|
|
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN BELARUS 2010
NEWSLETTER No. 15: FINAL REPORTFebruary 14, 2011 Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections campaign presents its final monitoring report on the December 19, 2010 presidential election in Belarus. Public presentations of the report will take place on 80 long term observers conducted the monitoring of all stages of the electoral campaign since September 14, 2010. Furthermore, 600 short-term observers were permanently present at 300 polling stations throughout the country during the early voting and on the election day. The report gives the campaign's assessment on the election process and provides recommendations on how the election process could be brought in line with international standards. The campaign is a joint undertaking of the Human Rights Centre Viasna (http://spring96.org) and Belarusian Helsinki Committee (http://www.belhelcom.org), implemented in cooperation with Europaeischer Austausch / European Exchange (www.european-exchange.org). The campaign is independent and politically non-engaged.
FINAL REPORT Executive summary The 2010 presidential elections in Belarus failed to meet key international standards for democratic elections. While the pre-election process was marked by a number of improvements, including positive changes in the electoral legislation and a decrease in repressions, the process quickly deteriorated on the election day and immediately afterwards. In particular, the vote count and tabulation lacked transparency and accountability and were marked by widespread irregularities. Evidence collected by observers clearly demonstrates that the results did not reflect the will of the people. Election day was further marred by the brutal dispersal of peaceful protestors and detention of hundreds of people, including seven presidential candidates. Legal framework The normative basis of the electoral process was improved by several amendments to the Electoral Code of 4 January 2010, as well as modifications to the CEC regulations in September 2010 (restriction of the number of civil servants in election commissions; a reduced number of citizens and proportion of a labour collective required to nominate a candidate to a commission; a possibility to appeal against decisions on forming commissions to a court; a guarantee that at least one third of commission members comprise representatives of political party and public associations; an opportunity for the candidates to establish election funds to attract additional financing for their campaigns, etc). However, the necessary foundation for democratic elections, in particular regarding the real independence and balance of the election authorities, vote count procedures and effective complaints and appeals process, was not established. Election administration While election officials have generally conducted technical election preparations in line with legislation, the composition of the election administration at all levels does not ensure its impartiality or independence from the executive authorities. While legislative changes now appear to guarantee representation on election commissions for political parties and non-governmental organisations, in practice nominees of opposition parties made up less than one percent of precinct and territorial election commission members. Furthermore, the absence of criteria for selecting commission members in the legislation limited transparency in the nomination and selection processes. Most of TEC and PEC members, regardless of how they were nominated, already had been members of election commissions at previous local, parliamentary or presidential elections, which were neither free nor fair. As a rule, commissions included 3-4 civil servants, including members of Executive Committees and Soviet of Deputies, i.e. the structures that formed the commissions. Others were representatives of pro-government political parties and civic organizations, as well as managers and workers of state institutions and enterprises. Candidate registration The conditions for signature collection and candidate registration allowed prospective candidates the opportunity to be registered without significant obstacles. 10 presidential candidates were registered. However, the overwhelming use of state resources by the incumbent candidate for signature collection and pressure on state employees during this process were observed. The lack of transparency in the signature verification and document checking process gives grounds to view the results of registration as politically, rather than legally, motivated. Voter registration Similar to the previous elections, lists of citizens who have the right to vote were compiled at each polling station separately, and the number of voters registered was made public only in the final PEC protocols after the end of voting. Observers had no chance to acquaint themselves with voter lists. This situation created the possibility for manipulation with both the voter lists and the total number of voters registered at different polling stations. 2009 census data provides an indication that 300-350,000 persons who have the right to vote were not included in the lists, and that the real number of eligible voters in Belarus during the election should have been 7.4-7.45 million. Election campaign The campaign environment was considerably freer than during previous elections, allowing candidates to freely meet with voters, produce and distribute materials and appear live on television during special election programming. However, the complete dominance of state broadcast and printed media by the incumbent, especially during the last two weeks of the campaign period, disadvantaged other opposition candidates who were either not mentioned, or were portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative light. Complaints and appeals Out of 240 complaints (reported to campaign observers) lodged by candidates and their authorised representatives, and by other participants of the electoral process during the pre-election period, only three were satisfied. Courts did not satisfy any of 85 complaints related to non-inclusion of 413 candidates to PECs. Numerous complaints about violations of the election legislation by Lukashenka’s initiative group were rejected without proper investigation. During voting and the vote count, more than 250 complaints and appeals were lodged at polling stations covered by the campaign’s observation alone. Most of them were considered formally, and complainants received answers about the absence of any violations in PEC actions. Only a few such complaints were satisfied. Some complaints were not considered at all. This clearly demonstrates that no effective legal remedy exists in practice for election-related complaints. National and international observers According to the CEC, 1,036 international and 39,619 national observers were accredited during the election. The majority of the national observers were representatives of NGOs and political parties loyal to the regime, as well as observers nominated by citizens and labour collectives at the instruction of authorities. Their task was to interfere with activities of independent national observers and journalists. No single complaint has been lodged by these observers, or any election observation report released. Most international observers were part of the OSCE/ODIHR and CIS missions. National observation independent from the authorities was comprised of campaign “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections”, campaign of party pollwatchers “For Fair Elections”, observers of the “For Freedom” Movement and of the project “Election Observation: Theory and Practice”. In addition, Belarusian Association of Journalists monitored coverage of the election in the mass media. Early voting The authorities broadly used state administrative resources to coerce voters, especially students and state employees, to vote early. Observers experienced numerous obstacles during early voting, including denial of accreditation and withholding of information on the registration figures. PEC members and other persons were observed in the premises of polling stations where ballot boxes were stored during hours when voting was not taking place. The turnout figures estimated by observers, however, generally coincided with those provided by the election authorities, except in a few polling stations where there were significant deviations. Election day: mobile voting A high number of reported irregularities concerned the inclusion of voters into the list for mobile voting. As a rule, voters were added to the special voter list based on their age and the geographical distance from the polling station (especially in rural areas) rather than at the request of the voter. PEC chairs often refused allow observers any access to the lists. In many polling stations, the number of mobile voters was disproportionate, i.e. up to 30% (7.61% on average at the national level). Election day: voting at polling stations Voting at polling stations on the election day was conducted without considerable violations. In a number of polling stations, observers noted: group voting, family voting (upon the presentation of passports of family members), etc. Similar to the early voting, in some cases observers were denied figures relating to the number of voters on the voter list, ballots received, etc. Vote count As in 2006, the vote count was carried out in a non-transparent manner. Though most of the observers were allowed to observe the vote count, in most cases the distance from which they were allowed to watch did not allow them to view the content of ballot papers. In addition, the PEC members often stood tightly around the counting table and prevented observers from seeing the counting well. At most polling stations vote count was conducted jointly and simultaneously by all PEC members. Each PEC member was counting only his/her stack of ballots and then silently handing over the result of the count written on a piece of paper to the PEC chair. With such an order of counting the final result was not known to each individual PEC member, nor to any observer present. In some cases PEC members opened all ballot boxes simultaneously and counted ballots from these boxes simultaneously. In addition, at many polling stations where a separate vote count was conducted, its results were not announced. Observers reported that at 49% of polling stations cover by observation the vote count was conducted with considerable violations in general. Election results According to the CEC, 6,441,031 voters took part in the election (90.65% of 7,105,660 registered voters), with 79.65% of the popular vote for Lukashenka (67.65% in Minsk and 82.15% in the regions). However, observation data indicates that the participation of at least 350-400,000 voters сould be added on paper. In addition, ballots could be added to ballot boxes for early voting and mobile voting. Thus, it is very likely that no more than 6.05-6.1 million voters actually took part in the election, i.e. 85-86% of the number of registered voters. It is impossible to say whether the ballots in the ballot boxes at the moment the vote count started were the same ballots which were cast by the voters themselves, because during early voting and mobile voting, members of election commissions (which were not independent or pluralistic) and unauthorized persons had access to relevant ballot boxes in absence of observers or other witnesses, and the way the ballot boxes were designed and sealed did not provide an adequate safeguard against potential manipulation. In total, about 2.2 million ballot papers (the number of voters who voted early, during mobile voting and at closed polling stations) were therefore in a “zone of high manipulation risk”. Analysis of the PEC, TEC and CEC official data and their comparison with reports of campaign short-term observers indicates that during the vote count and tabulation of voting results alone, at least 20-25% of votes in Minsk and 10-15% of votes in the regions were apparently “re-distributed” in favour of the incumbent. Most likely, this was done at those polling stations where results of counting ballots by PEC members did not correspond to the figures desired by the incumbent authorities, and were “corrected” by PEC chairs. Most probably, ultimate “elaboration” of voting results was conducted at the TEC level – in those cases where simple summing up of figures from PEC protocols did not produce desired figures. The real number of votes cast for the candidates is impossible to determine because determination of election results was not transparent, and manipulation with ballots and figures could take place at all stages of voting, vote count and tabulation of election results so that they “overlapped” each other. Obviously, the figures announced by the CEC do not reflect the will of the voters. Post-election developments Peaceful conduct of the election was marred on the evening of election day, 19 December, when riot police brutally dispersed participants of a mass demonstration who came to Nezalezhnasci Square in Minsk to protest against unfair conduct of the election. By the morning of 20 December, about 700 persons were detained, including seven presidential candidates. Many of those detained were beaten, including three presidential candidates. Detentions and arrests of rally participants and supporters of the oppositional candidates continued in the following days. At the time of this report’s release, four presidential candidates and 31 of their supporters were in pre-trial detention facilities and under house arrest. They are charged with organization of a mass riot or participation in it. In addition, dozens of human rights defenders, journalists and civic activists were searched and interrogated, and the offices of a number of independent NGOs and mass media were raided and searched. Post-election complaints and appeals Only one presidential candidate, Ryhor Kastusyou, appealed the election results (also on behalf of arrested candidates). He requested the CEC to invalidate the election because of mass violations during the election. The CEC refused to satisfy his complaint because “results of verifications of observers’ accounts of violations perpetrated during the election, which were attached to the complaint, proved that the allegations they contain have no grounds”, and the Supreme Court refused to initiate the case on the basis of Kastusyou’s complaint because “there was no grounds” for it. A complaint lodged by the Belarusian Helsinki Committee on the basis of results of “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” campaign was given no consideration. Recommendations Changes to the Electoral Code in January 2010 implemented only part of the OSCE and Venice Commission recommendations, which followed monitoring of the previous elections, including presidential elections in 2001 and 2006. Most of these recommendations remain valid after the 2010 elections. In addition, the election showed that without detailed regulation of formation of election commissions, and of voting and vote count procedures, it is impossible to ensure that the electoral process meets international standards of free and fair elections. The election campaign also emphasized the need to provide for real equality in the candidates’ access to the mass media, and for expanding the rights of observers. To read the entire report please click here Newsletter No 14: Preliminary post-election reportJanuary 12, 2011 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS FOR FREE ELECTIONS Although slight improvement over the previous presidential elections could be noted, the 2010 presidential elections in the Republic of Belarus were neither free nor democratic. This was confirmed by the domestic election observation programme, organized by the civic campaign Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections. Moreover, the events that occurred over the last few hours of the election process and in its immediate aftermath have wiped out any hope for a gradual transformation of Lukashenka’s regime towards democracy and respect for human rights. Belarus’ failure to extend the mandate of the OSCE Mission on 1 January 2011 must be understood as an unfriendly act directed against international organizations. Since December 19th, Belarusian authorities have been exerting massive pressure on civil society and the democratic opposition there. The repressions are on a large-scale and ongoing. Many of those who participated in the protest actions, were sentenced and served out their term of punishment afterwards, faced threats of dismissal or expulsion from their educational institutions; journalists were subjected to threats and intimidation by organs of the KGB and the Ministry of the Interior. Repressions against participants of the peaceful demonstrations on December 19th On December 19th, a peaceful demonstration by the democratic opposition in Minsk protesting the falsification of the election results was put down with brutal force. The formal pretext for this response by the forces of law and order was that unidentified persons had broken down the doors of the main government building and tried to force their way in. The Militsiya, rather than arresting those directly involved in those unlawful actions, exercised ostentatious restraint, which, in our view, is evidence of a provocation on the part of the authorities. Over 700 persons were arrested in the context of Militsiya’s repression of the demonstration. Many of those arrested were subjected to unprovoked and brutal beatings, suffered injuries and/or were subjected to humiliating treatment. Even before the voting process had come to an end, presidential candidate Uladzimir Nekliaeŭ was brutally beaten and arrested in the full view of journalists. On December 29th and 30th, official charges based on Sections 1 and 2 of Article 293 of the Belarusian Criminal Code (organizing or participating in mass disorders) were brought against more than 30 persons who had been detained in pre-trial detention centres of the KGB; these included five presidential candidates – Andrei Sannikaŭ, Mikola Statkevich, Alyaksei Mikhalevich, Uladzimir Nekliaeŭ and Vital Rymasheuski, directors of their election campaigns, journalists and prominent representatives of the opposition. In most cases a decision was made to detain them for two months. Moreover, at least 15 additional persons have been identified as suspects in criminal cases involving mass disorder, among them two presidential candidates, Rygor Kastuseŭ and Zmitser Uss. Judicial proceedings against members of the opposition Several violations of Belarusian law and international standards concerning access to justice took place during hearings associated with administrative proceedings: The accused were not informed about their rights and they were not allowed to obtain legal counsel or examine their case files; furthermore authorities failed to take the testimony of witnesses and/or of the accused themselves. The hearings lasted no longer than 10 minutes; the courts’ rulings adhered to a single pattern and were not made accessible upon request. We must also point out that the administrators of the facilities where participants of the peaceful demonstrations served their sentences created conditions rendering it impossible for prisoners to appeal the decisions against them. The administrations of those isolation facilities often refused to convey appeals to courts. Particular concern is caused by the reports that detainees were subjected to torture, that medical assistance was not provided when needed and that officials used techniques for exerting psychological pressure. While serving out their sentences, the detainees were held in unsanitary conditions, they were not allowed time outdoors, they were not provided with acceptable food or the medical assistance they needed, despite the fact that some of the prisoners had been beaten in the course of their arrest, sustaining fractures, concussions or other injuries. Interrogations and searches In the three weeks following December 19, 2010, more than 100 searches, featuring procedural violations, were conducted in an effort to intimidate opponents of the regime. Targeted were, among others, human rights defenders (e.g. Anastasia Loika, Ales Kaputski, Leanid Sudalenka, Elena Tonkacheva), journalists, editorial boards (of Nasha Niva and Borisovskie novosti) and NGOs. Searches were conducted at the offices of the organizations behind the independent domestic election observation campaign Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, the Human Rights Centre Viasna (during that search, which lasted four hours, ten of the organization’s activists were held in custody) and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee (BHC). Yet another search was conducted in the private flat of Aleh Hulak, the BHC’s chair. In the course of all searches, computers and data storage media (CDs, USB-sticks, etc.) were confiscated in order to paralyze the work of human rights defenders and journalists and to put pressure on lawyers of the opposition. The pressure put on the lawyers serving as defence attorneys for participants of the peaceful demonstrations has been obvious. Pavel Sapelka, for example, the lawyer of Andrei Sannikaŭ and Pavel Seviarynets, was requested in a decree issued by the Council of the Ministry of Justice to withdraw a statement he had filed concerning the health of presidential candidate Sannikaŭ. If he fails to withdraw that statement, he may lose his license to practice law. Valentina Buska of Grodna, a lawyer and participant in the peaceful demonstrations, after having served out her 10 days of administrative detention, saw her license revoked at the initiative of the Ministry of Justice, which essentially means that she has been banned from practising her profession. The investigative agencies created barriers preventing lawyers from visiting their clients. Thus, the pressure on the lawyers and the obstruction of their work represent a substantial violation of human rights. Complaints concerning the election results Two complaints protesting the results of the elections have been filed, one by presidential candidate Rygor Kastuseŭ, and the other by the Belarusian Helsinki Committee (BHC). The complaint of Kastuseŭ was not confirmed by the Central Elections Commission, and the Supreme Court refused to review it on the grounds that it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court. The Central Election Commission would not even accept the complaint filed by the BHC, saying that complaints of that nature could be filed only by candidates. In this situation, the following might represent an appropriate response on the part of democratic states and organizations to the mass repressions: 1. Rejection of the view that the presidential elections in Belarus were free, fair or democratic and that they complied with the standards of the OSCE, and refusal to accept their results as legitimate. 2. Insistence upon the release of all political prisoners and an end to the wave of repressions against civic activists, NGOs and independent media. Prevention of the Belarusian regime from using political prisoners as a bargaining tool in the context of their negotiations with the EU. 3. Conditioning all political contacts between the EU and the Belarusian regime upon the release of all political prisoners and the end of politically motivated repression. 4. Restriction of all contact with the executive branch, avoidance of all unessential interactions, until all political prisoners have been released and systemic changes have been implemented, mainly at the legislative level, in the area of the freedoms of peaceful assembly, opinion, expression and association, and the conduct of free and democratic elections. 5. Linkage of economic and financial aid for Belarus and the country’s participation in the Eastern Partnership programme with democratic processes in the country. Pushing for fulfilment by the Belarusian regime of the four requirements in the field of democracy and human rights formulated by the EU. 6.Initiation of the creation of an international commission of European politicians and human rights defenders investigate the mass beatings and repressions on December 19, 2010, and the weeks that followed. 7. Reinstatement of the ban on EU entry placed on top Belarusian officials and its extension to encompass all public officials directly or indirectly involved in falsifying the election results or in the political repressions. 8. Exclusion Belarus from the inter-parliamentary programme Euronest until free and democratic elections have been held. 9. Significantly increasing aid for the citizens of Belarus and Belarusian civil society.
Newsletter No 13: Preliminary report of independent observationDecember 20, 2010 Peaceful conduct of the election was marred on the evening of election day, 19 December, when riot police brutally dispersed a crowd protesting against unfair conduct of the election. Although the crowd began leaving the square on its own, riot police beat and detained hundreds of persons, including three presidential candidates, and Aleh Hulak, Chairman of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and coordinator of the “Human Rights Defenders for Free Election” election monitoring campaign. Later that night, the office of Human Rights Centre “Viasna”, co-sponsor of the campaign, was raided by the KGB and ten staff members of the centre were detained, including coordinators of the campaign Uladzimir Labkovich and Valiantsin Stefanovich. The 2010 presidential elections were marked by a number of improvements over previous elections, including a better respect for civil and political rights during the campaign. However, the process still failed to meet a number of key international standards for democratic elections, including the lack of equitable access to the media for all candidates, the absence of an impartial election administration and the unfair use of state resources to support the incumbent. Most importantly, the failure to provide for transparency and accountability in the vote count does not allow consider the announced results an accurate reflection of the will of the voters. Legal framework The normative basis of the electoral process was improved by several amendments in Electoral Code of 4 January 2010, as well as modifications to the CEC regulations in September 2010. However, the necessary foundation for democratic elections, in particular regarding the independence and balance of the election authorities, vote count procedures and effective complaints and appeals process, was not established. Election administration While election officials have generally conducted technical election preparations in line with legislation, the composition of the election administration at all levels does not ensure its impartiality or independence from the executive authorities. While legislative changes now appear to guarantee representation on election commissions for political parties and non-governmental organisations, in practice nominees of opposition parties made up less than one percent of precinct and territorial election commission members. The absence of criteria for selecting commission members in the legislation, and limited transparency in the nomination and selection processes was limited. Candidate registration The conditions for signature collection and candidate registration allowed prospective candidates the opportunity to be registered without significant obstacles. However, the overwhelming use of state resources by the incumbent candidate for signature collection and reports of pressure on state employees during this process are cause for concern. The lack of transparency in the signature verification and document checking process gives grounds to view the results of registration as politically, rather than legally motivated. Election campaign The campaign environment was considerably freer than during previous elections, allowing candidates to freely meet with voters, produce and distribute materials and appear live on television during special election programming. However, the dominance of state broadcast media by the incumbent, especially during the last two weeks of the campaign period, disadvantaged opposition candidates who were either not mentioned, or were portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative light. Complaints and appeals Out of the 240 complaints lodged by candidates and their authorised representatives, and by other participants of the electoral process, only three were satisfied. This demonstrates that no effective legal remedy exists in practice for election-related complaints. In particular, the numerous complaints about violations of the election legislation by President Lukashenka’s initiative group were rejected without proper investigation. Early voting The early voting period was marked by the widespread use of state administrative resources to coerce voters, especially students and state employees, to vote early. While there were several safeguards introduced into the early voting process, observers were denied the possibility to conduct continuous observation of the polling stations during the five days of early voting, and experienced numerous obstacles, including denial of accreditation in a few cases and withholding of information on the registration figures in many cases. Observers witnessed numerous violations during early voting and filed 125 complaints on the process. The turnout figures estimated by observers, however, generally coincided with those provided by the election authorities, except in a few polling stations where there were significant deviations. Vote count The lack of detailed procedures for vote count has remained one of the main problems of the election legislation. In most polling stations observed, the counting of ballots was conducted by all PEC members at the same time. Each PEC member, however, was counting only his/her stack of ballots and then silently handing over the result of the count written on a piece of paper to the PEC chair. The final result of the count was not known to each individual PEC member, nor to any observers present. Overall, the vote count was found lacking transparency by the observers. See the full report of the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: Preliminary Report of Independent Observation Newsletter No 12: Early voting marked by flaws typical of the 2006 Presidential ElectionDecember 19, 2010 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS • mass use of state administrative resources during the early voting, primarily against such groups of voters as students (residents of other towns), residents of hostels, military persons, state employees, convicts: • inability for observers to maintain a 24-hour observation at polling stations during the early voting, as well as absence of clearly regulated procedures for providing the safety of ballot boxes, polling stations and observation of activities of PEC officials and policemen beyond the voting hours; 2. The above-mentioned circumstances have deprived the observers of efficient means of full-scale observation of ballot boxes and confidence in absence of any manipulations with them when the boxes are beyond observation. Apart from that, the observers have encountered numerous obstacles in maintaining their duties during voting observation. 3. The campaign observers have reported numerous violations of the Electoral Code, e.g. interference of unauthorized persons with the activities of election commissions, issuance of more than one ballot to a person, failure to publish daily voting results etc. The violations were followed by 125 complaints and statements submitted to territorial election commissions and the local prosecuting authorities. Please find the full report here. Newsletter No 11: First results of early voting monitoring / positive novelties did little to decrease inequality in candidates’ campaign conditionsDecember 15, 2010 Daily update on early voting Pre-election Monitoring Report on Campaign – General Conclusions These novelties and positive changes, however, did little to decrease the inequality in campaign conditions between the incumbent president and other candidates. As in 2006, Alyaksandr Lukashenka benefitted from the following: • short period of campaigning allowed by the electoral legislation; • unlimited opportunities for Lukashenka to avail of the state mass media – compared to 2 hours of TV and radio appearances and an opportunity to print 5 pages of text in the main newspapers guaranteed to the other candidates; • targeted criticism of the other candidates in the state mass media – compared to an exclusively complimentary coverage of the incumbent president’s personality and his election programme; • lack of opportunities for all candidates except for Lukashenka to avail of the state mass media during the two-week period before election day; • limited maximum amount of financial resources, which a candidate is allowed to disburse for campaigning purposes (about $60,000); this sum is obviously insufficient for arranging an election campaign which scale can be compared with the scale of campaign in support of the incumbent president; • difficulties for the other candidates with production of agitation materials (refusals of printing establishments to print them, or delays with their printing and shipment) and their dissemination; • difficulties for the other candidates in holding meetings with voters (such as refusals to provide premises) – compared to compulsory participation of students, workers and civil servants in the meetings with authorized representatives of Lukashenka and numerous ‘mobile information brigades’ comprised of local authorities and CEOs of state enterprises and institutions. See the full report of the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: Media monitoring The importance of the election was downgraded by being given low-key coverage, when sports, the Junior Eurovision show and the All-Belarusian National Assembly were featured much more prominently than the election. The findings of various opinion polls were often cited without mentioning the institutions that had conducted them, which created the impression that the election outcome was predetermined. The independent press continued presenting a wide picture of the election, the presidential runners being featured as its key actors, the incumbent get as much coverage as the alternative candidates (he was even a clear leader in some cases) and the assessment of the candidates’ actions and their agendas was mainly balanced. No instances of insulting the candidates or manifestly promoting one of them were observed. See the full report of the Belarusian Association of Journalists ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 10: Central Election Commission refused to specify vote counting procedure / No overnight observation allowed during early voting7th December 2010 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS On 30 November, the Central Election Commission (CEC) adopted amendments to the Methodical Recommendations for Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) proposed by opposition political parties and a number of presidential candidates. These amendments concern additional measures to protect the voting process from potential falsifications: sealing the slots in the ballot boxes for the hours when polling stations are closed during the early voting period; and a requirement to store ballot papers in sealed safe deposits. At the same time, the CEC refused to allow observers to be present at the polling stations overnight during the early voting period, and once again dismissed the proposal to describe the process of vote count in detail, i.e. ignored those elements of voting process which are most vulnerable to potential falsifications. CEC refusals cause particular concerns vis-à-vis on-going training workshops for the PEC members who have been instructed to carry out the vote count so that each PEC member silently counts votes on his (her) own, and observers are not allowed to be close to the place of counting. In all regions state administrative resources have continued to be applied to ensure mass early voting. Pre-election campaigning, which for the first time since 1994 includes live broadcast of candidates’ debate on the First National TV Channel, has been held without significant obstacles. Representatives of the executive power in the election commissions have carried out preparations to counteract independent observation by orchestrated efforts of observers from pro-governmental NGOs. The latter have been tasked to disrupt actions of independent observers and journalists, and to compile acts confirming correctness of vote count in case PEC members representing opposition political parties refuse to sign final protocols or file dissenting opinions. See the full report of the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: Election of the President of Belarus 2010: Weekly Analytical Review (29 November – 5 December) ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 9: Biased election campaign broadcast and preparations for mass early voting1st December 2010
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The official period for campaigning began on November 18 and lasts until December 18. Campaign conditions are unequal for presidential candidates - the incumbent president has unlimited opportunities for sharing his thoughts and viewpoints with the electorate through state-run mass media (especially broadcast media), while other candidates have only 1 hour for that purpose on television and 1 hour on radio (plus 1-hour television and radio debates for all). Appearances of candidates on television and radio took place in accordance with the predefined schedule and without any major obstacles; however, they were accompanied by a series of news stories in state-owned printed and electronic media, which portrayed all candidates and their programmes (except for Lukashenka) in an exclusively negative light. The number of places defined by local authorities for holding meetings of candidates and their authorised representatives with voters is higher than at the 2006 election. However, in many dwelling settlements these places are remote or inconvenient. Meetings and other campaign events have generally been held without significant obstacles from militia and authorities; however, a few incidents have been reported. Two attacks on opposition activists, committed on November 23 and 24, may be related to their involvement in the election campaign and require urgent investigation. Observers have reported the broad use of administrative resources with the aim to ensure mass early voting – the most convenient occasion for falsifications. Customs officials confiscated 115 copies of the handbook for short-term observers of the See the full report of the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: Weekly Analytical Review 22nd – 28th November 2010 ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 8: 10 candidates continue the presidential race23rd November 2010 10 candidates registered Any citizen of the Republic of Belarus, not younger than 35, who has collected at least 100,000 voters' signatures in support of nomination, may be a presidential candidate. The main changes in the Electoral Code (made in January 2010) regarding the registration procedure of presidential candidates concerned declarations about incomes and property to be submitted by nominees to the Central Election Commission (CEC): the number of relatives of the nominee on whose property and incomes data should be presented was reduced; and the notion was introduced of essential discrepancy of data (previously any incorrect data could provide grounds to reject registration). Out of 17 applicants who had registered their initiative group, 11 reported delivery of at least 100,000 signatures in their support, while 6 applicants decided to voluntarily stop their participation in the election. The sitting of the CEC on registration of candidates, held on November 18, was open, with the presence of observers and journalists. Only one nominee had no remarks from the CEC – President Alyaksandr Lukashenka (1.1 million valid signatures). Uladzimir Pravalski was not registered because, according to the CEC, he submitted only 118 valid signatures. Remarks on the remaining 9 nominees, who collected more than 100,000 signatures – Ryhor Kastusyou, Ales Mikhalevich, Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu, Yaraslau Ramanchuk, Vital Rymasheuski, Andrei Sannikau, Mikalai Statkevich, Viktar Tsyareschanka and Dzmitry Uss – dealt with violations during signature collection and inconsistencies in data about income and property. The CEC found these violations as not preventing registration and registered all of the above 9 nominees as presidential candidates. In general, registration of candidates took place without significant restrictions of the right of candidates to be elected. At the same time, the non-transparent character of signature verification process and check of documents presented by nominees for registration does not exclude chances for manipulation by election commissions and gives grounds to view the results of registration as politically not legally motivated. See the Pre-election Monitoring Report on Registration of Presidential Candidates Collection of signatures under unequal conditions The collection of signatures was held from September 30 to October 29 in accordance with the new amendments to the Electoral Code, which simplified the procedure of filling in signature lists and allowed collecting signatures in the form of pickets without any prior permit of the authorities, provided they are held in places not prohibited by local authorities. At the same time, explanations of the Central Election Commission (CEC) on the procedure of collecting signatures have formed a legal basis for participation in collection of signatures for persons, who were not members of initiative groups, and participation of administrations of institutions in collecting signatures, which is directly prohibited by the Electoral Code. Initiative groups of all the nominees were working under unequal conditions in comparison with the initiative group of the incumbent president. In particular, they were rejected almost any access to the territory of state-owned institutions and enterprises, as well as to students and workers hostels. At the same time, the collection of signatures by means of pickets was held without major obstacles and in relatively equal conditions for all the candidates. Administrative resources were broadly used for collecting signatures in support of Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The most common forms thereof were: participation in collection of signatures of administrations of state-owned institutions and enterprises, who forced their subordinates to sign in; collection of signatures by the members of Lukashenka's initiative group during their working hours; and collection of signatures by persons who were not members of his initiative group (by the so-called helpers of initiative group members). Election commissions did not allow observers to be present at verification of signatures, explaining that under the Electoral Code observers may attend sittings of commissions, while verification of signatures took place outside such sittings. According to experts of the campaign Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, the lack of transparency in the process of signature verification gives serious grounds to question the objectivity of results. Election stakeholders have been actively using the opportunity to judicially appeal against actions of various subjects in relation to collection of signatures; the lawyers of the Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections alone helped in filing 51 such complaints (3 of them were satisfied). Most of the known complaints concerned the following: appointment of places prohibited for pickets to collect signatures; obstacles to collecting signatures in hostels; violations of the electoral legislation by individual initiative groups and their members, including participation of individuals who were not members of initiative groups in collection of signatures. While some complaints regarding location of pickets and access to hostels were satisfied, the CEC and territorial election commissions (TECs) rejected all of the numerous complaints of violations of the electoral legislation by Lukashenka's initiative group. Media Monitoring The state-owned electronic and printed media kept to the low-key approach to the presidential election, though some media began to give it more coverage. The upcoming election received more coverage in Panarama news program on the 1st National TV Channel than at the previous monitoring stage – 3% of the total air time, compared to the previous 0.86%. It was as much as the weather. The main actors of the election coverage in Panarama were still the incumbent president, who received about 85% of all the air time given to all the monitored subjects, measured against the 75% in the previous period. The other prominent actor featured in Panarama is CEC, which received about 11% of the air time. President Lukashenka and the CEC were represented in predominantly positive light. The state-owned media went on ignoring the potential contestants of the incumbent. Some minimal attention that they received was due to the registration procedure during the final period of monitoring. In Nashi Novosti (Our News) program of ANT TV station, the incumbent was on air for about 54 minutes, while the other potential presidential nominees taken together received only a bit more than 2 minutes’ coverage. Thus, a positive assessment of the incumbent and his clearly dominant position in the state-owned media make part of their general strategy of the election coverage. The other side of the coin is marginalization of all the other contestants, whose identities remained unrevealed for the audience of the state-owned media. The state-owned media continued ‘pre-programming’ the outcome of the voting through repeated references to opinion polls, sometimes without mentioning the institutions that had carried them out. These media’s coverage of the election was characterized by explicit disregard for ethical principles in journalism and internationally recognized standards. As for the independent press, all the potential candidates were present on their pages. The monitoring did not find any cases of distorted or misrepresented information or biased coverage in the monitored independent media. ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 7: Most recommendations to improve election observation declined16th November 2010 General conclusions The Central Election Commission (CEC) has agreed with the proposal of the campaign of the partisan observation For Fair Elections, and with a number of nominees for the status of presidential candidate (Ryhor Kastusyou, Ales Mikhalevich, Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu, Vital Rymasheuski and Yaraslau Ramanchuk) concerning the inclusion of a provision into the Methodological Recommendations on Election Organization about providing observers with a real possibility to execute their monitoring in the conditions, which guarantee good visibility of the vote count procedure. Besides, the CEC has allowed the governing bodies of political parties and republic's public associations to send their observers to election commissions of all levels (as it was in 2001 and 2006, but was not allowed by the September Decision of the CEC No. 49). At the same time, the CEC has rejected other proposals of the above candidates and the campaign For Fair Elections aimed at better transparency and fairness of the election process – formation of precinct election commissions (PECs) first of all from activists of political parties; holding television debates on candidates live on air; detailed description of the vote count procedure; protection of ballot papers against forgery; and others. In the opinion of the campaign Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, the unwillingness of the CEC to adopt these proposals has almost completely devalued the positive changes in conditions for observation. Out of 85 complaints against non-inclusion of 413 persons into PECs, the courts have rejected 83 (2 complaints remain unconsidered). The courts have ignored arguments about discriminatory attitude of executive committees to representatives of opposition political parties and justified their refusals by the fact that all the formal procedures of forming PECs had been observed. The observers of the campaign Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections report an increased number of incidents of direct and indirect pressure on members of initiative groups of certain candidates and activists of the independent civil society. The state-owned mass media continue paying more attention to the forthcoming Fourth All-Belarusian People's Assembly than to the election; they keep publishing the results of a sociological poll, where the authors assert that over 80 percent of voters do not believe in victory of opposition candidates and do not trust them. See the full report of the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: Election of the President of Belarus 2010: Weekly Analytical Review (November 8-14 The next media monitoring report by the Belarusian Association of Journalists will be available after 23rd November. ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 6: Hardly any opposition members in precinct election commissions10th November 2010 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS November 3 was the deadline for forming precinct election commissions (PECs) – one of the key mechanisms of the election process, directly in charge of organizing the voting and vote count. Certain positive features introduced into the electoral legislation in December 2010 (restriction on the number of state servants as members of commissions, the guarantee of inclusion into commissions of at least one third of representatives of political parties and public associations, and a possibility to challenge the decisions on formation of commissions in court) did not change the essence of the PEC formation process: absolute control by local executive committees, which are elements of the "power vertical" of the incumbent president. Among 84,084 candidates nominated to 6,346 PECs by political parties, public associations, labour collectives and citizen groups, only 1,073 persons were nominated by opposition political parties. The remaining candidates were nominated under the control of local authorities, who defined respective "quotas" for state enterprises and organizations and approved the offered candidates well before the end of the nomination process. The sittings of executive committees and local administrations where PECs were formed (held on November 1-3) were relatively open to observers, but were extremely formal. In most cases they just approved – very quickly and on a non-alternative basis – the lists of commission members, prepared before the sittings in a closed manner. The discriminatory attitude of executive committees to candidates from opposition parties was obvious; out of 1,073 candidates to PECs from these parties only 183 persons (17.1 %) became commission members. At the same time the average "passing rate" of other candidates was 84.3 % (70,815 members out of 84,024 candidates); the figure for the parties loyal to the authorities was 87.7 % (1586 out of 1808), while with the candidates from 4 major pro-governmental public associations and one trade union the figure was 93.2 % (23,689 persons out of 25,419 candidates became PEC members). As a result, the nominees of opposition parties make up only 0.25 % of the total PEC members and will work in less than 3 % of them. This deprives them of any effective opportunity to influence the work of commissions, and accordingly, the key point of the election process – voting and the vote count. Most of the members of the newly formed PECs had at least once been members of such commissions at previous local, parliamentary or presidential elections, which were neither free nor fair. According to the campaign "Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections", 77 complaints were filed regarding decisions of local executive committees on PEC formation. A lack of clear criteria for PEC members, the formal nature of consideration of complaints by the courts and the fact that none of the similar complaints on non-inclusion into the territorial election commissions (TECs) was satisfied render the appeal process ineffective in ensuring any fair election process. Therefore, the process of formation of PECs virtually has not differed from the TEC formation process. While the process was conducted generally in line with national legislation and without significant violations, the resulting PECs cannot be viewed as impartial and unbiased. See the full report of the Belarusian Association of Journalists:Election of the President of Belarus 2010: Preliminary Report on Monitoring Formation of Precinct Election Commissions The next media monitoring by the Belarusian Association of Journalists will be available after 23. November. ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 5: Belarus Domestic Election Observation4th November 2010 General conclusions Nomination of candidates for inclusion in the 6,346 Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) finished on 31 October in a pattern similar to the Territorial Election Commission (TEC) nomination process. Opposition parties have put forward only about 1,000 candidates out of 84,024, and local authorities fully controlled the process for nominating the remaining candidates (irrelevant of the way they were nominated). HRD observers have not been provided the opportunity to observe the process of checking the authenticity of signatures submitted by candidates, despite repeated requests to TECs. Because TECs confirm to initiative groups only the number of submitted signature sheets, rather than the number of submitted signatures, the possibility remains for potential manipulation in the tabulation of submitted signatures and in determining the number of authentic signatures. Of 238 complaints lodged with the assistance of “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” campaign’s lawyers from the beginning of the election campaign, only 9 have been satisfied (those related to decisions of local authorities about places where pickets for collecting signatures were prohibited). Central and territorial election commissions have rejected all complaints related to the violation of the electoral legislation by the initiative group of Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Eleven candidates submitted to the Territorial Election Commissions more than 100,000 signatures by the 31 October deadline and thus still have the chance to run for the presidency. See the full report of the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: Weekly Analytical Report 25th – 31st October 2010 Media Monitoring The presidential election was far from a top subject for the state-owned electronic and printed media. The Panarama news program of the 1st National TV Channel allotted 0.86% of its total time to the election process, 3,45% to the weather and 17,4% to sport. Meanwhile, the state-owned media promoted a positive image of only one potential runner, i.e. the incumbent president. Panarama gave nearly 75% of its time allotted to all the monitored subjects to the acting president. Political parties taking part in the election were not in the focus of the state-owned media’s attention. The state-owned media offered no contributions specifically covering the procedure of collecting signatures for potential nominees. And when this procedure was mentioned, if at all, the dominant tone towards the opponents of the incumbent president was both ironical and disparaging. The independent media gave more balanced assessments of the actors involved in the election. See the full report of the Belarusian Association of Journalists: Monitoring: Coverage of the 2010 Presidential Election in the Belarusian Media (October 11–30, 2010) ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 4: Numerous irregularities in spite of improved conditions for signature collection14th October 2010 Not a single appeal against the formation of the territorial election commissions successful The authorities in several cities in Belarus have relaxed the restrictions imposed on the collection of signatures. At the same time, the local authorities and employees of state institutions and companies have been mobilised to gather signatures for the incumbent president Lukashenka. Not one of the 27 appeals, submitted by opposition parties, non-governmental organisations and citizen groups against their candidates not being included in the territorial election commissions (TECs), has been successful. This means that, in spite of acts of manipulation and falsification being exposed during the previous elections, approximately 80% of the members of the current TECs have been part of election commissions in the past. There are now just 15 candidates taking part in the election campaign. Weekly Analytical Review from the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: 4-10 October Use of administrative resources casts a shadow over signature collection The collection of signatures for the registration of presidential candidates has been taking place in Belarus since 30th September and will continue until 29th October. In the week from 4th to 10th October, a number of regional authorities partly retracted their previous decisions forbidding the collection of signatures in highly-populated areas – central squares, in front of administrative offices and stations etc. According to the weekly report from the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, this trend is “positive in nature and aimed at [creating] better conditions for collecting signatures by initiative groups”. The domestic election observers do, however, draw attention to the mobilisation of the local executive committees for the organisation of the signature collection for the incumbent president Lukashenka. This is a breach of article 61 of the electoral code, which prohibits the participation of administrative bodies in the signature collection process. During meetings with public officials in Sluck, Baranavichi and Babruisk, arranged by the regional authorities, teaching staff were instructed to each collect 200 to 300 signatures for the incumbent Lukashenka. Pressure is put on students and teachers at universities and schools who provide their signature for candidates other than Lukashenka. The collection of signatures for Lukashenka often takes place directly within state institutions – schools, universities, hospitals – and during working hours (Gomel, Vitsebsk, Polack, Baranavichi, Glubokoe). It is also often carried out by people who are not members of Lukashenka’s supporter groups. At the same time, the supporter groups of the opposition candidates have absolutely no access to these institutions. Furthermore, they are prevented from collecting signatures even in those students’ and workers’ accommodation buildings where no explicit ban has been passed. All appeals against the formation of the TECs either rejected or not processed Not one of the 27 appeals, submitted by the opposition parties, non-governmental organisations and individual citizens against their candidates not being included in the TECs, was decided positively. 12 appeals were not even processed. The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections stresses that, for this year’s presidential elections, the most important reason for submitted appeals being rejected or not even processed is again the absence of criteria in the electoral code governing the selection of candidates. On 6th October the deadline passed for the formation of the territorial election commissions being published in the regional press. The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, which has a network of over 80 long-term election observers in all regions of the country, reports that, as was the case during the previous elections, the TECs are blatantly dependent on the regional executive authorities. According to domestic election observers, 40-70% of all members of the TECs are executive committee officials, and numerous TECs are made up almost in their entirety of people who were already on TECs at previous elections and who, in many cases, had senior positions in the commissions. For example, in the TECs of the Rayons in the Minsk region, 75.2% of members of the TECs (88 of 117) were also involved during the previous elections, which were criticised by both the domestic election observers and by the ODIHR/OSCE. One-sided coverage in the regional press The domestic election observers point to the continuing one-sidedness of the coverage in the state-controlled regional press, which favours the governing president Lukashenka. The majority of newspapers from the regions and the capital Minsk which have been analysed barely cover the elections, which represent the most important political event of the year in Belarus. At the same time, in the few articles which do deal with the elections, the opposition (Mahiliou region) or the opposition candidates are criticised, albeit indirectly (Brest region). In contrast, the websites of the regional authorities quote comprehensively from the press conference of 1st October, which Lukashenka held with Russian journalists. Information on the elections is ever-present in the independent press and in the independent internet-based media. Coverage of the opposition dominates, whilst articles about Lukashenka tend to be critical. The domestic election observers stress that both the circulation and the readership of these media are far smaller than those of the state-controlled press. Just 15 candidates still in the election race Two candidates for the presidential office, Syarhey Gaidukevich and Pyotr Barysau, have withdrawn their candidacies. Gaidukevich previously stood at the 2001 and 2006 presidential elections, where he, according to the Central Election Commission’s official statistics, won 2.48% and 3.50% of the vote respectively. ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Contact Details: Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections Tatjana Revjaka, +375 (0)44 7256490 Aleh Hulak, +375 (0)17 222-48-00 European Exchange Tel. +49 (0)30 61671464-0 info@european-exchange.org http://www.european-exchange.org/ Since 2005, European Exchange, based in Berlin, has been supporting numerous nongovernmental organisations in the states of the former Soviet Union and in the new neighbour countries of the enlarged European Union. By supporting their work, European Exchange contributes to strengthening the rule of law, to social security and to the protection of human and civil rights in Europe and its neighbouring countries. European Exchange is also responsible for the German-Ukrainian conference series ‘The Kiev Dialogue’ and a number of cooperation projects with independent Belarusian and Ukrainian nongovernmental organisations. Newsletter No 3: Hardly any opposition representatives in the territorial election commissions6th October, 2010 Representatives of opposition parties only on 14 of 155 territorial election commissions No improvement in the political balance of the election administration in spite of the new electoral code Only 14 of the 2000 members of the territorial election commissions (TECs) are representatives of opposition parties (0.7%). No improvement in the political balance of the election administration during the formation of the TECs in spite of the new electoral code of 4th January 2010. In its new report on formation of territorial election commissions, the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections is criticising the lack of transparency and the restrictions on parties and civic organisations when putting forward and nominating their candidates for the TECs. It is also criticising the continuing absence of criteria for the selection of candidates for the election commissions and the interference with domestic election observation. Representatives of opposition parties only on 14 of 155 territorial election commissions On 29th September, the members of the 155 territorial election commissions (TECs) were decided upon. Of the 2,681 candidates from political parties, civic organisations, workers’ collectives, and representatives of citizen groups, 2,000 members were accepted onto the TECs. The political parties put forward a total of 192 candidates via party lists. The domestic election observers are criticising the unfair treatment of the candidates of opposition parties: only 14 of the 91 (15 %) opposition candidates who were put forward via party lists (71) and by collecting signatures (21) were able to find their way onto the TECs, which amounts to 0.7 % of the total number of members on the TECs. At the same time, 106 of the 121 (87.6 %) members of parties loyal to the regime who were put forward via party lists were voted onto the TECs. In their preliminary report on the formation of the territorial election commissions, the initiative “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” stresses that there has been no substantial improvement towards democratisation of this stage of the election process in spite of the amendments to the electoral code made on 4th January 2010. The domestic election observers are critical of the restrictions placed on political parties and civic organisations nominating candidates for the TECs. They state that the low number of candidates from opposition parties can be attributed to the fact that numerous regional offices of these parties have been closed due to the restrictive party law. The existence of officially registered regional structures is a requirement for nominating candidates for the TECs at the appropriate regional level. In addition, the domestic election observers point to the continuing absence of criteria for the selection of members of the TECs. According to conservative initial estimates, at least 50-60% of the people selected as members of the election commissions were involved in the commissions during the last presidential, parliamentary and local elections, which were neither free nor fair. In most cases, these are persons loyal to the regime: public officials, i.e. representatives of the very organs which decide on the formation of the TECs, representatives of parties and civic organisations loyal to the regime as well as employees of state institutions and state-controlled companies. At the same time, the candidacies of the opposition were rejected in the majority of cases. The initiative “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” is also criticising interference with the activities of its domestic election observers. Although the majority of long term observers were informed on time of the time and place of the meetings of the local authorities, at which the formation of the TECs took place, in several cases the accredited long term observers were either invited too late to attend the meeting or not admitted at all. (e.g. Orsha, Mazyr, Maladechna, Babruisk). Numerous appeals have already been submitted by the regional offices of the opposition parties against the rejections of opposition candidacies (Gomel, Grodna, Polack, Orsha, Minsk). Further appeals have been submitted by citizen groups who wanted to nominate their candidates to the TECs (Vitsebsk). Human Right Defenders will continue to monitor these cases and will report on the resolution of complaints in its further reports. We will report on the decisions of the courts in the coming newsletters. Further information: - Preliminary Report on the formation of the territorial election commissions of the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: http://spring96.org/files/misc/2010tvken.pdf - Weekly Analytical Review Nr. 3 from the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: http://www.spring96.org/en/news/35770/ ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 2: Irregularities during the registration of the supporter group for Lukashenka29th September, 2010 Irregularities during the registration of the supporter group for Lukashenka Restrictions on the gathering of signatures in the regions The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections is questioning the legality of the registration of the supporter group for Lukashenka. The collection of signatures has been banned across the country on the central squares of the cities, which primarily disadvantages the supporter groups of candidates critical of the regime. Furthermore, the candidates have been nominated for the territorial election commissions in a non-transparent process. One hour of airtime on both state television and radio is available to each candidate. Irregularities during the registration of the supporter group for Lukashenka The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections is raising doubts concerning the legitimacy of the decision taken by the Central Election Commission, which registered the supporter group for incumbent president Lukashenka on 27th September. According to Mikalai Lazavik, secretary of the Central Election Commission, Alyaksandr Radzkov, head of Lukashenka’s election office and current education minister, presented the necessary documentation for the registration of the supporter group for Lukashenka on behalf of the president. This contravenes Article 61 of the electoral code, which states that all candidates should present their identification card when submitting their application for registration of their supporter groups to the Central Election Commission in person. In addition, the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections reports that Radzkov was not seen by witnesses when the documents were submitted to the Central Election Commission. As early as 20th September, Gary Paganyaila, legal expert at the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, provided the Central Election Commission with the recommendation not to register the supporter group for Lukashenka. According to Paganyaila, massive acts of manipulation were confirmed during the referendum in 2004, on the basis of which Lukashenka is able to rule as president beyond two terms. In his recommendation, the legal expert emphasises the fact that the initiation of the referendum was unconstitutional and its results are therefore legally void. In total, the Central Election Commission has registered 17 supporter groups. In addition to the first application, which was already made on 20th September, 16 of the 18 applications for the registration of supporter groups submitted on 27th September were accepted. Two applications were rejected because of legal insufficiencies. The supporter groups each have until 29th October to collect the 100,000 signatures necessary for registering their candidates. No level playing field for the supporter groups in the regions The authorities in all regions of the country have already decided on the places where the collection of signatures should be banned because of security reasons or to ensure the maintenance of public order. The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections is bemoaning the fact that this can lead above all to a restriction on the gathering of signatures for those candidates who are critical of the regime. This is because the gathering of signatures has above all been prohibited on centrally located squares, in front of administrative buildings and stations etc., where supporter groups of candidates critical of the regime would be able to operate relatively freely and effectively. Conversely, the collection of signatures in state institutions and state-controlled companies, where most of the signatures for Lukashenka were collected during the 2006 presidential elections, has not been forbidden. In addition, the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections has already registered cases of local authorities, state companies and universities helping to support Lukashenka. For example, the personnel department of the state companies in Polatsk recruited members for the supporter group for the incumbent president. Furthermore, deans at the state university in Grodno have allegedly been instructed to prevent students from becoming part of supporter groups for opposition candidates. Non-transparent nomination of candidates for territorial election commissions The nomination of candidates for the territorial election commissions came to an end on 26th September. The responsibilities of these commissions include ensuring the election campaign is conducted in a fair manner, the organisation of the work of the local election commissions, and the preparation of the voter lists. According to the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, neither the relevant authorities nor the state mass media have provided information about the personal details and qualifications of the candidates standing. In addition, those organisations which are loyal to the regime, which occupied the majority of seats on the territorial election commissions during the previous elections, have provided no information about their candidates. The domestic election observers fear that the formation of the election commissions at the regional, rayon, and city levels, which is to be completed by 29th September at the latest, will take place behind closed doors, as it did during previous elections. Measures for ensuring parity in the formation of the territorial and local election commissions were already introduced into the electoral code ahead of the local elections which took place in April 2010. This was done following recommendations from the OSCE and the domestic election observers and the electoral code stated that parties and non-governmental organisations could occupy up to a third of the seats. The domestic election observers, however, continue to bemoan the lack of criteria for the acceptance of candidates onto the election commissions, which has led to the majority of qualified members of the opposition being denied access to all levels of the election administration. One hour on state television made available for all candidates Each presidential candidate will be provided with an hour’s airtime on state television and radio during the election campaign. According to the state press agency Belta, Lidziya Yarmoshyna, chair of the Central Election Commission, alluded to the possibility of debates between candidates on state television and radio. By participating in debates, candidates can further extend their airtime. At the same time, the domestic election observers are pointing to the fact that, even before the official start of the election campaign, both central and regional state media have begun an active campaign supporting Lukashenka. Further information: - Weekly Analytical Review Nr. 2 from the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections (in English): http://spring96.org/en/news/35598/ - online conference with representatives of the initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections: Aleh Hulak, chairman of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and Valyantsin Stefanovich, legal expert at the Human Rights Center Viasna (in Russian and Belarusian): http://naviny.by/rubrics/elections/2010/09/28/ic_articles_623_170605/ In Newsletter No 1, the expression opposition candidates for President Lukashenka was used. The correct term is rival candidates (Gegenkandidaten). We apologise for this mistranslation. ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Newsletter No 1: Difficulties accrediting Domestic Election Observers22nd September 2010 Election date set following non-transparent process Election monitors bemoan restrictions on accreditation Process of setting the election date lacks transparency The “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” are already criticising the lack of transparency at the start of the election process. According to the domestic election observers’ reports, the vote determining the election date took place without a prior parliamentary debate looking at alternative election dates. After a discussion of approximately ten minutes, the House of Representatives opted unanimously for the election date of 19th December, which was proposed by the “Committee for state buildings, communal administration and legislative regulation”. Of the seven alternative election dates available, just one – 6th February – was briefly considered and then rejected. In light of this, the domestic election observers point to the fact that, ahead of the vote in parliament, there had been no officially announced meeting of the “Committee for state buildings, communal administration and legislative regulation”. This is evidence of another body within the vertical of power instrumentalising the committee in order to push through its desired election date of 19th December. This is an infringement of article 2 of the “Law on the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus”, article 13 of the electoral code and article 65 of the Belarusian constitution, according to which the preparation and execution of the elections should take place in a public and transparent manner. Restrictions on the accreditation of the domestic election observers The accreditation of the domestic election observers has been restricted further, when compared with the presidential elections of 2001 and 2006. Previously, the central offices of civic organisations and political parties were able to delegate their election observers to the election commissions at all administrative levels. According to statement Nr. 49 of the Central Election Commission from 15th September 2010, this will not be possible during this year’s elections. In order to delegate election observers to the territorial election commissions and to the precincts, parties and NGOs must have regional offices in the corresponding electoral districts. The central offices of parties and NGOs can delegate their representatives only to the Central Election Commission. Previously, the secretary of the Central Election Commission, Mikalai Lazavik, had stressed that the possibility of gaining accreditation had been made far more straightforward for domestic election observers. “This actually creates a significant barrier for those parties and civic organisations whose local structures have long since been destroyed by the regime”, assesses Uladzimir Labkovich, legal expert at the Human Rights Center Viasna in Minsk. “Furthermore, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, which is involved in the initiative “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections”, will not be able to delegate any election monitors in the regions, because, according to its official status, this organisation has no regional offices”, stresses Labkovich. Human rights defenders nonetheless deploy long and short-term election monitors Domestic election observers in the regions can nonetheless still gain accreditation by collecting ten signatures. The initiative “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” will register its long-term election observers in each of the seven Belarusian regions (oblast) and in the city of Minsk via this method. Their reports will deal in particular with the following stages of the election: the formation of the territorial election commissions (29th September), the collection of signatures for the nomination of presidential candidates (29th October), the formation of the precinct election commissions (up to 3rd November), the registration of candidates (up to 23rd November), the election campaign (up to 13th December), the early voting process (from 13th until 18th December) and the voting process on election day (19th December), as well as the processing of appeals after election day and the possible second round of voting (2nd January). In addition, the initiative is planning the mobilisation of up to 600 short-term election observers. Their primary aim will be to monitor the election turnout during the early voting process and on election day in up to 300 electoral precincts. The official results from the individual electoral precincts, which, as stated in the version of the electoral code published on 4th January 2010, should be made public every day after the polling stations have been closed, can thereby be checked by comparing them with the election turnout as observed by the election monitors. The domestic election observers previously criticised the exaggerated official election turnout following the local elections on 25th April 2010. According to independent surveys conducted by the Institute NISEPI in June 2010, 17.3% of voters had already cast their vote ahead of election day, whilst the Central Election Commission’s official results gave a figure of 29.3%. At the same time, the total election turnout according to NISEPI came to 64.6%, whilst the Central Election Commission spoke of a turnout of 79.5%. Ten opposition candidates for President Lukashenka The following ten candidates intend to stand at the presidential elections: Ales Mikhalevich (chairman of the NGO Union for Modernisation, registered in August), Vital Rymasheuski (chairman of party of the Belarusian Christian Democrats, not registered), Rygor Kastuseu (vice-chairman of the Party of the Belarusian National Front), Yuriy Glushakou (vice-chairman of the Belarusian Party The Greens), Yaraslau Ramanchuk (vice-chairman of the United Civil Party), Andrey Sannikau (chief executive of the campaign European Belarus), Sargey Gaydukevich (chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party), Viktar Tsareshchanka (chairman of the Council of the Union of Small and Medium-sized Businesses), Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu, (leader of the campaign Speak the Truth), Mikalay Statkevich (chairman of the Founder Committee of The Belarusian Social Democratic Party Narodnaya Gramada). In order to register their candidacies, the candidates must each collect 100,000 signatures. The leader of the movement For Freedom, Alyaksandr Milinkevich, who stood against Alyaksandr Lukashenka in 2006 as the presidential candidate for the United Democratic Forces, withdrew his candidacy as early as 17th September. Similarly, Lukashenka’s other opponent from the 2006 presidential elections and former political prisoner, Alyaksandr Kazulin, will not be participating in the 2010 election campaign. Alyaksandr Lukashenka has in fact not yet officially confirmed his entry into this year’s election campaign. He is, however, expected by observers to stand for election. For the first time private election funds of the candidates permitted According to the electoral code passed on 4th January 2010, the presidential candidates are permitted to set up private election funds, which they can use to collect donations for financing their election campaign activities. The total expenditure from the private fund is not allowed to exceed 105 million Belarusian Roubles (approx. 26,000 Euro). All candidates also have access to some budget funds, at an amount which will not be determined by the Central Election Commission until up to three days after the registration of candidates. During the 2006 presidential elections, the registered candidates were only able to use finances from the state budget for their election campaigns. These were limited by the Central Election Commission to 66,700,000 Belarusian Roubles (approx. 16,600 Euro). For further informations see 1st Weekly analytical review of the Initiative “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections”: http://spring96.org/en/news/35324/ ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna. Press Release No 1: Date announced14th September 2010 House of Representatives in Minsk announces date for presidential elections The Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections and the European Exchange start domestic election monitoring of the presidential elections The Belarusian presidential elections are to take place on 19th December 2010. This was decided today by the House of Representatives in Minsk. In advance of the decision, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka, who has been governing autocratically since 1994, had already announced that he would stand for election for a fourth time. A further 13 candidates who are critical of the regime also intend to register their candidacies. The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, in which up to 160 local experts - long-term observers, legal experts, journalists and election experts– are taking part, is announcing a long-term monitoring campaign of all stages of the election. In addition, the initiative is planning a nationwide mobilisation of up to 600 short-term election observers, who will control the voting and vote-counting processes in the election precincts. The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections, which was founded by the largest Belarusian human rights organisations, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and the Human Rights Center Viasna, with the support of the organisation European Exchange, based in Berlin, will be reporting regularly on the course of the elections. Both Belarusian organisations will be publishing comprehensive analyses of each stage of the elections, as well as providing daily news from the regions of Belarus. Furthermore, European Exchange will be using weekly newsletters to inform the international community of the most important trends of the election campaign. The initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections already carried out independent monitoring of the 2008 parliamentary elections and the 2010 local elections. These elections were adjudged to be not free and not fair. The human rights activists demanded a comprehensive reform of the Belarusian electoral code, which would prevent acts of manipulation and which would guarantee that society had control over the electoral process. During the presidential elections 2010, a new partner organisation – Election Monitoring – Theory and Practice will join the Initiative Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections. ____________ This newsletter is produced by European Exchange in cooperation with the Human Rights Center Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee in Minsk. The domestic election monitoring project is being partially supported by the MATRA-Programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Warsaw and the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin. All up-to-date information on events concerning the presidential elections, as well as the archived reports from the 2008 parliamentary and 2010 local elections, can be found both at the internet page of the European Exchange and the page if the Human Rights Center Viasna.
|
