ODIHR replies to N1's questions on report - a month later

ODIHR referred N1 to the final report in answer to most of the questions. It did not say why equal treatment was given to media with and without national broadcasting licenses nor did it specify the deadline to implement recommendations.

Read the full Q&A below:

Q: We saw different reactions to the report: Government saying report says nothing on electoral theft, opposition saying it proves elections were not fair. What are the main recommendations and who should implement them?

A: Following its observation of the early parliamentary elections in Serbia, ODIHR has made 25 recommendations to improve the process and bring it in line with the commitments to hold democratic elections made by Serbia and all other OSCE states, as well as other international obligations and standards.
ODIHR’s priority recommendations are to:

• Review election legislation to effectively address prior recommendations through an inclusive consultative process built upon a broad political consensus

• Introduce standardized mandatory training for all local electoral commission and polling board members, including the extended compositions of these bodies

• Develop a timely, comprehensive and targeted voter education programme, including in accessible formats, on voters’ rights, preventing group voting and the importance of voting by secret ballot

• Conduct a meaningful audit of the voter and civil registers with the participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular the civil society

• Take measures to prevent the misuse of office and state resources and proactively address violations

• Implement effective legal and institutional oversight mechanisms to prevent intimidation and pressure on voters, including employees of public and state institutions

• Effectively guarantee the independence of the Electronic Media Regulatory Authority so that it proactively addresses media violations. As always, we put our expertise at the disposal of the authorities to help them implement our recommendations.

Q: Prime minister focused on United media saying it should also implement the recommendations mentioned in the report. So who are these recommendations addressed to, state officials, opposition, private media?

A: The recommendations are addressed to different parties, with the majority directed towards the authorities to implement by adjusting legislation, practices, or improving oversight. However, there are also recommendations for the media, such as providing impartial information about contestants and allowing voters to make an informed choice. The media should make use of their right to editorial independence and avoid using material produced by parties in news and information programmes, especially during election campaigns. (You can find this in recommendation 19.)
Political parties are also encouraged to consider recommendations such as promoting women's participation in political life, increasing their visibility during electoral campaigns, and advancing their role in politics. While the recommendation calls for the introduction of additional mechanisms and incentives to achieve these goals that would need new or changed legislation, political parties themselves are also invited to take the initiative in making improvements.

Q: Should they be implemented by upcoming local elections or, as prime minister said by 2027? EU, as stated by Peter Stano, wants it to be implemented by local elections.

A: Our recommendations address different aspects of the election process. For example, some are relevant to all types of elections, while others are specific to parliamentary elections. Some recommendations also require legal amendments or changes in practice which can be implemented more quickly, while others need more time. While good practice says fundamental aspects of the election law should not be amended within a year before an election, changes to less key aspects aimed at improving the integrity of the process may generally be considered reasonable closer to the election. The Serbian National Assembly could certainly consider some of these legal changes even ahead of the local elections.

We believe our recommendations are important to ensure future Serbian elections are closer aligned with international democratic standards. However, good practice requires that significant changes to the legal framework are not introduced shortly before an election, on the principle that the goalposts shouldn’t be moved in the middle of the game. Otherwise, such changes could create confusion and lead to an unstable election environment.

Q: Do these recommendations open a space where everyone can analyse them as they like or want, and why. If everyone can make a conclusion out of it as they want to?

A: ODIHR makes recommendations based on its observation of a specific election and on its overall expertise in this area, and all OSCE states have committed to following up promptly on these recommendations. As in all the countries in which we observe, ODIHR has offered the Serbian authorities assistance in implementing its recommendations. At the same time, it is a sign of a healthy democracy if there is a broad public debate about the best ways of moving towards implementation.