Observation of the presidential election in Montenegro (7 April 2013)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13217
| 30 May 2013
1 Introduction
1. At the invitation of Mr Ranko Krivokapić, Speaker
of the Parliament of Montenegro, the Bureau of the Assembly decided,
at its meeting on 25 January 2013, to set up an ad hoc committee
to observe the presidential election in Montenegro on 7 April 2013
and appointed Mr Roman Jakić (Slovenia, ADLE) to chair the ad hoc
committee. On 21 March, the Parliament of Slovenia elected Mr Jakić
as a new member of its government (Minister for Defence). The Parliamentary
Assembly was informed by the secretariat of the Slovenian Parliament
that Mr Jakić would not be able to chair that ad hoc committee.
Consequently, on a proposal by the Assembly’s Presidential Committee,
Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) was appointed to the
chair of the ad hoc committee (the membership of the ad hoc committee
is given in Appendix 1).
2. On 4 October 2004, a co-operation agreement was signed between
the Assembly and the European Commission for Democracy through Law
(the Venice Commission). In accordance with Article 15 of that agreement,
which reads: “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. The ad hoc committee formed part of the International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM), which also included the limited election
observation mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE/ODIHR).
4. The ad hoc committee met from 5 to 8 April 2013 in Podgorica,
where it met the two candidates, the Speaker of the Parliament of
Montenegro, the Chair of the State Election Commission (SEC), the
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission and members
of his team, the head of the OSCE mission, the leaders of the European
Commission delegation to Montenegro and representatives of civil
society and the media. The ad hoc committee’s programme of meetings
is set out in Appendix 2. The delegation wishes to thank the staff
of the Montenegrin Parliament and the Montenegrin State Protocol
Department for their excellent co-operation in organising the presidential
election observation mission.
5. On polling day, the ad hoc committee split into five teams
to observe the election in Podgorica, Tuzi, Nikšić, Cetinje, Kolesin,
Ulcin, Bar, Danilovgrad and their surrounding areas.
6. The ad hoc committee concluded that on polling day “the citizens
of Montenegro made their choice in a free way between the two presidential
candidates. This presidential election met many Council of Europe standards
and commitments but, in practical terms, further improvements are
required to ensure an electoral process free from misuse of State
resources”. The Parliamentary Assembly delegation “welcome[d] the
active work of Montenegrin NGOs involved in the electoral process
and invite[d) the authorities to make better use of civil society’s
contributions”. The press release issued after this election appears
in Appendix 3.
2 Political
and legal framework
7. The presidential election was governed by comprehensive
election legislation which provides an adequate overall framework
for the holding of democratic elections. The presidential election
law passed in 2007 contains only specific provisions relating to
this election. It has not been evaluated by the Venice Commission.
In addition to the presidential election law, the texts relevant
to elections are the Constitution, the voters register law and the
law on the funding of political parties (likewise amended in 2012,
mainly in respect of monitoring enforcement of the law by both the
State Election Commission and the State Audit Institution).
8. The election legislation was amended on 8 September 2011 to
bring it into line with the 2007 Constitution. It contains provisions
common to presidential and parliamentary elections, in particular
on registration of candidates, the institution of election commissions
and their responsibilities, voting procedures and the regulatory
framework for complaints and appeals.
9. The election legislation was positively assessed by the Venice
Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR in their last joint opinion on the
bill to amend the law on the election of local councillors and members
of the Montenegrin Parliament.
Note On the whole, the changes
constituted technical improvements to voting and strengthened the
protection of fundamental rights such as non-discrimination.
10. The President of Montenegro is elected by absolute majority,
by direct election and secret ballot, for a five-year term. If no
candidate polls over 50% of the vote in the first round, a second
round is held within two weeks. The candidate polling the largest
number of votes in the second round is then elected.
11. The provisions of the Montenegrin Constitution confer a mainly
representative role on the President, with the Prime Minister –
currently Mr Milo Djukanovic – having more power. The Prime Minister
is appointed by the President with the approval of parliament.
12. The election on 7 April 2013 was the second presidential election
to have been held since the people of Montenegro voted for independence
in a referendum on 21 April 2006. Under Montenegro’s new Constitution, the
President may serve only two terms.
13. On 18 January 2013, Mr Krivokapić, Speaker of the Parliament,
called a presidential election for 7 April. Two candidates stood
for this election: the outgoing president, Mr Filip Vujanović, and
the leader of the opposition Democratic Front, Mr Miodrag Lekić.
A third candidate, Mr Rade Bojovic, head of the Positive Montenegro
political club, failed to obtain the 7 710 signatures needed for
registration by the State Election Commission.
3 Election administration
and registration of lists and candidates
14. Elections are administered in the framework of a
three-tier system of electoral commissions: a State Election Commission
(SEC), 21 Municipal Election Commissions (MECs) and 1 668 polling
boards (PBs). The SEC and MECs are appointed after the newly elected
parliament (brought in on 14 October 2012) is inaugurated, for a
four-year term, while the PBs are appointed for each election of
councillors or members of parliament.
15. Recent amendments to the election law ensure balanced representation
of political parties in the organisation of elections. The 11 members
of the SEC are appointed by parliament, including the Chair and five
members representing the ruling coalition, while the secretary of
the SEC and the other members represent opposition parties. The
ruling coalition holds the majority on 17 of the 21 MECs.
16. The seven members of the MECs are appointed by their own municipal
assembly. The PBs have five members each. In addition to the appointed
members, the SEC, MECs and PBs include representatives of both candidates
on the electoral commissions at the three levels, with voting rights.
Whereas the SEC organises and administers the election process in
its entirety, the PBs organise the actual voting.
17. At their meeting with the Chair and members of the SEC, the
members of the ad hoc committee had the impression that the SEC
took a rather restrictive view of its duties, confining itself to
essentially administrative tasks instead of taking a proactive approach,
in particular with regard to measures to implement the law on the funding
of political parties and to ensuring that the election campaign
was run properly. The SEC limited its work essentially to dealing
with the very small number of complaints it received. However, the
election law gives the SEC the necessary powers to supervise the
implementation of election law. It is also appropriate to point
out that the SEC continues to function with scant administrative
resources and a small secretariat, as provided for in the relevant
provisions of the election law. The SEC’s other activities, such
as printing ballot papers, proceeded in a very transparent manner.
18. According to the latest Montenegro population census in 2011,
the country has 625 266 inhabitants. For the presidential election
on 7 April, there were 511 405 voters on the voters register. Montenegro
has 21 separate voters registers, administered by the municipal
authorities concerned in each case. The process of registering voters
is a passive one, voter data being automatically updated on the
basis of information supplied by the local offices of the Ministry
of the Interior. All citizens must have the right to vote and stand
for election, this being a fundamental right, and the legislation
must lay down all practical arrangements for the exercise of this
right.
19. Every citizen aged 18 on polling day who has established permanent
residence in Montenegro for at least 24 months prior to the ballot,
and who has not been declared incapable by a court of law, is entitled
to vote. According to the joint opinion of the Venice Commission
and the OSCE/ODIHR (adopted in 2011), the 24-month residential condition
was over-restrictive because excessively long.
Note
20. At the meeting with the members of the ad hoc committee on
5 April, the representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
voiced disquiet over the accuracy of the voters register. In accordance with
the election law, the names of non-citizens had to be removed from
the voters register by 31 December 2012. Accordingly, 12 964 names
were removed. Moreover, it was necessary for the first time to present oneself
at the polling station with a new biometric identity card in order
to cast one’s vote. According to data provided by the Ministry of
Computerisation and Telecommunications (MCT), some 30 000 citizens
had not yet obtained new identity cards by election day.
21. The State authorities made significant efforts to update the
voters register. Nonetheless, the representatives of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) involved in the election process, as well as
the opposition parties, continue to raise this issue from one election
to the next. For example, on 3 April, the two presidential candidates
submitted to the Ministry of the Interior evidence of approximately
7 000 suspect names appearing on the voters register. The candidates
requested the Ministry of the Interior to make inquiries and correct
the lists if necessary. Unfortunately, the Ministry of the Interior
was seemingly unable to comply with the deadlines for correcting
any errors. Such a situation does nothing to strengthen the confidence
of political stakeholders and civil society in the democratic nature
of the electoral process.
22. In accordance with the election law, candidates for the presidential
election must obtain the signatures of 1.5% of the electorate. In
the presidential election on 7 April, that percentage would represent
7 710 signatures on the basis of 514 055 voters. No voter may give
his signature to more than one candidate. Voters supporting a candidate
were required to present themselves at the office of the municipal
election commission (MEC) for their area and sign in the presence
of at least two members of that commission representing the ruling
coalition and the opposition.
23. The requirement of signing in the presence of politically
affiliated members of the MEC was noted as disquieting in earlier
election observation reports. The ad hoc committee considers that
this procedure for collecting signatures compromises the concept
of voting confidentiality. It also points out that, according to
the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters,
the required number of signatures should not exceed 1% of registered
voters.
Note The third potential candidate, Mr Rade
Bojovic, collected about 2 000 signatures.
4 The election campaign
and the media environment
24. The start of the election campaign was marked by
controversy over the candidature of the outgoing President, Mr Vujanović,
who had served his first presidential term from 2003 to 2008 when
Montenegro and Serbia formed a single State. Montenegro became independent
in 2006. Since 2007, an amendment to the Constitution has determined
that the head of State may not serve more than two terms. Yet Mr
Vujanović was again elected President of Montenegro in 2008. The
question of his eligibility arose.
25. On 6 March, the Social Democrat Party (SDP), a partner in
the ruling coalition alongside the Democratic Party of Socialists
(DPS), raised the question of Mr Vujanović’s eligibility and candidature.
Mr Krivokapić, President of the SDP, declared that even if the DPS
was convinced that Mr Vujanović’s candidature was valid, his own
party was not of the same opinion.
26. The candidature of the current president was challenged by
a group of citizens who referred the question to the Constitutional
Court on the ground that he had already been elected twice, once
prior to independence in 2006 and again in 2008. The Constitutional
Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the candidature of the
outgoing President. Following the decision of the Constitutional
Court, the SDP, part of the ruling coalition, decided to support
neither of the candidates, even though some of its members challenged
the legitimacy of the candidature of the current President.
27. Mr Vujanović’s campaign theme focussed on continuance of the
government’s policy of economic development and European Union integration.
He also criticised his opponent for having opposed Montenegro’s
independence prior to the 2006 referendum. His candidature had been
backed by the ruling DPS and by the Liberal Party, the Albanian
Coalition, the Bosniak Party and the Croat Civic Initiative.
28. Mr Lekić, the opposition candidate, concentrated his campaign
on lack of progress in fighting corruption and organised crime.
Despite heading the Democratic Front, the largest opposition group
in Montenegro, he decided to stand as an independent candidate in
order to unite all the opposition forces. His candidature was backed
by the main opposition group in parliament, the Democratic Front,
by the Socialist People’s Party, by the Positive Montenegro Party
and by the Serb Democratic Party.
29. The ad hoc committee was informed by the ODIHR limited election
observation mission and by the NGO and media representatives of
cases of alleged vote-buying and of misuse of administrative resources
by the ruling coalition inasmuch as the dividing line between the
activities of the State and the election campaign was blurred. Some
40% of jobs in Montenegro are directly or indirectly tied to the
various public administrations.
30. On 19 February, the opposition daily Dan published
a transcript of a meeting of the board of the ruling DPS party concerning
the election campaign for the parliamentary elections in October
2012. According to the opposition and the NGOs consulted by the
ad hoc committee, its publication was evidence of the growing politicisation
of public administration in Montenegro and of misuse of public funds;
it mentioned instances of DSP sympathisers who had received preferential
treatment in obtaining civil service jobs.
31. On 28 February, following articles in the media, Mr Štefan
Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood
Policy, invited the Montenegrin authorities to investigate any irregularities
during the parliamentary elections in 2012, as well as allegations
of undue influence relating to the voters register.
32. In this connection, the ad hoc committee refers to the conclusions
of the Parliamentary Assembly report on the early parliamentary
elections of 14 October 2012,
Note voicing concern over possible cases
of misuse of administrative resources by parties in power, and pressure
and intimidation employed against teachers and government officials
to vote for the parties in power. The report stated that during
the election campaign the ruling coalition had apparently announced
the creation of 45 temporary civil service posts for its followers.
33. These allegations, which are a matter of constant concern
to the opposition, are alas hard to quantify and especially to prove;
however, the authorities again omitted to take appropriate steps
to throw light on them. A reaction on their part would have strengthened
public confidence in the electoral process.
34. The question of national minorities was among the themes of
the election campaign. Montenegro is a multi-ethnic State and national
minorities still play an important part in the political context,
generally aligning themselves with the ruling coalition. In the
presidential election on 7 April, the Albanian parties made their support
for Vujanović, the outgoing president, conditional on the possibility
of holding a referendum on the status of the town of Tuzi, an area
inhabited mainly by Albanians near the city of Podgorica.
35. On 6 March, the Podgorica assembly agreed to authorise Tuzi
residents to take part in a consultative referendum this summer
or autumn in order to set up an autonomous municipality. The inhabitants
of this area already enjoy powers linked to limited autonomy, but
Tuzi is still part of the city of Podgorica.
36. The funding of political parties and election campaigns is
a longstanding problem. The law on the funding of political parties
and election campaigns was passed in 2011. The members of the ad
hoc committee were informed by NGO and media representatives about
the lack of transparency concerning the funding of the election
campaign and the political parties. This situation also blurs the
dividing line between the activities of State structures and those
of the political parties in power.
37. On 7 December 2012, the Council of Europe’s Group of States
against Corruption (GRECO) adopted its report on Montenegro. The
report notes that the State Election Commission is responsible in
law for publishing financial documents relating to the election
campaign within seven days of the date of receipt of the relevant reports
from candidates. Additional resources should be allocated to the
SEC to enable it to monitor the application of the rules on funding
of political parties. The ad hoc committee noted that the GRECO
report took into account the comments made by the Parliamentary
Assembly’s election observation mission on 14 October 2012 expressing
reservations about the funding of political parties in Montenegro.
38. The media environment is varied, which means that a great
many political views can be presented, but it is divided along political
lines and the economic interests of those who own the media. Despite
the pluralist media environment, most programmes are still heavily
influenced by their proprietors, and this raises questions about
the independence of private sector radio and television broadcasting.
Television is by far the most important source of news and information.
39. According to the report of the ODIHR limited presidential
election observation mission concerning the monitoring of media
coverage of the election campaign, public television devoted political
programmes and news reports to the activities of the Prime Minister
and to other executive bodies, without drawing a clear distinction
between State activities and those related to the election campaign.
The outgoing president Vujanović received 13% of media coverage
and the Lekić candidate 16%, while the Prime Minister and other DPS
party leaders received 18% and 22% respectively and the Democratic
Front 10%. Crna Gora (RTCG), the public radio and television network,
and in particular the RTCG 1 channel, made it possible for voters
to compare the two candidates in the course of a television debate
broadcast on 5 April.
40. The private channels, particularly TV Vijesti, were less well
balanced (that is to say, not as fair), devoting only 8% of air
time to coverage of the activities of the outgoing president and
16% to those of the opposition candidate. The Prime Minister received
14% of air time. The press presented a broad range of opinions.
The private daily Dan gave
generous coverage to the activities of the opposition candidate,
while the State-owned daily newspaper Pobjeda published
numerous articles on the outgoing president’s campaign, often on
a positive note.
5 Polling day
41. Polling day was calm. The members of the ad hoc committee
found that voting took place in an orderly fashion. The voting and
counting operations were generally carried out in a professional
manner.
42. The members of the ad hoc committee identified a number of
minor technical problems in the polling stations visited:
- the design of the booths did
not ensure voting secrecy. Nevertheless, no attempt to take advantage
of this deficiency was noted;
- the ballot boxes were not transparent and there were no
mobile ballot boxes: people who voted at home placed their ballot
papers in envelopes, which did not ensure voting secrecy; in one
polling station visited by the members of the ad hoc committee,
100% of votes cast at home went to the same candidate;
- there were very few observers in polling stations, especially
in rural areas;
- in general, polling stations were not, or not easily,
accessible for people with disabilities;
- cases of unintentional non-compliance with the counting
procedures in certain polling stations were observed, particularly
in rural areas.
43. The polling stations closed at 8 p.m. The headquarters of
the two candidates announced the victory of their respective candidates
before midnight on 7 April. The State Electoral Commission did not
announce the preliminary results of the presidential election until
the end of the day on 8 April. The Parliamentary Assembly’s ad hoc
committee considers it unacceptable that, in a country of 511 405
voters, the SEC should be unable to conduct the count and announce
preliminary results within a reasonable time, as is the case in
a large number of Council of Europe member States where the Parliamentary
Assembly carries out election observation missions. The delay in
announcing the preliminary results created unnecessary tensions
and did nothing to boost the confidence of citizens and political
stakeholders in the electoral process; this remains a major concern.
44. According to the preliminary results of the elections announced
on 8 April by the SEC, the current president, Mr Vujanović, received
51.21% of the total vote with 161 940 votes, and Mr Lekić 48.79%
with 154 290 votes. Turn-out was 63.90%. The opposition candidate,
Mr Lekić, came first mainly in the capital and the major cities,
while Mr Vujanović polled more votes in rural areas and in towns
and localities with a mainly Albanian-speaking population. On 10
April, the representatives of the Democratic Front opposition party
and of the Positive Montenegro party declared that they would boycott
the work of parliament until the final results of the presidential
election were known.
45. Mr Lekić submitted complaints to the State Election Commission
concerning irregularities, including the 11 683 votes cast at home;
according to the opposition candidate, these votes made the difference
between the two candidates. Mr Lekić asked for these votes to be
cancelled. On 15 April, the SEC rejected this complaint as unfounded.
On 19 April, the Constitutional Court decided that the complaints
submitted to the SEC were not founded. On 22 April, the State Election
Commission declared that Mr Vujanović had won the presidential election
on 7 April with 161 940 votes and that Mr Lekić had obtained 154 289
votes.
6 Conclusions
and recommendations
46. The ad hoc committee came to the conclusion that
on polling day the citizens of Montenegro made their choice in a
free way between the two presidential candidates. This election
met many Council of Europe standards and commitments but, in practical
terms, further improvements are required to ensure an electoral process
free from misuse of State resources. Misuse of administrative resources
remains a matter of concern and should be tackled at the earliest
opportunity by the Montenegrin authorities.
47. The ad hoc committee also stressed the active work of the
Montenegrin NGOs involved in the electoral process and invited the
authorities to make better use of civil society’s contributions.
48. Polling day was calm. The members of the ad hoc committee
visited a substantial number of polling stations and were able to
confirm that the ballot proceeded in an orderly manner. The voting
and counting operations were conducted, on the whole, in a professional
manner. However, the ad hoc committee expresses its deep concern
at the SEC’s delay in announcing the preliminary results. It finds
it unacceptable that, in a country of 511 405 voters, the SEC should
be unable to conduct the count and announce preliminary results within
a reasonable time, in order to prevent political tensions on the
day following the ballot and to strengthen the confidence of citizens
and political stakeholders in the electoral process; this remains
a major concern.
49. The ad hoc committee was informed by many people in the ODIHR
limited election observation mission, by NGO representatives and
by the media of cases of misuse of administrative resources by the
parties in power, and of pressure and intimidation employed against
teachers and public civil servants to vote for the candidate backed
by the parties in power.
50. These allegations are repeated from one election to the next.
In this connection, the ad hoc committee observes that the Parliamentary
Assembly, in its report on the observation of the early parliamentary
elections on 14 October 2012, stated: “As the ad hoc committee does
not have the resources to check all these allegations, it asks the
relevant authorities in Montenegro to investigate them and, should
they prove founded, to identify those responsible and inform the
public and the Parliamentary Assembly as quickly as possible.” The ad
hoc committee is concerned to note that the Assembly has received
no information from the Montenegrin authorities following this request.
51. Transparency in the funding of political parties and of the
election campaign remains a problem which the opposition has been
raising for a long time, despite the fact that parliament passed
a law on the subject in January 2012. The ad hoc committee exhorts
the Montenegrin authorities to fully implement the GRECO recommendations
in the report on Montenegro adopted on 7 December 2012.
52. In order to boost the confidence of citizens in the democratic
process, the ad hoc committee invites the Montenegrin authorities,
in close co-operation with the Venice Commission and in the framework
of the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring procedure, to take the
following steps:
- assess the
election law framework in the light of the problems identified during
the early parliamentary elections on 14 October 2012 and the presidential
election on 7 April 2013;
- proactively address the persistent and widespread belief
that a person’s employment prospects in the State sector can be
affected by the way in which that person votes;
- clarify the powers and responsibilities of the different
organs of the executive involved in the electoral process so that
they can initiate their own investigations into election matters
of public concern;
- strengthen the role of the State Election Commission by
allocating the resources needed for it to function effectively;
- conduct investigations into all the allegations of abuse
of administrative resources by the ruling parties and publish the
findings of those investigations;
- strengthen the legal status of government officials in
order to avoid cases of their being subjected to undue pressure
or intimidation during election campaigns or on polling day;
- continue to improve the quality of the voters register;
- implement in full the recommendations of the Assembly
and those of GRECO in its report adopted on 7 December 2012, in
order to increase the transparency of election campaign and political
party funding;
- make a clear distinction between the administration of
the State and the ruling parties;
- improve election legislation in order to guarantee the
right of universal suffrage for all citizens of Montenegro without
the 24-month residence requirement;
- arrange training for polling board members, in particular
in rural areas, so as to improve their command of procedures on
polling day.
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:
- Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom
(EDG), Head of the Delegation
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Egidijus
VAREIKIS, Lithuania
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Grigore
PETRENCO, Republic of Moldova
- Co-rapporteur of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission)
- Secretariat
- Chemavon CHAHBAZIAN, Deputy
to the Head of Secretariat, Interparliamentary Co-operation and Election
Observation Division, Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division, Secretariat of the Parliamentary
Assembly
- Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Administrator, Division for Elections
and Referendums, Venice Commission
Appendix 2 – Programme of
the election observation mission
Friday
5 April 2013
11:00-12:00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee of the Parliamentary
Assembly
13:30 Meeting with Mr Ranko Krivokapić, Speaker of the Parliament
of Montenegro
14:00-14:30 Meeting with Ambassador Lubomir Kopaj, Head of
the OSCE Mission, and Mr Alberto Camarata, Head of the political
section of the delegation of the European Union in Montenegro
14:30-15:30 Meeting with Ambassador Boris Frlec, Head of the
ODIHR limited mission and members of his team
15:30-16:30 Meeting with representatives of the media:
- Ms Marina Vukovic, Editor-in-Chief
of the First Channel, RTCG
- Mr Radojica Bulatovic, Director, Radio Crna Gora
- Mr Mihailo Jovovic, Editor-in-Chief, Vijesti
- Mr Milka Tadić Mijović, Executive Director, Monitor
- Mr Mladan Milutinovic, Editor-in-Chief, Dan
- Ms Aleksandra Pavicevic, TVCG
16:45-17:45 Meeting with representatives of civil society:
- Mr Zlatko Dedovic, CEMI
- Mr Emir Kalac, CEDEM
- Mr Marko Sošic, Institute Alternativa
- Mr Vuk Maras, MANS (Network for the Affirmation of the
Non-governmental Sector)
- Ms Vanja Calovic, MANS
17:45-18:30 Meeting with Mr Ivan Kalezic, President of the
CEC, and Mr Milicav Coric, Secretary of the CEC
Saturday 6 April
2013
Meeting with the presidential candidates:
11:30-12:30 Mr Miodrag Lekić, Leader of the “Democratic Front”
12:30-13:30 Mr Filip Vujanović, Democratic Party of Socialists,
President of Montenegro
14:00-15:00 Meeting with drivers and interpreters: deployment
Sunday 7 April
2013
7:00-20:00 Observation of the elections
After 20:00 Observation of the closing and counting
Monday 8 April
2013
9:30-11:00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee
12:30-13:30 Press conference
Appendix 3 – Declaration
of the presidential election observation mission
Montenegro
election professionally and efficiently administered, but allegations
of misuse of State resources persist, observers say
Strasbourg, 08.04.2013 – Montenegro’s presidential election
on 7 April was professionally and efficiently administered, but
allegations of the misuse of State resources and a blurring of the
line between State activities and candidate campaigning continued
to be at odds with OSCE commitments and Council of Europe standards,
international observers said in a statement issued today.
Candidates were able to campaign freely and without undue
restriction, and freedom of speech, movement and association were
mostly respected throughout the campaign. At the same time, mistrust
in public institutions and the judiciary diminished public confidence
in the electoral process, the statement said.
While the State Election Commission operated professionally
and met legal obligations, the transparency and accountability of
lower-level election commissions, as well as information about their
activities, was limited.
“From a technical standpoint, the election was administered
in an efficient manner, and fundamental rights were mostly respected.
At the same time, allegations of irregularities and an atmosphere
of mistrust in the lead-up to the vote had a negative effect,” said
Boris Frlec, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation
Mission (LEOM). “Measures to enhance confidence in public institutions
need to be taken to improve this atmosphere and to contribute to
the improvement of the election process in Montenegro.”
“Yesterday, the citizens of Montenegro made their choice
in a free way between two presidential candidates. This presidential
election met many Council of Europe standards and commitments but,
in practical terms, further improvements are required to ensure
an electoral process free from misuse of State resources. The PACE
delegation welcomes the active work of Montenegrin NGOs involved
in the electoral process and invites the authorities to make better
use of civil society’s contributions,” said Christopher Chope, the
Head of the PACE delegation. “Our Assembly will continue its close
co-operation with the Montenegrin authorities, through its monitoring
procedures and the Venice Commission, for the further consolidation
of democracy.”
The authorities made significant efforts to implement necessary
changes to the voters register, but there continued to be public
concern over its accuracy. The authorities acknowledged that a limited
number of discrepancies remained, while allegations of inaccuracies
were largely unsubstantiated.
The legal framework for the presidential election generally
provides an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections,
but harmonisation of applicable legislation would eliminate gaps
and provide further clarity, particularly with regard to campaign
finance and the media, the observers said.
Reforms to legislation on presidential campaign financing
are required to enhance transparency, as well as to address the
lack of independent oversight and the disproportionate reimbursement
of campaign funds spent by the winner of the election.
The media monitored by the OSCE/ODIHR long-term election observation
mission provided voters with a range of information and opinions,
and the public broadcaster met its legal obligations to provide
free airtime to the candidates on equal terms. Unbalanced reporting
on the activities of government officials in news programmes was
noted, however, and there was no effective independent body with
the authority to monitor media reporting and its compliance with
legislation, the statement said.
In the limited number of polling stations observed on election
day, election commissions were procedurally well prepared and the
voting process was administered efficiently. Both counting and tabulation
of votes appear to have been conducted in a transparent and efficient
manner, although further regulation of tabulation procedures is
needed.
