this as a mandate
to work for the future of their country and the perspective of European
integration,” said Stefan Schennach, Head of the PACE delegation.
“It is particularly important to give the younger generation of voters
the sense that their future lies within their own country. For this,
it is vital to bridge the gaps between different ethnic groups.
It should be sufficient for each citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina
to identify themselves as such without any further specification
being necessary.”
The effectiveness of the legal framework is undermined by
a number of shortcomings, while failed negotiations between political
parties left it without needed reforms. Still, recent legislative
changes from 27 July have added important safeguards. However, the
fact that the changes were made so close to the elections meant
that not all enforcement mechanisms could be fully established.
Further changes announced on election day were not foreseeable at
the time of voting, leaving both voters and contestants uncertain
about the full impact of the cantonal assembly vote.
“The capacity to manage an election process appears to have
been established relatively well here in Bosnia and Herzegovina,”
said Irene Charalambides, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. “But real
trust in democratic processes will likely remain elusive until state
structures are responsive to the people's will rather than to entrenched
political party interests.”
With a few notable exceptions, women did not feature prominently
in the campaign, and women candidates were often targets of insult
and ridicule on social networks. Long-standing gender stereotypes
remain and efforts made to increase women’s active participation
in the elections were insufficient.
“Yesterday, we observed an overall well organised and competitive
election, despite the very different visions of the future for Bosnia
and Herzegovina. We met poll workers – many of them young and many
of them women – committed to administer a smooth election. And we
saw the citizens make their democratic choice,” said Mimi Kodheli,
head of the NATO PA delegation. “Today, the citizens of this country
rightfully expect that the elected politicians will take responsibility
and ownership for their country's future for the benefit of all
citizens – for a safe and secure country, for reconciliation, for
social and economic advances and for democratic progress.”
The upper-level election administration enjoyed election stakeholders’
trust, and managed the elections efficiently and transparently.
However, there was little confidence in polling station commissions
due to widespread accusations that some political parties were trading
positions to control polling stations on election day.
“These elections took place against a background of challenging
internal and international circumstances,” said Andreas Schieder,
head of the EP delegation. “We regret that last-minute changes were
imposed by the High Representative. Now after the election, the
European Parliament calls for a smooth government formation and for
the speedy implementation of all committed reforms, including electoral
ones, in line with local and international court decisions. There
is no time to lose.”
The lack of public debate and the use of divisive rhetoric,
which was also reflected in the limited and biased media coverage,
reduced voters’ opportunity to make an informed choice on election
day. Recent defamation cases brought against journalists, cyber-attacks
targeting prominent media outlets, and the intimidation and harassment
of journalists created a working environment of political pressure
or even persecution.
“The mission’s media monitoring concluded that most media
outlets’ coverage of the campaign was significantly limited,” said
Ambassador Peter Tejler, Head of the ODIHR election observation
mission. “It further reflected division along ethnic lines and political
partisanship. As a result voters didn’t have complete and unbiased
information when deciding whom to vote for. Elections are not a
one-day event. In the days to come we will continue our observation
of post-election developments so we can make a comprehensive assessment of
the entire electoral cycle.”
The international election observation mission to the general
elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina totalled 471 observers, made
up of 336 ODIHR-deployed experts, long-term, and short-term observers, 83 parliamentarians
and staff from the OSCE PA, 23 from PACE, 17 from the NATO PA, and
12 from the European Parliament.
