 Kazakhstan
Kazakh election flawed despite administrative improvements
Preliminary conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission
ASTANA, 5
December 2005 - Despite some improvements in the election administration prior to election
day, the 4 December presidential election in Kazakhstan did not meet a number of OSCE
commitments and other international standards for democratic elections. While candidate
registration was mostly inclusive and gave voters a choice, undue restrictions on
campaigning, harassment of campaign staff and persistent and numerous cases of
intimidation by the authorities, limited the possibility for a meaningful competition.
These are the
preliminary conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission for the
presidential election. Some 460 observers from 43 countries observed the election day in a
joint undertaking of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR),
the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and Council of Europe, and the European
Parliament. The voting was generally calm and peaceful, but the process deteriorated
during the count, which was viewed as bad or very bad in one out of four counts observed.
Unauthorised persons interfering in polling stations, cases of multiple voting, ballot box
stuffing and pressure on students to vote were observed during voting and during the
count, observers saw tampering with result protocols and a wide range of procedural
violations.
"Regrettably,
despite some efforts which were undertaken to improve the process, the authorities did not
exhibit sufficient political will to hold a genuinely good election that is in line with
international standards," said Bruce George, President emeritus of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly and the Special Co-ordinator for the short-term observers. State
media largely met their legal obligations to provide free airtime to candidates but
overall media bias in favour of the incumbent and legal restrictions on freedom of
expression and dissemination of information diminished the possibility for electors to
make a fully informed choice. Statements by the authorities alleging plans for violent
actions by the opposition increased tension.
The Head of the
delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Tadeusz Iwinski,
said: "The active participation clearly shows the interest and hopes of the Kazakh
people in the development of a democratic society. However, the high attendance caused in
some cases overcrowding in polling stations hindered the voting process and the secrecy of
the vote." Struan Stevenson, Head of the European Parliament delegation added:
"We witnessed some improvements in the electoral process and were encouraged by these
signs. Nevertheless we are of the view that much work remains to be done if Kazakhstan's
embryonic democracy is to grow and mature."
The Central
Election Commission administered the election in a generally transparent manner, taking
into account a number of previous ODIHR recommendations regarding election administration.
However, not one of the ODIHR's 2004 recommendations suggesting changes to existing
election legislation has been implemented to date. Ambassador Audrey Glover, Head of the
OSCE/ODIHR's long-term observation mission, expressed regret that the Kazakh authorities
did not provide "a level playing field for a democratic election, whereby the
candidates enjoyed equal treatment and opportunities to campaign so that voters could make
an informed choice. This is despite assurances from the president that the election would
be free and fair."
The observation
mission noted positive elements of the pre-election process, including a change in the
electronic voting systems, which has made it more user-friendly. A debate among
presidential candidates was broadcast live, although the incumbent chose not to
participate thereby reducing the value of the event for the electorate.
Shortcomings
included restrictions on campaigning; meeting and advertising space and disruption of
campaign events. The application of the law on protection of the honour and dignity of
candidates limited political discourse and freedom of expression. There was evidence of
pressure exerted on students to vote in favour of the incumbent and the certification and
testing of the electronic voting system was non-transparent, undermining public confidence
in the system.
OSCE
http://www.eurasia.org.ru/c
05 Dec 2005 |