Tag: Elections

President Biden’s Summit for Democracy – who isn’t invited

Politico has revealed the apparent list of countries invited to President Biden’s ‘Summit for Democracy’ to be held early next month. The summit was one of his major election pledges as he seeks to boost global acceptance of democratic norms in the face of mounting authoritarian pressures.

Whilst there is some debate about how the event has been downgraded, principally because of the pandemic, the invite list (assuming it is correct) is very revealing in terms of who has not been invited. I’ve reproduced the full list of those countries missing out below – and you can find the list of countries who have been invited here. But the missing countries fall into a few broad categories:

  • The countries who don’t pretend to have real elections (such as China or Saudi Arabia);
  • The countries whose elections are so problematic that they are essentially non-democracies (Russia, for example);
  • The tiny states who might feel aggrieved at missing out (Andorra is missing out but Palau is on the invite list)

I’m particularly struck by two factors. First, that Bosnia, Serbia, Turkey and Hungary are missing out. Hungary’s omission will stand out as they are the only EU country not invited. It is to be hoped that their fellow EU and OSCE member governments will take President Biden’s lead and consider that more than passing attention needs to be paid to the election due in the Spring, especially when it comes to deploying a full election observation mission.  

Second, that none of the Central Asian republics are invited. Whilst it is no surprise in the case of Turkmenistan or Tajikistan, both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have made some limited democratic headway and some have argued that having them inside the tent could be a productive move. And it is clear that Kyrgyzstan’s reputation as an island of democracy in the region now appears to be lost – at least according to the State Department.

List of countries not invited to the Summit for Democracy

Afghanistan

Algeria

Andorra

Azerbaijan

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Belarus

Benin

Bhutan

Bolivia

Bosnia

Brunei

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cote D’Ivoire

Cambodia

Cameroon

Central African Republic

Chad

China

Comoros

Congo

Cuba

Djibouti

Egypt

El Salvador

Eq Guinea

Eritrea

Eswatini

Ethiopia

Gabon

Gambia

Guatemala

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Haiti

Honduras

Hungary

Iran

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Lebanon

Lesotho

Libya

Liechtenstein

Madagascar

Mali

Mauritania

Monaco

Morocco

Mozambique

Myanmar

Nicaragua

North Korea

Oman

Qatar

Russia

Rwanda

San Marino

Saudi Arabia

Serbia

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Somalia

South Sudan

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Syria

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

Togo

Tunisia

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Tuvalu

Uganda

UAE

Uzbekistan

Venezuela

Vietnam

Yemen

Zimbabwe

Reading List – 8th September 2021

Bulgaria heading to the polls – again

The voters of Bulgaria will head to the polls for the third time in 2021 after the three largest parties in Parliament each failed to form a government. At the most recent elections  held in July the ITN group (‘There is such a people’) took 65 seats, while GERB has 63 seats and the Socialists 36 in the 240-seat parliament.

Romanian government facing no-confidence vote, possible election

An election may also be around the corner in Romania where the junior partner in the governing coalition has pulled out after its leader was sacked as a minister for failing to approve a $12 billion community development plan.

Russian election shenanigans

Meanwhile, there are a number of reports concerning the elections to the Russian Duma due to be held later this month.

This RFE article highlights the difficulties faced by one Yabloko candidate who is campaigning from behind prison bars.

Meanwhile, another Yabloko candidate is facing two opponents who have changed their names (and it appears their appearance) to mirror his own.

And the Moscow Times has the story of an official from the governing United Russia party apparently telling poll watchers to ignore cases of fraud if they see them.

Uzbekistan’s Presidential election line up takes shape

The list of candidates for Uzbekistan’s Presidential election in October is filling out. As expected, the Liberal Democratic Party (known as OzLiDeP) has nominated incumbent President Shavkat Mirziyoyev. 

Also nominated are:

  • Maksuda Varisova, the Deputy Head of the People’s Democratic Party (XDP);
  • Alisher Qodirov, Deputy Speaker of Parliament and Chair of the Central Council of Milliy Tiklanish (the National Revival Democratic Party);
  • Bahrom Abdukhalimov, the Leader of Adolat (Justice) Party; and 
  • Narzulla Oblomurodov of the Ecological Party. 

At present there are five political parties registered in Uzbekistan and independents are not allowed to run for elections.

Candidates will have to be approved by the CEC and by formal votes of the parties. The election takes place on October 24th, having been brought forward from the original planned date in December.

EU Parliament ‘names and shames’ fake observers

The names of MEPs who have taken part in ‘fake’ election observation activities have been revealed in the European Parliament. Eight have been told they will not be picked for official trips for the remainder of the year and three more have been warned as to their conduct.

The problem of fake observers – those whose attendance simply bolsters the credibility of a flawed election with little pretence at independent observation or adherence to a recognised methodology – is increasing. Often authoritarian regimes will seek to use such observers to drown out the reports of more credible missions or to convince their populations that a flawed election was actually well run.

The initial report is available via EU Observer here. There have been various follow ups including in French magazine Marianne (with comments from myself) here.

It is worth pointing out that the MEPs named in the report have responded in various ways, including some who say that their activities were genuine. And whilst it is good that some sanctions have been levelled against those who undertook fake observation activities, a ban of just six months or so is hardly punitive.

CPA BIMR Election Expert Mission to the Cayman Islands – Report

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s British Islands and Mediterranean Region has today released its election expert report report into April’s general election in the Cayman Islands, a mission in which I was involved.

You can download and read the full report here.

The press release that accompanied the report says:

Vote inequality and campaign finance amongst issues highlighted as areas for improvement by first virtual assessment of Cayman Islands General Election.

The international experts that independently assessed the Cayman Islands General Election have made fifteen recommendations for the electoral process in the Cayman Islands. In a report published today, the Election Expert Mission concludes that the legal framework for elections in the Cayman Islands provides an adequate basis for conducting democratic elections. However, several areas for improvement remain.

At the invitation of the Governor of the Cayman Islands, His Excellency Martyn Roper OBE, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association British Islands and Mediterranean Region (CPA BIMR) conducted a virtual Election Expert Mission to the Cayman Islands General Elections in April 2021. The invitation was supported by the then Government and Official Opposition of the Cayman Islands.

In the official report, which is now publicly available, the analysts highlight that the legal framework provides an adequate basis for conducting democratic elections. The report also commends the Elections Office for its efforts in the lead up to Election Day as it provided extensive training for all polling staff, undertook a campaign of voter education, and prepared educational materials for staff and for candidate and party agents.

The Mission also notes fifteen recommendations to improve elections going forward. These address several issues, including an absence of equality in the weight of the vote, due to severe differences between the number of registered voters in each electoral district. For the 2021 election, a registered voter in East End district had more than double the weight of a registered voter in Bodden Town East. It is arguable therefore that electoral boundaries have not been drawn in compliance with the Constitution and international standards.

The recommendations also address a lack of transparency of campaign finance. Election candidates are only required to submit limited details of their campaign expenditure and of donations received, and campaign finance is only regulated for a short period of time. The report also includes recommendations on issues such as the severe restrictions on the right to vote and the right to stand for Caymanians, and the lack of clear and coherent complaints and appeals procedures.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the team of experts conducted the Mission virtually, carrying out research online, as well as undertaking interviews with a wide range of stakeholders, using digital meeting platforms.

This was the third time that CPA BIMR was invited to assess elections in the Cayman Islands. In 2013, CPA BIMR conducted its first Election Observation Mission (EOM) to the Cayman Islands, followed by a second EOM in 2017, which resulted in the publication of a report with 21 recommendations.2 Although the 2017 report was cited as a source of recommended amendments to electoral legislation, only one recommendation was taken forward in time for this election.

The CPA BIMR conducted the Mission in accordance with the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and Code of Conduct for International Election Observers. CPA BIMR has previously carried out observation missions to Anguilla, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the British Virgin Islands with the aim of reinforcing good democratic processes.

UK’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on international institutions

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has published the report on its inquiry into the UK’s membership of international institutions. This includes membership of the OSCE and its election observation related activities.

I’m delighted to see that a couple of recommendations that I included in my evidence have been adopted by the Committee. These include a recommendation for the government to publish an annual proposal for which election observation missions it plans to join and for OSCE to move to observe online and social media activities in a more robust manner.

You can read the entire report here (which includes links to the various evidence submissions including my own and those from other international observers).

UK government publishes update on new rules for May local elections

The UK Government has published plans for how they are seeking to make sure that local elections in England can go ahead as planned on 6th May. This will be a massive set of elections as by-elections have been cancelled since the start of the pandemic and last year’s local polls were also postponed. Elections in Scotland and Wales are also due, but these are devolved matters for the parliaments of those countries.

The guidance issued by Chloe Smith today largely seems to get things right, although there are a couple of decisions still to be taken and they are important ones.

The biggest positive is that this guidance has been issued now and not delayed further. The government is determined to go ahead with the elections and has set out how they intend to make that happen.

Councils have been given extra money to cope with problems due to Covid, such as having to find alternative venues or hire extra staff. The government is determined that venues used as vaccination centres should not be used and schools should be avoided wherever possible – especially if it would mean closing the whole school for a day. They have also mentioned the problems of small venues where social distancing isn’t possible and the ventilation aspect has also be recognised. What is not referred to is extra training both for new staff and for existing staff to cope with changes to the usual practices. Of course, local authorities will have to work out whether £92m is enough to cope with the additional burdens and I suspect many new venues will be needed.

As for voters, they are being told that they should wear masks unless exempt, but we will have to wait to find out whether refusal to wear a mask without an exemption is sufficient grounds for staff to refuse to allow a person to vote. That is important as staff have to feel safe in their work.

Voters are encouraged to bring their own pen or pencil to vote, although it is assumed that there will be a stock of pens to be used if they forget. Social distancing and regular cleaning will also be in operation, but all election day related activities will be considered essential travel.

Voters are being told to apply for postal votes if they feel at all unsure about voting in person, although the paper makes the case that if a person feels confident to visit a supermarket then they should have confidence in going to vote. Local authorities are being encouraged to contact clinically extremely vulnerable people to offer them postal or proxy votes. However the government has (rightly in my view) come down against all-postal polls due to the risk of fraud and increased costs.

The option of proxy voting is also heavily promoted and the rules are being changed so that people can apply for an emergency proxy vote up until 5pm on election day if they have tested positive or are isolating. However, the usual need for an attestation (ie a doctor to confirm illness) has been removed and so this essentially becomes an ‘on demand’ provision.

One area which is not yet clear is the nominations process. Secondary legislation and subsequent guidance is going to be issued within the next two weeks.

The major weakness in the paper has to do with the political campaign. Parties are being told that they can use many campaigning methods which do not involve social contact – online and telephone campaigning and the use of postal or paid-for delivery. The government says they have increased expenses limits to cover this. However, these methods – particularly paid-for delivery – are expensive and may have the effect of limiting the chances of less well off parties and independent candidates. Recognising this, the government says it will consider whether volunteer leaflet delivery and other activities including canvassing will be allowed for the period of the regulated campaign – ie the four weeks or so immediately before polling day. Clearly that is likely to depend on the pandemic situation at the time. That is not ideal and I hope that the government consider relaxing the restrictions as early as possible in this regard, but the implication does appear to be that for the campaign period at least there will be additional campaigning possibilities.

Reading List – 4th February 2021

A fortnight that shook Russia … and what next

Nigel Gould-Davies assesses the Navalny case – from his dramatic return to Russia to his arrest and improsonment. Why does this somewhat detached figure who has no vast army of support in the country scare the authorities so?

Global democracy has a very bad year

The Economist publishes their annual survey of the world’s democracies

Why supporting resilient political systems is key to a successful Biden democracy agenda

Patrick Quirk explores how the new US President might make his promotion of democracy into a meaningful foreign policy.

Perspectives | What the Second Karabakh War tells us about the liberal international order

Reviewing the Second Karabakh War, Kevork Oskanian suggests that the breakdown in the liberal international order is apparent in the way that the conflict was resolved and sets massive challenges for those who might want to see the Trump administration as a mere blip.

The Future of Democracy and State Building in Postconflict Armenia

Laure Delcour argues that the EU has lot a lot of ground in its relationship with Armenia and that the country’s pro-democracy reforms since 2018 may now slip backwards