Russian Election

There is a Presidential election in Russia on Sunday. 420 Short Term Observers have been deployed. I applied but did not get chosen. Why not?

The last Election Observation Mission to Russia was for the State Duma election in September 2016. More than 300 STOs went of which seven were from the UK; three women and four men. In elections in smaller countries the monitoring teams are much smaller but UK representation is not necessarily smaller. In Montenegro in 2016 twelve UK STOs were deployed The next EOM is in October to Georgia. In 2016 fourteen STOs were sent from the UK.

After a Mission a comprehensive Final Report is published. The State Duma Final Report is published here. The most interesting sections are about any perceived shortcomings and recommendations to improve same. So how did Russia do in 2016?

The Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions issued by the IEOM on 19 September 2016 concluded that “the 18 September State Duma elections were transparently administered by the CEC, while the performance of lower level commissions was uneven. The legal framework can serve as an adequate basis for the conduct of elections, but democratic commitments continue to be challenged and the electoral environment was negatively affected by restrictions to fundamental freedoms and political rights, firmly controlled media and a tightening grip on civil society. The liberalized party registration process has yet to result in distinct political alternatives, and the campaign was low-key. Local authorities did not always treat the contestants equally, and instances of misuse of administrative resources were noted. The election day generally proceeded in an orderly manner, but numerous procedural irregularities were noted during counting.” The voter turnout was announced at 48 per cent.

Priority Recommendations

1. Consideration should be given to simplifying the legal framework for the elections, especially with respect to the complex and restrictive procedures for candidate registration, campaigning, and media coverage.

2. Authorities should align legislation concerning the freedoms of association, assembly and expression with international standards. The authorities should not interpret the law to limit the basic rights and freedoms provided for by the Constitution and international standards.

3. Authorities should demonstrate full respect of fundamental freedoms and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens as foreseen by the legislation. A competitive political environment which could result in viable political alternatives is of crucial importance.

4. Media outlets should be free in establishing their own editorial policies. Concrete steps should be taken to strengthen editorial and financial independence of the state and public media to facilitate citizens’ access to pluralistic information.

5. Consideration could be given to decriminalizing libel and insult of state officials as well as repealing legislation placing disproportionate limitations on free speech and expression, including on the Internet.

6. In line with international standards and commitments, the legislation should guarantee non- partisan citizen observers the opportunity to independently scrutinize the electoral process.

7. To enhance trust in the electoral dispute resolution process the authorities should thoroughly investigate all cases of election violations, and perpetrators, including election commission members who participate in or tolerate such malpractices, should be prosecuted in accordance with the law.

8. Political parties could be encouraged to promote gender equality and take resolute actions to put forward gender-balanced candidate lists, to increase visibility of female candidates during election campaigns and to integrate gender issues into their platforms.

Does the UK come under the scrutiny of the OSCE/ODIHR? Here’s their report on the need for an IOM at the General Election in June 2017 and this is the gist of it.

OSCE/ODIHR NAM interlocutors expressed a high level of confidence in the electoral process, including existing checks and balances, as well as the ability of the election administration to manage the election in a professional and transparent manner. Notwithstanding, OSCE/ODIHR NAM interlocutors welcomed a possible external assessment by an observation activity.

The OSCE/ODIHR NAM identified that authorities have been considering a series of comprehensive reform efforts, including to modernize and simplify the complex electoral legislation, review constituency boundaries, and enhance the voter registration process, some of which would address previous OSCE/ODIHR recommendations. However, most of these initiatives have not been completed and implemented ahead of the early general election. Taking into account the issues raised by OSCE/ODIHR NAM interlocutors, the OSCE/ODIHR NAM recommends deploying an Election Expert Team (EET) for the 8 June early general election to review the regulation and oversight of campaign finance and legal provisions pertaining to media coverage of the election. The assessment of these aspects of the electoral process by an EET could contribute to the ongoing electoral reform process. The OSCE/ODIHR reiterates that a number of its previous recommendations are still valid and encourages the authorities to also consider the issues raised by interlocutors in discussions with the OSCE/ODIHR NAM. The OSCE/ODIHR stands ready to offer its assistance upon request in a post- election follow-up process.

So the UK got an Election Expert Team that consisted of three, unnamed, experts drawn from OSCE member countries. Here are their recommendations.

1. Consideration could be given to establishing annual limits on the amount a single permissible donor may contribute to a political party or a candidate, in order to prevent undue influence of large contributors.

2. Consideration could be given to establishing a single formula for calculation of expenditure limits for political parties with a view to ensure equality and consistency of financial rules. In order to address the blurring of campaign expenditure at the national and local levels, consideration could be given to further clarifying political party spending focused on constituencies.

3. Consideration could be given to lower the reporting threshold of donations to enhance the transparency of the sources of political finance.

4. Consideration could be given to vesting the EC with investigative and sanctioning powers for offences relating to candidates’ spending and donations. The overall EC’s role and effectiveness for oversight of party finance regulation could be strengthened with increased sanctioning authority.

5. Consideration could be given to establish regular measurement framework in which the OFCOM would assess plurality within different media markets with an aim to achieve transparency and to prevent undue influence.

I cannot fathom why there is no mention of electoral fraud arising from postal voting but perhaps that is outside the remit of such a small team. Apologies for the excessive length of this post but democracy needs to be protected and it is interesting to see how this is in part achieved.