FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA:
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
APRIL 2004
Report
by
Ronny Myhrvold
NORDEM Report 09/2004
Copyright: the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights/NORDEM and Ronny Myhrvold.
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: 82–90851–77–4
NORDEM Report is available online at:
http://www.humanrights.uio.no/forskning/publ/publikasjonsliste.html
Preface
On 26 February 2004 late president of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM), Boris Trajkovski, was killed in an airplane crash in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The presidential elections that were scheduled for autumn this year thus had to be
advanced as the constitution of the country required new elections to be held within the
40 day deadline for filling the vacancy in the Presidency. A decision by the
Constitutional Court declaring the Presidency to be vacant was published in the “Official
Gazette” on 7 March, which officially initiated the election period. On invitation from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the
OSCE through its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
established an international election observation mission in Skopje in March for the 2004
presidential elections. Head of Mission was Ambassador Friedrich Bauer from Austria.
A team of 10 core staff members was located in the capital Skopje and 18 long-term
observers (LTOs) were deployed in 9 regional centres to follow the pre-election
campaign period and preparations for the elections. On the first election day, 14 April,
over 300 OSCE/ODIHR observers, including the locally recruited, were deployed to
observe the opening of polling stations, the voting, the counting and the tabulation of
results. The OSCE/ODIHR observers covered over 1,400 polling stations in all
Municipal Election Commission areas. Since no candidate won the first round with the
required majority the elections were repeated on 28 April. This time 290 international
observers were deployed throughout the country.
One long term observer and two short term observers were recruited to the election
observation mission by the Norwegian Institute of Human rights and the Norwegian
Refugee Council, through the NORDEM Stand-by Force, at the request of the
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The observers were Ronny Myhrvold (LTO),
Inge Asbjørn Fredriksen and Jostein Hoel.
This report is based on the observations and findings made by the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission and the Norwegian observers.
The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights / NORDEM
University of Oslo
August 2004
Contents
Preface
Contents
Map of Country
Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
Political background ..............................................................................................................1
The Legislative Framework...................................................................................................3
The Electoral Administration ................................................................................................4
Voter and Civic Education ....................................................................................................5
Voter Registration ..................................................................................................................5
Candidate registration ............................................................................................................6
The Election campaign ..........................................................................................................8
The Media...............................................................................................................................8
Observation on the Polling Day ............................................................................................9
The review of Complaints Process..................................................................................... 14
Conclusions and recommendations.................................................................................... 15
Comments on the election observation mission ................................................................ 17
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 17
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
1
Introduction
On invitation from the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM), the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights established
a regular size Election Observation Mission in March 2004 to observe the preparations
for and the actual conduct of the presidential elections. The mission was led by
Ambassador Friedrich Bauer and consisted of a ten person core team and eighteen longterm observers (LTOs). Nine regional observation centres were set up on 27 March
throughout the country in order to follow the election process leading to the election day
on 14 April. Since none of the four presidential candidates succeeded in receiving the
votes of the majority of the total number of registered voters in the first round of the
elections a second round of elections was held on 28 April. In the first round some 160
international Short-Term Observers (STOs) were deployed to the different centres
throughout the country. The number of overseas STOs was reduced to around 80 in the
second round. However, the total number of STOs amounted to approximately 300 in
both rounds due to the inclusion of locally recruited international observers. Two
Norwegians were seconded to the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission as short
term observers in addition to the long term observer, Ronny Myhrvold.
Inge Asbjørn Fredriksen
Kumanovo
Jostein Hoel
Gevgelija
The findings of the Norwegian STOs are presented in chapter “Observation on the
Election Day”. The information in the other chapters is largely based on data from
OSCE/ODIHR and other sources.
Political background
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) gained independence after a
referendum held in September 1991. A large majority of the population voted in favour
of secession from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In November the same
year the parliament passed a new constitution and the republic was officially declared to
be a sovereign and independent state. Because of an unresolved dispute with Greece over
the name of the country its official name remains the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, under which it became a member of the United Nations in 1993.
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has a parliamentary form of government.
The president, who is elected in a direct popular vote, has relatively limited powers at his
disposal. Most importantly the president is the head of the republic’s security council and
he/she also proposes a prime minister who forms a government.
The ethnic composition of the country is made up of an ethnic Macedonian majority, a
large ethnic Albanian minority and other various smaller minorities. Minority rights have
since independence constituted one of the major political challenges in FYROM.
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
2
Especially the status of the large ethnic Albanian community has been one of the most
difficult and controversial questions. According to the 2002 census ethnic Macedonians
comprise 64.18 per cent of the population and ethnic Albanians 25.17 per cent. The
political party landscape is primarily divided along ethnic lines although parties cover
the whole of the political spectrum. All ethnicities are represented by at least one
political party. The four major parties, which also promote a presidential candidate, are
currently:
VMRO-DPMNE: “Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation-Democratic Party
for Macedonian National Unity”. (Ethnic Macedonian)
SDSM: “Social Democratic Union of Macedonia” (Ethnic Macedonian)
DPA: “Democratic Party of Albanians” (Ethnic Albanian)
DUI: “Democratic Union for Integration” (Ethnic Albanian
VMRO-DPMNE and DPA formed a government coalition from 1998 to 2002 before an
SDSM led coalition won the parliamentary elections in fall 2002. DUI, established in
June 2002 and becoming the victor on the ethnic Albanian side in the same elections, is
part of the ruling coalition with SDSM and another ethnic Macedonian party, LDP
“Liberal Democratic Party”.
The Ohrid Framework Agreement and after
In 2001 the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia found itself on the brink of civil
war. Ethnic Albanian insurgents induced an armed conflict in the beginning of the year
fighting under the name of the “National Liberation Army” (NLA). The fighting came
largely as a surprise to the majority of the population as well as the international
community. However, inter-ethnic tension had troubled the country for almost a decade
since independence. In the 1990s particularly the debate on the issue of higher education
and the establishment of the illegal University of Tetovo generated controversy. In
addition, the display of the Albanian flag on public buildings led to confrontations
between Macedonian police forces and ethnic Albanian demonstrators. The situation
became more fragile with the instability in neighbouring Kosovo in the late 1990s and
the influx of refugees in 1999 had a profound impact on the political scene. NLA
claimed from the outbreak to be defending the ethnic Albanian population against
Macedonian security forces and later demanded constitutional changes that would secure
basic human rights for the ethnic Albanian minority. The conflict escalated gradually
through several isolated violent incidents near the Kosovo border to the area around
Tetovo and the city of Kumanovo and led to a large number of internally displaced
persons.
Under strong pressure from the international community a unity government was created
in May 2001 consisting of the then government coalition partners VMRO-DPMNE
“Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation–Democratic Party for Macedonian
National Unity” and DPA “Democratic Party of Albanians” and the two major
opposition parties in parliament, SDMS “Social Democratic Union of Macedonia” and
PDP Albanian “Party for Democratic Prosperity”. With the active participation of late
president Boris Trajkovski a formal peace agreement, the Ohrid Framework Agreement
(OFA), was signed by the leaders of these four parties on 13 August 2001 intending to
cease all violent hostilities. The agreement included several constitutional amendments
and envisaged a rapid decentralisation of state powers and local government reforms.
Moreover, enhanced rights were given to the country’s minorities, especially to the
ethnic Albanian community. Constituting more than 20 per cent of the population the
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
3
OFA prescribed the recognition of the Albanian language as a second official language
and proportional representation in state structures. The international community took the
responsibility for collecting arms and ammunition possessed by the NLA. Finally the
OFA called for new parliamentary elections to be held by the end of year 2001.
The parliamentary elections scheduled to be conducted late 2001 were nonetheless
postponed several times. Held in September 2002 the elections led to what is often seen
as a landslide victory for the “Together for Macedonia” coalition in which SDSM was
the largest party, and DUI, the newly established political successor of NLA headed by
Ali Ahmeti. After the inauguration of the government comprising SDSM, LDP and DUI
the coalition has been primarily occupied with reinstating state authority and establishing
security in all parts of the country. In addition, committed to implement the OFA, the
government has succeeded in proposing and passing several OFA related laws in
parliament. It has also partially been able to increase the representation of ethnic
Albanians in state structures to a satisfactory level. However, certain essential provisions
of the OFA such as the decentralisation process and the re-drawing of municipal
boundaries are still not implemented. And, although the incumbent government has been
relatively successful in re-establishing state control and authority in the former crisis area
the economic situation has improved little since 2002. The economic situation and high
unemployment levels are currently the issues that concern the population the most.
The Legislative Framework
Principally the constitution of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia describes
the conduct of and standards for accomplishment of presidential elections. On 08 March
2004 parliament enacted amendments on the Law on Presidential Elections in order to
meet the specific requirements related to the election timeline as described in the
constitution. Moreover, the amendments identified the election management bodies that
administer presidential elections. They include the provision for replacement of
vacancies on existing election commissions, specify the shortened periods for submitting
nominations, inspection of voter lists and campaigning and creates a new and
streamlined system for complaints and appeals. Finally, the amendments established a
provision for the layout and content of the ballot paper. Underlying the legislative
framework is also the Parliamentary Election Law of 2002, which defines basic election
structures and procedures.
To stand as a presidential candidate certain criteria have to be met of which confirmed
citizenship of the republic, residence in the country for at least ten out of the last fifteen
years prior to the elections and being minimum 40 years of age are the most important.
In addition, to be nominated a candidate has to demonstrate support either through the
submission of petitions signed by 30 parliamentarians or 10,000 registered voters.
The president is elected in a direct vote. A candidate for presidency must, in order to win
the elections on the first day of voting, obtain the votes of a majority of the total number
of registered voters (50 per cent + 1). If in the first round of voting no candidate receives
the majority required, voting in the second round will be restricted to the two candidates
who have gathered most electoral support. The second round shall take place within 14
days of the termination of the first round. Similar to the turnout requirement of the first
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
4
round, more than a majority of registered voters have to participate in the second for the
elections to be announced valid. Both the first and the second round are annulled if the
threshold of 50 per cent is not reached in each of them. In such a scenario the whole
electoral procedure would be repeated.
The Electoral Administration
The Law on Presidential Elections establishes a three-level election administration
system comprising the State Election commission (SEC), 34 Municipal Election
Commissions (MEC) and 2,973 Election Boards (EB). As opposed to the parliamentary
elections held in 2002 the fourth level, Regional Elections Commissions (REC), had
been removed from the electoral administration structure. The 2002 Law on election of
members of parliament was applied to define the responsibilities of the different election
management bodies.
Only the four largest parties in parliament, i.e., the parties that won most seats in the last
parliamentary elections could propose representatives to the election management
bodies. Both ethnic and political apsects are considered and bodies comprise the main
ruling and opposition parties. Primarily this would imply that SDSM, VMRO-DPMNE,
DPA and DUI would have commissioners in the bodies. However, since DUI and PDP
were running a joint campaign for the candidature of Mr Gzim Ostreni and the
amendments to the Law on Presidential Elections intended to maintain election
management bodies as they functioned in the 2002 parliamentary elections, several PDP
members could be observed filling positions in MECs and EBs.
State Election Commission (SEC)
The composition of the SEC is a president and eight members, plus their deputies. All
members except the president were the same as during the parliamentary elections. Mr
Stevo Pendarovski, former advisor to the late president and functionary of the ministry
of interior, was appointed SEC president. Four of the commission’s members are
supreme court judges appointed with the agreement of each of the political parties
mentioned above. Four other members are appointed by the main ruling and opposition
parties. The SEC is primarily responsible for applying election laws and decides upon all
complaints filed The SEC also appoints members of MECs and their deputies. Training
of MEC members is arranged and directed by the SEC.
Municipal Election Commission (MEC)
34 MECs are established to administer the elections. MECs consist of one president and
four members, plus their deputies. According to the law on parliamentary elections,
article 20, the MEC president and his/her deputy are appointed by the SEC. In the
amendments it is stated that other members of the MECs should be appointed by the
SEC. The president and two regular members should be primary court judges. The two
remaining members are chosen by the main political parties, one from the ruling and one
from the opposition. MECs receive election results from polling stations, consolidate
them and submit the results to the SEC. MECs are also in charge of training EBs. This
type of training was in reality done by the International Foundation for Election Systems
(IFES) between 05-10 April.
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
5
Election Boards (EB)
The 2,973 polling stations are administered by election boards, or polling station
committees. One EB consists of five members and their deputies. The current legislation
prescribes that the president of the EB, and her/his deputy shall be law graduates.
However, as in certain areas there are an insufficient number of law graduates the
qualification requirement cannot always be met. The main ruling and opposition parties
propose the other four members. In the current political context SDSM and DUI would
represent the ruling parties and VMRO-DPMNE and DPA the opposition. In ethnically
pure areas representatives of the non-residing ethnicity would often be replaced with a
member of its political coalition partner Deputies of regular members should only
participate in the work of the EB once the regular member is absent. The EBs are mainly
tasked to receive the election materials from the MEC and setting up polling stations,
manage the voting and ensure that the voting takes in accordance with democratic
standards, sum up the result at the polling station and finally, make the minutes of their
work and submit these with the election materials to the MEC by midnight on election
day.
Most of the election management bodies established for the 2002 parliamentary elections
remained in place which simplified the work of the SEC. Technical assistance to enter
election results into computerised data sytems in the MECs were provided by the State
Bureau of Statistics.
Voter and Civic Education
For the most part the electorate seemed to have adequate knowledge of different aspects
of the electoral process. Information on voting procedures was made available at each
polling station and instruction posters were also visible in the large majority of them. A
list of candidates was also posted in polling stations. Understanding of procedures varied
depending on geographic and age variables. Generally, younger urban dwellers seemed
more familiar with election procedures. One deficiency, which could be ascribed partly
to the short timeframe for preparing and holding the elections, was the limited prospect
voters had to check voters’ lists. This was in turn aggravated by the fact that no
information about the voters’ lists was published before the elections (see below).
Voter Registration
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is responsible for registering voters on the official voters’
list. Persons eligible for voting need to have reached the age of 18, have residence in the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and hold a valid ID card or passport. Citizens
temporarily residing abroad have the right to vote, but have to return to the territory of
FYROM in order to cast their ballots.
The voter list was updated immediately prior to the elections and included 1,695,103
names, which signifies an eight per cent increase in registered voters compared to the
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
6
2002 parliamentary elections. One of the problems emerging from the short timeframe
given to prepare the elections was the limited possibility of voters to control the voter
list. Since the lists were posted at district ministries for public inspection from 13 to 22
March, ten days, only 100,000 persons checked their details. Around six per cent
reported errors, which were amended before election day. Besides the restricted time to
check the lists no public information campaign was launched on the issue. Taking into
account these two weaknesses there is reason to believe that many more errors remained
after the first corrections.
Complicating the issue further is the large number of citizens who have emigrated but
who are still on the voter lists. Comparing the lists with the findings of the 2002 census,
considered to have been conducted in line with international standards, it is estimated
that seven to eight per cent of persons on the voter list are no longer present in the
country. Several civil society organisations and political parties were concerned that this
could lead to electoral malfeasance.1
Regarding registration of internally displaced persons (IDP) it is estimated that 860
persons were allowed to vote in IDP collective centres in Skopje and Kumanovo on 13
and 27 April (special voting). However, indications suggest that around 50 per cent of
the total number of registered IDPs were not on the voters’ list issued for the IDP
collective centres. Due to the short time frame IDPs were unable to check whether they
should vote at the polling station at the centre or at their previous residence.
Representatives of the IDPs in Kumanovo pronounced before the first round of voting
that they would officially forward a request to the SEC for the inclusion of all IDPs on
the special voting list. The list was not altered before the first or second round of voting.
Candidate registration
On 25 March the SEC approved four candidates to stand for president. Two of them
were ethnic Macedonians and the two others were ethnic Albanians. All of the
candidates, except current prime minister Branko Crvenkovski are serving members of
parliament and belong to the four major political parties in the country. Mr. Branko
Crvenkovski is president of SDSM, Mr. Sasko Kedev of VMRO-DPMNE, Mr. Zudi
Xhelili of DPA and finally Mr. Gzim Ostreni of DUI.
A fifth nominee, former minister of interior Ljube Boskovski, a VMRO-DPMNE
member but intending to run as independent, succeeded in receiving more than 10,000
signatures but his candidature was rejected by the SEC on the grounds that he had
resided outside the country during the 15 last years prior to the elections. The president
of DPA, Mr. Arben Xhaferi, withdrew his candidature before it was handled by the SEC,
allegedly because he expected his nomination to be denied because of residency
requirements.
Participation of women in the electoral process
1
OSCE/ODIIHR Election Observation Mission Statement of the Preliminary Findings
and Conclusions, Skopje, 14 April 2004
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
7
There were no female candidates in the presidential elections. None of the four
candidates put stress on gender issues with the exception of Mr Ostreni who during one
meeting in Skopje approached a large group of female supporters and called for a more
active participation of ethnic Albanian women in politics and for an increased role in all
spheres of society. In other political rallies held by the two ethnic Albanian candidates
female attendees were conspicuous by their absence. In Kumanovo and Aracinovo
women constituted less than five per cent of the audience. Generally attendance by
women at rallies was low.
In election management bodies the percentage of women varied depending on
geographic and ethnic background. In the SEC only one member was a woman. In
MECs the number of women varied from ten to 50 per cent. Tendencies depicted a
higher concentration of women in MECs in urban compared to rural areas. In EBs 60 per
cent of the members were women but the percentage dropped to 45 per cent in
predominantly ethnic Albanian areas.
Participation of minorities in the electoral process
As in previous presidential elections in FYROM there were no candidates from ethnic
minorities except the large ethnic Albanian minority. However, several political parties
representing the ethnic minorities supported one candidate or the other. Clearly the
ethnic minority parties that constituted part of the “Together for Macedonia” coalition in
the 2002 parliamentary elections such as the “Democratic Party of Serbs”, the
“Democratic Partyof Turks” and the “Union for Emancipation” (Roma) aligned
themselves with SDSM candidate Branko Crvenkovski.
Regarding one specific minority, the ethnic Roma, it is likely that they were under
substantial pressure and subject to manipulation. One Roma NGO claimed that many
Roma were missing on the voter lists. Additionally, circulating rumours indicated that
Roma communities in the areas of Stip and Strumica were susceptible to selling their
votes. In the predominantly ethnic Roma municipality Suto Orizari in Skopje one
domestic observation organisation reported that ethnic Roma had complained about
votes being cast on their behalf. Finally, evident ballot stuffing took place in the presence
of ODIHR observers in the first round, also in Suto Orizari.
Domestic observers
Over 4,000 domestic non-partisan observers from eight different organisations were
accredited by the SEC, contributing to confidence in the election results. MOST, which
was the largest of these organisations deployed 3,320 observers and conducted a parallel
vote tabulation. Besides, MOST arranged four press conferences on the day of the
second round elections. OSCE/ODIHR observers reported the presence of domestic nonpartisan observers in 54 per cent of polling stations observed.
Candidate representatives, mostly members of the four major political parties, could be
registered up until election day and were observed in 92 per cent of the polling stations
visited in the first round of voting.
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
8
The Election campaign
Due to the condensed timeframe for holding the elections campaign periods were short.
Before the first round campaigning were conducted from 30 March to 12 April.
Campaigning resumed on 17 April and lasted until the 26 April. Election campaigns
prior to both rounds took place in a peaceful and orderly manner. All presidential
candidates campaigned actively in the first round and the sporadic violent incidents that
occurred before the 2002 parliamentary elections did not recur. Despite the short
campaign period all four presidential candidates had the opportunity to convey their
programme to the electorate. The main themes of all candidates were the necessity of full
implementation of the OFA, security and stability issues, Euro-Atlantic integration and
the difficult economic situation. Use of inflammatory language was largely avoided.
However, Mr Xhelili and major DPA leaders used harsh and charged rhetoric when
characterizing political opponents and the Slav-Macedonian majority.
Before the first round of voting, campaigning was primarily conducted on an intra-ethnic
basis. Neither Mr. Crvenkovski nor Mr Kedev, although announcing that they would be
president of all citizens, attempted convincingly to get the electoral support from the
ethnic Albanian community. Conversely, on the ethnic Albanian side Mr Xhelili and Mr
Ostreni did little to attract ethnic Macedonian voters. Significant for a large majority of
rallies held by both ethnic Albanian presidential candidates, Mr. Xhelili and Mr. Ostreni,
was the extensive focus on exclusively Albanian matters. The campaign meetings were
introduced with the singing of the Albanian national anthem, speeches were held solely
in the Albanian language and no Macedonian flags were displayed. It should be
mentioned that Mr Ostreni addressed the audience in Macedonian language in some
campaign events.
In-between the two rounds of voting campaigning activities and rallies were reduced.
The two candidates endeavoured to mobilise party organisations and voters at the local
level through direct meetings and sporadic rallies. Moreover, in an attempt to bolster
support among the ethnic Albanians both Slav-Macedonian candidates appealed to
ethnic Albanians directly. In addition to place advertisements in Albanian-language
newspapers both conducted public events with ethnic Albanian voters.
In the second round much attention was given to the potential risk of insufficient turn-out
and the failure of not reaching the 50 per cent plus one threshold. Especially to what
extent ethnic Albanians would participate in the final round and which candidate they
would support was debated. DUI announced at an early stage that the party would
support the candidature of prime minister Crvenkovski and advocated its supporters to
do the same. DPA remained indecisive and did not support any specific candidate;
neither would the party call on its supporters to use their democratic and civic rights.
The Media
Media in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is characterised by its numerous
outlets of local and national newspapers, radio and TV stations. The state owned media
channels are under government control while the private media channels often reflect
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
9
particular partisan interests. Thus, despite the diversity and magnitude in both printed
and electronic media, editorial independence is not always guaranteed.
Nationwide there are five TV channels, three under the umbrella of the national public
broadcaster, “Macedonian Radio and TV” (MRTV), and two private ones, “TV A1” and
“TV Sitel”. In addition there exist 29 local public radio and TV stations, three national
private radio stations and 120 local private broadcasters. Regarding printed media there
are nine daily newspapers published on a daily basis. Two of them are printed in the
Albanian language, “Flaka” and “Fakti” all the others are printed in the Macedonian
language. The newspapers with the highest circulation are “Dvevnik”, “Utrinski vesnik”
and “Vest” and these newspapers are now owned formally by the newly formed “Media
Print Macedonia”.
The Law on Parliamentary Elections regulates media coverage of the presidential
election campaign. Media is also during the time of campaigns governed by the Rules
for Equal Access to Media Presentation, proposed by the Macedonian Broadcasting
Council, and approved by parliament on 18 March 2004. The Rules for Equal Access
require that state broadcast media provide free airtime to all presidential candidates on
the basis of fair, objective and transparent criteria. Regulations for commercial
broadcasters are less strict. However, if they decide to give free airtime it has to be on an
equal basis. Print media is far less regulated still but has to be observant of the rules of
balanced and impartial coverage of candidates.
Media coverage of the two campaigning rounds and of all four candidates was generally
balanced and fair. Moreover, the majority of print and electronic media outlets provided
the electorate with considerable and comprehensive information on the campaign. On the
state owned public TV channel, “MTV1”, the amount of time distributed to candidates
were balanced. The public channel broadcasting in the languages of minorities,
“MTV3”, provided more airtime to the two ethnic Albanian candidates while the private
broadcasters and print media paid more attention to the likely winners of the first round.
One exception was Fakti, the largest Albanian paper, which gave more coverage to the
ethnic Albanian candidates. Basically all private media presented neutral reports on the
campaigns.2
Observation on the Polling Day
The OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission found that the 2004 presidential
elections in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were conducted generally in
accordance with OSCE commitments and international standards. However, where the
first round of voting took place in a peaceful atmosphere the second round was
characterised by serious irregularities, such as proxy voting, ballot stuffing and
intimidation in certain parts of the country. Voter turn out was markedly lower than in
previous elections, approximately 55 and 53 per cent respectively.
2
OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Statement of Preliminary Findings and
Conclusions, Skopje 14 and 28 April 2004
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
10
The two Norwegian STOs participated in the election observation of the second round of
voting. This report’s description of the first round is thus based on the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions and is
included below.
Observation of the first round
The first round held on 14 April was conducted and completed largely in line with
international democratic standards. As described above the campaigning period was
overall devoid of violence and intimidation of voters. Allegations of intimidation and
buying of votes were not submitted as formal complaints. On election day, which also
passed in a peaceful manner, election procedures were perceived as being followed
positively in a vast majority of polling stations.
Opening procedures were judged to be good or very good in 92 per cent of the polling
stations visited. 33 per cent of the polling stations opened late for different reasons. The
voting process was rated good or very good in 95 per cent of the polling stations
observed. Irregularities observed were proxy voting in 26 and strong indications of ballot
stuffing in ten polling stations. In two cases an EB member falsified the signatures on the
extract of the voter list in the presence of OSCE/ODIHR observers. Omissions of signing
or marking the voters’ list were noticed in four per cent of the polling stations. Another
breach of democratic rules was several instances of group voting. The phenomenon was
observed in 13 per cent of polling stations, 21 per cent in ethnic Albanian areas. Finally
it is worth mentioning that in one of the domestic non-partisan observation organisations
reported that some of their observers had been threatened and made to leave the same
polling station in Suto Orizari in which OSCE/ODIHR observers later witnessed ballot
stuffing.
Counting and tabulation on the other hand was assessed as relatively poor compared to
the other processes. Procedural errors occurred in many polling stations. In 14 per cent of
polling stations observed the results did not reconcile. In less than half of these cases no
recount was conducted as required by the law. In other cases signatures were added to
the voter list to solve the problem. The complicated minutes (form 14) and the lack of a
tabulated results protocol led to 15 per cent of EBs having difficulties in filling out the
minutes. In over 40 per cent of polling stations the final results were not posted.
Regarding tabulation in MECs it was observed that results were systematically changed
in several MEcs to reconcile them and to allow entry into the computerised data system.
In two MECs observers were hindered in monitoring checking and entry of results as
they were processed in separate closed rooms.
The SEC announced that 935,372 out of 1,695,103 registered voters exercised their right
to vote, which signifies a 55.18 per cent turnout. Candidates Mr. Branko Crvenkovski
and Mr Sasko Kedev received 42.47 and 34.07 per cent electoral support respectively,
and thus went on to the second round.3
Regional specific information
Jostein Hoel was deployed as an STO to Strumica but was assigned to cover the
elections in Gevgelija municipality, adjacent to the Greek border in the south-east of the
country. The Municipality has 28 800 registered voters. 98 per cent of the population is
3
State Election Commission of the Republic of Macedonia. http://www.dik.mk
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
11
ethnic Macedonians, and the remaining 2 per cent ethnic Turks, Serbs, Roma, Vlachs
and others.
Inge Asbjørn Fredriksen was deployed to Kumanovo, 40 kilometres east/north-east of
Skopje, close to the Serbian border. Kumanovo is the seat of the MEC for the
municipalities of Kumanovo, Staro Majorcan, and Lipkovo. The total amount of polling
stations reporting to the MEC was 167 with a total of 106658 registered voters. The
population in the area is ethnically mixed, with a majority of ethnic Macedonians, a large
minority of ethnic Albanians, besides the presence of ethnic Romas, Turks, Bulgarians
and Serbs.
Special voting Tuesday 27 April
Article 84 and 86 describe the procedures for the voting of people who are unable to
make it to the polling stations on election day. In both rounds of the presidential
elections special voting should be conducted on the day prior to regular voting. Special
voting comprises four different groups. First there are voters in military barracks, second
prisons and jails, third IDP centres and finally mobile voting for people in hospitals.
According to the Law the EB in the closest distance of the voting site is responsible for
this voting.
The two Norwegian STOs observed special voting on 27 April. In Kumanovo the IDP
collective centre was visited while in Gevgelija the voting in military barracks and a
prison was observed. At the IDP centre the team observed extensive family voting
conducted by elderly couples. This malpractice could be ascribed to the fact that there
was only one screen in the polling station. It was also noticed that it was the females of
the couples that most often directed the voting. One voter insisted on marking her ballot
in public (and in full view of at least two TV-cameras) next to the ballot box. The EB
members tried to direct the voter to do the marking of the ballot behind the screen, but
she refused to comply. Apart from this the voting in the IDP centre proceeded orderly.
In both facilities in Gevgelija the voting procedures were strictly followed. In the
military barracks the voting soldiers’ officers were not in the polling station, but in an
adjacent room. Voting in the prison was also calm and orderly, and the election board
had displayed voting instruction in several languages, Macedonian, Albanian, Serbian,
Turkish, Vlach and Roma. In fact, the prison was the only multi-ethnic polling station of
those visited by the team.
Observation of the opening
Only one report from the Norwegian STOs is available. This report indicates that the
opening of the polling stations was done in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the law and the Electoral Board Procedure Manual. The opening of a polling station in
Bogdanci, a large village east of Gevgelija was observed. All the opening procedures
were followed, and the polling station opened at 0700 hours sharp. All members of the
board were present, and so were candidate representatives from SDSM and VMRODPMNE. The head of the election board informed the team that there were campaign
posters of Mr. Branko Crvenkovski on the wall of a store nearby, and that they had
unsuccessfully asked the store owner to remove them. At the time of opening, however,
the owner was, in fact, busy plastering over the campaign posters.
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
12
Observation of the polling
In Kumanovo no serious deviations from national regulations or international standards
concerning voting were reported. All nine EBs observed seemed to be well trained, and
their understanding and performance of given tasks seemed good or very good. Only a
few minor deviations were observed. On some occasions the voters’ identification papers
were given back to the voters before they had cast their ballots. However, on those
occasions the polling stations were not crowded and the STO observed that the vote was
cast by the proper voter. In two polling stations the EBs were unable to present form 13
(the minutes of the opening). The form had according to the EBs already been forwarded
to the MEC. According to national regulations; form 13 should be brought to the MEC
along with the ballot box and all other materials after closing and counting. It was
observed that the EB members and their deputies frequently divided the tasks among
themselves at polling stations, and thus allowed all more breaks. This seemed to be
standard practises at all polling stations.
In Gevgelija 13 polling stations were observed. In all polling stations voting was calm,
orderly and well organised, and in none were there problems of overcrowding. In no
polling stations were there indications of fraud, and observers received no indications of
violations from election board members or party representatives. However, in many
polling stations family voting was observed. In all of the cases this involved a man
voting together with a woman in the same booth. This practice did not, however, seem
very widespread. In the polling station in one of the villages it was noticed that none of
the persons voting were invited to sign their names on the extract of the voter list. The
head of the election board explained it as a tradition that voters did not sign the register.
This was a serious violation which, while not necessarily an attempt to influence the
result, provided room for fraud. The polling stations the team visited only had voting
instructions in Macedonian. All the election boards stated that they had not received
instructions in minority languages from the MEC, and that in any case there was no need
for such as there were no ethnic minorities in their area.
Observation of the closing and counting
None of the Norwegian STOs reported major problems in closing of polling stations. In
Kumanovo the proceedings of the chosen EB were conducted in accordance with
regulations. Initially the EB spent much time on counting and recounting the signatures
on the voter list in order to reconcile the number of signatures with the number of stubs
in the inbound book of ballots. The problem seemed to be minor discrepancies due to the
provisions for the handling of votes cast in special voting on 27 April. The procedures of
reconciling these votes seemed inadequate or at least confusing. The EB eventually
reconciled the voter list with the stubs, and the result was recorded in form 14. Despite
this problem all other procedures were followed orderly and accurately. The stacks of
ballots for each candidate and the invalid ballots were counted and the results were
recorded in the form 14. The number of ballots in the ballot box reconciled with the
number of votes cast and recorded in form 14. Ballots were bagged, sealed, and marked
separately, and put back in the now empty ballot box together with the previously
bagged unused ballots and the voter list. The ballot box was then sealed and form 14 was
signed by all members of the EB. No irregularities concerning the closing and counting
at the polling station except for the omission of posting a copy of the signed form 14 was
observed.
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
13
In the Gevgelija area the Norwegian STO reported on the closing of the polling station in
the village of Moin. During the closing procedure, the election board committed several
violations of the voting procedure: The numbers on the clips sealing the ballot box were
not checked against those noted on form 13; the unused ballots were not counted and put
in a sealed envelope; and the relevant numbers were not noted down directly on form 14.
However, the counting of the ballots was transparent and conducted according to the
rules, and the fate of two disputed ballots was quickly resolved. It seemed that the
procedural violations were due to a lack of training and knowledge of the procedures
among the election board members, and not deliberate attempts of fraud. The same
perception holds for minor violations during voting. In general the election boards in
urban polling stations displayed a better knowledge of the procedures than those in rural
ones.
Observation of the tabulation
In the MEC in Kumanovo tabulation took place in an open and transparent fashion. The
performance of the MEC was mainly conducted in accordance with national regulations
and international standards. The observation proved nevertheless that some deviations
from those standards could be found. The most serious was the corrections made by
MEC members to incoming forms 14. More specifically it was noticed that in cases
where MEC members or observing candidate representatives discovered discrepancies in
form 14, one MEC member made corrections in the signed forms to reconcile the
numbers. These corrections were all small, but breached nevertheless regulations.
Possibly discrepancies followed the confusion with the processing at the polling stations
of special voting ballots. Another problem was that two EBs in nearby villages had not
performed the counting and preparation of form 14. The ballots from the ballot boxes of
these two polling stations were counted at the MEC by the commission’s president and
another MEC member. The results were then entered into the form 16 tabulation sheet
and the computer. This process was not conducted in a transparent way. Notwithstanding
these deviations, no irregularities were discovered during computerising of data and all
MEC members, observing candidate representatives and MOST were allowed to inspect
signed forms 14 received from the polling stations.
After the completion of the results from all the 167 polling stations, and the completion
of the form 16 tabulation sheet, 18 written complaints were filed by the VMRO-DPMNE
and DPA MEC members. The complaints were repeated orally by the president and
thereafter stamped, dated and signed. The DPA party representative made additional
complaints orally, and so did the VMRO-DPMNE representative. These complaints
concerned incidents in various, mostly rural, polling stations, and included allegations of
ballot stuffing, intimidations of voters and EBs, examples of form 14 where the
handwriting of signatures of the EB members were identical and allegations of armed
people present inside or outside some polling stations. Later these complaints were
recorded in writing and formally signed and stamped for expedition to the SEC. Extracts
of the complaints were also entered into the form 16 by the MEC president. All members
of the MEC Board except the DPA member signed form 16.
Finally it is worth mentioning that the STO noticed a clear difference in the performance
of EBs in Kumanovo town and the EBs in the rural villages. Nearly all complaints and
observations of deviations concerned incidents in rural polling stations. In the urban
areas the observations were similar and complaints were few.
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
14
At the MEC in Gevgelija aggregation and verification of results were observed. The
procedure of registering results from polling stations was quick and orderly. Two
members of the MEC noted down the results from all polling stations, and a statistician
subsequently entered the data into a computer. Party observers were also present,
although not permanently. The process took longer than planned because the MEC had
problems getting the numbers to add up properly, but this was resolved after going
through all the numbers at the end.
The review of Complaints Process
Only one official complaint was submitted to the SEC before the first round of elections.
The complaint was filed by former Minister of Interior, Mr. Ljube Boskovski VMRODPMNE member and MP, who wished to run as an independent candidate but was
denied to do so by the SEC. The rejection was based on residency requirements as
defined in the Law on Presidential Elections. It was argued that the nominee did not
fulfil the requirements because he had been residing several years in Croatia during the
last 15 years. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not alter the
decision made by the SEC. On 31 March the Constitutional Court denied a further
appeal stating that the questions raised were not within its jurisdiction. Further appeals
were forwarded, including one to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,
failing to receive judicial support.
After the first round elections the SEC received all together 35 complaints on
irregularities in 113 out of 2,973 polling stations and one MEC. 16 complaints were filed
by DPA and 11 by VMRO-DPMNE. All complaints, consolidated to eight by the SEC,
were rejected completely. The SEC based its decision on several grounds. Primarily it
was supported with reference to a provision in the Parliamentary Election Law, more
precisely article 100, which states that annulment of the elections is required for certain
types of violations but only if the number of votes in question is large enough to affect
the result of the elections in the district. The ODIHR Election Observation Mission states
that the SEC handled each complaint separately and failed to address the cumulative
effect of reported violations. Thus, the SEC did not consider the electoral district to be
the whole country, which would be normal in presidential elections.4 Apparently the
SEC also used article 100 to reject all complaints although the article in itself is only a
provision which make annulment mandatory in certain limited cases. Additionally, the
SEC based its decision to the reject the complaints on inadequate evidence of
irregularities and election fraud. In the preliminary report issued by the Election
Observation Mission it is stated that the SEC did not review any evidence available or
give indication of what evidence might be considered sufficient. Finally the SEC rejected
numerous complaints on procedural grounds, stating that the complaints had not been
filed at the right place, i.e., the polling stations or the MECs.5 By rejecting all complaints
4
OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Statement of Preliminary Findings and
Conclusions. Skopje 28 April 2004.
5
ibid
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
15
outright the SEC missed an opportunity to send a message that such irregularities would
not be tolerated in the second round.6
The Supreme Court supported and confirmed the rejections made by the SEC.
Conclusions and recommendations
The presidential elections in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2004 were the
second presidential elections since independence and the second elections after the crisis
of 2001. In view of the relative success of the 2002 parliamentary elections substantial
interest was attached to the democratic development of the country and whether the
presidential elections would represent another step forward or not. Equally important
was the need for the country to have a president elected in order to continue with the
decentralisation process and complete the implementation of the OFA. The elections
were perceived as generally conducted in compliance with OSCE commitments and
international standards for democratic elections.
Main findings of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission
The 300 international observers visited in both rounds over 1,400 polling stations
throughout the country, and were mainly satisfied with their observation. Especially the
first round was assessed as being conducted in line with OSCE commitments and only
isolated cases of serious irregularities were reported. Basically the election period was
characterised by the absence of violence prevalent in previous elections and the election
day also proceeded in a peaceful and orderly manner in a large majority of polling
stations. Major problems occurred in counting and tabulation of results at polling station
and MECs where several procedural errors were observed. OSCE/ODIHR reports
indicate that results were openly rectified to facilitate reconciliation and other violations
of the law were observed.
However, while preparations for the second round were peaceful the actual elections
were blemished by serious irregularities in some parts of the country. 290 OSCE/ODIHR
observers visited over 1,400 polling stations. Generally the opening and voting processes
were assessed as positive, but compared to the reports of the first round the rating of the
different processes dropped several percentages. Positively polling stations in the south
and east of the country generally improved the conduct. Notwithstanding the main
positive atmosphere described, the second round election process was characterised by
serious irregularities and violations of penal codes. Strong indications of ballot stuffing
were reported in four per cent of the polling stations observed. Multiple instances were
reported in predominantly ethnic Albanian districts in the MEC areas in the western,
north/north-eastern parts of the country. Additionally, proxy voting was reported in six
per cent of the polling stations observed and unsigned voters’ lists in four per cent of
them. Other important safeguards against electoral fraud such as the application of ink to
voters’ thumbs and control of ID papers were neglected in a significant number of
polling stations. Most seriously the second round saw many examples of intimidation in
and around polling stations as well as threats against EB members, domestic observers
6
OSCE Press release. Skopje 29 April 2004
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
16
and candidate representatives. The list continues with incidents of ballot box destruction
(by prominent DPA members), fights and presence of armed people in and around
polling stations.
The closing and counting process was also assessed as worse in comparison to the first
round. OSCE/ODIHR observers reported that out of 112 polling stations observed 24 per
cent received the ranking bad or very bad, which signified an eight per cent rise.
Problems were partly due to a lack of understanding of procedures, mostly relating to
ballot reconciliation. Moreover, other procedural errors were observed in addition to
deliberate falsification of results in eight per cent of the polling stations. In as many as 92
per cent of the polling stations the EB did not sign the minutes form. Finally, in eight per
cent of polling stations international observers were denied observation. In the MECs the
situation changed completely. In 27 of the 29 MECs observed tabulation was rated good
or very good, a marked improvement.
The SEC announced that 912,605 out of 1,695,103 registered voters exercised their right
to vote in the second round, depicting a 53.84 per cent turnout. Candidates Mr. Branko
Crvenkovski and Mr Sasko Kedev received 62.70 and 37.30 per cent electoral support
respectively. Mr. Crvenkovski was thus proclaimed the winner of the presidential
elections.7
Recommendations
The presidential elections in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was prepared
and conducted in April 2004 as a consequence of the tragic death of late president Boris
Trajkovski which necessitated a speedily response to constitutional deadlines. In
comparison to the conduct during the 1999 presidential and the run-up to the 2002
parliamentary elections, which were marked by physical violence, these elections
represent a step forward. However, the legislative framework still has some
shortcomings that should be corrected to prevent problems in future elections.
Legal actions against violations and irregularities
Taking into the account the dimension of electoral irregularities that took place in the
second round of voting proper legal measures should be applied to discourage electoral
fraud, be it committed by a commissioner in one of the election management bodies or
an outsider. Article 123 and 124 in the election law define the penalties for breaking the
law deliberately but so far, shown through experience from earlier elections and
mentioned in OSCE/ODIHR briefing, violations have not had any legal consequences.
Laws should be properly enacted and violations accordingly punished. Additionally, it is
recommended a code conduct for all election officials to be developed.
Voter list
Due to emigration and the absence of records concerning departed citizens the voter list
currently contains names of people not residing in the country, which was reported by
several NGOs and political parties. This important error could possibly lead to electoral
malfeasance and attempts of manipulation. It is required that the voter lists are corrected
by the ministry of justice before the local elections scheduled to be held autumn 2004.
Desirably procedures for absentee voting should also be established, thus enabling voters
temporarily away from registered residency to cast their ballots.
7
State Election Commission of the Republic of Macedonia. http://www.dik.mk
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 2004
17
Simplifying of minutes
One of the largest problems reported by OSCE/ODIHR observers in both rounds of the
elections was the EB members’ understanding of the minutes forms. The minutes forms,
and especially form 14 created confusion in the work of several EBs. The need for a
simplification of the minutes form is thus of importance. Similarly it would possibly be
an advantage if each polling station was equipped with a tabulated results protocol.
Likewise but not related it is preferable that EB members, especially in the rural areas,
are provided with better training and introduction of electoral procedures.
Removal of the majority threshold
The requirement that a majority of voters cast their votes in order to validate the second
round of voting may have contributed to the increased tensions and irregularities that
were observed. To avoid similar repetitions in the future presidential elections an
alternative model should be endeavoured to be found, that simultaneously secures the
legitimacy of elections, and removes incentives to electoral fraud during the electoral
process.
Comments on the election observation mission
OSEC/ODIHR arranged briefings for the STOs before both rounds of the elections. Prior
to the first round briefings were held on 10 and 12 April while prior to the second round
a briefing was held on 26 April. The main topics were the general political situation, the
specific observation, and logistical and administrative issues.
The Norwegian STOs commented that they were generally satisfied with the reception
and briefing arranged by OSCE/ODIHR. The condensed timeframe for preparing the
election observation mission was equally acknowledged. Ideally the STOs would have
wished for an extended briefing as much information was transmitted during a limited
interval.
In general, more time could have been devoted to LTO briefings of the STOs as the
former thereby could have provided more specific information about the municipalities
and the local political situation, as well as a more thorough description of observation
forms and targets.
Appendices
(Not available in pdf)
1. OSCE/ODIHR Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, 14 April 2004
(first round)
2. OSCE/ODIHR Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, 28 April 2004
(second round)