SERBIA (SERBIA & MONTENEGRO): PRESIDENTIAL …

NORDEM Report 08/2004

SERBIA (SERBIA & MONTENEGRO): PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

JUNE 2004

Report by

Jeremy Franklin

Copyright: the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights/NORDEM and Jeremy Franklin.

NORDEM, the Norwegian Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights, is a programme of the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (NCHR), and has as its main objective to actively promote international human rights. NORDEM is jointly administered by NCHR and the Norwegian Refugee Council. NORDEM works mainly in relation to multilateral institutions. The operative mandate of the programme is realised primarily through the recruitment and deployment of qualified Norwegian personnel to international assignments, which promote democratisation and respect for human rights. The programme is responsible for the training of personnel before deployment, reporting on completed assignments, and plays a role in research related to areas of active involvement. The vast majority of assignments are channelled through the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

NORDEM Report is a series of reports documenting NORDEM activities and is published jointly by NORDEM and the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights.

Series editor: Siri Skåre

Series consultants: Hege Mørk, Gry Kval, Christian Boe Astrup

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher(s).

ISSN: 1503–1330

ISBN: 82–90851–76–6

NORDEM Report is available online at: http://www.humanrights.uio.no/forskning/publ/publikasjonsliste.html

Preface Following an invitation from the Speaker of Parliament of the Republic of Serbia to observe the presidential election scheduled for 13 June 2004, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) undertook a Needs Assessment Mission (NAM) to the Republic of Serbia 1 between 29 and 30 April 2004. The NAM assessed conditions and the level of preparation for the election. It advised on establishing a standard election observation mission (EOM). Given the overall confidence in election-day proceedings reported by previous OSCE/ODIHR EOMs, secondment of short-term observers (STOs) on election day was not recommended.

The International EOM to Serbia’s presidential election officially opened in Belgrade on 17 May. It was headed by Ambassador Stephen Nash (UK) and included six core staff in Belgrade and 13 long-term observers (LTOs) deployed throughout Serbia. Two LTOs were recruited through a voluntary fund aimed at diversifying the composition of EOMs.

For election day, the OSCE/ODIHR did not recruit STOs, since previous missions had expressed confidence in polling day procedures. Therefore, the OSCE/ODIHR conducted limited election observation on election day(s).

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe (CLRAE) sent eight STOs for the first round (13 June) and four for the second round on 27 June. The European Union Monitoring Mission also fielded a small number of observers.

As for domestic observers, the Centre for Free Elections and Democracy (CeSID) carried out observation in randomly selected polling stations for both rounds.

One Norwegian LTO, Jeremy Franklin, was recruited to the mission by the Norwegian Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights (NORDEM). Mr. Franklin was deployed in Kraljevo in Western Central Serbia. The LTO’s main tasks included observing the pre-election period, election day and the immediate post-election phase.

This report is based on the observations and findings made by EOM and the Norwegian observer. All opinions expressed in the report are the author’s responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights/NORDEM.

NORDEM/ the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights

University of Oslo

August 2004

1 The presidential election was only to be held for the Republic of Serbia, and did not take place in Montenegro (Serbia & Montenegro).

Contents Preface

Contents

Map of Country

Introduction........................................................................................................................1

Political background ..........................................................................................................1

Presentation of main candidates and parties ...................................................................2

The Legislative Framework ..............................................................................................4

The Electoral Administration ............................................................................................5

Composition of election commissions...............................................................................5

Duties of election commissions .........................................................................................6

Voter and Civic education.................................................................................................7

Voter Registration..............................................................................................................7

Eligible voters ....................................................................................................................8

Candidate Registration ......................................................................................................8

The Election Campaign .....................................................................................................9

The Media ....................................................................................................................... 10

Council of the Broadcasting Agency of the Republic of Serbia (Agency Council) . 11

Observation on Polling Day ........................................................................................... 11

Election-day procedures................................................................................................. 12

Election Day Observation Report from LTO Jeremy Franklin .................................... 13

General information ................................................................................................... 13

Observation of opening .............................................................................................. 13

Observation of polling................................................................................................ 13

Observation of counting and submission of election material ................................. 14

Election results................................................................................................................ 14

The Review of Complaints Process ............................................................................... 14

Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 15

Comments on the Election Observation Mission.......................................................... 16

Appendices...................................................................................................................... 17

SERBIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS - 2004 1

INTRODUCTION The June 2004 presidential elections were the fourth such elections to take place since the end of 2002. Previous attempt to elect a president in 2002 and 2003 failed due to insufficient voter turnout. For those elections a turnout above 50 percent was required in order for the election results to be valid. This provision allowed for a cycle of failed elections.

The voter turnout requirement was abolished in front of these elections, which led to a president successfully being elected.

In its Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions issued after the second round on 27 June, the international EOM stated that:

“The second round of the presidential election in the Republic of Serbia (Serbia & Montenegro) […] was conducted essentially in line with OSCE commitments and Council of Europe standards for democratic elections.”

The EOM commended the electoral administration for conducting the elections in a professional and efficient manner. This was also verified by the LTOs.

The mission furthermore welcomed the introduction of legal provisions that allowed for voters to cast their ballots in their homes, at diplomatic missions abroad, as well as in prisons. Regarding the latter, the LTOs were told of several cases where polling stations had not been set up in prisons due to the provision that there has to be at least 100 registered voters in order to establish a polling station.

The campaign took place in a peaceful manner and candidates widely toured the country, especially in front of the first round. LTOs noticed, however, that public interest in the pre-election campaign was relatively low.

The media provided voters with a broad coverage of the campaign and media outlets monitored by the EOM generally gave balanced and neutral coverage of presidential candidates. This was also the case in the LTOs’ area of responsibility regarding local media outlets.

On the election days, voting was positively assessed by the EOM and no significant irregularities or complaints were observed. However, the LTOs did see several instances of faulty election-day procedures, including inconsistent application of ink and family/group voting.

Relatively few complaints were lodged with the Republican Election Commission (REC). For the first round, only one complaint was upheld, resulting in the cancellation of results from one polling station.

The aim of this report is to present the findings and conclusions of the Norwegian LTO with regard to key areas of the electoral process. Generally, the findings corroborate with those of the EOM. Also included are the two OSCE/ODIHR EOM Statements of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions (Appendix 1 & 2).

POLITICAL BACKGROUND The June 2004 presidential elections are the fourth to be called since the term of office of the previous president of the Republic of Serbia expired at the end of 2002. Because of three unsuccessful attempts at electing a president in 2002 and 2003, Serbia has since been without an elected president. Meanwhile, Serbia’s speaker(s) of parliament have assumed the presidential duties.


The previous election legislation led to a cycle of failed elections since it required voter turnout to be above 50 percent for the election to be valid. To address the above shortcoming, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia significantly amended the election legislation and abolished the voter turnout requirement. The new provisions would ensure the election of a president and on 4 April, the Speaker of Parliament called new presidential elections for 13 June 2004.

Since early 2001, politics in Serbia have been characterized by a growing power struggle within the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) alliance. In the September 2000 elections, DOS won a landslide victory. Dragan Marsicanin of the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) was appointed Speaker of Parliament and Zoran Djindjic of the Democratic Party (DS) was appointed Prime Minister. However, there started to emerge a significant cleavage between DSS and DS, the two largest parties in the 18-party coalition, over the pace and shape of reform in Serbia. The political crisis reached a peak in 2002, when some MPs belonging to DSS were stripped of their mandates and DSS itself was expelled from the DOS coalition. The situation deteriorated even further in 2003 when other parties left the DOS coalition and towards the of the year the Speaker of Parliament called for early parliamentary elections to be held on 28 December. The result of those elections was that DS was ousted from power and a new ruling coalition headed by Vojslav Kostunica (DSS) was formed. It comprises DSS, G17+, the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO), and New Serbia (NS). The present government has enjoyed the tacit support of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) - the party of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.

On 30 May, the REC announced that it had registered a total of 15 candidates to run in the 13 June presidential election. They were, according to how they appeared on the ballot:

1. Ljiljana Arandjelovic (United Serbia)

2. Vladan Batic (Christian-Democratic Party of Serbia-DHSS)

3. Ivica Dacic (Socialist Party of Serbia-SPS)

4. Milovan Drecun (Serbian Revival)

5. Dragan Djordevic (Serbian Citizens’ Party)

6. Branislav. Ivkovic (Socialist People’s Party-SNS)

7. Mirko Jovic (People’s Radical Party/Serbia and Diaspora and European bloc)

8. Jelisaveta Karadjordjevic (Citizens’ Group “For a more Beautiful Serbia”)

9. Bogoljub Karic (Citizens’ Group “Strength of Serbia”)

10. Dragan Marsicanin (Democratic Party of Serbia-DSS)

11. Zoran Milinkovic (Patriotic Party of the Diaspora)

12. Tomislav Nikolic (Serbian Radical Party-SRS)

13. Borislav Pelevic (Serbian Unity Party-SSJ)

14. Marijan Risticevic (People’s Farmer Party-NSS)

15. Boris Tadic (Democratic Party-DS)

Presentation of main candidates and parties The top front-runners were considered to be Tomislav Nikolic (SRS), Boris Tadic (DS) and Dragan Marsicanin (DSS/ruling coalition candidate). Opinion polls prior to the first round consistently put


Tomislav Nikolic in first place, followed by Boris Tadic, while Dragan Marsicanin trailed some distance behind.

The entry into the presidential race of business and media tycoon Bogoljub Karic caused some controversy since he is the owner of one of Serbia’s largest private TV station (Braca Karic/BK TV) with a national outreach. His ratings increased steadily throughout the pre-election period, partly due to prominent featuring of his candidacy on BK.

Tomislav Nikolic (SRS)

The Serbian Radical Party was formed in 1991by merging the Serbian Cetnik Movement with the People’s Radical Party. It is lead by Vojslav Seselj, currently on trial in The Hague on charges of war crimes. Currently, Tomislav Nikolic is the acting president of SRS and his candidacy was put forward on the suggestion of Mr. Seselj.

SRS was formerly in the coalition-government with SPS and JUL (Jugoslav Left) from 1998 until 2000. In that government, Tomislav Nikolic was Deputy-Prime Minister of Serbia. Later, he was appointed Deputy Federal Prime Minister. In the last presidential elections held in November 2003, Tomislav Nikolic received the relative majority of votes, while in the parliamentary elections the same year, the SRS was awarded 82 seats in the National Assembly – making it the biggest single party in parliament.

Boris Tadic (DS)

The Democratic Party, lead by Boris Tadic, is a liberal-democratic party advocating radical political and economic changes. It also strongly promotes European integration. The party was revived in 1989 and became a founding member of the DOS coalition. The party has a good infrastructure throughout Serbia and boasts an extensive membership base. It also has party branches abroad.

As a sign of respect, Zoran Djindjic, long-time chairman of the DS, was not replaced after his assassination in March 2003. Instead, Boris Tadic, together with three vice-presidents, carried out the management of the party until February 2004 when Tadic was elected president of the party.

Boris Tadic was appointed Minister of Telecommunications in 2000 and later served as Defence Minister for Serbia & Montenegro (SCG) from March 2003. In February 2004 he became head of the DS MP group comprising 37 deputies in the National Assembly of Serbia.

Dragan Marsicanin (DSS)

Dragan Marsicanin was the candidate of the ruling coalition (DSS, G17+, SPO/NS). He began his political career as a member of the DS, which he later left together with current Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. In 1992 they formed the Democratic Party of Serbia. In 2001 he was elected the first non-communist President of the National Assembly – a position he later resigned from after he was dismissed by parliament on the initiative of DOS. In 2003 he was elected as MP to the National Assembly and in February 2004 he became Speaker of the House. In March 2004 Mr. Marsicanin was appointed Minister of Commerce in Kostunica’s coalition government.

DSS considers itself as a party of the centre-right with a strong emphasis on state and national interests. After the federal elections in 2000, the party witnessed a rapid growth of popularity and membership. In the last parliamentary elections the party won 53 seats in the National Assembly.


Bogoljub Karic (Citizens’ Group “Strength of Serbia”)

Bogoljub Karic is a businessman born in Pec, Kosovo. His business career started in a garage in Pec where he and his siblings manufactured badges and key chains. The business later expanded and the company registered as “Braca Karic” (Karic Bros.). The company widened its business to Russia and other countries in branches of civil engineering, financing, banking, telecommunications and insurance. Bogoljub Karic is the owner of BK TV and many magazines and weeklies. Under the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, he was a minister without a portfolio in the government of Mirko Marjanovic.

During the run-up to election day 13 June, the Bogoljub Karic citizens’ group, i.e. the group who nominated him as candidate, transformed into a political movement “Strength of Serbia” (Snaga Srbije). After the first round the LTOs visited several of his campaign offices and were told there that the party was expanding its infrastructure and that they now were aiming at future local- and parliamentary elections.

Ivica Dacic (SPS)

The Socialist Party of Serbia candidate Ivica Dacic heads the SPS group of 21 MPs in the National Assembly. Previously he was the spokesman of SPS for eight years. In 2003 he was elected President of Belgrade City Main Council.

The SPS Party Congress at the end of 2000 re-elected Slobodan Milosevic as party president. According to SPS, the move consolidated the party from further fragmentation, as witnessed in 2000. However, Slobodan Milosevic apparently did not support the candidacy of Mr. Dacic.

THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Shortly before the election, Serbia’s electoral framework was amended in line with previous OSCE/ODIHR and Council of Europe recommendations, the most significant amendment being the abolishment of the 50 percent voter turnout requirement for elections to be valid.

In addition, suffrage requirements were changed to enfranchise voters temporarily living abroad, but with a permanent address in Serbia. The new amendments also provided for prison voting.

Moreover, mobile voting was re-introduced enabling the sick and elderly to cast their vote at home.

A new Law on Financing of Political Parties came into effect on 1 January 2004. While the EOM welcomed this step towards improving the transparency and accountability of party finances and campaign expenditures, its effective implementation remained uncertain. Several candidates complained about the government’s failure to release funds for campaign purposes by legally prescribed deadlines.

The Constitution of Serbia establishes an office of the President elected by direct election for a five-year term. The Law on electing the President regulates presidential elections. The technical aspects of the electoral process, including polling and the count, are governed by the Law on the Elections of Representatives (LER) to parliament.

In addition, the laws are supplemented by numerous instructions and decisions issued by the Republican Election Commission (REC).


Although the voter turnout requirement was abolished, the legal framework stipulates that a candidate must receive at least 50 %, plus one vote of all votes cast to successfully be elected president. If no candidate secures a majority in the first round of elections, a second round is to be held within 15 days.

The election legislation seems to provide a sufficient framework for the conduct of democratic elections. Interlocutors told LTOs that they were generally aware of the amendments to the election legislation. It was, however, unclear how informed voters were about the new amendments, especially the abolished voter turnout requirement and the possibility to vote by mobile ballot.

Although the legislation now provides for prison voting, it only took place in facilities where there were more than 100 voters.2 This effectively disenfranchised voters in detention centres numbering less than 100 inmates. The same applied to voters who registered to vote abroad, but who did not make up sufficient numbers to establish a polling station in. e.g. diplomatic missions. In such cases it therefore seems sensible to establish a system of voting by mail. This could further create a larger incentive for voters to vote.

THE ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION The EOM stated in its Preliminary Statement after the first round that since the REC was recently appointed and most of its members new,3 it sometimes had difficulties carrying out procedures. Municipal Election Commissions (MECs), however, performed their tasks in a professional manner. Similar conclusions were made after the second round.

Composition of election commissions Serbia operates a three-tier election administration: The Republican Election Commission, Municipal Election Commissions and Polling Boards. All commissions are made up of ‘permanent’ and ‘extended members’, the latter being representatives of candidates running in the elections. All members, both permanent and extended, have equal rights on the commissions. Upon registration of their candidacy by the REC, each party/candidate has the right to appoint one extended member to election commissions at all three levels. All election commissions work in their extended composition until the conclusion of elections.

The permanent membership of the REC consists of the President and 16 members. Each member has a deputy. The REC also includes a secretary and a statistician, who are non-voting members. The members and their deputies are appointed for a four-year term. For these elections, the REC consisted of an additional 15 extended members, one for each presidential candidate.

The MEC permanent composition consists of a president and at least six members, plus one non-voting secretary. Municipal assemblies appoint the MECs for a four-year term. Generally, most candidates were represented on the MEC in its extended composition.

2 In accordance with Law on the Election of Representatives (LER), which stipulates that polling stations shall be determined for up to 2,500 voters and not fewer than 100 voters (Art. 52). 3 A new REC was appointed following the December 2003 parliamentary elections, reflecting the new composition of the Serbian National Assembly.


Polling Board (PB) permanent composition consists of the President and at least two members. The permanent members are appointed by the MEC. Also at this level, candidates in most cases had extended members.

Duties of election commissions The REC ensures the legality of the elections, organises the technical preparations for the elections, dismisses polling boards, determines the election material and approves nominations. The REC also establishes the results. Decisions are taken by a majority vote among all eligible members, including extended members once they have joined the REC.

The MECs are responsible for carrying out the technical preparation of the elections on the territory of their municipality; they establish polling boards and appoint PB permanent members. Prior to election day, they receive the election material from the REC and hand it over to the PBs. The day after the election, they receive the election material from PBs and submit it to the REC coordinators.

The Polling Boards manage voting and secure the legality of voting at the polling stations. Election material must be collected at the MEC no later than 48 hours prior to the opening of polling. The election material includes the extracts of the voter list, forms for the minutes of the polling board, the ballot papers and the ballot box control slip. The MEC also provides each PB with a ballot box and a bag containing among other things, UV lamps (2), invisible ink, sealing wax and a stamp.

The LTOs’ area of responsibility (AoR) comprised 22 municipalities, of which they visited the MECs in 17. In front of both rounds, MECs generally seemed to be well prepared. In all but one MEC (Novi Pazar) were the LTOs well received and obtained all information they requested.

What appeared to be lacking, however, was adequate training of polling boards, especially their extended members. LTOs were told time over again how experienced and well trained PB members were since they had participated in so many elections. On election day the contrary was evident with many PBs failing to implement the right order of the voting process.4 It was reported to the LTOs that the parties would undertake training of their extended members, but some failed to do so5, while campaign offices of other candidates only provided their extended members with a copy of “instructions” issued by the MEC.6 Upon receiving election material, most MECs told LTOs that they would conduct a short training session for permanent members of PBs.

Although the election legislation grants extended members full status in election commissions, including giving them the right to participate in votes,7 many still perceived themselves as just being party/candidate observers and “keepers of the ballot box” (sic).

Furthermore, the way some candidates recruited people to represent them on polling boards was rather questionable. Candidates lacking the support and infrastructure of a large party would often have to rely on individuals, who had offered their services, to be their representatives on election commissions. Sometimes these came from other parties. LTOs were told by the campaign staff of one candidate that they never actually met with their extended members before election day, let alone provided any training for them.

4 See also chapter Observation on Polling Day. 5 E.g. DS in Cacak and Vrnjacka Banja. 6 E.g. Bogoljub Karic campaign office in Cacak. 7 LER: Art 29, § 3.


In Novi Pazar, the LTOs discovered that the MEC excluded its extended members from participating in the sessions. This was confirmed by three different MEC extended members. In front of the first round, each MEC was allocated a lump sum of money from the REC to compensate the work of election commission members.8 This sum was to be split among members according to how many sessions they had taken part in. In the Novi Pazar case, it is reasonable to assume that by excluding its extended members, the MEC could divide the money among less people, resulting in the permanent members receiving more. Of the three extended members met, only one filed an official complaint about the above case to the REC.9

VOTER AND CIVIC EDUCATION In the sphere of voter education, the Belgrade-based Centre for Free Elections and Democracy (CeSID) was the most active. They especially conducted very active get-out-the-vote campaigns in front of both rounds. Before the second round, the media holding company B 92 conducted an active voter-mobilization that was perceived by the SRS candidate as campaigning in favour of the DS candidate. It specifically targeted youth, and the slogan used “Bori se” (fight) is similar to Tadic’s first name, Boris.

In most polling stations visited on 27 June, the LTOs saw posters on display produced by CeSID explaining voter procedures. Since PBs had not received new posters for these elections, they reused posters made for previous elections. The LTOs noticed that such posters were seldom on display for the first round.

VOTER REGISTRATION Regarding the voter lists, Serbian authorities admitted that shortcomings noted previously by the OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of Europe still existed. A centrally managed database for voters’ personal data, as foreseen by the parliamentary election law,10 has yet to be compiled. Moreover, a number of municipalities continue to use a variety of software for data processing, making verification of voter lists across municipal borders difficult.

According to the REC, the total number of registered voters for the 13 June election was 6,532,263.This represented a modest increase of 20,813 voters over the December 2003 elections. Due to the recent abolishment of the voter turnout requirement, the accuracy of voter lists was not a controversial issue in front of these elections.

Each municipality maintains a computer register “as part of a central, interconnected voter register for the whole of Serbia” 11. Registers of voters are kept in volumes per settlement and contain personal data of the voters. Voters are entitled to inspect the register and request amendments to it. If a request to amend the register is rejected by the municipality, a voter can seek legal redress with the municipal courts. After the municipalities concluded the voter lists on 28 May, additional changes to the lists could only be made through a court order. The deadline for these changes was on 10 June.

8 Currently 140,000 Dinars (approx. 2000 EUR). 9 See also chapter The Review of Complaints Process. 10 LER: Art. 12 11 ibid.


For election day, the municipalities compile an extract of the voter register for each polling station and forward it to the REC. The REC, through the MECs, distributes the final extracts of voter registers to the polling boards no later than 48 hours prior to the day of polling.

Eligible voters The Law on Electing the President of the Republic (LEP) states that: “The right to elect the President of the Republic shall be held by citizens of the Republic of Serbia, [...] who have reached the age of 18, who have business capacity, and reside12 in the territory of the Republic of Serbia (LEP: Art. 2)

Generally, voters are entered into the voter register according to their permanent address. Internally displaced persons (IDPs), i.e. internal refugees from Serbia proper, are included into the voter register where they are registered as a “refugee”.

Military personnel vote in the civilian polling station located closest to their duty station. However, they are still registered according to their last permanent address in Serbia. The municipality of the last permanent residence submits this information to the REC. The REC includes the data in a separate, special extract of the voter register intended for the polling station next to the duty station of the military voter.

New amendments to the election legislation provided for out-of-country voting in 18 countries. Citizens of Serbia living abroad are entered into the voter list according to their last permanent address in Serbia. Those wishing to vote abroad had to register themselves with the relevant diplomatic mission within 20 May 2004.

The LTOs visited several voter registration offices located in the municipalities. Their activities often coincided with those of the Office of Civil registration. Generally, they seemed to be conducting their activities in a professional manner. However, the LTOs verified the above EOM concern regarding use of various types of software to update the registers.

LTOs were told that relatively few voters had come to check the voter lists and that few election-related changes to the lists had been made. Except for the inclusion of voters who voted by court order in the first round, no changes in the voter register were made in front of the second round.

In some municipalities visited, the LTOs were told that up to 25 percent of the registered voters in fact were abroad. Nonetheless, they were still included in the voter list according to their last registered address. Since people, for various reasons, fail to notify local police authorities about their presence abroad, it is almost impossible to calculate the number of voters temporarily living abroad and those actually living in Serbia. Although not a problem witnessed by LTOs, the situation can potentially lead to fraudulent practices on election day.

Furthermore, LTOs saw a couple of instances where voters registered to vote abroad also were included in the domestic voter extracts. They were, consequently, on two voter lists.

CANDIDATE REGISTRATION A total of 15 candidates were certified by the REC to contest the 13 June presidential election. In addition, the REC rejected five applicants for candidacy because they did not meet the legal

12 I.e. voters that have a registered address in Serbia.


requirements. The Supreme Court turned down all subsequent complaints it received from the rejected applicants.

Candidates were requested to submit to the REC an application including at least 10,000 signatures verified by a notary to support his or her candidacy. Several of the candidates the EOM met with, who did not have the backing of a major party, were critical of the procedure for collecting and verifying signatures, and had experienced difficulties during the process. Other candidates told the EOM that 10,000 signatures were not sufficient for an electorate of 6.5 million.

The LEP stipulates that candidates for the Presidency may be nominated by political parties/organizations, either separately or jointly, and by citizen groups.13 The nomination must be supported by at least 10,000 signatures. The signatures and additional documents must be submitted the REC no later than 20 days before polling day. Following the submission of this documentation, the REC must proclaim the candidature within 24 hours. If the supporting documentation of a candidate is incomplete, the submitter has 48 hours to rectify the irregularities following the REC’s instructions.

Several of the LTOs’ interlocutors claimed it was necessary to increase the number of signatures required to run for president in order to prevent “less serious” candidates from running.

In addition, the provision allowing all candidates to send representatives to out-of-country polling stations was looked upon as being an unnecessary burden on state budgets since their expenses were covered by the REC.

THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN After the first round on 13 June, the EOM stated that the campaign was carried out in calm atmosphere, without the use of inflammatory language. In general, the campaign was conventional, with candidates holding rallies and meetings across Serbia, including on a smaller scale in Kosovo.

In front of the second round, the EOM noticed that the remaining two candidates continued to hold rallies in Belgrade and in provincial centres. Both tried to increase their visibility on the streets by visiting public places of gathering, such as markets. The tone of the second-round was slightly more confrontational than in front of the first. For example, the SRS candidate put forward allegations that his DS opponent had ties to criminal circles. However, no formal complaints about the allegations were lodged.

The main suspect in the case of the assassination of the late Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic testified in court immediately after the first round. Although there had been speculations about the possible influence this testimony would have on the electoral campaign, this turned out to be unfounded.

Upon being registered and proclaimed as a candidate by the REC, the candidate may initiate his/her campaign. Consequently, those candidates who registered early on conducted the longest campaigns. Candidates and the parties/citizen groups who nominated them have the right to inform the electorate through the media about their programmes and activities.14

13 LEP: Art. 3 14 LER: Art 48


Regarding campaign silence, the LER stipulates that: “Electoral promotion through both the mass media and public gatherings, as well as publication of estimated electoral results (i.e. opinion polls) are forbidden in the period of 48 hours before the day of holding elections, as well as during the election day until the closing of polling places” (Art.5, §3).

Campaigning in the LTOs’ AoR was generally low-key. In regional centres, such as Kraljevo and Cacak, the front-runners conducted a very visual campaign, especially close up to election day(s). Immediately after results from the first round became clear, SRS started to campaign for their candidate by going door-to-door. DS was slower to initiate its campaign before the second round, reportedly awaiting instructions from Belgrade.

All representatives of candidates the LTOs met reported that they used local TV and radio outlets to promote their candidate. The LTOs visited three local TV stations and all had allocated a certain amount of free airtime per candidate to be utilized in the manner they wished. Those candidates who could afford bought additional airtime on local media where they aired political advertisements (‘spots’).

The LTOs observed campaign events featuring Borislav Pelevic (SSJ), Ivica Dacic (SPS) and Dragan Marsicanin (DSS). Generally, spectators were neither numerous, nor very enthusiastic. This was particularly noticeable during the visit of Mr. Marsicanin and other top politicians representing parties in the ruling coalition.15 Although professionally staged, the crowd predominately consisted of activists from coalition partners who had travelled to Kraljevo to give support to their candidate. Otherwise, there appeared to be very few ‘external’ spectators.

THE MEDIA As like in the first round, the broadcast and print media continued to provide voters with broad coverage during the second-round campaign. Both state and private TV stations monitored by the EOM16 generally provided neutral and balanced coverage of the contestants, especially in front of the second round.

The newspapers monitored by the EOM dedicated a greater amount of space to Mr. Tadic than to Mr. Nikolic. Two of them portrayed the DS candidate in a positive light, while another was more positive towards the SRS candidate.17

Media coverage of presidential candidates is governed by a variety of provisions, including articles in the Law on the Election of Representatives (LER) and in the Broadcasting Law (BL). Article 49 in the LER reads that: “Radio and TV broadcasting agencies whose founder is the Republic of Serbia are bound, from the day of calling for elections […] to ensure the presentation of the submitters of the candidates, as well as the exposition and explanation of their electoral programmes […]”.

Furthermore, the state electronic media are bound to provide free and equal airtime to all presidential candidates. Private broadcasters can define the way and the extent of their programmes dedicated to the 15 I.e. G17+, SPO & NS 16 The EOM conducted qualitative and quantitative analysis of the following media outlets: State-owned TV RTS 1; privately owned BK TV, TV Pink and TV B92. In addition, the following daily newspapers were monitored: Balkan, Kurir, Politika and Vecernnje Novosti. 17 I.e. Balkan and Politika, and Kurir, respectively.


pre-election campaign. All broadcasters are obliged to designate election-related transmissions as “pre-election programme”, and paid ads should be designated as “paid time”.

Council of the Broadcasting Agency of the Republic of Serbia (Agency Council)

The Broadcasting Law (BL) passed in 2002, created conditions for the establishment of an independent agency that would be in charge of supervision and licensing of the broadcasters. In addition, it would administer the planned transformation of the state media network Radio Television Serbia (RTS) into a public company. This Agency Council shall have nine members, appointed from the ranks of experts in fields relevant to conducting the activities within the Council’s competence.

The Agency Council has so far failed to both transform the RTS, and distribute broadcasting frequencies on the basis of a public tender. In addition, the process of appointing members to the Council has caused controversy, as three of the nominations did not follow the rules and procedures established in the BL. Consequently, two of the Council’s members, one representing the professional associations and the other the NGO representative, resigned from the Council in protest. The Council’s problematic development and the lack of confidence in its neutrality have henceforth undermined the credibility of the regulatory body.

In May 2004 the Agency Council issued General Binding Instructions, defining the conditions of conduct for the presentation of candidates in state and private media.

There was a high number of print and electronic media outlets in the LTOs’ AoR. The local TV stations visited by the LTOs were the largest in outreach in their respective regions. When asked whether they had had any dealings with the Agency Council, representatives of the TV stations told LTOs they had the received the above Binding Instructions but had otherwise had little to do with the body. Some stated that it was currently not operative.

All TV stations visited had allotted each candidate from 30 to 60 minutes of free airtime to dispose freely of. Candidates who had held rallies in the regional centres would typically use this airtime to air their campaign meetings. Those candidates/parties who could afford it bought additional airtime on both municipal and private local TV outlets. A 30-second spot on e.g. Cacak Municipal TV cost 1,800 Dinars (approx. 23 EUR).

Except for one allegation concerning a party being deprived from taking part in roundtables on local TV, none of the candidates’ parties voiced any complaints regarding unequal access to or unbalanced coverage in local media. However, some complained that they did not have sufficient funds to place paid advertisements.

Local newspapers monitored by the LTOs were generally unbiased and neutral in their coverage of the electoral campaign. Political advertising was relatively rare in the printed media, as candidates seemed to prefer using local TV stations to reach out to the electorate.

OBSERVATION ON POLLING DAY The EOM stated in its Preliminary Statement after the second round that, as in the first round, election procedures were conducted in a professional manner. No complaints related to polling were received by the EOM, and neither international, nor local observers reported any serious incidents or irregularities.


Election-day procedures Procedures on election day are governed by the LER and by instructions issued by the REC.

The LER stipulates that polling stations (PS) open at 07:00 and close at 20:00. Voters at the PS at the moment of its closure are permitted to vote. During voting all members of the Polling Board (PB) or their deputies must be present. Police may only enter the PS if peace and order at the PS is disturbed, and only when summoned by the PB chairperson.

Opening procedures include that the PB checks the ballot box in the presence of the first voter, after which a control slip signed by the voter and all PB members is placed in the ballot box. The ballot box is then sealed and when opened again, it shall first be checked that it contains the control slip. If not found, the whole vote is invalidated and polling is repeated.

Voting procedures include that the voter first is checked for traces of invisible ink. Then he states his name to the PB, hands over the voter invitation (although not obligatory) and proves his identity by producing his ID or other means of identification.18 After establishing the identity of the voter, a PB member circles the voter’s ordinal number in the voter register. The voter then signs the register and receives the ballot paper. Upon receiving the ballot, the voter’s right index finger is sprayed with ink to certify that he has voted. He then marks the ballot by circling the ordinal number of the preferred candidate. During this process, members of the PB shall ensure that the elector is not disturbed by anyone, and that the secrecy of voting is completely ensured (italics mine, J.F.).

For this election, mobile voting was reintroduced for voters unable to vote at the polling station.19 For this purpose, the PB designates three members of its extended composition. They visit the voter, determine the voter’s identity and show him the candidate list. The voter is then supplied with an official envelope, a stamped ballot, a certificate of suffrage and a special envelope for the completed ballot. He is informed of the manner of voting, after which the mobile voting team leaves the room where the voter votes. The completed ballot is put into the envelope, which is sealed and stamped. The ballot, together with the signed certificate of suffrage, is then placed in the official envelope.

Counting procedures include that the PB first determines the number of unused ballots, for then to count the total number of voters who voted based on the signatures in the voter register. The ballot box is then opened, the control slip is checked and valid ballot papers are separated from invalid ones. The PB first enters the number of invalid ballots into the records (protocol), and then the number of valid ballots and number of votes cast for each candidate. Also entered into the record of the work of the PB are the notes and remarks of PB members. Six copies of the record are made, the first copy is submitted to the REC; the second is put up on display at the polling station. The remaining four copies are given to representatives of the four candidates who won most votes. Finally, the election material is brought to the Municipal Election Commission, who forwards it to the REC.

Since OSCE/ODIHR this time did not recruit STOs for election day, standard election observation using observation report forms that enabled statistical processing was not conducted. Instead, the LTOs visited a number of polling stations, both for the first and second round, with the aim of assessing election day procedures, competence of Polling Boards, voter turnout and the general atmosphere during polling.

18 This can be a personal ID (Licna Karta), valid passport or military service card. 19 Predominately elderly, sick and/or disabled people.


Election Day Observation Report from LTO Jeremy Franklin

General information

LTO team 4 was based in Kraljevo in Central Western Serbia. The team’s AoR comprised in all 22 municipalities. South of Kraljevo, the AoR included Novi Pazar – capital of the Sandzak region, which borders on to Kosovo and Montenegro. To the west the area included the municipalities of Cacak and Uzice, the latter shares a border with Republika Srpska in Bosnia & Herzegovina. The LTOs’ area also included some municipalities east of Kraljevo.

The Sandzak region comprises municipalities in both Serbia and Montenegro. Six municipalities regarded as part of the region where within the LTOs’ AoR. The inhabitants of Sandzak, who call themselves Bosniacs, are predominately Muslim and the region boasts several regional parties. Regrettably, some of them decided to boycott these elections20 since central authorities allegedly neglected the region. Otherwise, Boris Tadic seemed to enjoy extensive support and the largest regional party, List for Sandzak, had apparently lent their support to the DS candidate.

For both rounds, the LTOs visited in all some 15 polling stations (PS). Voting was conducted in calm and friendly atmosphere and generally Polling Boards (PB) administered the voting in a competent way. During the first round on 13 June, some smaller locations chosen as polling centres appeared to be rather crowded due to the high number of extended PB members present. Both for the opening and closing/counting all PB members, their deputies included, tended to be present, which sometimes added up to over 30 people. The contrary was evident during the second round on 27 June: At a few PSs, as few as three members were present, the president or his deputy not being one of them. Furthermore, the count was more orderly since PBs consisted of fewer members.21

Observation of opening

The LTOs observed the opening of polling in both rounds. All appeared to be according to prescribed procedures. However, at the first PS visited the secrecy of vote was not adequately secured and ink was initially applied before the voter’s name was checked for in the voter register. When asked what would happen with a voter who was already sprayed, but whose name was not found in the register, the PB president was quick to change the order of actions at the PB table.

Observation of polling

In most cases, polling was adequately carried out and no major irregularities were observed. Crowding was not a problem, but towards the close of polling, polling centres became more full and queues of voters were seen in a couple of places. Neither police, nor domestic observers were present in any of the polling stations visited by the LTOs.

From what the LTOs were told, relatively few voted by mobile ballot during both rounds. The reason might be that little information about this new provision was relayed to the electorate. LTOs once accompanied a mobile voting crew that visited four voters who had requested to vote in their homes. As far as the LTOs could see, the voting was conducted according to prescribed routines.

20 E.g. Party for Sandzak (Stranka za Sandzak). 21 I.e. only two extended members; one for each of the two candidates contesting the second round.


Inconsistent routines regarding inking procedures and the secrecy of vote were observed in many PSs. In one polling station the PB consistently inked voters before they proceeded to the voter list. Consequently, a voter whose name was not found on the list effectively lost his right to vote at his correct PS since he had already been inked. Still, even after this event occurred, the PB failed to change its order of actions.

In several polling stations, the layout of the station did not adequately secure voting privacy. The flimsy cardboard screens were often placed in such a way that it was easy to see how a voter marked the ballot. Furthermore, family/group voting took place in many PSs, and only in one instance did PB staff intervene.

Although not committed deliberately, the LTO believes that the above (unnecessary) mistakes could have been avoided had the Polling Boards received more training.

Observation of counting and submission of election material

At the polling stations chosen for the closing and counting, all procedures were in accordance with the law. However, the counting observed for the first round was slightly chaotic due to the high number of PB members present. Still, once the tasks had been delegated, the counting proceeded smoothly and swiftly.

At the MEC(s), there were long queues of PB members waiting to deliver their election material, but queue controllers ensured that only one PB at a time was let into the MEC office. Coordinators from the REC were present, receiving and checking the incoming protocols (records). At the MEC in Cacak, incoming results were immediately entered into a computer and projected onto a large screen at the end of the room! All in all, the hand-over of voting material at the MECs was very professionally managed.

Election results Official results after the first round on 13 June showed that Tomislav Nikolic (SRS) came in first, garnering 30.60 percent of the vote. On second place came Boris Tadic (DS) with 27.37 percent; on third Bogoljub Karic (Citizens’ Group ”Strength of Serbia”), 18.23 %; on fourth Dragan Marsicanin (DSS), 13.30 %; and Ivica Dacic of the SPS got 4,04 percent of the vote.

Since none of the candidates received 50 percent of the votes during the first round, the two candidates who received most votes went on to contest each other in a run-off on 27 June. The second-round results showed that Boris Tadic was elected President receiving 53.5 percent of the vote. 45.1 percent voted for Tomislav Nikolic.

Voter turnout in the first round was 47.7 percent, and in the second round it slightly rose to 48.7 percent.

THE REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS PROCESS Ten complaints were lodged with the REC regarding the first round of the election. Only one was upheld, resulting in the cancellation of results in one polling station. No formal complaints were submitted after the second round.

The Law on the Election of Representatives (LER) regulates the complaints procedures. The law states that every elector, candidate, and submitter of candidate (e.g. party) has the right to lodge complaints


with the REC within 24 hours after the alleged infringement of electoral rights, or irregular election procedure took place. The REC has 48 hours to render a decision.22 The REC’s decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

On election day, the polling boards form the first instance. They decide on ‘remarks’ submitted to it by a majority vote. The polling board is obliged to record the remark/complaint and the decision taken in its minutes. The REC may later challenge these decisions.

In their AoR, the LTOs were aware of only one formal complaint submitted to the REC before the first round. It was lodged by the SRS in Novi Pazar and concerned the exclusion of its extended member from taking part in MEC sessions. The complaint was rejected on procedural grounds: Apparently, it had not been lodged through the SRS extended member in the REC, therefore the complaint was never considered by the REC.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The international OSCE/ODIHR EOM concluded that the presidential election in Serbia essentially was conducted in line with OSCE commitments and Council of Europe standards for democratic election.

The EOM endorsed changes to Serbia’s electoral legislation that removed the 50 percent voter turnout requirement for an election to be valid. Previously, this led to a cycle of unsuccessful elections.

The mission also welcomed the introduction of legal provisions allowing voters to cast their ballot in their home, at diplomatic missions abroad and in prisons. However, the EOM encouraged the Serbian authorities to consider improving legislation in the areas of campaign financing and voter registration.

Although the new provisions in theory led to the enfranchisement of more voters, surprisingly few homebound voters requested to vote at home on election day. The most likely reason for this is that authorities failed to inform the public sufficiently about the option.

In addition, the legal provision23 that stipulates that a polling station cannot be determined for less than 100 voters in practise disenfranchised thousands of voters both abroad24 and in prisons. The possibility to vote by postal ballot would accommodate this shortcoming.

As for the electoral process, the EOM concluded that it was administered in a professional and efficient manner.

Furthermore, the state media provided broad and fair coverage of the campaign. This was also the case in the LTOs’ AoR where they monitored the local media.

With respect to polling day, no serious incidents or irregularities were observed or reported by observers or the media. Nevertheless, this observer did see several instances of poor election-day routines. It is therefore recommended that for future elections, polling boards should receive more instruction where emphasis should be put on (1) securing the secrecy of vote; (2) explaining the reason

22 LER: Art. 95 (abbreviated). 23 LER: Art. 52 24 Initially, over 10,000 voters had applied to vote abroad. However, due to the above legal provision, some 8,000 voters were able to vote on election day.


behind adopting a certain order of actions when ‘handling’ a voter; and (3) thoroughly explaining all members of election commissions their rights and when and how to file complaints.

COMMENTS ON THE ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION As no OSCE/ODIHR STOs were recruited for election day, the work of both the core team and the LTOs was greatly reduced. This enabled the LTOs to focus more on the pre-election period and gain a greater understanding of the situation in their respective regions.

Although the initial briefing was fairly comprehensive and the core team appeared competent, the LTO was not entirely satisfied with how the work of the LTOs was directed from Belgrade. LTOs received instructions from core team to follow up on certain issues it wanted more information on. However, when summoned to Belgrade for meetings, these issues were barely touched upon. This had the effect of making the LTO question the purpose of LTOs following up on the issues in the first place.

In between the two rounds it was very quiet. Although the LTO team always had matters to address, they would have welcomed more, and precise instructions from core team on what to do during the period.

Generally, the flow of information between core team and LTOs was satisfactory and the core team accommodated to the needs and requests of the LTOs. It also arranged several social gatherings for all members of the EOM, something that was much appreciated by this LTO.


APPENDICES 1. OSCE/ODIHR Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, 14 June 2004 (first round)

2. OSCE/ODIHR Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, 28 June 2004 (second round)

Documents

SERBIA (SERBIA & MONTENEGRO): PRESIDENTIAL …