Watching brief

Ursula Männle was embarrassed, impressed and astonished during her time monitoring the recent Serbian local elections

The outcome of the presidential elections in Serbia provoked an early dissolution of the national parliament on 13 March. Prime minister Vojislav Kostunica put the need for new elections down to splits over Kosovo, while president Boris Tadic said it was due to the lack of backing for EU accession. The parliamentary elections were fixed for 11 May, the date already chosen for local and for regional elections in Vojvodina. From then on, local concerns were overshadowed by the main issues in the parliamentary election and by the rivalry of the large blocs.

As in the previous elections, the Council of Europe despatched observers to Serbia. In fact, there were two missions this time: a group from the congress of local and regional authorities, backed up by representatives of the Committee of the Regions, for the local and regional elections, and a delegation of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe for the parliamentary elections. These two groups of observers, acting independently of each other, were complemented by teams from the OSCE parliamentary assembly and office for democratic institutions and human rights. So it was hardly surprising that the election organisers and party representatives – and above all the local election committees – were astonished by this “invasion” of election observers.

I cannot have been the only one embarrassed when our delegation turned up in front of the polling station in a small village on the Romanian border only to find the parliament delegation on its way out. Fortunately, the local representatives took it in their stride and trotted out the same answers to the same questions. If nothing else, at least the Council of Europe monitors could have agreed among themselves where they were going to operate. But a more serious problem, to my mind, was the press conference at the end of the mission. Actually, there were two of them: one on the monitoring of the parliamentary elections and then one on the local and regional elections. It was just a pity that when the first one was over, the camera lights were switched off and most of the reporters left the room.

The election monitoring per se was preceded by extensive briefings, sometimes separate, sometimes shared. The information was useful and the day and a half of talks with ambassadors, party representatives, candidates, minority groups, reporters and NGOs provided a nuanced picture of the situation in Serbia. They also cast light on difficulties regarding the right to vote and the power of party organisations. I was assigned to the Vrsac region in Vojvodina, along with a colleague from the UK. Our courtesy visit to the mayor had its sticky moments, since he was clearly not happy about elections in his region being monitored. He unfortunately knew nothing about the aims of the European election observation mission – clearly, an explanation upfront would have been useful.

Monitoring on election day itself went smoothly: the elections were well organised, albeit heavily staffed, and were held in line with democratic principles. Counting was correct and transparent. Everything unfolded under the watchful gaze of local observers from the parties. Since there were 22 parties in the parliamentary elections and different lists again for the regional and local elections, the number of observers was considerable. Each grouping had the right to be represented and they made the most of it throughout the day, though especially when it came to the counting. The polling stations were packed, not least because the electoral committee itself was quite large. Most polling stations were pretty small, so places were at a premium. As a result, the secrecy of the voting could not always be guaranteed, especially since there were no real polling booths, just a makeshift arrangement of two cardboard boxes, one inside the other. Not that the voters seemed to mind.

They were clearly informed about their different voting rights and there were hardly any questions. Almost everywhere the elections went off very calmly. It was clear from speaking to voters, however, that they did not agree with the use of proportional representation, which gave them no direct say in the choice of candidates. There was no fixed order of candidates: parties would appoint mayors or councillors after the elections. Only in the regional elections was it possible to vote for particular individuals for half of the seats. Also criticised was the fact that candidates had been forced to sign a letter for their parties relinquishing their mandate. This the party leaders could use whenever they liked. Not only does this undermine the wishes of the electorate, it also makes the representative in question fully dependent on his party.

There was also an anomaly in the area we monitored. Internal immigrants (Serbs from Kosovo) were allowed to take part in “elections” in 26 Serbian villages in Kosovo. This meant that in some polling stations there were 26 different local election lists. On presenting their ID cards, Serbian Kosovars would be given the list for their home village. Needless to say, this election was totally invalid, but it was exploited nevertheless. On the other hand, these people were not allowed to take part in the local elections in the place they were now living.  What we found astonishing was the lack of reaction in the polling station when the results were read out. This was in stark contrast to the images we later saw on television, where jubilation greeted the election triumph of the Tadic alliance, which also happened to be the victor – with an even greater majority – in our area.