Observation of the early parliamentary elections in Bulgaria (12 May 2013)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13238
| 24 June 2013
- Committee
- Bureau of the Assembly
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Andreas GROSS,
Switzerland, SOC
1 Introduction
1. Further to an invitation from the Bulgarian Foreign
Minister, the Bureau of the Assembly, at its meeting of 7 March
2013, decided to form an ad hoc committee comprising 21 members
and the rapporteur of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations
and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee), ex officio, to
observe the early parliamentary elections in Bulgaria, scheduled
to be held on 12 May 2013. The Bureau also authorised a pre-electoral
mission. Mr Andreas Gross was appointed Chair of the ad hoc committee.
At its meeting on 22 April 2013, the Bureau took note of the declarations
of absence of conflicts of interest by the candidates for the observation
mission and approved the final composition of the ad hoc committee
(see Appendix 1).
2. On 4 October 2004, a co-operation agreement was signed between
the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (the Venice Commission). In pursuance of Article 15
of this Agreement, “When the Bureau of the Assembly decides to observe
an election in a country in which electoral legislation was previously
examined by the Venice Commission, one of the rapporteurs of the
Venice Commission on this issue may be invited to join the Assembly’s
election observation mission as legal adviser”, the Bureau of the
Assembly invited an expert from the Venice Commission to join the
ad hoc committee as an adviser.
3. In order to assess the organisation of the election campaign
and the political climate during that campaign, the Bureau sent
a pre-electoral mission to Bulgaria on 4 and 5 April 2013. The pre-electoral delegation,
representing the Assembly’s five political groups, comprised Mr
Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC), Head of Delegation, Ms Marietta
de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden, EPP/CD), Ms Tinatin Khidasheli (Georgia,
ALDE), Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu (Turkey, EDG), Mr Nikolaj Villumsen (Denmark,
UEL) and the rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee for Bulgaria,
Mr Luca Volontè (Italy, EPP/CD). The statement issued by the pre-electoral
delegation at the end of its mission is reproduced in Appendix 2.
4. The ad hoc committee observed the elections as part of the
International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), which also comprised
delegations from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE-PA) and the Election
Observation Mission conducted by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR).
5. The ad hoc committee met in Sofia from 10 to 13 May 2013 and
met, amongst others, the leaders and representatives of the main
parties taking part in the elections, the head of the OSCE/ODIHR
mission and members of his staff, the chair and members of the Central
Election Commission, and representatives of civil society and the
media. Outside the joint programme, the members of the pre-electoral
mission also met Mr Rosen Plevneliev, President of Bulgaria, Mr
Marin Raykov, interim Prime Minister and members of the caretaker
government. The programme of the ad hoc committee’s meetings is
reproduced in Appendix 3.
6. On election day, the ad hoc committee split up into 12 teams
to observe the elections in the following cities: Sofia and the
surrounding area, Plovdiv, Varna, Pazardznik, Blagoevgrad, Kiustendil,
Montana and Vratsa.
7. The IEOM concluded that the early parliamentary elections
of 12 May 2013 “were held in a competitive environment, fundamental
freedoms were respected, and the administration of elections was
well managed, although the campaign was overshadowed by a number
of incidents that diminished trust in State institutions and the
process was negatively affected by pervasive allegations of vote-buying”.
The IEOM press release published following the elections is reproduced
in Appendix 4.
2 Political
context
8. Parliamentary elections in Bulgaria were originally
due to be held on 23 June 2013. In early February 2013, however,
mass demonstrations took place in Bulgaria; initially the participants
were protesting about the increase in electricity costs. Later these
demonstrations evolved into a non-partisan movement criticising
State corruption and the extreme hardship of the population; these
demonstrations took place in over 30 towns and cities and led to
the resignation of the government of Prime Minister Boyko Borisov
on 28 February 2013. Following these developments, President Rosen
Plevneliev dissolved the parliament and called for early parliamentary
elections on 12 May 2013. The same day, the President appointed
a caretaker government.
9. Since the collapse of the communist system in 1989, not a
single government has been re-elected to power in Bulgaria. Voters
have constantly demanded change, but no matter which leaders have
been chosen, they have all pursued fairly similar macro-economic
policies. Successive governments have justified their failure to
change economic policies in response to voter dissatisfaction by
arguing that maintaining an economic austerity policy was a pre-condition
for joining the European Union – something an overwhelming majority
of Bulgarians wanted, and achieved in 2007.
10. The lack of trust in the leading classes to change economic
policy and combat corruption effectively was probably the most significant
feature of the political crisis in Bulgaria. This explains why the
protests, which broke out in February 2013, changed overnight; from
being mere complaints about excessively high electricity prices,
which went unheeded, they quickly turned to demands for radical
political and constitutional change.
11. While the protests may have brought only around 2% of the
population onto the streets, President Plevneliev informed the Assembly
delegation that approximately 90% of the country’s inhabitants sympathised with
the protests, showing that the concerns of the citizens had been
overlooked in the pursuit of strict austerity policies.
12. Paradoxically, however, despite the popular discontent, all
recent public opinion polls indicated that, for the first time since
1989, the former governing party – the centre-right GERB (Citizens
for the European Development of Bulgaria) would emerge the winner
of the early elections. Consequently, many of those with whom the
Assembly delegation spoke predicted that the result of the elections
would be a prolonged period of political instability and uncertainty
which could lead to further elections.
13. During the pre-electoral mission, the Assembly delegation
observed political polarisation and deep mistrust – both between
the politicians and the population and between the political parties
themselves. The widespread climate of suspicion had led many citizens
to lose trust in political parties and in the electoral process
in general.
14. The street protesters were calling for the elimination of
the State structures which were perceived as corrupt. They wanted
to reduce the number of MPs in the 240-seat National Assembly, the
removal of the immunity of members of parliament and the creation
of a 50% citizens' quota for the direct control of State mechanisms
by the public – each of these demands would require the adoption
of a new constitution. However, these claims have not been transposed
into a common political platform of the new “street-based” protest parties.
Nor has the protest movement turned into a new political force which
could participate in the elections.
15. One of the major challenges for these elections was the acceptance
of results. The Assembly’s pre-election delegation was concerned
about the frequent allusions to possible new elections. The delegation therefore
welcomed President Plevneliev’s call on all parties to refrain from
any attempts to invalidate election results for tactical purposes,
and to use the month of campaigning to capitalise on positive engagement
in this electoral process, focusing on proposing credible and deliverable
solutions that tackled the main reasons for the current public mistrust
of the institutions and politics.
16. For the first time in Bulgaria’s modern history, the early
parliamentary elections were organised by a caretaker government,
which set as its priority the organisation of free and fair elections
and the easing of social tension. In order to help boost citizens’
confidence in the electoral process, the government set up a Consultative
Election Board, with the participation of non-governmental organisations
(NGO) active in electoral matters. The Board’s task was to highlight
any shortcomings in the application of the electoral law and to suggest
improvements to the law in the interest of democracy and the citizens.
Many people with whom the Assembly delegation spoke voiced their
criticism about the way the Consultative Electoral Board functioned:
it was much criticised for being a mere smokescreen as it had only
consultative powers.
3 Legal framework
17. The main texts governing the parliamentary elections
of 12 May were the Electoral Code, the Constitution, the Political
Parties Act and the instructions and resolutions of the Central
Election Commission (CEC).
18. The new Electoral Code was adopted in January 2011, constituting
the first unified electoral legislation in Bulgaria and providing
an effective framework for the holding of democratic elections,
if properly applied.
19. The joint Opinion on the Electoral Code of Bulgaria by the
Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR was adopted in June 2011. Mr
Georgi Parvanov, the then President of Bulgaria, vetoed the adoption
of the Code on account of the 12-month residency requirement in
order to participate in local elections, limitations on voting rights
of citizens with dual citizenship and certain provisions relating
to local and municipal elections. The presidential veto was overridden
by a majority of members of the National Assembly. Although the limitations
on the voting rights of citizens with dual nationality were criticised
in the joint Opinion, in particular in the light of the case law
of the European Court of Human Rights,
Note the provision in question remains
in the Code.
20. The new Electoral Code was amended in February 2013. A number
of changes are a positive response to several recommendations made
by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR, in particular the fact
that observers may now observe the whole electoral process, the
transparency of the activities of the election administration has
been improved, the meetings of the district electoral commissions
(DECs) are now published online, and it is now possible to obtain
a copy of the records of results in polling stations following the
count.
21. Nonetheless, the introduction of amendments to the Electoral
Code in February 2013, roughly two months before the early parliamentary
elections, made it difficult for them to be implemented and threatened the
stability of the electoral system. It posed particular difficulties
regarding the implementation of the CEC’s new responsibilities,
as it was required to broadcast its meetings in real time and maintain
an updated, public database regarding the challenges submitted.
22. The Parliamentary Assembly delegation would point out that
the majority of the changes to the Code in February 2013 may be
considered as merely technical and have not incorporated the main
recommendations set out in the joint Opinion of the Venice Commission
and the OSCE/ODIHR of 2011, including:
- the lack of balance between political parties in the appointment
of chairs and secretaries at all levels of election commissions,
which could undermine confidence in the electoral process. In this
regard, it should be noted that, according to ODIHR long-term observers,
30 out of 31 DEC chairs were appointed by the ruling GERB party;
- the need for tighter criteria regarding the financing
of political parties and election campaigns, and more effective
penalties in order to combat corruption;
- the need to ensure equal access to the different media
for those taking part in the elections;
- the need to uphold the rights of minorities, primarily
regarding the use of their mother tongue in the election campaign;
- the deprivation of voting rights should be defined more
clearly and apply only to persons convicted of a serious crime;
- improvement of dispute resolution, as the Electoral Code
does not authorise the election results to be challenged by voters,
only by political parties, coalitions and candidates.Note
23. Parliament is elected for a four-year term. The electoral
system in Bulgaria is one of proportional representation. There
are 31 multi-member constituencies for the 240 seats in the National
Assembly. The changes to the Electoral Code in February 2013 introduced
a system of closed lists. The number of seats allocated to each
constituency ranges from 4 to 16. The CEC determines this number
according to the size of the constituency.
24. In this connection, the Parliamentary Assembly delegation
was told that there was a significant disparity between the number
of voters in the various constituencies. For example, the constituency
of Kardzhali had 44 768 voters, some 56% above the national average.
This is contrary to the provisions of the Venice Commission’s Code
of Good Practice in Electoral Matters which states that the permissible
departure from the norm should not exceed 15%. A member of parliament
elected by majority vote in the largest constituency represents
four times as many voters as a member elected in the smallest constituency.
This is contrary to the constitutional principle of equal votes.
This matter was challenged before the Constitutional Court by 70 members
of parliament, but was rejected.
25. Seats are allocated in accordance with the Hare-Niemeyer method
(the largest remainder method). Entitlement to seats is limited
to parties and coalitions of parties which have obtained at least
4% of the votes cast within Bulgaria and abroad. The Parliamentary
Assembly delegation considers that the high threshold for representation
in parliament prevents a considerable number of votes cast for small
political parties from having any parliamentary representation.
4 Administration
of the elections, drawing up of electoral rolls and registration
of political parties
26. The parliamentary elections were administered by
a three-level system of election commissions: the Central Election
Commission, the 31 district election commissions (DECs), one in
each of the 31 multi-member constituencies, and 11 400 polling station
commissions (PSCs). The election administration bodies are constituted
on the basis of political appointments. The CEC appoints the members
of the DECs and the DECs appoint the members of the PSCs. The same
parties and coalitions making up the CEC nominate members of the
DECs and the PSCs.
27. According to the ODIHR, the meetings of the CEC, closed to
representatives of the parties and the media, were well organised
and complied with the legal deadlines. The CEC administered the
elections in an effective manner, its meetings were streamed online
on its website in a timely manner, contributing to the transparency
of the way it operates.
28. However, the CEC decisions on the composition of the DECs,
providing no information on the political affiliation of the appointed
members, did not contribute to the transparency of the electoral
process or confidence on the CEC’s impartiality. This is why the
opposition parties and certain NGOs expressed their concern over
the independence of the DECs and the PSCs, due to the alleged domination
of the ruling GERB party.
29. The CEC launched a nationwide voter education campaign, comprising
explanations on voting procedures, broadcast on television and radio.
Transparency International conducted a voter education campaign
against vote-buying.
30. Voter lists are drawn from the national population register
maintained by the Civil Registration and Administrative Services
Department of the Ministry of Regional Development. The number of
registered voters was 6 868 455. Depending on their permanent address,
voters could be added to an electoral roll on polling day. The Central
Election Commission opened 227 polling stations in 56 foreign countries.
81 409 voters were registered on the lists for overseas voting.
31. In this connection, some people with whom the delegation spoke
voiced concern over voting outside Bulgaria and the way the elections
abroad were organised and how the Central Election Commission applied the
principle of where to open polling stations. The concerns voiced
related not so much to European Union countries, but rather to non-EU
countries with large Bulgarian communities, such as the United States
and Turkey.
32. The Assembly's ad hoc committee which had observed the presidential
election in 2011 had expressed concern about the ratio between the
number of inhabitants (7.3 million) and the number of registered
voters (6.9 million), with the difference being much lower than
the normal number of non-voting age inhabitants of a country. This
matter had been raised in the joint Opinion on the Electoral Code
of Bulgaria by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR of 2011. Some
of the people with whom the Assembly delegation spoke claimed that
this was still a concern for the parliamentary elections of 12 May
2013.
33. In order to be registered and take part in the elections,
political parties and coalitions had to submit an application to
the CEC with 7 000 supporting signatures, with voters able to support
only one political party. 63 political parties were registered,
of which 25 formed seven coalitions. The total number of candidates
registered on the political party lists was 8 100 and only two candidates
were successful in being registered as independent candidates. In
this regard, the Parliamentary Assembly delegation believes that
the requirements for the registration of independent candidates
are difficult to meet and that this does little to ensure equal opportunities
between different categories of candidates.
5 The election campaign
and the media environment
34. The election campaign began on 12 April and was conducted
in a pluralist and generally violence-free context. The caretaker
government undertook several measures to show its neutrality, guarantee
the holding of democratic elections and prohibit the use of administrative
resources, which had been very frequent during preceding elections.
In addition, the President of the Republic had set up a Consultative
Electoral Board with the participation of NGOs active in election
matters, to highlight any shortcomings noted in the implementation of
the electoral law and to suggest improvements to the legislation.
35. In their election campaign, the political parties focused
on the problems of poverty, unemployment, and the fight against
corruption and organised crime. Some political parties, such as
the “Ataka” party, the Bulgarian National Movement (VMRO-BND) and
the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria (NFSB), based their electoral
platform on ethnic exclusion, adopting xenophobic rhetoric concerning
the Roma population. The slogan of the GERB ruling party was “We
have the will to go on”, particularly in the fields of construction, infrastructure,
improving living conditions and using European Union funds to carry
out social programmes. The main opposition party, the Coalition
for Bulgaria, promised to create 250 000 new jobs, to combat monopolies and
launch a debate on the building of the Belene nuclear power plant.
36. The Assembly delegation was told about allegations of vote-buying,
of intimidation and pressure on voters (with forms of so-called
“controlled voting”
Note), and
of corruption of members of the election commissions. According
to independent surveys carried out by Transparency International
during the election campaign, up to 15% of voters admitted that
they would be prepared to sell their vote.
37. The Assembly delegation heard statements from various people
on instances of vote-buying and controlled voting which had taken
on unacceptable proportions. According to some, all political parties
were involved in this form of election corruption. It was claimed
that vote-buying was primarily carried out in ethnically mixed areas.
For the 12 May elections, according to Transparency International,
the extent of vote-buying was going down whereas that of controlled
voting was going up.
38. These allegations of electoral corruption are repeated from
one election to another. The Principal State Prosecutor told international
observers that 26 investigations into vote-buying had been initiated.
At the time of drafting this report, one person from Pleven had
been given a five-month prison sentence and fine of €50 000 for
vote-buying. The Ministry of the Interior is believed to have received
various reports of instances of electoral corruption, and investigations
are under way.
39. In this connection, the Parliamentary Assembly delegation
calls on the competent Bulgarian authorities to investigate these
allegations as thoroughly as possible and, if they are substantiated,
to bring those responsible to account, including those who ordered
this type of electoral corruption, and to inform both the public
and the Parliamentary Assembly as soon as possible.
40. The election campaign was tainted by two wiretapping scandals
involving senior civil servants and politicians. On 28 March, Mr
Stanishev, leader of the Coalition for Bulgaria, submitted to the
Bulgarian Principal State Prosecutor documentary evidence of illegal
wiretapping of telephone conversations of politicians and journalists,
conducted, it was claimed, by Ministry of the Interior officials.
On 15 April, the Principal State Prosecutor said that the investigations
carried out had confirmed the fact that unlawful wiretapping had
taken place, with the involvement of four officials from the Ministry
of the Interior, including Mr Tsvetanov, former Minister of the
Interior and the current director of the GERB election campaign.
41. On 26 April, the media published the recording of a conversation
between Mr Borisov, the former Prime Minister and the Sofia City
Prosecutor on the use of European Union funds, relations with the
media and on the process of selecting and appointing the Principal
State Prosecutor. Following the publication, the authenticity of
this illegal wiretapping was not denied and the Sofia City Prosecutor
resigned. The interim Prime Minister ordered investigations to be
carried out, in order to put an end to illegal wiretapping. All
these scandals considerably lowered public trust in the electoral
process.
42. On 11 May, the day before polling day, the Sofia prosecution
office seized 350 000 illegal ballot papers in a private printing
works in Kostinbrod belonging to a local elected representative
from the GERB party. The opposition accused GERB of electoral fraud.
The GERB party leaders accused the opposition of breaching electoral
legislation by organising press conferences on 11 May, a day of
media silence.
43. According to the 2011 census, 8.8% of the population are of
Turkish origin and approximately 4.9% are Roma. Current legislation
stipulates that the election campaign must be conducted only in
Bulgarian. The minorities are seen as being among the most vulnerable
to electoral irregularities. Bulgaria has ratified the Council of
Europe Framework Convention of National Minorities (ETS No. 157)
with reservations.
Note It is not Party
to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ETS
No. 148). Despite explicit calls by the Council of Europe, national
minorities are not allowed to campaign in their own language and
this is a matter of serious concern. This affects primarily the
Turkish minority and most media and printed materials (public meetings
may be conducted in several languages).
44. The Assembly delegation, while acknowledging the right of
national minorities to conduct election campaigns in their mother
tongue, would nevertheless point out that the political parties
representing the interests of the national minorities and their
leaders also have a heavy responsibility to combat effectively all forms
of electoral corruption which, according to various credible sources,
is a much more worrying phenomenon in ethnically mixed areas.
45. Bulgaria has a pluralist media landscape offering freedom
of expression and providing the electorate with a broad range of
political opinion. Nonetheless, there are some reservations about
the independence of the media from undue political and economic
influence. Moreover, there are no provisions regarding free airtime.
Political parties had to pay large sums – the same for all – for
almost all broadcasts relating to their campaign, including debates
on public broadcasting channels. There is a clear lack of equality
between parties, not least because parties in parliament benefit
from State subsidies, which is regarded as an indirect subsidy to
media access. Furthermore, media ownership is opaque, mostly in
the hands of party-affiliated oligarchs. Paid campaign broadcasts
were not always clearly identified as such and certain voters may
in this way have been misled about their source.
6 Polling day and
election results
46. Polling day was calm. The members of the ad hoc committee
saw for themselves that voting took place in an orderly manner.
They identified a number of irregularities and minor technical problems
in the polling stations they visited:
- failure to comply with opening hours in a number of polling
stations;
- unintentional failure to comply with voting procedures,
including during the count, especially in rural areas;
- interference of political party observers in the running
of the polling station, including during the count;
- some political party observers were unable to name the
party they were supposed to be representing;
- election posters for the Movement for Rights and Freedoms
(MRF) were visible close to a polling station situated in an area
in which Roma lived; food distribution was organised close to the
polling station;
- election posters for the Movement for Rights and Freedoms
(MRF) were visible close to a polling station in Besdeny; the team
of observers had the impression that voting was taking place under
the control of the owners of the cafeteria next to the polling station;
according to the results obtained after the votes had been counted,
the MRF was believed to have received around 60% of the vote;
- in one polling station, once the team had arrived, not
a single voter turned up for the hour it was there; this could raise
suspicions about controlled voting whereby voters were dissuaded
from coming to vote when international observers were present;
- some teams mentioned possible vote-buying in rural areas,
but this is very difficult to prove;
- in some polling stations in areas with a significant Roma
population there were no Roma representatives among the members
of the PSC;
- the count was chaotic in polling station No. 37 in Varna;
the PSC chair decided on everything without consulting the other
members of the commission; a number of ballot papers were invalidated
even though the voters’ choice was clear;
- ballot papers were very long and their design and poor
quality could make it easy to print counterfeit papers;
- there was only one booth in each polling station and generally
speaking these polling stations did not have disabled access; very
few men were members of polling station commissions;
- in the polling station in the Ecole Française in Sofia,
the commission chair categorically refused to co-operate with the
team of observers, insisting that they take up position far away
from the table where the counting was taking place, in such a way
that they were unable to properly observe the count procedure.
47. On 16 May, the CEC announced the official results of the early
parliamentary elections. GERB (Citizens for the European Development
of Bulgaria) obtained 30.54% of the vote (97 seats), the Coalition
for Bulgaria (CB) obtained 26.61% (84 seats), the Movement for Rights
and Freedoms (MRF), supported by Bulgarians of Turkish origin, obtained
11.31% (36 seats), and the extreme right coalition ATAKA obtained
7.30% (23 seats). The other parties, which failed to pass the 4%
threshold to qualify for representation in parliament, were the National
Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria (3.70%), the Bulgaria for Citizens
party (Kuneva) with 3.25% and the Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria
with 2.93%.
48. Voter turnout was 51.33%, the lowest in the history of post-Communist
Bulgaria. More than 49% of Bulgarian citizens who voted abroad gave
their vote to the MRF; this party obtained roughly 60% of the vote
in the Kurdjali region. The leaders of the “Order, Law and Justice”
party asked the Prime Minister to cancel the results of the elections
in the polling stations in Turkey. On 16 May, Mr Borisov, the former
Prime Minister, whose GERB party had obtained the largest number
of seats in parliament, called for the election results to be cancelled,
on the ground that the opposition leaders had violated electoral
legislation by organising a press conference on the day before polling
day, which was designated an election silence day.
49. On 3 June 2013, the leadership of the political party GERB
addressed a letter to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly
about the application addressed by 96 members of this party’s parliamentary
group to the Constitutional Court in which the deputies asked for
the early parliamentary election of 12 May 2013 to be declared illegal.
The Constitutional Court has started the procedure for the examination
of this application. According to the law, the CEC has 30 days to
provide all the documents required by the Constitutional Court, the
other public institutions concerned have seven days.
50. The NGO “Civic Coalition” identified over 200 irregularities
on polling day, including instances of controlled voting (in Varna,
Plovdiv, Pleven, Montana and Pliska) and vote-buying (in Sliven,
Pleven, Kustendil and Blagoevgrad). Roughly 100 reports of irregularities
have been forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior and investigations
have been initiated in 47 cases. One person in Pleven has been convicted
for vote-buying.
7 Conclusions
and recommendations
51. The Parliamentary Assembly ad hoc committee concluded
that the early parliamentary elections of 12 May 2013 in Bulgaria
were held in a pluralist context, fundamental freedoms were upheld
and the administration of the elections was satisfactory. However,
the campaign was marred by a number of incidents which weakened
trust in the public institutions and there were numerous allegations
of vote-buying. The public’s lack of trust in the electoral process
and the disaffection of an excessively high number of Bulgarians vis-à-vis
their public institutions remain a matter of great concern.
52. Overall, the legal framework for elections provided a sound
basis for the holding of democratic elections, on condition that
it was properly applied. The Parliamentary Assembly delegation wishes
to emphasise that the majority of amendments made to the Electoral
Code in February 2013 can be considered technical and did not incorporate
the main recommendations of the Venice Commission, in particular
with regard to the balance between political parties in the appointment
of chairs and secretaries of all levels of election commissions
in order to strengthen confidence in the electoral process.
53. The Assembly delegation and the other international observers
were informed of instances of vote-buying and controlled voting
of unacceptable proportions, especially in rural areas with ethnically
mixed populations. These allegations of electoral corruption are
repeated from one election to another and it is claimed that the
main political parties are involved in this form of electoral corruption.
54. The Parliamentary Assembly delegation notes that the competent
Bulgarian authorities have registered numerous cases of violations
of the electoral legislation, both during the election campaign
and on polling day, and investigations are under way. In this connection
it calls on the competent Bulgarian authorities to investigate these
allegations as thoroughly as possible and, if they are substantiated,
to bring those responsible to account, including those who ordered
this type of electoral corruption, and to inform both the public
and the Parliamentary Assembly as soon as possible.
55. The election campaign was tainted by scandals surrounding
the illegal wiretapping of telephone conversations of politicians
and journalists, conducted, it was claimed, by Ministry of the Interior
officials with the involvement of politicians. The Parliamentary
Assembly delegation roundly condemns such illegal practices which
have no place in a country governed by the rule of law. They weaken
the trust of Bulgarian citizens in their public institutions and
in politics. The delegation calls on the competent authorities to
bring those responsible to account as soon as possible.
56. According to the 2011 census, roughly 14% of the Bulgarian
population belong to national minorities of different origins. Bulgaria
has ratified the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities with reservations. The legislation
in force stipulates that election campaigns must be conducted only
in Bulgarian. The Parliamentary Assembly delegation, while acknowledging
the right of national minorities to be able to conduct election
campaigns in their mother tongue, would nevertheless point out that the
political parties representing the interests of the national minorities,
seen as being among the most vulnerable to electoral irregularities,
have a heavy responsibility to combat effectively all forms of electoral corruption,
particularly as these unacceptable practices frequently take place
in ethnically mixed areas.
57. Media coverage of the election campaign provided the electorate
with a broad range of political opinions. Nonetheless, the Parliamentary
Assembly delegation expresses its concern about the independence
of the media from undue political and economic influence and the
opacity of media ownership, mostly in the hands of party-affiliated
oligarchs. The Assembly delegation considers that it is unacceptable
for political parties to pay large sums – the same for all – for
almost all broadcasts relating to their campaign, including debates
on public broadcasting channels. Such a situation offers no guarantee
of the principle of equality between parties, not least because
parties in parliament benefit from State subsidies, which may be
seen as an indirect subsidy to media access.
58. In order to restore and strengthen citizens’ trust in the
democratic process, the Parliamentary Assembly ad hoc committee
calls on the Bulgarian authorities, in close co-operation with the
Venice Commission and as part of the Assembly’s post-monitoring
dialogue, to take the following measures:
- assess and improve the electoral legal framework in the
light of the problems identified during the early parliamentary
elections of 12 May 2013, taking into consideration the recommendations
made by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission in 2011; reinforce
the legal mechanism to exclude possible misuse of voter lists due
to a considerable number of voters residing abroad who remain in
the voter lists;
- carry out investigations into all allegations of vote-buying,
controlled voting and other forms of electoral corruption in order
to bring those responsible to account and publish the results of
those investigations in order to strengthen citizens’ trust in the
electoral process;
- improve legislation in order to ensure the principle of
equal access to the media for political parties;
- organise training for members of the polling station commissions,
especially in rural areas, in order to ensure that they have greater
familiarity with procedures on polling day.
59. The ad hoc committee believes that it would be appropriate
to consider preparing and implementing projects for Bulgaria under
the Council of Europe’s electoral assistance programmes. The main
aim of these projects should be to raise the awareness of vulnerable
population groups regarding efforts to combat all forms of electoral
corruption.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
Based on proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Andreas GROSSNote (Switzerland, SOC), Head of
the Delegation
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Viorel
BADEA, Romania
- Şaban DIŞLI, Turkey
- Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI, “the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia”
- Marietta DE POURBAIX-LUNDIN,5 Sweden
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Lennart AXELSSON, Sweden
- Paolo CORSINI, Italy
- René ROUQUET, France
- Kostas TRIANTAFYLLOS, Greece
- Dana VÁHALOVÁ, Czech Republic
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Giacomo STUCCHI, Italy
- Øyvind VAKSDAL, Norway
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Alfred
HEER, Switzerland
- Tinatin KHIDASHELI,5 Georgia
- Andrea RIGONI, Italy
- Ionut STROE, Romania
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Nikolaj
VILLUMSEN,5 Denmark
- Rapporteur of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Venice Commission
- Manuel GONZÁLEZ OROPEZA, Member
of the Venice Commission
- Secretariat:
- Chemavon CHAHBAZIAN, Deputy
to the Head of Secretariat, Interparliamentary Co-operation and Election
Observation Division, Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly
- Amaya ÚBEDA DE TORRES, Administrator, Venice Commission
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division, Secretariat of the Parliamentary
Assembly
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division, Secretariat of the Parliamentary
Assembly
Appendix 2 – Statement by
the pre-electoral mission
Bulgaria
needs free and fair elections in order to overcome crisis, says
PACE pre-electoral delegation
Strasbourg, 05.04.2013 – “Bulgaria needs free and fair elections
as only this can give the next parliament the legitimacy it needs
in order to overcome the political and social crisis,” a six-member
pre-electoral delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) has concluded. “Therefore, in the next few weeks,
trust in the democratic process must be restored so that the street
protests can transform into participation,” said the delegation,
led by Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC), in a statement issued at
the end of a two-day visit to Sofia (4-5 April 2013).
“Many Bulgarians live in a desperate financial situation and
unemployment has doubled in the past few years. A climate of suspicion
has led many citizens to lose confidence in political parties and
in the democratic process in general. The total lack of trust between
the parties themselves, both majority and opposition, exacerbates an
already tense situation,” the parliamentarians said.
The pre-electoral delegation said it was pleased that the
President and the caretaker government see achieving free and fair
elections as their first priority. “While the electoral law cannot
now be changed, the caretaker government and the newly-created election
board may help to increase the transparency and the fairness of
its implementation,” the delegation said.
The delegation expressed its concern about the role of the
media: “It is a shame that political parties and candidates have
to pay to make their message heard, and that paid broadcasts on
television are not presented as such to the viewer.”
Furthermore, the delegation regretted that national minorities
cannot engage in campaigning in their own language. It also expressed
its concern about allegations of vote-buying and called on all political
players to refrain from exercising administrative or economic pressure
on citizens. In addition, the parliamentarians said, every effort
must be made to ensure the accuracy of the voter lists.
Finally, the delegation called on the citizens of Bulgaria
to use the forthcoming weeks to communicate their concerns to the
parties, to listen and to discuss the proposals put forward by the
parties and to use this information to make up their minds and to
express their opinion by using the ballot-box.
During its visit the delegation met with the President of
the Republic, members of the caretaker government including the
Prime Minister, representatives of the Central Electoral Commission,
the Bulgarian delegation to PACE, representatives of the parties
and coalitions standing for election, and civil society representatives.
A full 21-member delegation from the Assembly will return
to the country to observe the voting before making a final assessment.
Appendix 3 – Programme of
the election observation mission
Friday
10 May 2013
10.00-11.00 PACE Ad hoc Committee meeting
- Briefing on the pre-electoral
mission by Mr Andreas Gross, Head of the Delegation, and members
of the pre-electoral mission
- Recent developments in the field of election legislation
in Bulgaria by Mr Manuel González Oropeza, Member of the Venice
Commission (Mexico)
- Practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
14.00-18.00 Joint meeting of international
election observation delegations
14.00-14.15 Opening remarks:
- Mr Eoghan Murphy, Special co-ordinator, Leader of the
short-term OSCE observer mission
- Mr Roberto Battelli, Head of the OSCE PA delegation
- Mr Andreas Gross, Head of the PACE delegation
14.15-15.15 Meeting with Mr Miklos Haraszti, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
mission and members of his team
15.15-18.00 Meeting with the leaders and representatives of
main political parties and coalitions:
- Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria (GERB):
Ms Gemma Grozdanova and Mr Dimitar Lazarov
- Coalition for Bulgaria (CB): Mr Sergey Stanishev, Mr Kristian
Vigenin and Ms Katia Nikolova
- Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF): Mr Stanislav Anastasov
- Bulgaria for Citizens party (Kuneva): Mr Yonko Grozev
and Ms Dessislava Dimitrova
Saturday 11 May
2013
10.30-11.30 Meeting with representatives of the Consultative
Election Board (CEB):
- Professor
Emilia Drumeva, former Judge of the Constitutional Court
- Ms Antoaneta Tsoneva, President
- Ms Tania Tzaneva, Secretary General
- Ms Galina Asenova, Executive Director
- Mr Daniel Stoianov, Association for Reintegration of Sentenced
Prisoners
11.30-12.15 Meeting with representatives of the Central Election
Commission: Ms Krassimira Medarova, Chairperson, and members of
the CEC
12.15-13.15 Meeting with representatives of civil society:
- Mr Kalin Slavov, Executive Director
of Transparency International,
- Mr Nikolai Karamihov, Project Manager, Center for Modernisation
of Politics
- Ms Galina Asenova, Executive Director, Institute for Social
Integration
13.15-14.15 Meeting with media representatives:
- Bulgarian National TV, Mr Boyko
Vassilev
- Bulgarian National Radio, Mr Valerii Todorov, Director
General, Ms Irina Velichkova, Director of the Legal Department
- Association of Bulgarian Broadcasters (ABBRO), Mr Mehti
Melikov, Executive Director
- BTV Media Group, Ms Lyuba Rizova
- Council of electronic media (CEM): Mr Georgi Lozanov,
Director
- Nova TV, Mr Konstantin Kissimov
14.30 Meeting with drivers and interpreters: deployment
Sunday 12 May
2013
07.00-20.00 Observation of the elections
After 20.00 Observation of the closing and vote-counting operations
Monday 13 May
2013
08.45-9.30 Meeting of the PACE ad hoc committee – debriefing
9.30-11.30 Meeting of the heads of delegations
13.30 Press conference
Appendix 4 – Statement by
the election observation mission
Bulgaria’s
elections competitive and well run, but trust in process is lacking,
international observers say
Strasbourg, 13.05.2013 – Bulgaria’s early parliamentary elections
on 12 May were held in a competitive environment, fundamental freedoms
were respected, and the administration of elections was well managed, although
the campaign was overshadowed by a number of incidents that diminished
trust in State institutions and the process was negatively affected
by pervasive allegations of vote-buying, international observers
said in a statement today.
The campaign was competitive and generally free of violence,
and the caretaker government undertook several measures to hold
genuine elections. Cases of pre-election wiretapping and concerns
over last-minute incidents related to ballot security, however,
weakened public confidence in the process. The campaign was at times
negative, with some parties using inflammatory and xenophobic rhetoric.
Allegations of vote-buying continued, negatively affecting the campaign
environment, the international observers noted.
“Voters had a genuine choice in a competitive campaign, and
the authorities made real steps to uphold the integrity of the election,
but scandals and the recent discovery of additional ballot papers
without proper explanation undermined people’s faith in the political
system and, more worryingly, made them question the process itself,”
said Eoghan Murphy, the Special Co-ordinator who led the short-term
OSCE observer mission. “When you look at the mistrust that exists
between political parties, and at the current economic difficulties,
this is a negative development.”
“The lack of public confidence in the electoral process and
the alienation of too many Bulgarians from their public institutions
remains a matter of concern,” said Andreas Gross, the head of the
delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE). “All those who have been elected have to address this in
order to overcome the social and political crisis with which the
Bulgarian people are confronted.”
The process was well-administered by the Central Election
Commission (CEC), which generally worked in an open manner, although
providing more information on the times of all of its sessions and
the basis for its decisions would have improved transparency, the
statement said. There were some concerns expressed about the independence
of lower election commissions, but the posting of CEC sessions on
the Internet was a welcome transparency measure.
“It is only through democratic institutions that social, economic
and political changes can be addressed effectively. In many countries
we see systematic attacks on the credibility of the democratic institution
of elections. It is not acceptable that, in order to win elections
– the basis of democracy – elections are damaged,” said Roberto
Battelli, the Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation.
“Genuine efforts at holding democratic elections that we have seen
here are not enough, and addressing this must be a top priority
for both national and international actors.”
The legal framework for the elections generally provides a
sound basis for the conduct of democratic elections when implemented
properly. While some recommendations made by the OSCE Office for
Democratic Institutions (ODIHR) and the Council of Europe were adopted
in recent amendments to the Electoral Code, others remained unaddressed.
Legal provisions on campaign financing could ensure a more transparent system,
the statement said.
Although the media landscape during the campaign was pluralistic,
media ownership lacks transparency. Public broadcasters and some
private media granted contestants free airtime on popular election-related programmes,
but a significant share of the campaign information had to be paid
for, creating a playing field for candidates that was not level
and limiting the public media’s role in providing voters with a
broad range of information. Paid campaign information was not always
clearly labelled as such, potentially misleading voters about the
sources of election-related messages.
Election day took place in a calm and orderly manner, with
polling station openings and voting mostly assessed positively,
although the counting of ballots was more problematic in a number
of cases. Tabulation, overall, was positive. The large number of
proxies and observers present enhanced transparency.
“There were serious violations during this campaign. These
have to be thoroughly investigated and those responsible prosecuted,”
said Miklós Haraszti, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR long-term election
observation mission. “In order to restore the trust of Bulgarian
citizens in their democratic process, the cycle of impunity must
be broken.”
