ODIHR: Pressure, Misuse of State Resources, Media Had Negative Impact on Election Process

Lamberto Zannier, ODIHR (BETAPHOTO/MILAN ILIC)

Local elections held in 89 towns and municipalities in Serbia on June 2 were well executed and presented voters with a broad range of political options, but the election process was negatively affected by widespread pressure on public sector employees, and the misuse of state resources and media in favor of the ruling coalition, Lamberto Zannier, head of the observer mission of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, said in Belgrade on June 3.

Presenting the preliminary conclusions of the ODIHR, Zannier told a news conference that election day "proceeded smoothly overall, but was negatively affected by issues related to the secrecy of the vote, numerous procedural problems, claims of pressure and vote-buying, and isolated instances of violence."

ODIHR observers "assessed voting negatively in [seven percent] of polling stations observed, attributed to frequent breaches of the secrecy of the vote, including due to the layout of the polling stations," Zannier said, adding that observers "noted several instances of serious irregularities, including cases of vote buying and pressure on voters, as well as procedural shortcomings, including group voting and proxy voting."

He said basic freedom of expression and assembly were followed, with voters being presented with a wide range of options representing a broad spectrum of political opinions, but added that the "dominance of the ruling party and fragmentation of the opposition reduced the competitiveness of elections."

"The use of diverse names and numbers for opposition lists, and ambivalence about its participation, several lists with similar-sounding names, allegedly registered intentionally to confuse voters affected voters' ability to make an informed choice," Zannier went on to say.

He also said that the "diverse media landscape in Serbia is deeply polarized, prioritizing the national agenda over local issues," adding that public broadcasters focused on the president, government and ruling parties, while "national private broadcasters largely favored public officials and ruling parties, marginalizing and often negatively framing the opposition."