Observation of the early parliamentary elections in Bulgaria (5 October 2014)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13642
| 17 November 2014
- Author(s):
- Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
- Rapporteur :
- Ms Doris FIALA,
Switzerland, ALDE
1 Introduction
1. The early parliamentary elections of 5 October 2014
in Bulgaria were held only seventeen months after the similar elections
of 12 May 2013, which had brought a change in the government but
did not help to solve the political and economic crisis in the country.
2. Already before the official resignation of Plamen Oresharski’s
government on 23 July 2014, the Bureau of the Assembly decided,
at its meeting on 23 June 2014, to observe the forthcoming elections,
subject to the receipt of an invitation from the caretaker government.
It formed an ad hoc committee to this end, 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). The Bureau also authorised a pre-electoral mission.
At its meeting on 27 June, the Bureau approved the composition of
the ad hoc committee and authorised the President of the Assembly
to appoint the chairperson of this ad hoc committee.
3. On 5 August, President Rosen Plevneliev dissolved the National
Assembly and called for early parliamentary elections to be held
on 5 October. On 6 August, a caretaker government led by Mr Georgi Bliznashki
was sworn in. On 11 August, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly
received an invitation for the Assembly to observe these early elections.
4. At its meetings on 2 and 29 September, the Assembly’s Bureau
approved the final composition of the ad hoc committee. The date
of these elections coinciding with the October part-session of the
Assembly, only ten members of the ad hoc committee could finally
participate in this mission (see Appendix 1).
5. In pursuance of Article 15 of the Agreement signed in 2004
between the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission for
Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission), the Bureau invited
a member of the Venice Commission to join the ad hoc committee as
an adviser. The Venice Commission was represented by Mr Oliver Kask
(Estonia).
6. 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 18 and 19 September. The
pre-electoral delegation, representing three of the Assembly’s five
political groups, comprised Ms Doris Fiala (Switzerland, ALDE),
Chairperson, Mr Zbigniew Girsyinski (Poland, EPP/CD) and Ms Olga-Nantia
Valavani (Greece, UEL). The statement issued by the pre-electoral
delegation at the end of its mission is reproduced in Appendix 2.
7. The ad hoc committee observed the elections as part of the
International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), which also comprised
a Limited Election Observation Mission (LEOM) conducted by the Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR), led by Ambassador
Audrey Glover.
8. The ad hoc committee met in Sofia from 2 to 6 October 2014
and held meetings with the leaders and representatives of the main
parties taking part in the elections, the head of the OSCE/ODIHR
mission and members of its staff, the chair and members of the Central
Election Commission, and representatives of civil society and the
media. The programme of the ad hoc committee’s meetings appears
in Appendix 3.
9. On election day, the ad hoc committee split up into seven
teams to observe the elections in the following cities: Sofia and
the surrounding area, Blagoevgrad, Kiustendil, Montana, Pazardzshik
and Plovdiv.
10. The International Election Observation Mission stated that
the early parliamentary elections of 5 October 2014 “were well administered
technically and fundamental freedoms were respected, but allegations
from all sides of vote buying and selling and other election irregularities,
as well as a campaign that lacked substance continued to negatively
affect public confidence in the integrity of the process”. The IEOM
press release published following the elections is reproduced in
Appendix 4.
2 Political
context
11. The previous early parliamentary elections of 12
May 2013 were brought forward following nationwide protests over
high energy prices, low standards of living and corruption. Despite
popular discontent, the former governing party Citizens for European
Development of Bulgaria (GERB), led by Mr Boyko Borisov, gained
over 30% of the votes cast and 97 seats of the 240-seat National
Assembly. Nevertheless, it fell short of a majority and consequently
the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP)-led minority government took
office with Mr Plamen Oresharski at the head.
12. The new government had only half the seats in parliament and
the fragile minority coalition became rapidly dependent on the ultranationalist
Ataka party. This dependency, as well as numerous controversial decisions
and political scandals, five no confidence votes and the meagre
result of 18.94% of the BSP at the European elections in May 2014,
prompted the early collapse of the Oresharski government.
13. Among the key decisions for which the government was criticised
was the attachment of the new Directorate General to combat organised
crime to the State Agency for National Security (DANS), modification of
the regulations on the nomination of the Agency’s director without
the recommendation from the President and the subsequent appointment
to this post, on 14 June 2013, of Mr Deljuan Peevski, owner of the
New Bulgarian media group and a controversial MP (accused of corruption
in the past). This heralded the longest popular protests in Bulgaria’s
contemporary history, lasting for 340 days. Nevertheless, the almost
year-long street protests did not generate new political parties,
nor did any existing political party take the lead.
14. In June 2014, Bulgaria lived through a financial crisis, after
information had leaked of the imminent bankruptcy of several banks,
notably the Corporate Commercial Bank (CTB) and the First Investment
Bank, respectively 4th and 3rd in the country. The CTB, initially
a small bank which had in a very short time become a bank holding
large stakes of public funds and most of the country’s politicians’
deposits at unsustainably high interest rates, was provisionally
closed on 20 June 2014 and placed under the supervision of the Central
Bank. Complex negotiations among the institutions and the intervention
of the European Union calmed the situation, even if there is no
lasting solution yet and the money of over half a million citizens
and companies is blocked in the bank.
15. The lack of an effective social and health policy was arguably
the main reason for the 2013 early elections. The Cabinet of Oresharski
took an extra 3 billion BGN of national debt, yet it failed to use
even part of this sum for supporting the health system, with a number
of hospitals expected to close down this autumn.
16. The government’s announcement of the re-launching of the construction
of a nuclear power plant in Belene, as well as that of the South
Stream gas pipeline to be financed by Russia, further fuelled public discontent.
The European Union reacted to this by questioning the legality of
this decision. Opposing views and reactions towards Bulgaria’s energy
independence – between Russia and the European Union – thus became one
of the key issues in the election campaign.
17. The above, mixed with a more general perception of political
corruption, pressure and “trade with influence” within the judicial
system contributed to the further deepening of public mistrust towards
State institutions. Of the over 500 cases of investigation of vote
buying reported before the May 2013 early elections, only eight
cases have been taken to court and only one person has been given
a prison sentence. Investigations into the recent devastating floods
have stalled and there are still no clear messages to the public as
regards their deposits in the CTB bank. The recent case of tax cheating
of a vice-speaker of the parliament further brought the issue of
the ethics of the Bulgarian political elite into electoral campaign
debate.
3 Legal framework
18. The 5 October 2014 early parliamentary elections
were the first under the new Election Code adopted in March 2014
and amended in April 2014.
19. On 26 November 2013, the Bulgarian National Assembly asked
the Venice Commission to prepare an opinion on a draft new Election
Code of Bulgaria. The Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR decided
to provide a joint legal opinion on the draft Code, which was assessed
as providing “a sound legal basis for the conduct of democratic
elections”.
NoteNote Prior to its adoption, however, the
draft new Election Code was vetoed by President Plevneliev within
the parliamentary procedure. He was concerned about the procedure
for the formation of the CEC, the voter registration system, the
introduction of the machine voting system and the rules for preference
vote in different types of elections. The veto was overridden by
the parliament on 4 March, which enacted the new Election Code some
two months ahead of the European Parliament elections.
20. The OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission underlined positive
changes in the draft Code, which included inter
alia: balanced appointment and composition of election
administration as a whole; balanced leadership positions in election
commissions; reduced electoral deposits and signature requirements
for registering independent candidates and political parties; clarified
deadlines for appealing denials of candidate registration; and the
possibility to appeal Central Election Commission decisions to the
Supreme Administrative Court.
21. The electoral system was also to some extent modified. The
National Assembly is a unicameral body consisting of 240 members
elected through a proportional system from 31 multi-mandate constituencies.
The new Code introduced single preference voting for candidates
on a list (open list voting). A candidate may benefit from the preference
vote if the number of votes received is at least 7% of the votes
cast for the candidate’s list. The electoral threshold is 4% of
valid votes at national level, while independent candidates have
to pass the electoral quota calculated on the basis of the Hare-Niemeyer
method.
22. Nonetheless, some outstanding issues remain, which were already
pointed out in the 2013 election observation report as well as in
the Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR. These recommendations
concerned:
- improving the method
of allocation of seats for MPs at parliamentary elections;
- improving the voter registration procedure and reinforcing
the accuracy of voter lists;
- reducing restrictions on voting rights of prisoners;
- removing restrictions on voting for people with dual citizenship;
- improving the procedure of complaints/appeals and the
effectiveness of this mechanism;
- strengthening the authority of the National Audit Office
to check the accuracy of campaign finance reports;
- allowing the use of minority languages in electoral campaigns.
23. There also continues to be a significant disparity between
the number of voters in the various constituencies, which is contrary
to the constitutional principle of equal votes and the provisions
of the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters
which states that the maximum admissible departure from the distribution
criterion adopted should never exceed 15%.
NoteNote This
matter was challenged before the Constitutional Court by 70 members
of parliament, but was rejected. The pre-electoral delegation raised
this issue with the President of the Constitutional Court but did
not receive any clarification on the matter. The new preference
vote has not met with the approval of all political forces. Representatives
of GERB indicated at the meeting with the ad hoc committee that
if they were to come back to power, they would introduce further amendments
to the Election Code in order to return to the closed list system.
4 Administration
of the elections, drawing up of electoral rolls and registration
of political parties
24. Upon taking office on 6 August, the caretaker government
set as its priority the carrying out of free and fair elections
and the easing of social tension. In order to help boost citizen
confidence in the electoral process, the government set up a Consultative
Board, with the participation of non-governmental organisations
active in electoral matters. The existence of this consultative
body was much appreciated by most interlocutors of the ad hoc committee.
4.1 Election administration
25. The election administration in Bulgaria operates
at three levels: the Central Election Commission (CEC), 31 district
election commissions (DECs) and 11 726 precinct election commissions
(PECs). An additional 428 PECs were established
for voters abroad and 96 for mobile voting.
26. The CEC, which is a permanent body, is composed of 18 members
nominated by the parliamentary parties and coalitions as well as
one member proposed by each of the parties and coalitions that have members
of the European Parliament elected from their candidate lists but
are not represented in the national parliament. It leads to a total
of 20 members for the current CEC. The CEC members have a five-year
mandate. All election administration levels are formed based on
political nominations. The organisational and technical preparation
and security of the elections, including for equipment, consumables
and voting machines are implemented by the Council of Ministers
and the CEC.
27. Out of 20 members of the CEC appointed for these elections,
the chairperson, the two deputies, the secretary and seven other
members were women.
28. Both the pre-electoral and main mission delegations considered
that the CEC worked in an efficient and professional manner, which
was also confirmed by the OSCE/ODIHR LEOM. Its meetings were streamed online
on its website in a timely manner, contributing to the transparency
of the way it operates. Some complaints were nevertheless voiced
by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and candidate parties that their
complaints were not dealt with at the required speed or forwarded
in the prescribed time frame to the Supreme Administrative Court.
29. The CEC launched a nationwide voter education campaign comprising
explanations on voting procedures on the new preference vote system.
Some NGOs voiced concern over the limited information available.
The video clip produced to explain the new voting bulletins was
broadcast at least 176 times on national television, but it was
deemed too fast and complicated to follow by part of the population.
4.2 Voter registration
30. All Bulgarian citizens aged 18 years or older on
election day have the right to vote, except those serving a prison
sentence, regardless of the severity of their crime.
NoteNote Voter registration
is passive. Voter lists are compiled based on data from the national
population register
Note and are available for public
scrutiny 40 days before election day. Voters could verify their
data online and in designated display areas at the local administration,
and they could amend their registration records between 25 August
and 27 September.
31. The accuracy of the voter list has been a source of polemic
for decades now. According to the CEC, the voter register included
6 901 072 voters, which is an inexplicably high number for a population
of 7.4 million. Several parties drew the delegation’s attention
to possible “dead souls” in the voter lists. Some questioned the accuracy
of the 2011 census as well.
32. Voters abroad were able to register for out-of-country voting.
Based on these requests, 167 out-of-country PECs were established;
in addition, 261 PECs were established in locations where there
were over 100 voters in any election during previous five years.
Voters abroad could also vote without prior registration, which
several interlocutors raised concern over, for this system does
not establish sufficient safeguards against possible multiple voting.
4.3 New voting technologies
33. The new Election Code provides for the use of new
voting technologies in a controlled environment. The first pilot
project with 100 voting machines took place in the May 2014 European
Parliament elections. For the October elections, the CEC carried
out a second pilot project whereby voters in 300 polling stations
from five constituencies (Kyustendil, Pernik, Pleven, Plovdiv and
Sofia) had the possibility to use touch screen devices. The test
was restricted to voting and counting, without direct transmission
of results to the tabulation centres. The PECs concerned had to
print the results from each machine and fill in the results by hand
on a paper results protocol. The machine voting results were not
counted as official.
34. The provider was responsible for the implementation of the
test. The OSCE/ODIHR and several interlocutors pointed out that
no audit of hardware or software had been requested by the caretaker government,
CEC or any third party authorised entity. In the general atmosphere
of mistrust, there seemed to be little trust towards new technologies
in the voting process.
4.4 Candidate registration
35. According to the new Election Code, political parties
and coalitions are required to register with the CEC by providing
a set of documents, a deposit of BGN 2 500, and the supporting signatures
of at least 2 500 voters. Registered contestants present their candidate
lists to the DECs.
36. The CEC registered 18 political parties, 7 coalitions and
3 independent candidates (way down from the 63 parties – of which
25 formed seven coalitions – and 2 independent candidates at the
May 2013 elections). A total of 6 034 candidates ran for the 240-seat
parliament, an average of 25 contestants per seat.
37. The members of the ad hoc committee were not informed of any
difficulties with candidate registration.
5 The election campaign
and the media environment
5.1 Campaign environment
and funding
38. The official electoral campaign for these early elections
started on 5 September and developed in a climate of voter fatigue
after two successive elections and mistrust towards politics and
political parties at all levels: by the public towards parties and
politicians, between parties and within the parties, generated in particular
by the newly introduced preference vote.
39. The electoral campaign remained low-key and lacked substance
or concrete proposals for the country to exit from the crisis. The
campaign seemed to concentrate more on allegations of vote buying
and controlled voting by adversaries than on political programmes.
The winner (GERB) appeared obvious; what was left open in the campaign
was mainly the question of whom the winner would form a coalition
with.
40. As was reported by the OSCE/ODIHR long-term observers, at
times the campaign of some parties used inflammatory language, especially
against the Turkish and Roma minorities and the setting-up of polling stations
in Turkey (136 in total). The coalition Patriotic Front filed a
complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court against opening polling
stations in Turkey and other countries, while Bulgaria without Censorship reportedly
blocked three check-points at the Bulgarian border to Turkey in
order to “stop the import of voters from Turkey”. The CEC banned
one racist campaign poster of the Bulgarian National Union – New
Democracy (BNS-ND) and four campaign videos of BNS-ND, MRF, Ataka
and the Greens.
Note
41. On 8 September, 16 of the 25 contestants signed an “Integrity
Pact for Free, Fair and Democratic Elections”, by which they committed
themselves not to register party members, proxies or “paid observers”
on behalf of civil society organisations, to initiate strong actions
against vote buying and controlled voting, to provide additional
training for their representatives at precinct election commissions
(PECs) and to provide accurate information on donations during the
election campaign. However, the delegation noted that this document
had by and large only a symbolic value. The delegation was informed,
for example, of numerous dubious cases of registered observer NGOs
either bearing the same or a clearly indicative name as a political party,
for example “Bulgaria without Censorship” or “Protection for Rights
and Freedoms”, or having in principle nothing in common with elections,
for example the “Club of Sommeliers” or the “Speed-racing Club”.
42. 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, most if not all
political parties were involved in this form of election fraud. It was claimed that vote buying
and especially controlled voting were primarily carried out in ethnically
mixed areas, although some admitted that vote buying was transcending
the more traditional ethnic lines and was becoming widespread among
poorer strata of the population.
43. The delegation’s attention was also drawn to the fact that
parties did not adequately inform their voters about the preference
vote or encourage them to use this option. Representatives of GERB
campaigned openly against the new system, promising to change it
if they came back to power.
44. Some parties/coalitions and NGOs voiced their concern that
their complaints had not been treated in time, which the delegation
could not verify. According to OSCE/ODIHR, despite some 300 reported irregularities,
there were only two criminal prosecutions prior to election day.
This contributed to a climate of impunity, mistrust and a lack of
accountability.
45. The latter is further enhanced by opaque campaign financing.
According to election legislation, donations are limited to BGN
10 000 per person and campaign expenditure by a political party
or a coalition is limited to BGN 3 million; for an independent candidate
to BGN 0.2 million. Final reports on campaign funding and expenses
are submitted to the National Audit Office (NAO) within 30 days
after election day. However, the NAO has no deadline for completing
their audits and sanctions for non-compliance with campaign finance regulations
remain low and thus insufficiently discouraging.
46. Parties and coalitions in parliament are entitled to public
funding in proportion to the number of valid votes received previously.
Also all those parties which received at least 1% of valid votes
nationwide in the last parliamentary elections receive some public
funding. Contestants not entitled to public funding receive funds for
media advertisements, amounting to BGN 40 000 for parties/coalitions
and BGN 5 000 for independent candidates.
5.2 Media environment
47. Overall, Bulgaria has a pluralist media landscape
offering freedom of expression. However, the role of the media in
the election campaign remains of concern. 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. OSCE/ODIHR IEOM media monitoring showed that 80%
of the political advertisements on broadcast media and 87% in print
media were purchased by the eight parties that receive public funding.
48. Unpaid campaign time was limited to public television and
radio, while in private media almost everything had to be paid for.
Bulgarian National Television (BNT) and Bulgarian National Radio
(BNR) devoted only 21 minutes in their prime time newscasts to all
contestants. Political parties had to pay large sums of money –
the same for all – for almost all broadcasts relating to their campaign,
including debates on public broadcasting channels.
49. There are some reservations about the independence of the
media from undue political and economic influence. 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.
50. Current legislation stipulates that the election campaign
must be conducted only in Bulgarian, a fact criticised in previous
Assembly reports as well as in the Venice Committee and OSCE/ODIHR
opinions. According to the 2011 census, 8.8% of the population are
of Turkish origin and approximately 4.9% are Roma. Minorities are
seen as being among the most vulnerable to electoral irregularities.
Bulgaria has ratified the Council of Europe Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities (ETS No. 157). 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 of all, media and printed materials
51. The Assembly delegation, while acknowledging the right of
national minorities to conduct election campaigns in their mother
tongue, would nevertheless reiterate the point made in several previous
reports 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 worrying phenomenon
in ethnically mixed areas. Poverty is a fertile breeding ground
for buying and controlling votes, and so is the lack of education
and knowledge of the language of the country, which keeps the population
dependent on the grey economy and the influence of those who manipulate
them.
6 Polling day and
election results
52. The seven teams of the Assembly delegation observed
in 67 polling stations in six regions (Blagoevgrad, Kyustendil,
Montana, Pazardzshik, Plovdiv and Sofia), mostly in urban but also
in rural areas, many teams concentrating on ethnically mixed areas.
They found the election day calm and generally well run. In all
but two PECs, the overall assessment of the functioning of polling
stations was very good or good. Nonetheless, the delegation identified
a number of irregularities and minor technical problems in the polling
stations they visited.
53. First, as regards the voting process, because of the rather
cumbersome procedure of the ballot needing to be stamped for the
second time after voting in the booth – it was often interpreted
that only one voter could vote at a time. Some members of the delegation
calculated that, on average, two minutes were needed to pass all
the stages, which is too much considering the average number of
voters registered per PEC (between 800 and 1 000). Moreover, the
small size of several polling stations and only having one polling
booth per polling station did not contribute to speeding up the
process.
54. Although the PEC members appeared well trained, many had difficulties
understanding the procedure of clipping the serial number of ballots,
sometimes cutting them before voters entered the polling booth.
Voters did not always fold their ballots enough to guarantee the
secrecy of the vote. The system of PEC commissioners touching the
ballots after the vote done in the polling booth may need to be
revised in the future.
55. In several predominantly Roma-populated areas, unauthorised
persons were present in the polling station.
56. The delegation was surprised by the absence of non-partisan
election observer NGOs in polling stations. Only one team reported
back having seen two NGOs observing the procedures. The “unified”
system of badges introduced for these elections, whereby it was
impossible to visually distinguish between party representatives and
proxies, independent observers or international observers, created
some confusion as well as commotion, as many party observers moved
in and out of the PECs as they pleased. In the Stolipinovo area
in Plovdiv, some party observers were not able to say for which
party they were observing.
57. The counting process turned out to be problematic in some
PECs. Rules were not strictly followed but a “pragmatic” approach
was usually taken as counting preference votes was expected to be
long. The team observing vote counting in the Lulin area (PECs Nos.
71 and 74) reported that the leadership of the counting process
had been taken over by an unauthorised person, who turned out to
be the mayor of a neighbouring municipality. In Plovdiv (PEC No.
47) the commissioners asked a person from a neighbouring PEC to
help with filling in protocols.
58. The results protocols were long and complicated. Most teams
observed that PEC members took more time filling in the protocol
than for the counting itself.
59. All in all, the delegation was concerned about the high proportion
of invalid ballots due to confusion with the “mixed” ballots presenting
a list of parties/coalitions in one column and the numbers of preference
votes in another. Marking both on one side automatically invalidated
the ballot. In polling stations observed, the amount of invalid
ballots varied from 8% to 30% of the votes cast. This indicates
that more should have been done for voter education.
60. Most teams heard of possible vote buying as an “open secret”;
some indicated that up to 100 000 votes could have been traded,
but this is impossible to prove. NOVA TV station broadcast a hidden
camera recording vote buying. In two predominantly Roma-populated
quarters in Sofia (Lulin) and Plovdiv (Stolipovo), observing teams
suspected controlled voting. In the latter, in the ten polling stations
in one schoolhouse, the vast majority of votes went to one preference
candidate who is a well-known local Roma leader. On election day,
the CEC received 190 “alerts” and 31 complaints (published before
the close of the vote). At the time of writing, the Assembly’s delegation
was not aware whether these concerned also vote buying.
61. On 9 October, the CEC announced the official results of the
early parliamentary elections. Eight parties and coalitions passed
the threshold of 4% (131 327 votes).
- GERB – 84 MPs (32.67%),1 072 491 votes
- BSP – 39 MPs(15.40%), 505 527 votes
- Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) – 38 MPs (14.84%),
487 134 votes (receiving around 60 090 votes from Turkey of a total
of around 135 000 votes from abroad)
- Reformists block – 23 MPs (8.89%), 291 806 votes
- Patriotic Front – 19 MPs (7.28%), 239 101 votes
- Bulgaria without censorship – 15 MPs (5.69%), 186 938
votes
- Ataka – 11 MPs (4.52%), 148 262 votes
- Alternative for Bulgarian Revival (ABV) – 11 MPs – (4.15%),
136 223 votes
62. Voter turnout was 48.66%, the lowest since the collapse of
the totalitarian system of governance in 1989. The total number
of voters' signatures in the voter register was 3 500 585 and the
number of ballots cast was 3 501 269. The number of valid ballots
was 3 283 192 and the number of invalid ones was 218 125 (6.6%).
63. Although these elections doubled the number of parties in
the National Assembly, it did not bring much freshness to the political
scene; rather it confirmed certain trends: the capacity of GERB
and MRF parties to draw on loyal electorates and the inability of
civil society members to propose a viable alternative to the traditional
parties. Despite the prevailing cynicism when it comes to political
figures, most Bulgarian citizens were not yet prepared to reward
civil society actors with a high level of trust. Furthermore, despite
the politicisation of everyday discourses due to the 2013 anti-Borisov
and 2013-2014 anti-Oresharski protests, the demonstrations did not
encourage a substantial proportion of the population to go to the
voting booths.
64. Notwithstanding the above trends, the election results indicated
a degree of polarisation of the society. Two nationalistic parties
Patriotic Front and Ataka, as well as a populist Bulgaria without
Censorship garnered 45 seats in the new composition of the National
Assembly.
65. All in all, the early elections have so far failed to achieve
a breakthrough in the political deadlock. At the moment of finalising
this report, a month after these early elections, the political
forces are still in difficult coalition negotiations, with a most
likely scenario of a new minority government being formed between
GERB and the Reformist Bloc. The date for new early elections is
already being discussed. It is regrettable that the various pleas
by President Plevneliev, European partners or our own delegation
to the political forces in the country to set aside their differences
and put the national interests above party-political power considerations have
gone unheeded.
66. The 43rd composition of the National Assembly held its opening
session on 27 October.
7 Conclusions
and recommendations
67. The International Election Observation Mission stated
on 6 October that, although Bulgaria’s early parliamentary elections
on 5 October 2014 were well administered technically and fundamental
freedoms were respected, allegations from all sides of vote buying
and selling and other election irregularities, as well as a campaign
that lacked substance continued to negatively affect public confidence
in the integrity of the process.
68. The low voter turnout combined with the relative success of
extreme right-wing parties is a worrying sign of growing mistrust
towards the political system. Civil society must be encouraged to
participate in the democratic process. The Bulgarian people need
to be aware that a lack of participation is equivalent to reduced democratic
control over political power.
69. The ad hoc committee finds that as a European Union member
State and one of the first countries of central and eastern Europe
to have entered the Council of Europe in 1992, Bulgaria should strive
for excellence in electoral practices. “Trust” is the key word that
the country needs to build on, and this can only be achieved through
eradication of corrupt practices, including in electoral matters.
Any new government would need to be extra attentive to the mood
of ordinary citizens and formulate a clear programme for the governance
of the country in co-operation with the rest of the parties, if
it is to fulfil its full mandate.
70. In order to restore and strengthen citizen trust in the democratic
process, the Parliamentary Assembly ad hoc committee encourages
the Bulgarian authorities, in close co-operation with the Venice
Commission and as part of the Assembly’s post-monitoring dialogue,
to adopt a number of measures:
71. First, as regards the legal framework, the Assembly delegation
considers that while the current legal framework for elections provides
a sound basis for the holding of democratic elections, the new authorities
will have to take further steps to review a number of outstanding
concerns, among them:
- the disenfranchisement
of prisoners, regardless of the severity of their crime, which is
contrary to international legal documents and the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights;
- the restrictions on voting for persons with dual citizenship;
- the requirement that campaigning must be conducted only
in the Bulgarian language, which may deprive minorities of the opportunity
to promote their effective participation in public affairs through
election processes;
- the impossibility for ordinary citizens to challenge the
results of parliamentary elections (this right only being available
to political parties and contestants and only through the institutions
stipulated in the Constitution).
72. Second, as regards the numerous alleged instances of vote
buying and controlled voting, the Assembly delegation calls on the
competent Bulgarian authorities to investigate all allegations as
thoroughly as possible and, if they are substantiated, to bring
those responsible to account, including those who ordered this type
of electoral fraud, and to inform both the public and the Parliamentary
Assembly of the results as soon as possible.
73. Third, as regards access to media for campaign purposes, the
Assembly delegation considers that if media puts politics on their
agenda only when it is paid to do so, people cannot be fully informed
about how to make independent choices. It therefore urges the newly
elected lawmakers to improve legislation in view of ensuring the
principle of equal access to the media for political parties.
74. Fourth, the Assembly delegation urges the Central Election
Committee and other relevant authorities to simplify certain procedures,
including counting and tabulation operations, which do not require
major changes in the existing legislation. It invites the CEC to
concentrate on educating voters on the preference vote system through
a more pedagogical awareness campaign.
75. Finally, the delegation underscores that poverty and lack
of education are key factors in falling prey to power pressures
and corruption. It therefore knocks on the conscience of the future
government to adopt and implement new social, educational and public
health policies, alongside the long overdue reform of the judiciary,
as matters of utmost priority.
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:
- Doris FIALA* (Switzerland, ALDE),
Chairperson of the ad hoc committee
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Andreas GROSS, Switzerland
- Fatma PEHLIVAN, Belgium
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Thomas
FEIST, Germany
- Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI, “The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia”
- European Conservatives Group
(EC)
- Lukasz ZBONIKOWSKI Poland
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Tudor-Alexandru
CHIUARIU, Romania
- Doris FIALA,* Switzerland
- Luis Alberto ORELLANA, Italy
- Andrea RIGONI, Italy
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Olga-Nantia
VALAVANI,* Greece
- Venice Commission
- Secretariat
- Ivi-Triin ODRATS, Administrator,
Secretary to the ad hoc committee
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Administrator, Secretariat of the
Venice Commission
* members of the pre-election delegation (18-19 September
2014)
Appendix 2 – Statement by
the pre-electoral delegation
Strasbourg, 19.09.2014 – A three-member,
cross-party delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) was in Sofia on 18 and 19 September 2014, at the
invitation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Bulgaria, for a pre-electoral visit ahead of the 5 October 2014
early parliamentary elections.
“The best possibility to improve democracy is when people
take part in the democratic process. The Bulgarian civil society
should show its strength by participating in the elections in large
numbers and not stay at home out of resignation”, said Doris Fiala
(Switzerland, ALDE) at the close of a two-day pre-electoral visit
to Sofia. “Polls should never lead to the conclusion that one’s
vote does not make a difference. Even votes that fall below electoral
thresholds are important, for they reflect the wishes of the people.
The free and fair conduct of the forthcoming snap elections is not
only important for Bulgaria but for the whole of Europe and for
everybody who believes in the same values of democracy”.
The pre-electoral delegation noted with satisfaction the recent
improvements to the electoral legislation, including the introduction
of the proportional vote, the efficient application of which still
remained to be tested. It also commended the competent work of the
Central Election Commission under newly adopted rules and tight
time schedules.
On the other hand, the delegation expressed grave concern
over the total lack of trust in the democratic processes. “The last
two years of political instability and successive revelation of
corrupt practices at various levels has led the country to an impasse,
from which the only way out would be through a show of great maturity by
the political class and by placing national interests ahead of short-sighted
party political ambitions. In order to regain public trust, it is
time to forget the language of hatred and to start campaigning with
rational arguments and clearly defined political programmes”.
The pre-electoral delegation was also informed of numerous
allegations of potential vote-buying and controlled voting ahead
of the elections. “We call upon the State authorities to pool all
their efforts to eradicate this criminal practice and to seriously
investigate all allegations that could arise over the next weeks.
We appeal to all political forces in this country to trust citizens
to make their own free choices, and to adhere to the principles
of fair play. It is the only way to stop the spiral of political
crisis and to have, at the end of the day, a legitimate result that
everybody could respect.”
The delegation also echoed concern over the role of the media
in the election campaign, which appeared to favour large established
parties and corporate interest rather than offering a fair playing
field to all players. The opaque media ownership and lack of transparency,
both in the funding and the money spent by political parties, further
aggravated the picture.
“The way a country treats its minorities is a sign of the
quality of democracy in the country”, added Doris Fiala. “In this
respect, we regret that national minorities are still not able to
campaign in their own language in minority-predominant regions.
In the 21st century it is not the use of a minority’s mother tongue
that would snatch the votes; credible assurances to the citizens
at large that their concerns are being catered for is a more valid guarantee
for winning voters’ support”.
The delegation held meetings in Sofia with the President of
Bulgaria, the Prime Minister of the caretaker government, the President
of the Constitutional Court, the Chair and members of the Central
Electoral Committee, representatives of parliamentary groups and
representatives of registered parties and coalitions, as well as
the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission, NGOs, the media
and members of the diplomatic corps.
A fully-fledged delegation of about 22 PACE observers will
return to the country to observe the early parliamentary elections
of 5 October 2014.
Members of the delegation: Doris Fiala (Switzerland, ALDE),
head of the delegation; Zbigniew Girsyiński (Poland, EPP/CD); Olga-Nantia
Valavani (Greece, UEL)
Appendix 3 – Programme of
the ad hoc committee (3-6 October 2014)
Friday,
3 October 2014
9:00-10:30 PACE ad hoc committee meeting:
- Briefing on the pre-electoral
mission by Ms Doris Fiala, Head of the Delegation
- Recent political developments by Ms Teodora Kaleynska,
local expert, Associate Professor of political science, VelikoTurnovo
University, former Head of the Council of Europe Information Office
in Bulgaria
- Recent developments in the field of election legislation
in Bulgaria by Mr Oliver Kask, Member of the Venice Commission (Estonia),
and Mr Gaël Martin-Micallef, Administrator, Venice Commission
- Practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
11:00-12:30 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Limited Election Observation
Mission:
- Introduction and overview
of findings to date, Ambassador Audrey Glover, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
LEOM
- Political overview, Ms Marina Schuster, Political Analyst
- Election day procedures, Mr Bartosz Lech, Election Analyst
- Media landscape, preliminary media monitoring and findings,
Mr Egor Tilpunov, Media Analyst
14:00-15:30 Meeting with NGOs involved in election observation:
- Transparency International –
Mr Kalin Savov and Ms Vanya Nusheva
- Institute for Development of Public Sphere – Ms Iva Lazarova
- Institute for Social Integration – Ms Katya Koleva
- Centre for Liberal Strategies – Mr Daniel Smilov
15:45-17:45
Meeting with the leaders and representatives of main political
parties and coalitions:
Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria (GERB)
– Mr Krasimir Tsipov and Mr Danail Kirilov
BSP–Left Bulgaria – Mr Yanaki Stoilov, Ms Deniza Karadjova,
Mr Valeri Jablianov, Mr Boris Ivanov and Mr Nikola Mitov
Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) – Mr Ljubomir Nikov
18:00-19:30 Meeting with Ms Ivilina Aleksieva, Chairperson
of the Central Election Committee, and members of the CEC
Saturday, 4 October
2014
09:00-10:00 Meeting with the leaders and representatives of
main political parties and coalitions (continued):
Reformist Block – Mr Nastimir Ananiev and Mr Stamen Yanev
10:45-11:15 Briefing for deployment and last-minute issues
11:30-12:30 Meeting with drivers and interpreters for deployment
14:00-18:00 Preliminary discussion on the findings of the
OSCE/ODIHR LEOM mission
Sunday, 5 October
2014
From 06:00 Observation of voting
From 19:00 Observation of counting at polling stations
From 22:00 Observation of tabulation at the district tabulation
centres
Monday, 6 October
2014
08:00-09:00 Ad hoc committee debriefing meeting
09:30-12:00 Discussion of the joint statement with ODIHR
14:00-15:00 Press conference
Appendix 4 – Statement by
the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
Sofia, 6.10.2014 – Although Bulgaria’s early
parliamentary elections on 5 October were well administered technically
and fundamental freedoms were respected, allegations from all sides
of vote buying and selling and other election irregularities, as
well as a campaign that lacked substance continued to negatively
affect public confidence in the integrity of the process, international
observers said in a statement issued today.
“Yesterday's elections reflected disillusionment and further
polarization in Bulgarian society. Despite the goodwill of thousands
of citizens in the election administration doing their best to ensure
a successful election day, numerous corruption scandals and allegations
of vote-buying, combined with a lack of substance in the electoral
campaign, undermined public trust in the process and in politics
in general” said Doris Fiala, Head of the Delegation from the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). “I encourage the newly-elected
political forces to set aside their differences and to tackle together
society’s pressing demands.”
Against the backdrop of political crisis, the election environment
was characterized by electoral and political fatigue, the observers
said. The campaign occasionally became negative and populist, with
several parties using racist, xenophobic and inflammatory rhetoric,
especially targeting national minorities.
Allegations of vote buying and selling persisted despite a
pledge by the authorities to fully enforce existing laws against
the practice, and the establishment of an inter-agency task force
set up by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor’s Office
and the National Security Agency. Despite more than 300 reports
of irregularities prior to election day, only two of these had resulted
in prosecutions.
“There were a number of positive changes to the legal framework,
and election bodies administered the technical aspects of the process
well. At the same time, there was little campaigning on issues and
the media showed no interest in reporting on the elections except
for in paid coverage,” said Ambassador Audrey Glover, Head of the
limited election observation mission sent by the OSCE Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). “Unless these
problems, along with the persistent allegations of election irregularities, are
effectively addressed, there will continue to be a serious lack
of confidence in elections and in current politics in general.”
The new Electoral Code generally provides a sound basis for
the conduct of democratic elections. At the same time, it contains
certain gaps and ambiguities that hamper the consistent application
of the law. A number of recommendations in past reports by ODIHR
and the Council of Europe remain unaddressed. One element of the
new Code is the introduction of the single-preference vote, which
gives voters the opportunity to choose individual candidates from
the party lists.
The election administration conducted its work overall in
a professional and transparent manner, contributing positively to
the openness of the electoral process.
Candidate registration was inclusive, giving voters a wide
choice among 18 parties and 7 coalitions with 6 031 candidates competing
for 240 seats in the parliament. The national figures for the percentage
of women candidates was not made public, and only limited efforts
were made to encourage equal opportunity for full participation
by women in elections.
The media provided the contestants with a platform to present
their views through debates and interviews, as well as in paid advertising.
Smaller parties and independent candidates said, however, that the
playing field was uneven when it came to access to the media. There
was only limited coverage of the campaign in the news, and a lack
of investigative and analytical reporting limited the amount of
information available to voters.
In the limited number of polling stations and District Tabulation
Centres visited by international observers, election day was generally
organized in a professional and efficient manner. Several Precinct
Election Commissions had difficulties in counting the preference
votes and filling out the machine voting protocols. The transparency
of the process was limited by the fact that the Central Election
Commission and several Tabulation Centres denied access for observers
to the input of results data. Preliminary voter turnout was reported
as 48.1%.
The international observation mission consists of 41 observers
from 25 countries, including 27 long-term observers and experts
from ODIHR and 14 parliamentarians and staff from PACE.
