Curbs on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and concerns over procedural integrity tarnish early parliamentary elections in Belarus even as candidate numbers rise, international observers say

The obser­va­tion mis­sion is a joint under­tak­ing of the OSCE Office for Demo­c­ra­t­ic Insti­tu­tions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the OSCE Par­lia­men­tary Assem­bly (OSCE PA), and the Par­lia­men­tary Assem­bly of the Coun­cil of Europe (PACE).

Both ear­ly vot­ing and elec­tion day were calm. While the open­ing and vot­ing pro­ce­dures at polling sta­tions were most­ly fol­lowed, sig­nif­i­cant short­com­ings dur­ing vote count­ing gave rise to con­cerns about whether the results were count­ed and report­ed hon­est­ly.

The enjoy­ment of fun­da­men­tal free­doms was hin­dered by obsta­cles to polit­i­cal par­ty reg­is­tra­tion, fees and lim­it­ed space for hold­ing pub­lic gath­er­ings, and crim­i­nal sanc­tions for defama­tion. At the same time, there was a lack of safe­guards in the admin­is­tra­tion both of elec­tion day and ear­ly vot­ing pro­ce­dures, which neg­a­tive­ly affect­ed the integri­ty of the process amidst repeat­ed expres­sions of dis­trust in the work and impar­tial­i­ty of the elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion at all lev­els.

“These elec­tions have demon­strat­ed an over­all lack of respect for demo­c­ra­t­ic com­mit­ments,” said Mar­gare­ta Ced­er­felt, Spe­cial Co-ordi­na­tor and leader of the OSCE short-term observ­er mis­sion. “In a coun­try in which the pow­er and inde­pen­dence of par­lia­ment is lim­it­ed and fun­da­men­tal free­doms are restrict­ed for both vot­ers and can­di­dates, par­lia­men­tary elec­tions are in dan­ger of becom­ing a for­mal­i­ty.”

The Cen­tral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion (CEC) car­ried out an exten­sive infor­ma­tion cam­paign, and took steps to make vot­ing acces­si­ble for peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties. At the same time, the dom­i­na­tion of elec­tion com­mis­sions by the state lim­it­ed their impar­tial­i­ty and inde­pen­dence, poten­tial­ly under­min­ing pub­lic con­fi­dence in the elec­tion process. Some 6.8 mil­lion vot­ers were reg­is­tered to cast their bal­lot, accord­ing to the CEC, but vot­er lists are not pub­lic, con­tribut­ing to the over­all lack of trans­paren­cy.

The legal frame­work with­in which the vote took place pro­vid­ed insuf­fi­cient guar­an­tees for the con­duct of elec­tions in line with inter­na­tion­al stan­dards. Short­com­ings regard­ing the unbal­anced com­po­si­tion of elec­tion com­mis­sions, restric­tions on vot­er and can­di­date rights, and safe­guards for vot­ing and count­ing there­fore remain unad­dressed.

“The choice of polit­i­cal and elec­toral sys­tems is the sov­er­eign deci­sion of Belarus. How­ev­er, Belarus is a mem­ber of our Euro­pean fam­i­ly, and we expect all mem­bers of our fam­i­ly to adhere to elec­toral inter­na­tion­al stan­dards. We are dis­ap­point­ed that Belarus has not imple­ment­ed the rec­om­men­da­tions we made in 2016, thus depriv­ing their cit­i­zens, both vot­ers and can­di­dates, of full involve­ment in the demo­c­ra­t­ic process,” said Lord Blencathra, Head of the PACE del­e­ga­tion. “The Coun­cil of Europe believes that elec­toral law changes are essen­tial for long-term sta­bil­i­ty in Belarus. Belarus par­tic­i­pates in the Coun­cil of Europe Venice Com­mis­sion, which sets the rec­om­men­da­tions for elec­tion laws. We stand ready to work in part­ner­ship with them to effect last­ing demo­c­ra­t­ic change.”

The elec­tion cam­paign itself was low key, and char­ac­ter­ized by a lack of engage­ment by both can­di­dates and the pub­lic. No large ral­lies were held, and numer­ous can­di­dates refrained from any cam­paign activ­i­ties. While can­di­dates were able to car­ry out lim­it­ed cam­paign activ­i­ties, the elec­tion administration’s use of dis­cre­tionary pow­ers to dereg­is­ter oppo­si­tion can­di­dates on minor grounds com­pro­mised the integri­ty and inclu­sive­ness of the reg­is­tra­tion process.

“Elec­tions with­out free­dom for debate and gen­uine par­tic­i­pa­tion, as we saw here in Belarus, are not the oppor­tu­ni­ty for the pub­lic that elec­tions should be,” Dit­mir Bushati, Head of the OSCE PA del­e­ga­tion. “Polit­i­cal actors were sim­ply not work­ing on a lev­el play­ing field here, result­ing in what were effec­tive­ly non-com­pet­i­tive elec­tions.”

The sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of state-sub­si­dized media out­lets lim­its the space for inde­pen­dent media, reduc­ing over­all media plu­ral­ism. Few media out­lets cov­er polit­i­cal issues, leav­ing vot­ers unin­formed about can­di­dates and the cam­paign. Despite con­sti­tu­tion­al guar­an­tees of free­dom of expres­sion and a pro­hi­bi­tion of cen­sor­ship, defama­tion remains crim­i­nal­ized and has been used to intim­i­date jour­nal­ists.

“The high pro­por­tion of state-affil­i­at­ed media out­lets, as well as the pres­sure on inde­pen­dent media, blog­gers and oth­er inde­pen­dent com­men­ta­tors, have a chill­ing effect on free­dom of expres­sion,” said Corien Jonker, Head of ODIHR’s elec­tion obser­va­tion mis­sion. “It is hard­ly sur­pris­ing that many inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ists feel they have to prac­tise self-cen­sor­ship in order to avoid poten­tial ret­ri­bu­tion.”

The inter­na­tion­al elec­tion obser­va­tion mis­sion for the ear­ly par­lia­men­tary elec­tions totalled 437 observers from 45 coun­tries, com­pris­ing 342 ODIHR-deployed experts, long-term, and short-term observers, 69 par­lia­men­tar­i­ans and staff from the OSCE PA, and 26 from PACE.