Republic of Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) General Parliamentary Elections, 2001
Report on the OSCE International Election Observation Mission
In April 2001, I participated in the OSCE International Short Term Observation Mission monitoring the General Parliamentary Election of the Republic of Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). As the only ACEEEO delegate, I was delighted to be a member of a team of approximately two-hundred election observers recruited and deployed by OSCE. This report aims to summarize (1) my role and experience during the exciting five days, (2) my analytical remarks about the election process.
On 22 April 2001, Montenegro held an early Parliamentary Election. Among the more than two-hundred OSCE election observers, I had the honor to represent the ACEEEO. During the five-day mission I have been to various parts of Montenegro, and tasted the main peculiarities of this small republic in Southeast Europe: was trained at the sea coast, observed the elections in the mountainous and snowy area of Savnik and spent some time in Podgorica.
I wholeheartedly share the general opinion about the Election in Montenegro, that it was “pluralistic, accountable and transparent”, as stated by Mr. Tiit Kabin, Vice-President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Provided that in my deployment area the total number of registered voters did not reach 1,500(!), my concurring conclusion do not seem to be astonishing. My comments below concern the registration (criteria and handling of personal data), the composition of polling station committees, the allocation of seats (final selection of candidates), and the number of government agencies involved in the implementation. I do not intend to provide an overall review of the legislation related to the electoral process. Nevertheless, I noted the referring article or section of the election legislations where appropriate.
Following a governmental break-up and the disband of the previous legislative body, Montenegro called for an early parliamentary election to decide which political forces shall govern the republic, and through that, what direction it should take vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Serbia. This political stake, whether to stay in the federation and if so in what form stated the fundamental discussion point preceding to the voting. Thus, two main political coalition were formed to support the idea of an independent republic or continued federation. The actual results of the election – that I do not intend to comment any deeper – proved that this division line linger on for a while in the Montenegrin society.
The OSCE, at the invitation from the Speaker of the Parliament of Montenegro established an Election Observation Mission to assess the pre-election environment, political campaigns, media coverage, the election preparations and the actual voting procedure. A number of long and short term monitors were therefore recruited and deployed throughout “Crna Gora”.
Short term observers went through the customary training procedure that offered general understanding about the ethnic, economic, political, media, and overall societal environment of the republic. Evidently, a great deal of time was devoted to the study of the legal environment and the electoral legislation.
As observed in the area of Savnik, which is the smallest of the twenty one municipalities in Montenegro, the voting on April 22 was conducted in an orderly manner. At the 12 polling stations, me and a fellow Spaniard observer visited, no attempts of fraudulent behavior or major irregularities were encountered. A minor incident of open voting occurred at only one polling site. (N.B. given the small number of voters in the area, it turned out to be a real occasion to see an actual voter during the thirty to forty minutes spent at one place.)
Savnik municipality is the least developed in Montenegro – during winter it is often cut off from the external world. Deprived circumstances – though did not affect the final outcome of the elections –resulted in poor conditions of voting sites: access to the building, lack of heating, miserable "interieur" were repeatedly examined. And yet the total number of registered voters did not reach a hundred at most places, Polling Station Committee (referred in the law as Polling Board) members had to spend a full day in this environment.
I am most critical about the composition of the Polling Boards. The section of the election law (Art. 35.) concerning the boards was extremely vaguely and misleadingly constructed. The number of members can stretch as high as twenty or so. Aside from the five permanent members (including a chairman) and their deputies, parties (“submitters of electoral lists”) are allowed to send one delegate and his/her deputy. Plus, the law allows the two main “opposition parties in the respective assembly, which won the largest number of votes in the last election” to appoint one additional member (and his/her deputy). This not only resulted in confusion and mis-understanding about the size of the local board even among members, but imagine with the presence of one or two domestic election monitors approximately twelve individuals sitting in a tiny room and all smoking incessantly…
ð I recommend the revision of Art. 35. of the election law: reduce the size of polling board members and spell out clearly the roles and responsibilities.
We could observe the handling of voter registries. It was striking how many copies were in use – both by the in charge polling board members and the present party delegates. The criteria set in Art. 11. in the election law about the active voting right requires age, business capacity and at least twenty four months of permanent residence in the territory of the republic. In order to ensure transparency, voter registry extracts were given to political parties to allow them to verify the names on the lists based on the provisions of Art. 17. of the Law on Registers of Electors. The list contained not only the name, date of birth and address of each voters of the municipality but also personal identity numbers. I deem this practice to be potentially providing ground for the misuse of sensitive, personal information.
ð I recommend the revision of Law on Registers of Electors with an eye on treating and access to materials containing personal data to guarantee privileged protection of such sensitive information.
According to Art. 96. of the election law, “the seats within the total number of seats and electoral list has won shall be apportioned by apportioning one half of the seats to the candidates on the electoral list according to the order on the list, and the remaining seats to the candidates on the list in accordance with the decision of the submitters of the electoral lists.” In other words: the identity of one half of the actual MPs will come to surface only after the voting taken place and the result was announced. This, I found, partially the fault of the pure proportional system that seem to be a habit in the former Yugoslav republics.
ð I am in favor of the mixed or individual candidate systems that allows for voters to be familiar with local candidates and for candidates to “personalize” their campaign themes. Without doubt, I would urge for revision of this practice in allocation of seats to be tightened to the rank of party lists.
Without concrete recommendation, to portray the “labyrinth” of roles and responsibilities concerning the administration of the elections, please find below the list of government agencies involved in the process:
· Republic Election Commission
· Municipal Election Commission
· Polling Boards
· Ministry of Interior
· Municipal Administration
· Secretary of Development
· Ministry of Justice
· Supreme Court
· Constitutional Court
As highlighted above, political parties are allowed to inspect the voter register and double-check through electronic testing or canvassing for voters.
ð I recommend a general revision of roles and responsibilities of government agencies involved in order to simplify the process.
I tried to provide my utmost during the five days I spent as an ACEEEO delegate in Montenegro. I trust, I represented the organization visibly. I distributed information about the ACEEEO to a handful of people and highlighted its unique regional structure and competence.
I am grateful for this delightful experience which not only allowed me to get in acquaintance with Montenegro’s election related matters but gave me further outstanding insights of Southeastern European concerns.
Budapest, May 9, 2001
Roland Kovats
Relevant sites:
http://www.osce.org/news/in_focus/montenegro_elections_in_focus.php3