Search results

The presidential and early parliamentary elections were efficiently administered, including on election day. Candidates were able to campaign without obstruction and freedoms of assembly and association were respected. However, the elements of the campaign indicated an inadequate separation between party and state activities. (…) Allegations of voter intimidation persisted throughout the campaign, while the governing ethnic-Albanian party appealed to ethnic-Albanian voters not to vote in the presidential election, raising concerns about voters' ability to cast their vote "free of fear of retribution". (…) Inconsistencies and ambiguities [regarding the new electoral code] remain, including a lack of clarity in the definition of campaigning, the length of the campaign, and the misuse of state resources during the campaign, as well as undue restrictions on the right to file complaints. In addition, the 40 per cent turnout requirement in the second round of the presidential election could potentially lead to cycles of failed elections. (ODIHR/Pll)

The 27 October presidential election in Georgia was efficiently administered and transparent, and took place in an amicable and constructive environment. During the election campaign, fundamental freedoms of expression, movement, and assembly were respected and candidates were able to campaign without restriction. The media was less polarized than during the 2012 elections and presented a broad range of viewpoints. On election day, voters were able to express their choice freely. The electoral legal framework is comprehensive and provides a sound legal basis for the conduct of democratic elections. Numerous technical amendments were made to the electoral legislation ahead of the election, which addressed the majority of OSCE/ODIHR recommendations. However, several provisions of the Election Code remain unclear and were not applied in a consistent manner. (ODIHR/Pll)

The election was characterized by high voter turnout and the clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms in the vast majority of the country. (…) Genuine efforts were made by the electoral authorities to conduct voting throughout the country, despite continued unrest and violence in the east of Ukraine, where anti-government forces control some areas, and the acting government is conducting counter-insurgency operations. This seriously impacted the election environment and affected the general human-rights situation there, also obstructing meaningful observation. The election did not take place on the Crimean peninsula, as it is not under the control of the Ukrainian authorities, and citizens residing there faced serious difficulties to participate in the election." (ODIHR/Pll)

The election in Tajikistan took place peacefully, but restrictive candidate registration requirements resulted in a lack of genuine choice and meaningful pluralism. The campaign was formalistic and limited voters' opportunity to make an informed decision. Extensive positive state-media coverage of the official activities of the incumbent President provided him with a significant advantage. In a positive step, the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda (CCER) took measures to enhance the transparency and efficiency of the administration of elections. Significant shortcomings were noted on election day, including widespread proxy voting, group voting, and indications of ballot box stuffing. (ODIHR/Pll)

The elections took place in a strictly controlled political environment characterized by a lack of respect for fundamental freedoms that are central to democratic elections. While the existence of a second political party constituted an appearance of political variety, it did not provide voters with a genuine choice between political alternatives. The absence of political pluralism and an insufficient separation of powers between different branches of government, as well as the lack of respect for fundamental freedoms, contributed to elections that need to be significantly improved to live up to OSCE commitments and other international obligations for genuine and democratic elections. (ODIHR/Pll)

The 23 June elections were competitive with active citizen participation throughout the campaign and genuine respect for fundamental freedoms. However, the atmosphere of distrust between the two main political forces tainted the electoral environment and challenged the administration of the entire electoral process. (ODIHR/Pll)

The election was competitive, contested by nine presidential candidates who offered voters a diverse and genuine choice. Three of the nine candidates were women. The election was professionally organized and enjoyed a high level of public confidence. This was the first election in which the president was elected through a popular vote, after constitutional amendments in February 2012. The legal framework provides a generally sound basis for conducting a democratic presidential election. However, several important aspects remain to be addressed, including in the areas of candidate registration, campaign finance and the complaints and appeals process. (…) (ODIHR/Pll)

The presidential and municipal elections provided voters with a wide choice of political options, and were generally characterized by a respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. Nevertheless, pervasive allegations of vote-buying and the fact that virtually all campaign coverage in the media had to be purchased underscored the need for continued reform. Certain challenges remained, exemplified in the processing and tabulation of results after the first round of voting. A certain lack of transparency in the Central Election Commission's (CEC) decision-making and the inability of the CEC to take timely decisions, if at all, on critical issues were of particular concern. (ODIHR/Pll)

(...) Certain conditions necessary for a meaningful and competitive election were lacking in these elections. The fundamental freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression were limited and a vibrant political discourse facilitated by free and independent media was almost impossible. A deficient candidate registration process, a restrictive political environment, unbalanced and biased media coverage, disparity in access to resources to mount an effective campaign, misuse of administrative resources as well as interference by local authorities in favor of candidates from the ruling party created an uneven playing field for candidates. (...) (ODIHR/Pll)

The parliamentary elections demonstrated a broad commitment to hold democratic elections in Turkey. The level of participation from the side of the electorate was impressive both during the campaign and on election day. The existence of a solid framework and of experience in the conduct of democratic elections is clear. Certain issues, however, could stand to be further addressed. The Constitution and implementing legislation continue to unduly limit freedom of expression, freedom of association and electoral rights. There is also the need to ensure the equality of vote weight among constituencies, lifting certain existing restrictions on suffrage rights, and enhancing transparency in the complaints and appeals process. (...) The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively. Concerns were, however, expressed with regard to the legislative limitations on freedom of expression, a high number of arrested and convicted journalists, and the alleged control by the government over some influential media. (...) The representation of women in the parliament increased from 9.1 per cent in 2007 to 14 per cent in the new legislature. (ODIHR/Pll)

The elections were held to elect 56 members of parliament representing the Greek Cypriot community. In order to represent constitutionally recognized religious groups, three non-voting parliamentary representatives were also elected. The 1960 Constitution created cross-communal institutions, from which the Turkish Cypriot community withdrew in 1964. The 24 parliamentary seats allocated to them have been vacant since then. (...) The elections took place in an environment characterized by respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms and a high degree of trust in the professionalism and impartiality of the election administration. The legal framework provides a sound basis for the conduct of democratic elections in accordance with OSCE commitments and international standards. Nevertheless, the process could benefit if some existing inconsistencies within and between various laws were eliminated. (...) There are no specific legal instruments to promote the participation of women in political life. Women remain under-represented in public and political life. (ODIHR/Pll)

The 17 September early parliamentary elections took place in a democratic and pluralistic environment, characterized by the rule of law, respect of fundamental freedoms, functioning democratic institutions and the existence of a genuine choice between parties offering different political platforms. (...) The legal framework generally provided an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections, but it could benefit from further improvements. (...) The political landscape continued to be generally divided along ethnic and linguistic lines. (...) It remains a challenge that a considerable number of non-citizens are not able to vote. Due to the slow rate of naturalization, including among many individuals who were born in Latvia, a significant part of the population continues to face barriers to political participation. (ODIHR/Pll)

The Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions issued on 6 June concluded that "the early parliamentary elections were competitive, transparent, and well-administered throughout the country, although certain aspects require attention." These include measures to ensure an adequate separation of state and party structures, a thorough voter list audit, and clarification of certain provisions in the Electoral Code. On election day, voters were able to freely express their choice in a peaceful atmosphere, despite some irresponsible claims of irregularities by political parties. (ODIHR/Pll)

These early parliamentary elections met most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments. The elections were administered in a transparent and impartial manner by the Central Election Commission (CEC), which enjoyed the trust of most contenders. A diverse field of candidates provided voters with genuine choice. The media provided a broad range of political views and election information. Civil and political rights were respected during the election campaign. (...) The legal framework provides an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections. Voter lists (VLs), including supplementary VLs, remained [inter alia] a weak point of the elections and led to diminished public confidence. (...) As in previous elections, voting could not take place on the territory under the de facto control of the Transdniestrian authorities. (ODIHR/Pll)

(...) The presidential election indicated that Belarus has a considerable way to go in meeting its OSCE commitments for democratic elections. There was a lack of independence and impartiality of the election administration, an uneven playing field and a restrictive media environment, as well as a continuous lack of transparency at key stages of the electoral process. Election night was marred by detentions of most presidential candidates, and hundreds of citizens, among them journalists, human rights activists and other civil society representatives. (...) (ODIHR/Pll)