Observation of the general elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina (12 October 2014)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13640
| 17 November 2014
- Author(s):
- Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Tiny KOX,
Netherlands, UEL
1 Introduction
1. At the invitation of the Central Election Commission
(CEC) of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 21 May 2014, the Bureau of the
Parliamentary Assembly decided, at its meeting on 22 May 2014, to
constitute an ad hoc committee composed of 32 members, plus the
two co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, to observe the general
elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 12 October 2014. Furthermore,
it decided to organise a pre-electoral visit by five members of
this ad hoc committee, one from each political group, and the two
co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee. At its meeting on 23
June 2014, the Bureau approved the composition of the ad hoc committee
(see Appendix 1) and appointed Mr Tiny Kox (Netherlands, UEL) as Chairperson.
2. Under the terms of Article 15 of the co-operation agreement
signed between the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission
for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on 4 October 2004,
“[w]hen the Bureau of the Assembly decides to observe an election
in a country in which electoral legislation was previously examined
by the Venice Commission, one of the rapporteurs of the Venice Commission
on this issue may be invited to join the Assembly's election observation
mission as legal adviser”. In accordance with this provision, the
Bureau of the Assembly invited an expert from the Venice Commission to
join the ad hoc committee as an advisor. However, the Venice Commission
did not take part in the election observation mission as this event
coincided with its 100th plenary session.
3. The pre-electoral mission visited Sarajevo and Banja Luka
from 17 to 19 September 2014 to assess the state of preparations
and the political climate in the run-up to the general elections.
The cross-party delegation comprised: Tiny Kox (Netherlands, UEL),
Head of the delegation, Naira Karapetyan (Armenia, EPP/CD), René Rouquet
(France, SOC), Margus Hanson (Estonia, ALDE) and Reha Denemeç (Turkey,
EC).
4. During its visit to Sarajevo and Banja Luka, the delegation
had meetings with leaders and representatives of the main political
parties, with the Secretaries-General of the Parliamentary Assembly
and of the House of Representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with
members of the CEC, representatives of the international community,
the mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE/ODIHR) to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as with representatives
of civil society. The programme of the visit appears in Appendix
2 and the end-of-visit statement of the pre-electoral mission appears
in Appendix 3. The delegation wishes to thank the Head and the staff
of the Council of Europe Office in Sarajevo for the excellent organisation
of the programme and their logistical support.
5. For the main election observation mission, the ad hoc committee
operated in the framework of an International Election Observation
Mission (IEOM) alongside the delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
and the Election Observation Mission (EOM) of the OSCE/ODIHR. Mr Roberto
Battelli was the Special co-ordinator leading the short-term OSCE
observer mission. Ms Marietta Tidei was Head of the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly delegation. Ms Corien Jonker was the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission. Co-operation with the partners in
the IEOM was based on good fellowship, and was professional, effective
and smooth.
6. The ad hoc committee met in Sarajevo from 10 to 13 October
2014. The programme of the ad hoc committee’s meetings is set out
in Appendix 4 and the press release published by the IEOM after
the elections appears in Appendix 5.
2 Legal
framework
7. The electoral system in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)
remains extremely complex. In
the general elections on 12 October 2014, voters elected the Presidency
of the State and the members of the State House of Representatives.
In addition, voters in Republika Srpska (RS) elected the President
of RS and the members of parliament of RS. Voters in the Federation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) elected members of the House of
Representatives of the Federation. There were also cantonal elections
in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8. The Presidency of BiH is composed of three members from among
each constituent people; they are elected for a four-year term,
with the presidency rotating every eight months. The House of Representatives
of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH is composed of 42 members –
28 members are elected in the FBiH and 14 in RS. The House of Representatives
of the Parliament of the FBiH is composed of 98 members – 73 members are
elected in 12 multi-member constituencies (MMCs) and 25 members
are elected from compensatory, open party lists. The president and
vice-presidents of Republika Srpska are elected according to the
following rules: the candidate with the most votes is elected president;
the two runners-up from the other two constituent peoples are elected
vice-presidents. The National Assembly of RS is composed of 83 members.
9. The division of political parties along ethnic lines remained
a predominant feature. In the FBiH, the Social Democratic Party
(SDP), the Party for Democratic Action (SDA), the Alliance for Better
Future (SBB), the Party for BiH (SBiH), as well as the newly formed
Democratic Front (DF), feature on the Bosniak political scene, while the
Croat Democratic Union of BiH (HDZ BiH), the Croat Democratic Union
1990 (HDZ 1990) and other Croat parties compete for the Croat vote.
In RS, both the ruling Alliance of Independent Social Democrats
(SNSD) and the opposition, consisting mainly of the Serb Democratic
Party (SDS) and the Party for Democratic Progress (PDP), advocate
a similar platform of promoting RS entity-level competencies.
10. Elections were primarily regulated by the Constitution and
the election law. These were supplemented by Annex III of the Dayton
Agreement, the Law on Financing Political Parties, the Law on Citizenship,
as well as by regulations issued by the Central Election Commission.
The legal framework is generally sufficient for the conduct of democratic
elections. However, a lack of political will to move beyond the
1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace (the Dayton Agreement)
meant that important and long-standing shortcomings remained, including
a limited right to file a complaint, insufficient safeguards to
prevent the misuse of administrative resources, the lack of a law
on political parties, as well as inadequate campaign finance regulations.
11. The legal framework continues to pose unacceptable ethnicity-based
restrictions on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate. The
right to stand for the BiH presidency and the RS president and vice-presidents
is granted only to citizens who declare themselves as Bosniaks,
Croats or Serbs. In addition, the right to stand as a candidate
is limited by residency: a Serb registered in the FBiH and a Bosniak
or Croat in the RS cannot stand for the BiH presidency. Moreover,
RS voters can only vote for a Serb candidate for the BiH presidency, while
voters in the FBiH may only vote for either a Bosniak or Croat candidate.
To date, there has been no progress on the constitutional amendment
needed in order to implement the binding judgment of the European Court
of Human Rights of 22 December 2009 in the Sejdić
and Finci case regarding discrimination against citizens
on the grounds of ethnicity.
12. On 15 May 2014, the BiH Central Election Commission announced
general elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina to be held on 12 October
2014 in accordance with the provisions of Article 1.14 of the BiH
Election Law.
13. Six separate contests took place in these elections. At State
level, citizens voted for the BiH presidency and BiH House of Representatives.
In addition, citizens registered in the FBiH voted for the FBiH
House of Representatives and the 10 cantonal assemblies, whereas
those registered in RS voted for the RS president and vice-presidents
and the RS National Assembly.
14. On 19 November 2013, the new Law on conflict of interests
in the BiH institutions came into force, and the competence for
implementation of this law was entrusted to the special parliamentary
commission for resolution of conflict of interests, and the competence
of the BiH Central Election Commission under this law was terminated.
15. Regarding the BiH Election Law, the following recommendations
still remain unaddressed:
- reconsideration
of constituencies and the number of mandates awarded to each constituency,
as set forth in Chapter 9 of the BiH Election Law, for election
of members from multi-member constituencies for the House of Representatives
of the BiH Parliamentary Assembly from the territory of the FBiH,
and aligning multi-member constituencies and the number of mandates
that are elected from the territory of FBiH to the House of Representatives
of the FBiH Parliament as set forth in Article 20.13, paragraph
1, of the BiH Election Law;
- reconsideration of electoral deadlines for constituting
bodies of authority;
- introduction of provisions that state that the presidents
of the polling station committees and their deputies are proposed
by the municipal/city election commissions;
- introduction of early elections, with precisely defined
provisions on who can announce these elections, and when;
- re-transfer of the jurisdiction for implementation of
the Law on conflict of interests in the BiH Government to the BiH
Central Election Commission or transfer of this jurisdiction to
the Agency for the prevention of corruption and co-ordination of
the fight against corruption;
- adoption of changes and addenda to the Law on Financing
Political Parties as the prerequisite for implementation of the
recommendations of the Council of Europe’s Group of States against
Corruption (GRECO);
- introduction of transparent ballot boxes for voting.
3 Electoral administration,
registration of the voters lists and candidates
16. The general elections were administered by the Central
Election Committee (CEC) and 142 municipal election commissions
appointed for seven-year terms, as well as 5 401 polling station
commissions (PSCs) established by municipal election commissions
for these elections. The CEC and municipal election commissions
generally respected the required ethnic and gender composition.
17. A total of 113 political subjects were certified for the 2014
general elections: 65 political parties, 24 independent candidates
and 24 coalitions. The Central Election Commission received 753
lists of candidates with a total of 7 892 candidates, and, following
the verification process, a total of 735 lists of candidates (with 7 748
candidates) were certified, of which 3 276 candidates (42%) were
women and 4 472 (58%) candidates were men.
18. The Central Voters Register was
finalised on 28 August 2014. The final Central Voters Register contained
3 278 908 voters, of which 2 037 076 voters were in the FBiH and
1 241 832 voters in RS. There were 5 394 polling stations in the
country: 3 145 in the BiH Federation; 2 126 in Republika Srpska;
and 123 in the Brčko District.
19. Despite a legal obligation concerning the size of constituencies,
there were still significant deviations in constituency size, which
made the vote weight unequal: the number of voters in constituencies
varied from around 20 000 voters to 360 000 voters. This is not
in line with the fundamental principles on equal suffrage of the
Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters,
which prescribes that seats must be evenly distributed between the
constituencies, with a permissible departure from the norm of no
more than 10%, and certainly not exceeding 15%, except in special
circumstances.
20. The excerpt from the Central Voters Register for out-of-country
voting contained 42 258 voters,
of which 214 persons were registered to vote at the diplomatic-consular
representation offices of BiH abroad and 42 044 by mail. All voters
residing abroad, and who applied to vote out of the country, were
able to check in good time whether their name was on the list of
persons whose application was not complete and if necessary make corrections.
Polling stations abroad were opened in five diplomatic-consular
representation offices of BiH: in the BiH Embassies in Vienna and
Berlin, and in General Consulates of BiH in Munich, Stuttgart and
Frankfurt.
21. During previous elections, the BiH CEC allowed the citizens
of the Brčko District to register their voting option for the election
in advance, but this was no longer possible due to the changes in
2012 to the Law on ID cards of the BiH Citizens. Therefore, at the
beginning of the year, the authorities of the Brčko District started an
extensive information campaign to encourage voters to opt for their
entity citizenship before 28 August 2014, when the Central Voters
Register was concluded. According to the information received by
the Parlia mentary Assembly delegation, since 28 August 2014 the
total number of voters in the Brčko District who have entity citizenship
is 45 317, of which there are 24 789 for the FBiH and 20 528 for
RS. Those who did not opt for entity citizenship (determining whether
they vote for the bodies of the BiH Federation or RS) – and there
were 39 974 such persons – were not able to exercise their voting
rights in the general elections.
22. Voters residing in the Brčko District whose names were not
found on the extract from the Central Voters Register and who opted
for the first time for an entity citizenship between 29 August 2014
and Election Day, were allowed to vote by tendered-enveloped ballot
papers if they showed the polling station committee the Certificate
of entity citizenship and an identification document issued by a
competent body of the Brčko District.
23. There was, in general, confidence in the independent functioning
of the CEC. Nevertheless, members of the CEC themselves raised some
matters of concern: attempts to apply political pressure on the
CEC members; the tendency to limit its budget; the absence of transparent
ballot boxes despite the requirements of the international community
and the CEC’s demands; unclear definition of the respective roles
of the CEC and the Regulatory agency for communications concerning
the media coverage monitoring of the election campaign.
24. The appointment of PSC members was carried out according to
the law, but there were many allegations about contestants engaging
in trading of PSC positions to get representation in areas of their
specific interests, leading to politically unbalanced PSCs.
25. This year, for the first time, training had been organised
for potential presidents of PSCs. These activities were implemented
with the financial support of the Council of Europe.
4 Election campaign
and media environment
26. The general elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina took
place in the context of the serious challenges facing the country:
economic decline; a high level of unemployment; widespread corruption;
and the aftermath of catastrophic floods. These challenges played
an important role in the election campaign. Nevertheless, with rare
exceptions, political parties were largely competing for the votes
of their own ethnic community, despite the fact that the above-mentioned
challenges were the same for all ethnic communities.
27. The campaign officially opened on 12 September and ended at
midnight on 10 October. While campaigning was well regulated by
the election law, it did not include bans on the misuse of administrative resources.
In addition, a new legal amendment enabled State, public and municipal
authorities to provide contestants with free use of premises, often
without ensuring equality in its implementation.
28. Overall, the campaign was visible, although with less intensity
in areas affected by the floods. The campaigning landscape was dominated
by the major political parties: SDA, SBB, SDP, SNSD, SDS, HDZ and HDZ
1990. It included a diversity of activities, such as displaying
billboards and posters, organising public rallies, indoor gatherings
and door-to-door campaigning, as well as distribution of leaflets
and the use of social media.
29. The freedoms of association and assembly were respected and
all electoral contestants were able to campaign without obstruction.
The campaign atmosphere remained calm, with only isolated incidents.
The attendance at rallies was rather low.
30. The representatives of civil society informed the delegation
of cases of misuse of administrative resources in favour of the
ruling parties, including the distribution of aid to victims of
the floods, the lack of transparency concerning the financing of
the election campaign by political parties and the absence of an efficient
control mechanism for this. In this regard, it should be mentioned
that some recommendations adopted by GRECO in 2013 remain unaddressed,
namely the transparency of donations, the auditing competencies
of the relevant State institutions and the lack of effective sanctions.
The new law on conflict of interests, adopted in 2013, was also
flagged as a possible source of problems after the elections.
31. There are a large number of media outlets operating in the
country, but the media environment is segmented along ethnic lines.
Public broadcasters complied with the legal obligation to provide
free airtime to contestants on an equal basis and provided voters
with the opportunity to learn about contestants through debates
and election programmes, but broadcast media coverage was generally
biased. Through the coverage of their official activities, State
officials running as candidates received more coverage in public
media in comparison with other candidates. While the law allowed
the news coverage of State officials without mentioning their candidacy,
it also stated that these officials must not enjoy a privileged
position with respect to other participants in the electoral process.
Achieving the required balance proved to be challenging for several
broadcasters, who gave these political actors a platform for promotion
without countering it with critical views.
5 Election day
32. Election day generally proceeded in an orderly manner,
but some technical irregularities were noted throughout the day,
with a significant deterioration of the process during the counting.
The voting process was assessed as good or very good in 94% of the
polling stations observed by teams of the IEOM. However, the overall
assessment of counting was more negative, with 25% of observed polling
stations assessed as bad or very bad. That seemed to be linked to
PSC members lacking knowledge of procedures and general disorder. In
27 observations significant procedural errors were noted, in 43%
of observations transparent bags were not used, in 41% of observations
PSC accounting forms were not completed before the start of the
count, in 14% of observations protocols were pre-signed by PSC members,
and in 30% of observations results did not tally. However, the transparency
of the counting process was assessed positively in all but 11 polling
stations, even though protocols were not provided to observers in
30% of observed polling stations. Thirteen cases of interference
in the work of the PSCs during the count by citizen and political
observers were reported.
33. The ad hoc committee split into 13 teams which observed the
elections in Sarajevo and its outskirts, as well as in Banja Luka,
Brčko, Goradze, Grbavica, Konjic, Mostar, Pale, Praca, Rogatica,
Srebrenica, Trnovo and Visegrad.
34. The members of the Parliamentary Assembly delegation drew
attention to a number of particular problems in the polling stations
they visited:
- several polling
stations opened late, due to the complexity of the preparations
to be made before polling could start;
- the quality of the polling station committees varied substantially.
Some polling stations in RS were overcrowded. In some polling stations,
IDs were kept by the PSC until the vote was cast, while in most polling
stations IDs were returned after voters signed the voter register;
- overall, polling stations in urban areas functioned better
than in rural areas;
- in the Brčko district, where, for the first time, voters
had to choose an entity citizenship in order to be able to vote,
it was observed that many voters, especially the elderly, were not
properly informed about the new rules, which caused unrest and queuing
in and around polling stations;
- some polling station committees were unaware of the right
of international observers to observe and therefore the access of
a number of teams inside the polling stations was delayed until
the PSC received confirmation by telephone;
- during the afternoon, an observer team witnessed the reception
by a voter who had not yet cast his vote of an anonymous phone call,
asking him to go to vote and instructing him exactly how to vote;
- in a polling station in Sarajevo, the President closed
the voting 15 minutes before the official closing time, despite
the fact that there were voters still queuing and left the premises
taking with him the protocol; he accepted to return to the polling
station only after a member of the observer team managed to convince him
to do so;
- in all polling stations, observers representing political
parties were present; they were not always willing to inform the
ad hoc committee delegations about their political affiliation.
Most observers of the ad hoc committee did not meet observers deployed
by the Pod Lupom election observation organisation, although it
was said that over 3 000 of them would be present in polling stations
throughout the country.
35. On 27 October, the CEC announced the following results, to
be certified on 12 November:
Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosniak member: Bakir Izetbegović (32.87%, elected), Fahrudin
Radončić (26.78%), Emir Suljagić (15.2%), Bakir Hadžiomerović (10.02%),
Sefer Halilović (8.80%), Mustafa Cerić (4.5%)
Croat member: Dragan Čović (52.2%, elected), Martin Raguž
(38.61%), Živko Budimir (6.27%)
Serb member: Mladen Ivanić (48.71%, elected), Željka Cvijanović
(47.56%), Goran Zmijanjac (3.73%)
House of Representatives of Bosnia
and Herzegovina
FBiH: SDA (27.87%, 9 mandates), DF (15.33%, 5), SBB (14.44%,
4), HDZ BiH coalition (12.15%. 4), SDP (9.45%. 3), HDZ 1990 (4.08%,
1), BPS (3.65%, 1), A-SDA (2.25%, 1)
RS: SNSD (38.46%, 6 mandates), SDS (33.64%, 5), PDP-NDP (7.76%,
1), DNS (5.72%, 1), SDA (4.88%, 1)
House of Representatives of the
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
SDA (27.79%, 29 mandates), SBB (14.71%, 16), DF (12.9%, 14),
HDZ coalition (11.93%, 13), SDP (10.14%, 11), HDZ 1990 (4.04%, 4),
BPS (3.72%, 4), SzBiH (3.30%, 3), A-SDA (2.25%, 2), Nasa Stranka
(1.54%, 1), Laburisticka Stranka (0.57%, 1)
President of Republika Srpska
Milorad Dodik (45.22%, elected), Ognjen Tadić (44.19%), Ramiz
Salkić (3.73%, elected Vice-President), Josip Jerković (0.98%, elected
Vice-President)
National Assembly of Republika
Srpska
SNSD (32.24%, 29 mandates), SDS (26.22%, 24 mandates), DNS
(9.23%, 8), PDP (7.37%. 7), Domovina (5.28%, 5), NDP (5.13%, 5),
SP (5.09%, 5)
Cantonal assemblies
Unsko-Sanski Kanton: SDA (32.38%, 11 mandates), A-SDA (16.92%,
5), DF (11.51%, 4), SDP (10.93%, 4), SBB (9.74%, 3), Laburisti (5.43%,
2), ZZP (3.23%, 1)
Posavski Kanton: HDZ BiH coalition (32.92%, 7 mandates), HDZ
1990 (29.69%, 7), SDA (12.14%, 3), Posavska Stranka (6.22%, 1),
HSP BiH-DSI (3.83%, 1), SBB (3.68%, 1), SDP (3.03%, 1)
Tuzlanski Kanton: SDA (32.23%, 13 mandates), SDP (13.7%, 6),
SBB (12.41%, 5), DF (10.96%, 4), SzBiH (8.36%, 3), NSRzB (4.44%,
2), BPS (4.4%, 1)
Zenicko-Dobojski Kanton: SDA (28.60%, 11 mandates), SBB (19.61%,
8), DF (12.56%, 5) SDP (11.36%, 4), HDZ BiH coalition (5.97%, 2),
A-SDA (5.57%, 2), SzBiH (4.44%, 2), BPS (3.91%, 1)
Bosansko-Podrinjski Kanton: SDA (22.03%, 6 mandates), SBB
(18.48%, 5), SzBiH (8.54%, 2), SDP (8.43%, 2), DF (6.77%, 2), Stranka
za Bolje Gorazde (6.34%), BPS (5.86%, 2), Novi Pokret (5.69%, 1),
Stranka Dijaspore (4.79%, 1), LS BiH (4.29%, 1), A-SDA (3.71%, 1)
Srednjo-Bosanski Kanton: SDA (25.7%, 8 mandates), HDZ BiH
coalition (22.76%, 8), SBB (10.97%, 4), SDP (10.87%, 4), DF (8.53%,
3), HDZ 1990 (6.77%, 2), HSP-HSS (3.16%, 1)
Hercegovacko-Neretvanski Kanton: HDZ BiH coalition (32.25%,
11 mandates), SDA (20.83%, 7), HDZ 1990 (9.01%, 3), SBB (8.39%,
3), SDP (7.73%, 3), DF (5.68%, 2), BPS (3.69%, 1)
Zapadno-Hercegovacki Kanton: HDZ BiH coalition (56.56%, 14
mandates), HDZ 1990 (15.07%, 4), HSP BiH-DSI (6.6%, 2), NSRzB (5.61%,
1), HSP Ante Starcevic (4.48%, 1), HKDU-Hrast (3.26%, 1)
Kanton Sarajevo: SDA (25.02%, 10 mandates), DF (17.1%, 7),
SBB (16.65%, 7), SDP (9.4%, 4), NS (7.7%, 3), BPS (4.81%, 2), BOSS
(3.75%, 2)
Kanton 10: HDZ BiH coalition (30.57%, 9 mandates), HDZ 1990
(15.16%, 4), SNSD (11.81%, 3), HNL (7.71%, 2), SDA (7.26%, 2), NSRzB
(5.9%, 2), PSS (5.55%, 2), SDP (4.4%, 1)
36. The voter turnout was 54.14%. This is 2% lower than
in 2010, when it was at 56.3%.
6 Conclusions
and recommendations
37. The 12 October general elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina
were held in a competitive environment but the interethnic divide
was a key factor. The lack of a shared vision of the country’s future
and of co-operation among the three constituent peoples continued
to hinder the reforms necessary to ensure fully democratic elections.
38. The 51 political parties, 14 coalitions and 15 independent
candidates which were certified by the CEC, in a generally inclusive
process, to compete in the State and entity elections in Bosnia
and Herzegovina on 12 October 2014 were able to campaign without
obstruction, and freedoms of association and assembly were respected.
39. The electoral campaigns were largely negative, blaming opponents
for the lack of progress.
40. The lack of political will to move beyond the Dayton agreement
prevented the country from moving away from the current inter-ethnic
divides. Fundamental shortcomings remain, including ethnicity-based
restrictions on candidacy and voting rights that run counter to
Council of Europe standards, in particular with regard to the failure
to implement the 2009 Sejdić and Finci judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights. The ad hoc committee recalls
that the Parliamentary Assembly, in its report on the observation
of the 2010 general elections, had already urged the country’s authorities
to comply with the Sejdić and Finci judgment,
by amending the Constitution and the electoral legislation in order
to prevent the risk of once again setting up national institutions
under conditions incompatible with the European Convention on Human
Rights (ETS No. 5). Regrettably, this has not been done.
41. Otherwise, the legal framework was, for the most part, sufficient
for the conduct of democratic elections, even though the number
of votes needed to win varied significantly from one constituency
to another, violating the principle of equality of the vote.
42. The Central Election Commission generally administered the
elections efficiently and enjoyed the confidence of most electoral
stakeholders. However, there were numerous cases of political parties
and individual candidates engaging in the trading of positions in
polling station commissions to gain greater representation in particular
areas. This sometimes led to political imbalance in commissions
and reduced general confidence in the integrity of the process.
43. There were a large number of media outlets operating in the
country, but the media environment was segmented along ethnic lines.
Public broadcasters complied with the legal obligation to provide
free airtime to contestants on an equal basis and provided voters
with the opportunity to learn about contestants through debates
and election programmes, but broadcast media coverage was in general
biased.
44. The system for regulating campaign finance was not adequate
to ensure transparency and accountability, and the majority of previous
recommendations by GRECO remain unaddressed. The lengthy auditing
process for financial reports and the lack of proportionate sanctions
negated the effectiveness of campaign finance regulations, leaving
violations unaddressed.
45. In addition to the issue of the non-implementation of the
judgment of 22 December 2009 of the European Court of Human Rights
in the case of Sejdić and Finci,
a number of other recommendations remain unaddressed (see paragraph
15 above).
46. The ad hoc committee was surprised to discover that in a number
of polling stations the members of the PSC were reticent in disclosing
their respective political party membership, which only confirms
the need for measures to be taken in order to prevent the trading
of PSC positions and to ensure the political balance of all PSCs.
47. The ad hoc committee also considers that the rule which require
PSCs to announce out loud the voters’ names during the voting process
should be reconsidered, as this was obviously used by observers
of political parties to check which citizens had not yet cast their
votes. This information was passed on to others, who used it to
put pressure on a number of persons who had not voted by early afternoon,
and who were asked to go and vote.
48. Bearing in mind the complexity of the voting process, the
ad hoc committee recommends that in future general elections four
ballot transparent boxes be used, instead of a single one, to prevent
the physical mixing inside the ballot box of ballot papers for different
elections, which proved to be a potential cause for problems during
the separation of the ballot papers for the counting.
49. More generally, the ad hoc committee observed an ever-growing
mistrust of citizens in the functioning of democratic institutions.
This endangers stability and compromises the future of the country.
Without enough public trust democratic institutions cannot function
properly. The ad hoc committee urges all politicians and political
parties in all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina to understand this
mistrust as being a major warning sign for the future of the country,
and to find ways to regain public trust in the functioning of the
democratic institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
50. The Council of Europe stands ready to provide its expertise
and to continue to work with the country to support its efforts
in fulfilling Council of Europe standards.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
Based on proposals by the political groups
in the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Tiny KOX* (Netherlands
UEL), Chairperson of the ad hoc committee
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ-MARINOVIĆ,
Croatia
- Paolo CORSINI, Italy
- Joseph DEBONO GRECH, Malta
- Ute FINCKH-KRAEMER, Germany
- Maria GIANNAKAKI, Greece
- Liliane MAURY PASQUIER, Switzerland
- Melita MULIĆ, Croatia
- Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- David
BAKRADZE, Georgia
- Şaban DIŞLI, Turkey
- Mikael OSCARSSON, Sweden
- European Conservatives Group
(EC)
- Reha DENEMEÇ,*
Turkey
- Tûlin ERKAL KARA, Turkey
- Ingebjørg GODSKESEN, Norway
- Morten WOLD, Norway
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- André
BUGNON, Switzerland
- Margus HANSON,* Estonia
- Alfred HEER, Switzerland
- Kerstin LUNDGREN, Sweden
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Tiny
KOX,* Netherlands
- Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Denmark
- Rapporteur of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Egidijus
VAREIKIS, Lithuania
- Secretariat
- Caroline RAVAUD, Head of the
Secretariat of the Monitoring Committee
- Bogdan TORCĂTORIU, Administrator, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Franck DAESCHLER, Principal Administrative Assistant
- Nicola STEMP, Assistant
* members of the pre-electoral delegation (17-19 September
2014)
Appendix 2 – Programme of
the pre-electoral delegation (17-19 September 2014)
Wednesday
17 September 2014
17:00-17:30 Briefing by Ms Mary-Ann Hennessey, Head of the
Council of Europe Office in Bosnia and Herzegovina
17:30-18:30 Meeting with the Ms Corien Jonker, Head of ODIHR
mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and members of the core team
18:30-19:15 Meeting with Ms Nina Suomalainen, Deputy Head
of the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina
Thursday 18 September
2014
07:00 Departure of the members of the delegation to Banja
Luka
12:30-13:30 Meeting with Mr Mladen Ivanić, President of the
PDP
14:00-14:45 Meeting with Ms Ivana Korajlić, Transparency International
Meetings
with leaders and representatives of the parliamentary groups in
Republika Srpska
15:00-15:30 Meeting with Mr Dragan Ćuzulan, Secretary General
of the SDS
16:00-16:30 Meeting with Mr Željko Mirjanić, MP, Chair of
the SNCD group (National Assembly of Republika Srpska)
16:30-17:00 Meeting with Mr Dragan Čavić, President of the
Democratic Party
17:15 Departure of the members of the delegation to Sarajevo
Friday 19 September
2014
09:00-09:45 Meeting with Mr Vlado Rogić and Mr Suad Arnautović,
members of the Central Election Commission
Meetings
with the representatives of the parliamentary groups
10:00-10:45 Meeting with the Collegium of the Parliamentary
Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Mr Ferid Buljubašić, Secretary General, Parliamentary
Assembly of BiH
- Mr Dragoljub Reljić, Secretary General of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the House of Representatives
11:00-11:30 Meeting with Mr Davor Selak, Secretary General
of HDZ 1990
11:30-12:00 Meeting with Mr Asim Sarajlič, Deputy President,
Chair of the SDA group
14:00-14:30 Meeting with Mr Ante Domazet, MP (House of Representatives),
SDP
14:30-15:00 Meeting with Mr Damir Arnaut, Deputy President
of the SBB, and Mr Fehim Škaljić, member of the main board
Meetings
at the Council of Europe Office in Sarajevo
16:00-16:30 Meeting with representatives of NGOs
- Ms Tijana Cvjetičanin and Mr
Darko Brkan, “Zašto ne” NGO
- Mr Dario Jovanović, coalition “Pod Lupom”
17:00-17:30 Meeting with Ms Karolina Karačić, Deputy President
of the DF
17:30-18:30 Preparation of the text of statement of the pre-electoral
delegation
Appendix 3 – Statement by
the pre-electoral delegation
Strasbourg, 19.09.2014 – 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 preparation of the general elections to be held on 12 October
2014.
The importance of the upcoming general elections in Bosnia
and Herzegovina was pointed out by most interlocutors of the PACE
delegation. The delegation was informed of the serious challenges
facing the country – economic decline, high level of unemployment,
wide spread corruption and consequences of catastrophic floods.
These challenges will play an important role in the campaign, the
delegation was told.
The delegation notes with satisfaction that all political
stakeholders expressed genuine confidence in the Central Election
Commission’s work. Nevertheless, the delegation was informed by
the CEC that there is a certain political pressure – mostly indirect
– to its functioning, i.e by limiting its budget. According to the
CEC, the weakest link is the functioning of the Municipal and Polling
Stations commissions.
The delegation was also informed by some interlocutors about
a risk of possible irregularities on election day such as multiple
voting, vote buying, pressure on electors, especially in rural areas,
potential manipulations, particularly during and after the vote
count. Others see less danger for irregularities. Nevertheless,
the delegation calls on the Central Election Commission, main political
stakeholders and relevant State bodies to assure the neutral work
of all polling stations commissions and to take appropriate measures
to avoid any manipulations.
The delegation regrets that, despite a legal obligation, there
are still significant deviations in constituency size, which makes
the vote weight unequal. This is not in line with the fundamental
principles on equal suffrage of the Council of Europe Venice Commission’s
Code of good practice in electoral matters.
The delegation noted that the media environment is diverse.
Nevertheless, the delegation was also informed that many media outlets
still remain segmented along ethnic and political lines. Public
broadcasters have the obligation to ensure equal access for all
political parties and not to privilege the ruling parties. However,
the delegation also heard allegations, primarily but not only in
Republika Srpska, of possible misuse of administrative resources
and unequal access to public media.
Concerning the financing of election campaigns and political
parties, the PACE delegation pointed out that some recommendations
adopted by the Council of Europe’s Group of States against corruption
(GRECO) in 2013 still remain unaddressed, namely the transparency
of donations, the auditing competencies of the relevant State institutions
and the lack of effective sanctions. The new law on conflict of
interests, which was adopted in 2013, was also flagged as a possible
source of problems after the elections.
The PACE delegation expressed its great concern that, despite
the Assembly’s previous resolutions on incompatibility of the constitution
and election legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights,
the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to amend the constitutional
and legal framework to remove ethnicity and residency based discriminations
with regard to the right to stand for elections to the Presidency and
House of Peoples. As a result, the 12 October general election once
again will be held in violation of the Convention. All interlocutors
of political parties said that this matter will be solved after
the elections – a promise also made 4 years ago.
The delegation had meetings with leaders and representatives
of political parties, with representatives of the collegium of the
BiH Parliamentary Assembly, with the members of the Central Election
Commission, representatives of international community, OSCE/ODIHR
mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as with representatives
of civil society.
The Parliamentary Assembly will send a 32-member delegation
to observe the general elections on 12 October 2014.
Members of the delegation: Tiny Kox (Netherlands, UEL), head
of the delegation; Naira Karapetyan (Armenia, EPP/CD); René Rouquet
(France, SOC); Margus Hanson (Estonia, ALDE); Reha Denemeç (Turkey,
EDG).
Appendix 4 – Programme of
the ad hoc committee (10-13 October 2014)
Friday
10 October 2014
08:30-09:30 Meeting of the ad hoc committee:
- Opening of the meeting and presentation
of the pre-electoral mission’s findings, by Mr Tiny Kox, Head of
Delegation
- Presentation of the recent developments in the field of
electoral legislation and the activities of the Venice Commission
in Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Practical arrangements and logistics, by the Secretariat
Joint briefing
programme with the delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
10:00-10:20 Opening by the Heads of Delegation:
- Mr Roberto Battelli, Special
Coordinator of the OSCE short-term observer mission
- Mr Tiny Kox, Head of the PACE Delegation
- Ms Marietta Tidei, Head of the OSCE PA Delegation
10:20-11:10 Welcoming remarks:
- Ambassador Jonathan Moore, Head of OSCE Mission to BiH
- Ms Nina Suomalainen, Deputy Head of Mission
- Mr Ahmed Rifatbegovic, Political Advisor
- Ms Mary Ann Hennessey, Head of the Council of Europe Office
in BiH
- Mr Michael Doyle, Head of Cabinet and Senior Policy Adviser,
Office of the High Representative
11:10-12:00 Meeting with Mr Stjepan Mikić, Chairperson of
the Central Election Commission of BiH
13:30-14:45 Briefing by Ms Corien Jonker, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission, and her team
14:45–18:20 Meetings with political parties:
- Social Democratic Party of Bosnia
and Herzegovina (SDP BiH) – Ms Lidija Korać, Vice-President
- Union for a Better Future of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SBB)
– Mr Damir Arnaut, Vice-President
- Party of Democratic Action (SDA) – Mr Asim Sarajlić, Vice-President
- Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ)
– Ms Lidija Bradara, Member of HDZ BiH Presidency and Director of
the HDZ Political Academy
- Croatian Democratic Union 1990 (HDZ 1990) – Mr Ante Janković,
International Secretary
- Party of Justice and Trust (SPP) – Mr Aner Šuman, Acting
Secretary
- Union of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) – Mr Dušan
Petrović, Member of the Steering Committee and President of the
Young Social Democrats
- Party for Democratic Progress (PDP) – Mr Zoran Tešanović,
Member of the Presidency
- Serb Democratic Party (SDS) – Mr Predrag Kovač, Vice-President
- Democratic Front (DF) – Mr Željko Komšić, Chairperson
Saturday 11 October
2014
09:30-10:45 Panel discussion with media representatives:
- Regulatory Communication Agency
– Mr Kemal Huseinović, Director General
- BH Novinari – Ms Borka Rudić, Director
- Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Ms Senada
Ćumurović, Assistant Director-General for Education and team leader
for the elections
- Federation TV – Mr Džemal Šabić, Director General
- Radio and Television of Republika Srpska – Ms Tamara Ćuruvija,
Editor of TV Informative Program
- Dnevni Avaz – Mr Tarik Lazović, Deputy, Editor-in-Chief
- Oslobodjenje – Ms Vildana Selimbegović, Editor-in-Chief
- ACIPS – Mr Anes Makul, Chairperson
11:00-12:00 Panel discussion with representatives of NGOs/INGOs:
- Transparency International –
Mr Emir Đjikić, Chairperson
- Centre for Civic Initiatives – Mr Dario Jovanović
- Forum of Tuzla Citizens – Ms Jelena Tanasković, representative
- Pod Lupom – Mr Dario Jovanović, Director
- Center for Investigative Reporting – Mr Kenan Efendić,
Editor
12:00-12:45 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission (observation rorms, Election Day procedures, security)
13:00 Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday 12 October
2014
Observation of the elections
Monday 13 October
2014
08:00-09:00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee (debriefing)
14:00 Joint press conference
Appendix 5 – Statement by
the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
Elections
in Bosnia and Herzegovina held in competitive environment, but interethnic
divide and mistrust remain key factors, international observers
say
Sarajevo, 13 October 2014 – While the 12 October general elections
in Bosnia and Herzegovina were held in a competitive environment,
the interethnic divide was a key factor. The lack of a shared vision
in the country’s future and of co-operation among the three constituent
peoples continues to hinder the reforms necessary to fully ensure
democratic elections, and a growing mistrust in the functioning
of democratic institutions endangers stability, international observers
said in a statement today. At the same time, candidates were able to
campaign freely and fundamental freedoms of expression, association
and assembly were respected.
“Yesterday’s elections demonstrate that Bosnia and Herzegovina
has a legal framework sufficient for conducting democratic elections,”
said Roberto Battelli, the Special Co-ordinator and leader of the
short-term OSCE observer mission. “However, the lack of political
will to move beyond the Dayton agreement prevents the country from
moving away from the current inter-ethnic divides and towards real
progress for the country.”
While the Central Election Commission (CEC) generally administered
elections efficiently and enjoyed the confidence of most electoral
stakeholders, there were numerous cases of political parties and
individual candidates engaging in the trading of positions in polling
station commissions to gain greater representation in particular
areas. This led to some political imbalance in commissions and reduced
trust in the integrity of the process, the statement said.
The legal framework is, for the most part, sufficient for
the conduct of democratic elections, the observers said. However
the lack of political will to move beyond the Dayton Agreement means
that important, long-standing shortcomings remain, including ethnicity-based
restrictions on candidacy and voting rights that run counter to OSCE
and Council of Europe standards, in particular with regard to the
failure to implement the 2009 Sejdić and
Finci judgment of the ECtHR. They also noted that the
number of votes needed to win varies significantly from constituency
to constituency, violating the principle of equality of the vote.
“There is an ever-growing mistrust in the functioning of democratic
institutions, which endangers stability and compromises the future
of the country”, said Tiny Kox, Head of the delegation from the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. “This should be
a major warning sign to all politicians and political parties.”
In a generally inclusive process, the CEC certified 51 political
parties, 14 coalitions and 15 independent candidates to compete
in the State and entity elections. All electoral contestants were
able to campaign without obstruction, and freedoms of association
and assembly were respected. Their campaigns were largely negative,
blaming opponents for the lack of progress.
“Election day was generally well administered and polling
commission members for the most part performed efficiently”, said
Marietta Tidei, Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation.
“The new 40 per cent gender requirement was respected both in the
election administration bodies and in candidate lists. This, unfortunately,
does not necessarily translate into a proportionate gender balance
in the legislative bodies.”
There are a large number of media outlets operating in the
country, but the media environment is segmented along ethnic lines,
the statement said. While public broadcasters complied with the
legal obligation to provide free airtime to contestants on an equal
basis and provided voters with the opportunity to learn about contestants
through debates and election programmes, OSCE/ODIHR election observation
mission media monitoring results substantiated widespread allegations
of bias in broadcast media.
“In observing the entire election process so far, we have
seen that fundamental freedoms have generally been guaranteed”,
said Corien Jonker, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR long-term election observation
mission. “More has to be done, however, to fully ensure democratic
elections. There are still people unable to run as candidates or
vote, based on ethnicity, there is trading of positions on polling
station commissions, and the media landscape suffers from biased
coverage and segmentation along ethnic lines.”
The system for regulating campaign finance is not adequate
to ensure transparency and accountability, and the majority of previous
recommendations by ODIHR and the Council of Europe’s Group of States
against Corruption (GRECO) remain unaddressed. The lengthy auditing
process for finance reports and the lack of proportionate sanctions
negates the effectiveness of campaign finance regulations, leaving
violations unaddressed.
Election day generally proceeded in an orderly manner, but
some technical irregularities were noted through the day, with a
significant deterioration of the process during the counting. The
voting process was assessed as good or very good in 94% of polling
stations observed. The overall assessment of counting was more negative,
with 25% of observed polling station assessed as bad or very bad.
