How to Control the Elections

How many observers are actually needed to ascertain elections regularity? What is the most efficient way of preventing ballot tampering en route from the ballot boxes to the local elections committees, or the central elections committee? How many computers are needed? What software should be used?

On August 12 in Belgrade, Mikhail Yanikiev, Executive Director of the Bulgarian Association for Fair Elections and Human Rights, a man who has participated in the observation of all Bulgarian elections, from 1990 to today (all together 9), and has responded to requests by OEBS for observing elections in many other countries, was answering these and many other concrete concerns regarding elections control. Mr. Yanikiev, who has evidently seen everything there is to be seen in elections throughout the world, has answered the call of the Belgrade Center for Human Rights. The Center is preparing an instructions book for elections observers and is planning to organize courses for representatives of different parties who, according to our law, are the only ones taking part in elections committees, allowing them to get an impression of elections regularities.

TOO LATE FOR AIDE: It is interesting that the talk given by Mr. Yanikiev was not attended by regularly invited representatives of SPO, a party which is participating in the elections, whose representatives as a matter of course will take part in elections committees, and who, it would seem, should be the most interested in regular elections. Mr. Yanikiev states that the techniques for elections control are well known, well developed, and easy to put into practice. That is the reason why the representatives of the Democratic Party attended; they are boycotting the elections and, if nothing changes, they will not have the right to observe election developments. Even before he found out about this bizarre fact, Mr. Yanikiev stated in an interview for VREME that everyone he has talked to in Belgrade is complaining that the situation is hopeless, while no one is planing on taking any steps to organize any type of control over elections procedures. He noted that a healthy approach would preclude a hypothesis that problems will crop up, but that the job must be taken to its natural conclusion, and that it will of itself come to its own conclusion.

"It seems that now it is no longer possible to aid the elections process in Serbia. Real aid precludes a long term mission which would work on site for at least several months", states Mr. Yanakiev for VREME. A realistic picture of the elections regularity can only be ascertained if the whole elections campaign is observed, because a fair campaign is a basis for fair elections. "Fair" in this context means at least equal media access for every candidate, and the existence of equal opportunities for mounting a campaign.

In his interview with VREME, Mr. Yanakiev stated that in any case there is limited efficiency in having foreign observers, because they only have access to government sanctioned places. If they are only permitted access to ballot booths, that in itself is certainly not enough, even if ten thousand of them were to show up — that is to say, if there were a foreign observer placed at every ballot booth (which in Serbia alone would mean around 8,000 observers). Under such conditions they could not control data entry into computers, and that is one of the key places where fraudulent activity could occur. All in all, international observers are important mainly because of the image which they impart to the elections, and because they act more on orders, and less on real knowledge of local conditions. For instance, foreigners will look at whether the ballot booths they control are really open at six or seven o’clock in the morning as stipulated, and whether ballot boxes are sealed after voting finishes. They never check numbers, nor do they have sanctions to deal with calculations of any sort.

TELEPHONES AND COMPUTERS: Local observers, by contrast, are usually a lot better trained. Most often they are trained by local non-governmental organizations which are thoroughly versed in all legal aspects, as well as in all the possible loopholes. Moreover, there is always more time for training local observers than foreign ones. For instance, elections in neighboring Bulgaria are controlled by over 9,000 local observers — citizens, volunteers, party representatives — where, of course, not all 9,000 are trained every time there is an election. For every election about 2,000 observers receive training, which is not that great a number given that the Association for Fair Elections and Human Rights has in its employment 26 full-time regional associates. Therefore, every one of them needs to bring in around a hundred people, which is fairly easy to organize. Among our neighbors, training is financed by the National Democratic Institute for Foreign Affairs, that is to say, the Foreign Affairs Instituted of the Democratic Party. This is a large non-government organization which will step in to aid the logistical organization of the elections observation in Serbia, as Mr. Yanikiev told VREME. The arrival of a related Republican Party institute is also expected.

We wanted to know whether the Bulgarian authorities at any time since 1990 — the first year that multi party elections were held — attempted to sabotage the work of local observers? They did not. Of the 59 suggestions for changing elections laws, which were submitted to the government by the organization for which Mr. Yanikiev works, 29 were adopted. Have there been serious complaints on election irregularity in Bulgaria during the past seven years? No, not from international observers, nor from domestic ones. The obligation for elections monitoring has been adopted in the text of the elections law.

Concretely speaking, in Bulgaria a system has been developed (and written into law) according to which, every voting booth is supplied with a form. The form has five different colored carbon copies for filling in elections results (something similar to an airline ticket), and every member of the elections committee receives a copy. Results are sent in from coded telephones, and can only be sent in from such telephones. The experience of our neighbors suggests that, with such a system, practically all possibility of tampering at the ballot booths is avoided, and such a system was implemented precisely at the request of the Bulgarian Association for Fair Elections and Human Rights.

WAGER: It is well known how each thing is done, says Mr. Yanikiev, and it can all be easily implemented. Is it a matter of absence of political will? Who is going to be willing to make sure that elections are monitored, anyway? The government on its own certainly is not going to, even though it did not want to in Romania and Albania, and it finally bowed down to pressures from the public and the opposition, and already for three years now in those countries there exists a legal imperative for elections monitoring. Therefore, complaining is of no use; actions speak louder than words. What about a boycott? A boycott, according to this Bulgarian specialist, is not a good idea. The ruling party is only served victory on a platter in that way, and for Mr. Yanikiev that is only a surrender by the democratic opposition which continues to state that elections are the most powerful tool of democracy, and which now is against participating for fear of losing. How then will it ever be possible to change things?

Both he and his hosts in the Belgrade Center for Human Rights think that it is too late for these elections to change anything, that not much can be done, even though Mikhail Yanikiev told us that he wagered $50 US (he did not say with whom) that these elections will also be monitored by at least 1,000 observers. He believes that he will be one of them, in which case we have his solemn promise that he will tell us what he observed.