Experts ROIIP pointed to the vague wording of the recommendations of the OSCE ODIHR
Photo: RIA NOVOSTI/Ramil Sitdikov
Office for democratic institutions and human rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE over the past 20 years she has trained 4 thousand 453 recommendations for improving electoral processes in different countries of the world. A record number of comments and suggestions of international observers sent to Ukraine — 342. Least three of Finland. Russia made 146 comments, most of which has already been done. The corresponding analysis of the reports of the OSCE / ODIHR conducted the Russian public Institute of electoral law (ROIIP). Analysts say that with every year grows the number of recommendations without specifics — “potentially inefficient, politicised character.”
Materials on теме3Russia and Europe closer to election standards PolicyElla Pamfilova will strengthen the CEC’s personnel Policy, the CEC will submit its comments to the OSCE report on elections in the state Duma Politics
The final report of the ODIHR is preparing a “intensively,” the report ROIIP. Just between 1995 and 2016, the Bureau has formulated 4453 recommendations which are mainly directed at the organizers of the election.
Most of the comments of the ODIHR issued a Ukraine — 342. The second highest number of recommendations Serbia — 281. Then there are Belarus (273), Georgia (270), Kyrgyzstan (269), Armenia (240), Macedonia (236), Montenegro (215), Kazakhstan (213) and Moldova (196).
The most disciplined in the elections, according to the ODIHR was Finland — 3, Estonia — 5, Switzerland — 6, UK — 9, -10 Austria, Norway — 16, Monaco — 17, Lithuania — 18, Malta and Spain 21 — 23.
A number of countries, including Andorra, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Turkmenistan and France, more than twenty years has not received from any of the ODIHR recommendations. International observers either did not come to them at all, or “declined to comment”, said the “Izvestia” Executive Director of the ROIIP Alexander Ignatov.
In Russia between 1996 and 2016 in the elections worked eight missions of the ODIHR, who formulated a total of 146 recommendations. And if in 1996 there were only four, in 1999 for 21. In 2000, the mission and not come to Russia for the elections. After cooperation resumed, starting in 2003, the ODIHR conducted from 20 to 30 recommendations per year. Last year, the number was 23.
Most of the recommendations of Russia has fulfilled at 38% fully 25% partially. Outstanding were 20% recommendations another 17% cannot be assessed due to their “vagueness or unfinished nature,” the experts said.
— The ODIHR, in particular, proposed to convert hotelcompany in the independent media, as well as closely monitor the sites for voting without registration. Impossible to estimate and recommendations about the “separation of state and party,” the possibility of merging all electoral laws into a single code, — said Alexander Ignatov.
Currently, the share of recommendations that “are very vague” is growing. If the 1999 final report ODIHR contain specific wording, in 2003, 12% of recommendations were “vague”, and in 2004, the figure was 19%, in 2011 — 29%.
— In this political context, — believes the Chairman of the ROIIP Igor Borisov. — Clear evaluation criteria they have. In addition, more attention to the ODIHR work in the West, but in fact their choices are not appreciated. Because treatments are deviations from international requirements, and policies do not give them the opportunity to point out the shortcomings that exist in the elections in the States of the so-called old democracy, he explained.
The CEC member Vasily Likhachev told “Izvestia” that the Department also analyzed the conclusions of the ODIHR on the presidential elections in 2012 and parliamentary 2011 and 2016 and has also noticed the trend of the vagueness of the comments.
It is dangerous, designed for Russophobic movement that can build on these findings. A General approach is contrary to the consensus decision-making, — said Vasily Likhachev.
According to him, the quality of the observations and outcomes of the ODIHR is “poor” and their scores “are subjective, unrealistic”.
The recommendations of the ODIHR, which had a positive impact on the development of the Russian legislation, was given only at the beginning of cooperation with the Bureau in 1999, said in ROIIP. Among them — increase of the electoral Fund, the revision of the ban on campaigning in the period between the nomination and registration-legislative regulation of the status of international observers.
The recommendations that the CEC has not fulfilled, experts attributed the abolition of restrictions of passive electoral rights of persons with dual citizenship, the choice of alternative methods of vote counting, the establishment of an independent Council for the media Supervisory authority.
— The implementation of these recommendations is not within the competence of election officials. In addition, in regard to them there is no agreement in the expert community, political parties and parliamentarians. It shows lack of inclusive dialogue ODIHR, national expert community — said Igor Borisov.
The head of “Political expert group” Konstantin Kalachev believes that the conclusions of the ODIHR is an element of “bias and partiality”.
— There is a prevailing image of Russian elections, does not match the reality. The inertia in the work of foreign observers and obvious bias leads to recommendations not supported by invoice. It moves from report to report. Our elections were not perfect, but the will of the majority reflect that. So what says the ODIHR in its reports, it is necessary to divide by at least ten, — said the analyst.
To correct this situation, we are confident ROIIP and the CEC, can clear regulation, the development of a universal, legally binding standards for elections.