»Einige Verbesserungen – insgesamt aber ein Rückschritt«

This Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions is the result of a common endeavour involving the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the European Parliament (EP) and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA).

[...]

Preliminary Conclusions

The 28 October parliamentary elections were characterized by the lack of a level playing field, caused primarily by the abuse of administrative resources, lack of transparency of campaign and party financing, and lack of balanced media coverage. Certain aspects of the pre-election period constituted a step backwards compared with recent national elections. Voters had a choice between distinct parties. Election day was calm and peaceful overall. Voting and counting were assessed mostly positively. Tabulation was assessed negatively as it lacked transparency.

The legislative framework for parliamentary elections could provide a basis for the conduct of democratic elections, if implemented properly. The new electoral law, adopted in November 2011, reinstated a mixed electoral system without the required wide consensual discussion and reintroduced deficiencies that were noted when it was previously used. The law includes some important improvements, although it also contains a number of shortcomings, mainly regarding the full enjoyment of candidacy rights, adequate campaign finance provisions, absence of clear criteria for the delineation of single-mandate election districts, and lack of effective sanctions for serious violations of the law.

Candidate registration was inclusive, with two notable exceptions, and resulted in a diverse field of candidates, representing a wide variety of political views, even though over 400 nominees were rejected, almost half for minor technical problems. Twenty-one political parties contested the proportional elections, while over 2,600 party and self-nominated candidates ran in the singlemandate districts. Women were underrepresented among candidates, in particular in single-mandate districts. Some small parties appear to have registered candidates solely in order to obtain seats on election commissions (so-called ‘‘technical parties’’). In line with legal provisions, the CEC denied registration to Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko, two prominent opposition politicians, who are currently serving prison sentences following trials criticized by the OSCE PA, the PACE and the EP as unfair. As a consequence of such trials, their inability to stand is in contradiction with the commitments outlined in paragraphs 5.1, 7.5 and 24 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. The fact that they were not able to run as candidates negatively affected the election process.

Powerful economic groups influenced the political environment to the detriment of the electoral process. This manifested itself, inter alia, in a lack of diversity in media ownership and pluralism, as well as a lack of transparency in campaign and party financing.

During the pre-election period, the election administration, headed by the Central Election Commission (CEC), managed the technical aspects of the process adequately. However, it routinely held pre-session meetings behind closed doors, and most open sessions lacked substantive discussion; this decreased the transparency of the CEC’’s activities. The CEC did not always take steps to ensure a consistent implementation of the electoral law.

Most positions in District Election Commissions (DECs) and Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) were filled by lottery, as a result of which some technical parties obtained representation in all DECs while other parties with candidates throughout the country were not represented in DECs at all. Almost half of PEC and 60 per cent of DEC members were subsequently replaced. There were claims, some of which were verified by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM, that election commissioners nominated by technical parties were, in fact, affiliated with other parties, especially the ruling Party of Regions.

The centralized voter registration system appeared to be functioning well, with no serious concerns raised by stakeholders. Preliminary voter lists were generally available for public scrutiny. In a positive step, the CEC limited the possibility for voters to vote in another electoral district, in response to concerns about possible abuse.

The campaign was visible and active overall, in particular in urban areas, and was competitive in most of the country. However, the ability of candidates to get their messages to voters and to compete under equal conditions, in accordance with paragraphs 7.6 and 7.7 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, was negatively affected in a significant number of electoral districts due to harassment, intimidation and misuse of administrative resources. This misuse demonstrated the absence of a clear distinction between the State and the ruling party in some regions, contrary to paragraph 5.4 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document.

Regarding the media environment, new provisions in the electoral law for voters’’ right to diverse, objective and unbiased information and for balanced coverage are a positive step. However, they remain declarative as balanced coverage remains undefined in the law and mechanisms for monitoring of and ensuring compliance with this provision are lacking. The campaign coverage in news and current affairs programs on the most popular monitored TV channels was limited, which may have negatively affected voters’’ access to different political views. The fact that five times as much paid political advertising was broadcast indicates that in order to reach out to voters, political parties required significant financial means. State TV displayed a clear bias in favour of the ruling party.

Election commissions and courts received a high number of complaints and appeals. While these were adjudicated in a timely manner, the CEC’’s handling of complaints was often excessively formalistic and at times contradictory, and a number of its resolutions were lacking sufficient factual information or legal reasoning. This left the aggrieved parties without due consideration of their claims, contrary to paragraph 5.10 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. A significant number of court decisions displayed an inconsistent approach to the implementation and interpretation of the law.

Election day was calm and peaceful overall. The CEC announced a preliminary voter turnout of 58 per cent. The voting and counting process was orderly and well organized in the large majority of polling stations observed, with only minor procedural problems noted. However, the unusually high number of homebound voters in some election districts raises concerns. The tabulation process was assessed negatively in one third of DECs observed, mainly due to problems with PEC protocols and limited transparency. The active involvement of a large number of domestic observers throughout the entire electoral process enhanced its overall transparency.

Den vollständigen Bericht finden Sie hier.