Tweet
RUSSIAN DUMA ELECTIONS WERE NOT FAIR
A1+
[02:50 am] 03 December, 2007
Russian Duma elections 'not held on a level playing field', say
parliamentary observers.
The State Duma elections in the Russian Federation on 2 December
2007 were not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe
commitments and standards for democratic elections, according to an
observation mission of parliamentarians from these two bodies.
The observation, bringing together over 70 parliamentarians from 28
countries, was a joint effort of delegations from the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), led by Luc van den Brande,
and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE PA), led by Goran Lennmarker. The Nordic
Council also joins these two bodies in this statement. A broader
participation of international observers would have been preferable
and could have contributed to greater transparency.
In general, the elections were well organised and observers noticed
significant technical improvements.
However, they took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited
political competition and with frequent abuse of administrative
resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party,
and an election code whose cumulative effect hindered political
pluralism. There was not a level political playing field in Russia
in 2007. In particular, the following major areas raised concern:
* The merging of the state and a political party is an abuse of power
and a clear violation of international commitments and standards.
* The media showed strong bias in favour of President Putin and the
ruling United Russia party.
* The new election code makes it extremely difficult for new and
smaller parties to develop and compete effectively.
* There were widespread reports of harassment of opposition
parties. The Copenhagen Commitments (5.4), agreed by all OSCE
participating states, specifically state that there should be "a clear
separation between the State and political parties; in particular,
political parties will not be merged with the State".
The Council of Europe's Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters
(I.2.3) lays down that state authorities must have "a neutral
attitude" to the election campaign, media coverage and party and
campaign funding.
The extensive use of administrative resources - such as state
infrastructure and personnel on the public payroll - on behalf
of United Russia is a clear violation of these commitments and
standards. Most appointed governors are included on United Russia
lists, which is misleading to voters as these senior officials
are unlikely to abandon high public office to take up seats in the
Duma. The active role of the head of state on behalf of United Russia,
in spite of not being a member of that party, turned a parliamentary
election into a referendum on the President.
Broadcast media, particularly television, is under almost total state
control. President Putin and United Russia dominated the airwaves
during the election campaign with overwhelmingly positive coverage.
According to monitoring reports, the state-funded media failed in
their public mandate to offer balanced and objective coverage and
this made it very difficult for the voters to get an accurate and
unbiased picture of the political parties and the issues.
The print media have been more dynamic and there have been examples
of balanced coverage in several newspapers. However, the print
media, in particular the more independent papers, do not reach a
wide audience. The new election law creates a pure proportional list
system in which only established political parties can seek election,
eliminating the possibility for local and independent candidates to
run for office.
The total effect of the new election code makes it extremely difficult
for new and small parties to develop and compete effectively. The
registration procedure is complicated and requires either a substantial
fee or a high number of signatures. The code also contains significant
financial disincentives for smaller parties to participate in the
campaign.
The seven percent threshold and the ban on parties forming electoral
blocs discourage the development of new political parties and more
pluralistic parliamentary representation.
The pre-election campaign was marked by the authorities' clampdowns
on opposition rallies and demonstrations. Voters were denied an open
campaign, as United Russia chose not to participate in political
debates, making it more difficult for voters to directly compare the
platforms of the various political parties.
There were persistent reports of harassment of opposition candidates,
detentions, confiscation of election material, threats against voters
and allegations of the potential misuse of absentee certificates. NGOs
have faced restrictions on their work, and some also reported they were
not allowed to observe the voting at polling stations on election day.
On election day, polling stations seemed well-run, although they
were at times crowded. The voting took place in a mostly calm and
friendly atmosphere.
Election officials were generally welcoming, although the observers
experienced some over-zealous policemen.
Domestic observers representing various political parties were present
in many polling stations.
Observers noticed that people who were not registered and without
absentee certificates were allowed to vote. Voting arrangements, such
as the use of electronic boxes and voting booths that did not provide
adequate privacy, failed to protect the secrecy of the vote. The seals
on some ballot-boxes were inadequate. Some international observers
faced obstructions to their work - including, in isolated cases,
refusal of access.
A1+
[02:50 am] 03 December, 2007
Russian Duma elections 'not held on a level playing field', say
parliamentary observers.
The State Duma elections in the Russian Federation on 2 December
2007 were not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe
commitments and standards for democratic elections, according to an
observation mission of parliamentarians from these two bodies.
The observation, bringing together over 70 parliamentarians from 28
countries, was a joint effort of delegations from the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), led by Luc van den Brande,
and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE PA), led by Goran Lennmarker. The Nordic
Council also joins these two bodies in this statement. A broader
participation of international observers would have been preferable
and could have contributed to greater transparency.
In general, the elections were well organised and observers noticed
significant technical improvements.
However, they took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited
political competition and with frequent abuse of administrative
resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party,
and an election code whose cumulative effect hindered political
pluralism. There was not a level political playing field in Russia
in 2007. In particular, the following major areas raised concern:
* The merging of the state and a political party is an abuse of power
and a clear violation of international commitments and standards.
* The media showed strong bias in favour of President Putin and the
ruling United Russia party.
* The new election code makes it extremely difficult for new and
smaller parties to develop and compete effectively.
* There were widespread reports of harassment of opposition
parties. The Copenhagen Commitments (5.4), agreed by all OSCE
participating states, specifically state that there should be "a clear
separation between the State and political parties; in particular,
political parties will not be merged with the State".
The Council of Europe's Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters
(I.2.3) lays down that state authorities must have "a neutral
attitude" to the election campaign, media coverage and party and
campaign funding.
The extensive use of administrative resources - such as state
infrastructure and personnel on the public payroll - on behalf
of United Russia is a clear violation of these commitments and
standards. Most appointed governors are included on United Russia
lists, which is misleading to voters as these senior officials
are unlikely to abandon high public office to take up seats in the
Duma. The active role of the head of state on behalf of United Russia,
in spite of not being a member of that party, turned a parliamentary
election into a referendum on the President.
Broadcast media, particularly television, is under almost total state
control. President Putin and United Russia dominated the airwaves
during the election campaign with overwhelmingly positive coverage.
According to monitoring reports, the state-funded media failed in
their public mandate to offer balanced and objective coverage and
this made it very difficult for the voters to get an accurate and
unbiased picture of the political parties and the issues.
The print media have been more dynamic and there have been examples
of balanced coverage in several newspapers. However, the print
media, in particular the more independent papers, do not reach a
wide audience. The new election law creates a pure proportional list
system in which only established political parties can seek election,
eliminating the possibility for local and independent candidates to
run for office.
The total effect of the new election code makes it extremely difficult
for new and small parties to develop and compete effectively. The
registration procedure is complicated and requires either a substantial
fee or a high number of signatures. The code also contains significant
financial disincentives for smaller parties to participate in the
campaign.
The seven percent threshold and the ban on parties forming electoral
blocs discourage the development of new political parties and more
pluralistic parliamentary representation.
The pre-election campaign was marked by the authorities' clampdowns
on opposition rallies and demonstrations. Voters were denied an open
campaign, as United Russia chose not to participate in political
debates, making it more difficult for voters to directly compare the
platforms of the various political parties.
There were persistent reports of harassment of opposition candidates,
detentions, confiscation of election material, threats against voters
and allegations of the potential misuse of absentee certificates. NGOs
have faced restrictions on their work, and some also reported they were
not allowed to observe the voting at polling stations on election day.
On election day, polling stations seemed well-run, although they
were at times crowded. The voting took place in a mostly calm and
friendly atmosphere.
Election officials were generally welcoming, although the observers
experienced some over-zealous policemen.
Domestic observers representing various political parties were present
in many polling stations.
Observers noticed that people who were not registered and without
absentee certificates were allowed to vote. Voting arrangements, such
as the use of electronic boxes and voting booths that did not provide
adequate privacy, failed to protect the secrecy of the vote. The seals
on some ballot-boxes were inadequate. Some international observers
faced obstructions to their work - including, in isolated cases,
refusal of access.