|
Comments of the Central Commission of the Republic of Belarus on Elections
and Republican Referenda regarding the Preliminary Report of the OSCE
Election Observation Mission
The Central Commission has studied the preliminary report of the OSCE
Election Observation Mission and believes, that evaluation of the last
election campaign as “essentially not meeting the OSCE obligations” is not
grounded on real events, that took place during the elections, as well as on
the circumstances, that are listed in the closing part as substantiation of
the drawn conclusions. Another shortcoming of the report is the fact, that
it practically neglects the opinion of a significant number of the short
term observers of the same Mission, who visited our country during voting
and made positive conclusions with respect to the organization of the voting
process at 9 out of 10 visits to polling stations as noted in the final
report of the OSCE Mission.
The conclusion contains mainly the enumeration of the criticism concerning
the process of the election preparation, but not the election itself, and
the emphasis is made on shortcomings, while at the same such positive
moments are concealed, as openness of the procedures of election commissions
of all levels, the possibility to obtain from electoral bodies any
information about their activities, the benevolence to the representatives
of the Mission during numerous contacts in the course of the election
observation. It is a pity that there was no due appreciation of the
observation, carried out by national observers, whose total number was
24,500 persons. The Mission marked only the shortcomings that had occurred
during contacts between national observers and electoral bodies, and ignored
another widely represented point of view both of national observers as well
as of other international observation missions. This testifies to a certain
bias for an unfavorable evaluation of the election.
The remarks made with respect to the passed nationwide referendum seem
unsubstantiated. It is our opinion that the Mission should abstain from any
evaluation of this event since it had previously refused to observe the
preparation and conducting of the referendum. Moreover, any negative
evaluation of the referendum is inadmissible and should be removed from the
report since it is not based on observation and is not substantiated by any
evidence. Thus, it is impossible to explain, from the point of view of
logic, the statement that the referendum resulted in “unregulated intrusion
even into the polling stations”. This military term was evidently used to
characterize a high level of activity of voters in connection with the
referendum. Also unsubstantiated is the statement that “the issues of
concern regarding parliamentary elections are also fully applicable to the
referendum”, since the referendum is correlated to the elections only during
voting. This campaign does not contain the elements of competition between
candidates necessary for the elections, and that is exactly what was the
main object of studies for the Mission during its long-term observation.
Unsubstantiated are the statements made about the obstacles put before
international observers. Thus, the report states that observers were refused
an opportunity to visit polling stations located in border zones despite the
“assurances by the central authorities”. However, this does not correspond
with the reality, since the Central Election Commission informed Mission
representatives that access to the mentioned territories to all citizens
without exception including representatives of the Central Commission would
be possible only if the established procedure has been fulfilled. However,
Mission representatives did not wish to make use of this special procedure.
Mandate violations by Mission representatives have been noted when observers
asked questions incompatible with election observation objectives during
their visits to military units. It was exactly in those isolated cases when
international observers violated the established observation standards that
critical remarks were addressed to them up to a warning on possible removal
from a polling station.
Despite an official warning from the Central Election Commission on
inadmissibility of cooperation with unregistered organizations,
particularly, with civil initiative “Partnership”, since, according to
Belarusian legislation, activities of unregistered organizations are
prohibited, the Mission, according to its report, made contacts only with
that organization which, in our opinion, is unacceptable and in future
should be taken into consideration by the ODIHR OSCE in further elaboration
of the Election Observation Guidelines.
It
is impossible to regard as reasoned the observations on organization of
election campaign. As noted in the statement, all candidates were given the
right to make, according to the law, statements free of charge on television
and radio, as well as publish their programs in mass media. There have been
isolated instances of censorship on the part of mass media, and the Central
Election Committee has received just one complaint in this regard. The
reproach that some candidates resorted to self-censorship is absolutely
incomprehensible. Nobody can be reproached with that since the right to
control one’s own statements is an inalienable right of a particular
citizen, which cannot be controlled from outside.
Giving negative characteristics to the state press only, the Mission in its
statement does not react in any way to inadmissible from the moral point of
view publications in non-state press teaching voters how to spoil referendum
ballots and distort election results. As a whole, that chapter of the
statement does not contain proofs of violation by state mass media of
international election standards to provide candidates with equal
opportunities to conduct election campaign.
The assessment of the work of the Central Election Commission in the
statement is subjective and is not based on the national legislation.
For example, the statement indicates that the work of county and precinct
commissions “was complicated by a clear unwillingness of the Central
Election Commission to give detailed and distinct instructions”. However,
none of the subordinate commissions requested the Central Election
Commission to give such instructions. Moreover, immediately after the
elections were declared, all election commissions received clear
recommendations regulating their work. The Mission was aware of that fact.
Mission experts demanded that the Central Election Commission issue more
detailed instructions. In doing so, they completely ignored observations
that such proposals were unlawful and could not be accepted by the
Commission.
The assertion about the formal character of the consideration of requests in
the Central Election Commission and Supreme Court is not objective. This
process was carried out in full compliance with the law.
Following the elections, insignificant number of complaints was received by
the Central Election Commission, where flagrant violations of the election
legislation were not mentioned. The statement of the Mission also mentions
that the campaign was carried out in compliance with the national
legislation.
In view of the above, we consider the statement of preliminary findings and
conclusions by the OSCE Election Observation Mission as unjustified.
|
