Bulgarian election confirms credible process but voter turnout efforts introduce a degree of uncertainty
(OSCE)Voters in Sofia, Bulgaria's capital, cast their ballots in parliamentary elections on 25 June 2005. (OSCE) Photo details
SOFIA, 26 June 2005- The Bulgarian parliamentary election on 25 June demonstrated the credibility of the election process but some administrative and political issues have created a measure of uncertainty and decreased confidence, and in some instances represented a departure from best electoral practice.
These are the preliminary conclusions of the Election Assessment Mission, deployed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, in response to an invitation from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
"The election process in Bulgaria has enjoyed broad confidence since the early 1990s, and has been established on a sound basis of cross-party election administration that permits overall transparancy and accountability at all levels of the election administration", said Gerald Mitchell, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Mission, which consisted of 12 international experts from 11 OSCE participating States.
"However, ambiguity between the role of the electoral and governmental authorites in organizing the election, combined with the introduction of some unique government-led efforts to increase voter turnout, introduced a level of uncertainty in the process", he added.
The Mission findings underscore the fact that the responsibilities between the governing authorities and the election administration are not sufficiently detailed in legislation. The late submission of the election budget by the Council of Ministers to the Central Election Commission (CEC) did not permit adequate input and consultation with election officials. Disagreement on aspects of the budget, including substantial increases for voter turnout initiatives and voting abroad, were finally resolved by the Supreme Administrative Court, upholding the government view and denying an appeal brought by several parties.
An element of the voter turnout campaign was a decision by the Council of Ministers to apply public funds to the organization of a pre- and post-election lottery, with participation contingent on having voted. While enhancing voter turnout is a worthwhile objective, the government's direct role in financing and organizing the lottery against the opinion of most political parties and the majority of CEC members, led to the perception among many election participants that such an activity could be aimed at influencing voter choice.
The election campaign was conducted in a generally calm environment, although the introduction by one party of hate-speech in Bulgaria's political dialogue is an unwelcome development in this election. Despite new campaign finance legislation, election participants remarked on the rise of campaign costs, and there were reports of the misuse of administrative resources to the benefit of the governing parties.
Media coverage of the campaign provided voters with a wide range of information, in particular of the major political parties. Paid campaign coverage was dominant in private and state media, especially in the latter, since the law only permits paid election coverage in state media, excluding parties with limited financial resources.
Although the Assessment Mission did not undertake systematic observation of polling station procedures, the conduct of the election day appeared overall to be professionally and efficiently organized. However, the increased use of certificates to enable absentee voting formed the basis of numerous complaints to the CEC.
The lack of adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorised duplication of such certicificates, combined with complaints to the CEC on the organized transport of voters by bus in some parts of the country, compounded concerns about the potential for multiple-voting. The extent of this concern should be clarified during the national review of the voter lists, to be undertaken by the civil registry authorities. OSCE/ODIHR observers directly confirmed widespread concerns related to organized attempts to influence the vote of Bulgaria's Roma communities, including vote-buying.
The OSCE/ODIHR Assessment Mission, based in Sofia, deployed teams to Blagoevgrad, Bourgas, Kardjali, Pleven, Plovdiv, Shumen, Sliven, Stara Zagora, Varna and Vidin. It focused on the legal framework for elections, election administration, the campaign, and the role of the media, as well as the participation of national minorities. The Mission met candidates and representatives of political parties, government officials, electoral authorities, the media, national minorities and civil society.
The OSCE/ODIHR will continue to follow the election process and will prepare its Final Report, including recommendations, approximately one month after completion of the process.
These are the preliminary conclusions of the Election Assessment Mission, deployed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, in response to an invitation from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
"The election process in Bulgaria has enjoyed broad confidence since the early 1990s, and has been established on a sound basis of cross-party election administration that permits overall transparancy and accountability at all levels of the election administration", said Gerald Mitchell, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Mission, which consisted of 12 international experts from 11 OSCE participating States.
"However, ambiguity between the role of the electoral and governmental authorites in organizing the election, combined with the introduction of some unique government-led efforts to increase voter turnout, introduced a level of uncertainty in the process", he added.
The Mission findings underscore the fact that the responsibilities between the governing authorities and the election administration are not sufficiently detailed in legislation. The late submission of the election budget by the Council of Ministers to the Central Election Commission (CEC) did not permit adequate input and consultation with election officials. Disagreement on aspects of the budget, including substantial increases for voter turnout initiatives and voting abroad, were finally resolved by the Supreme Administrative Court, upholding the government view and denying an appeal brought by several parties.
An element of the voter turnout campaign was a decision by the Council of Ministers to apply public funds to the organization of a pre- and post-election lottery, with participation contingent on having voted. While enhancing voter turnout is a worthwhile objective, the government's direct role in financing and organizing the lottery against the opinion of most political parties and the majority of CEC members, led to the perception among many election participants that such an activity could be aimed at influencing voter choice.
The election campaign was conducted in a generally calm environment, although the introduction by one party of hate-speech in Bulgaria's political dialogue is an unwelcome development in this election. Despite new campaign finance legislation, election participants remarked on the rise of campaign costs, and there were reports of the misuse of administrative resources to the benefit of the governing parties.
Media coverage of the campaign provided voters with a wide range of information, in particular of the major political parties. Paid campaign coverage was dominant in private and state media, especially in the latter, since the law only permits paid election coverage in state media, excluding parties with limited financial resources.
Although the Assessment Mission did not undertake systematic observation of polling station procedures, the conduct of the election day appeared overall to be professionally and efficiently organized. However, the increased use of certificates to enable absentee voting formed the basis of numerous complaints to the CEC.
The lack of adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorised duplication of such certicificates, combined with complaints to the CEC on the organized transport of voters by bus in some parts of the country, compounded concerns about the potential for multiple-voting. The extent of this concern should be clarified during the national review of the voter lists, to be undertaken by the civil registry authorities. OSCE/ODIHR observers directly confirmed widespread concerns related to organized attempts to influence the vote of Bulgaria's Roma communities, including vote-buying.
The OSCE/ODIHR Assessment Mission, based in Sofia, deployed teams to Blagoevgrad, Bourgas, Kardjali, Pleven, Plovdiv, Shumen, Sliven, Stara Zagora, Varna and Vidin. It focused on the legal framework for elections, election administration, the campaign, and the role of the media, as well as the participation of national minorities. The Mission met candidates and representatives of political parties, government officials, electoral authorities, the media, national minorities and civil society.
The OSCE/ODIHR will continue to follow the election process and will prepare its Final Report, including recommendations, approximately one month after completion of the process.