FACT FINDING MISSION, 6- 13 December 2009

Bernard Owen*

A polling station on election day

I     INTRODUCTION

In 2009, a French admiral gave a very interesting lecture at the Ecole Militaire about the Mediterranean, seen from Europe and the USA.  He was asked a question about borders.  He replied that he deferred to the national sovereignties as defined by the United Nations.  He had let the cat out of the bag.  Indeed, it is permissible to question the opinion of this august international organisation?  I did not want to intervene in the devate which, in fact, dealt with another issue, but the subject is not without importance.  It is not so much a matter of questioning the decisions of this august body of states but rather of asking a few questions about the way in which decisions are taken, not in general but in the situation which concerns us here, namely when empires are dissolved.  There are numerous consequences when empires collapse, some of them tragic.  An empire unites within it many nationalities and the dissolution of that empire, whether forced as in the case of Austria-Hungary, or voluntary as in the case of the Soviet Union, can lead to a parcelling out of nations which are very quickly recognised by the UN.  This is where we are now.  The regions within an empire correspond only very approximately to national, ethnic or linguistic zones.  But these regions then become nations consecrated by the United Nations.  Where Russia is concerned, it seems difficult to question the decisions taken, but nothing prevents us from asking how they were taken or how they could or ought to be taken.  Within an empire, Armenians and Azeris could live together,; admittedly with a few confrontations but of the kind all civilisations have known.

At another lecture at the Ecole Militaire, Marie Mendras was speaking about Russia in general.  I was in complete disagreement with what she said.  When it came to the questions, a young woman asked what causal link she saw between the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the one hand, and that of Kosovo on the other.  This question was greeted with loud applause, which greatly surprised and troubled Marie Mendras.

II     MEETINGS WITH PEOPLE IN  THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

For about twenty years now, there has been a tendency to criticise the result or even the run-up of an election.  This tendency has gone as far as to call a certain number of elections into question by means which were not foreseen by the institutions and which are presented as non violent and spontaneous demonstrations, whereas in fact they correspond to rules and procedures which are identical to those taught in military academies.  (See the site of the Centre for the Comparative Study of Elections, and in particular this article.)  The Armenian authorities, who were not familiar with this tactics, had to react for the elections of 2008, to acts committed by those who took the candidate Levon Ter Petrossian as their emblem, whom the polls credited with little more than 20% of the vote.  In this regard, it was of the first importance for us to meet the candidates, journalists and those who engage in one way or another in politics.

Among these, a colourful personality, Vladimir Smir, was presented on several occasions as the opponent of everything.  We had to meet him.  The most he could get to attend his meetings was 100 people.  He claimed that the District of Addouda had asked for 1,000 pages 17 of the passport, the page which was stamped when voters cast their ballot. 200,000 passports, he said, had stopped being distributed in Gali, where many Georgians live.  We told him that his claims seemed extravagant and that if there had been violations then we needed to see evidence.  If he has any, we would be interested to see it.

Inal Khashid, editor of “Chegemskaya Pravda”, presents his newspaper as independent.  The paper has carried advertisements for the candidates, but it is considered to be an opposition paper.  We asked him whether the government had exercised any pressure on him.  He replied that there had been informal acts.  The printers in Sochi and Moscow were too busy to print his paper.  He has a web site, Abkhazia.  He was also put under judicial pressure.  The prosecutor and the president of the National Bank had put pressure on banks from whom he had borrowed money and made life difficult for them.  One colleague had been given a three year prison sentence.  The president of the Republic had not liked one of his articles and so he had got one of his friends to intervene.  The circulation is 3,000 copies plus 2,000 for the United Abkhazia Gazette.  Five people work with him.  The state television is more oriented towards the president as the election approaches.  It dwells on what the authorities have accomplished.  The private channel cannot be seen outside the capital but all the Russian channels can.  Private radio stations are just interested in popular culture.

Many voters are disappointed by the president but he appears better than the others even if he is less likeable.  In any case, the opposition is too divided.

Natela AKABA, from the Social Chamber, developed different points.

General speaking, life is not so bad even though not everything has been resolved.  There is no really independent press in the electoral campaign.  There is corruption.  The new law on political parties has changed political life; three of the candidates are appointed by political parties, two by citizens’ initiative groups.  There should not be too many parties.  The television is doing its best to present the different tendencies in an equitable way.  We do not have a long experience of democracy.  A social contract was proposed which the parties did not want.  In reply to a question, she said, “Yes, it is important to make ourselves known.”

Oleg DAMENIA, philosopher, director of a sociology research centre, emphasised the importance of the culture which is specific to each state without it developing in isolation.  “It is essential to cooperate with the outside world.  Democracy is not to be found within ourselves.  We have been submerged by ideology, but we used to have our own ideology: the Caucasian culture of the warrior.  There was an armed democracy.  The individual was not submerged in this democracy, he had his own weapon. That time has passed.  We have lost our culture and not yet acquired a new one.  We currently have institutions but they lack authority.  Everything is evolving.  It seems to us that the West has a negative opinion of us, because our recognition by Russia has been a failure.  (It is not clear whether the interpreter interpreted this sentence correctly; or else the speaker meant to say that other countries have not followed Russia’s example.)  The West is mistaken.  Certainly, we have to strengthen society economically and socially.  We are capable or organising and governing ourselves but it is culture which must save the world.  The West is not the ideal society.  The current president is capable of doing things or of not doing them, but the same cannot be said of the other candidates.   Are they capable of taking power both in professional and in moral terms?”

He answered our questions:

- Where Georgia is concerned, relations should be normalised, there should be territorial recognition.  He thinks that this will occur.  Nothing is fixed for ever in this world.  Abkhazia and Georgia have to live as neighbours. Good sense should prevail.  Neither Georgia nor Abkhazia are independent.  Europe is important.

The writer and poet, Alexi Gogua, is a defender of the Abkhaz language and claims that things are better in Abkazia in this respect than in Ireland or Wales.  For him, the language is more important than the economy. 

In schools, everything is in Russian until the fourth year.  After that, everything is in Abkhaz.  Asked  which language he uses in literature and poetry, he says that he writes in both.  “We are responsible for the influence of Russian.  Abkhaz is the language of the spirit.”

If we have understood correctly, his community is opposed to a code of moral obligation as well as to hospitality: “200,000 Georgians were forced upon us.”  “Our leaders are men of worth.”

III         CIVIL SOCIETY AND NGOs.

We met the representatives of the groups “Fair Elections” and “The League of Voters for Free Elections”. 

It seems that the press is free.  The government controls “Republica Abkhazia”.  “Abkhazia Echo” is financed by one of the candidates, Mr Butba, who has just replaced some journalists.  The state television can be seen all over the republic while the opposition channel can be seen only in Sukhumi.  The media observe the rules on equal access for all the candidates but the NGOs complain there is a lack of information.  They seem upset mainly by the lack of debates between the candidates, something the candidates themselves rejected.

The League of Voters has proposed to the parliament amendments to the electoral law which would make the process more transparent.

The only document voters can use to vote is their passport.  A clerk stamps and signs page 17.

There are two polling stations in Russia for Abkhaz living abroad.  The authorities have not set up any web site to inform the voters.

The League criticises the fact that certain organisations have told people how to vote: the presidents of regional councils, the Council of the Armenian community.  The representative adds that the Russian community is expected to vote en bloc for one of the candidates.

There remains an unclear area, that of the Georgians living in Gali.  Now that voters have to produce an Abkhaz passport, the number of voters registered has gone down from 14,000 to 3,500. 

Another matter for concern:  certain candidates are said to have claimed that they will contest the elections if President Bagapsh wins only by a small margin in the first round, for example 51% of the vote.  If this is true, it would be dangerous for democratic ethics because it could encourage the authorities to commit fraud in order to push up their candidate’s score.  Those who made such claims certainly did not think of this; they knew they were going to lose and that thought that they could justify in advance their demand for the elections to be cancelled.

IV         THE CANDIDATES

Three of the candidates agreed to meet us.

First, Raul Khadjimba, who cooperated with the president after the rather tumultuous elections of 2004 until May 2009.  The first two points of his electoral manifesto were law and order (reforming the institutions) and the fight against corruption.

He then discussed relations with Russia and the other countries who have recognised Abkhazia.  He says he wants good relations with Georgia when she agrees not to have recourse to force, when she recognises Abkhazia and when she agrees to pay compensation for war damage.  They will accept any reasonable agreement within the framework of the negotiations being conducted by Russia.  He says that he hopes for further recognitions leading to new agreements.  Asked about the economy, he spoke briefly about tourism, hotels, restaurants and agriculture.

President Sergei BAGAPSH :

His three main priorities are: 

- The economy.  The budget has been increased four times in four years.  Economic policy is not closed.  Russia is Abkhazia’s main partner but they are prepared to negotiate with anyone.  They want to work with Europe and the rest of the world.

- International recognition. The candidate’s arguments on this resemble his comments on the economy.

- Security.  Asked during the post-election press conference about Abkhazia’s attitude to any agreement between Russia and Georgia, he replied that he would defer to Russia.

Beslan BUTBA

We has heard about this businessman who owns his own TV station and therefore we were intrigued to meet him.  As with the offices of M Khadjimba, the coridors of Mr Butba’s offices were filled with his supporters, which is normal in all countries.  He received us and told us the history of the collapse of the USSR, mentioned corruption saying that everything depends on Russian money and that things are not always transparent.  “We have to know what we want to know!  My project is for the political system, no slavery, uniting the people!”  The candidate delivers this wooden language for about half an hour.  We manage to ask two questions: how are you going to unite the people, and what about the economy?  In response to the first, he replies, “The president should ask the people,” and to the second, he replies, “Money for slam businesses and agriculture.  They should sell goods.  We should make loans and not give money away.”

The interview was coming to an end when a third question was put on joint ventures.  Prior to the meeting, we had met Nina BENEDIKTOVA, a sensible and energetic woman who had worked previously for Mr Butba but who had resigned after he employed people from Moscow.  She claimed that Butba’s campaign had started too early, in April.  The opposition had wanted him to participate in an alliance but he had not accepted.  He made a declaration in which he promised to revisit those agreements with Russia which went against his interests.  (No further explanation was given.)  He had lived in Russia after having lived in New York.  He is a modern businessman but he had not taken part in the war.  He is a bon vivant but not a good speaker.  He is the only one with a proper manifesto but Bagapsh will win.  Butba knows he will not get more than 7%.  Nina Benediktova was proved right.

After the meetings with the three candidates, it seemed that Bagaph would indeed win.  His personality and his conciseness were superior to the others.  But it is difficult to say whether he will win in the first or second round.

The Russian ambassador

He says that the opposition is suspicious of any intervention  by Russia.  The opposition plays its role of criticising the government but does so much more calmly than in the past.  The president’s campaign was very reasonable.  He concentrates his criticism on Mr Butba.  He says that the administrative framework seems reasonable and open.  There have been a dozen complaints over the last three weeks.

V         THE ELECTION ITSELF

Meeting with the president of the Central Electoral Commission, Batal Ivanovich Tabagua.  A warm welcome. 

The members of the CEC are elected for 5 years. 8 are appointed by the Parliament, 7 by the president of the Republic.

The electoral lists are drawn up in different ways:

-              the central visa service;

-              on the basis of birth certificates;

-              documents listed in Article 14;

-              there is a checking procedure.

Asked whether there are any particuliar problems, he replies “There are always problems.”  He describes the ballot and the procedure for voting:

-              at 7 am, two members of the commissions and 3 observers sign the ballots;

-              at 8 am the polling stations are opened.

The counting of votes in the ballot box and in the mobile ballot box is conducted openly for all to see.

On election day, my colleague went to observe in the countryside where he encountered no difficulties.  I remained in Sukhumi with an interpreter.  The president of the CEC said I could visit any polling station.  There was a press office nearby very similar to the one in Moscow.  A 9-page leaflet indicated how it operated.

The presentation of the Press Office took place on the Thursday preceding the election, where the equipment placed at the disposal of journalists and other interested persons was explained.  Presentations, round tables, statements by the media and civil society, were planned on subjects like security, election observation, the role of women, the role of NGOs. 

On election day, the Press Office broadcast news and information on polling stations on screens.  One of the subjects dealt with by the  Deputy Speaker of the parliament was on “the juridical basis of the presidential elections in the Republic of Abkazia.”

At 12 noon, at 3pm, at 6pm and at 7pm, the turnout was announced.

The Press Office closed at 9.30 pm on 12 December and reopened at 8 am the following day.

From 11am to 2pm there was a press conference on the preliminary results of the presidential elections.  These presentations and discussions continued until the office closed at 2pm.

The winning candidate arrived and answered questions.

I spent most of my time in the offices of the Central Electoral Commission, which included the office of the president with a large room outside it where two young women answered questions on the telephone from officials in the polling stations.  This room was next to another office where two other young women took down the turnout figures and then the results, also by phone.  This information was immediately put into the computer.

I visited three polling stations.  There was an incident at one of them.  A woman of a certain age was angry that three young people were conducting an exit poll.  She was outraged that people were asking her how she voted.  A policeman stood  to one side and was later joined by three other policemen who did the same.  I returned to this polling station in the afternoon and there the chairman said she knew nothing about the incident.  This polling station had a large number of voters, 1,730, not counting the additional list.

The polling booths had no curtain to prevent voters from photographing their ballot.  We observed what might be considered a fault in the training of the officials because many voters did not fold their ballot before inserting it into the ballot box, which enabled the vote to be seen.  Unfortunately my translator left me shortly before the end of the vote to go and vote herself, and without a translator I was somewhat lost.

Early the next morning, I went to the CEC on my own without an interpreter.  The door of the president’s office was open.  I was about to go to the other office when he came out towards me, in a very welcoming manner, and sat me down with two other people to give me an excellent cup of coffee.  We were joined by another person who had come out of the office where I had wanted to go and I believed him to be a Russian technician.  I understood nothing of what we being said.  After a while, he suggested to go with him to the Press Office where I found my interpreter again.

At 10.50, we had the following results: 

-       turnout: 73,47 %

-       Sergei BAGAPSH 59,37 %

-       Beslan BUTBA 7,94 %

-       Zaur ARDZINBA 10,83 %

-       Raul KHADJIMBA 15,44 %

-       Vitalji BGAMBA  1,49 %

There were 1,893 votes against all the candidates.

VI    THE ELECTORAL LAW

I will deal with particular points of the constitutional law which deal with the presidential election while referring to the law on legislative elections and to the rules of the Central Electoral Commission.

Article 3

Participation in the election is free and voluntary.

Article 5

Deals with the financing of electoral campaigns.  This is limited by candidate and based on the minimum wage.  The maximum expenditure allowed is 3,000 times the minimum wage.  All financing or material aid to a candidate from an international organisation is forbidden.

Article 7

Candidates are appointed by political parties or by popular initiatives which must gather at least 2,500 signatures.

Article 8

Candidates must present a certificate proving they know the Abkhaz language.

Article 9

It is forbidden to publish opinion polls 10 days before the elections.

The article also deals with publications in newspapers, or the appearance on television, by candidates for the same conditions of payment.

Articles 11 and 12

These deal with the candidates’ 10 representatives, who have the same rights as obervers.  Article 12 follows the general tendency today by giving too many rights to observers, in particular the right to make remarks to the chairpersons of polling stations.  I am personally against this.  Observers should be allowed to insert a written remark on the form filled in at the end but to make only oral remarks to the leaders of their own observing organisation.

Articles 15 and 18

Complaints and disputes.  Decisions taken by electoral commissions (central, district or regional) can be appealed before a Superior Commission or in the law courts.  This can lead to conflicts of competence.  The articles speak of the regulation in force by Article 73 paragraph 3 is also vague about the electoral competence of the Superior Court.

According to a declaration by the Central Electoral Commission of 7 December 2009

1. It sets out what needs to be put on the final forms.  There are five things which need to be noted and written down.  In my view, four is enough given that everything in elections should be simple and visible.

2. The CEC, in response to a request from the opposition which asked for further elements to be recorded in the final protocol, declined the request for the time being but said that it would reconsider the point at its next meeting.

It would appear, on reading the 58 articles addressed to observers, that different points have been added to the protocols.  These points are useless and it seems that Abkhazia is having difficulty resisting the Caucasian illness of multiplying the number of elements which need to be filled in on the protocols, to the extent that there are 19 categories of data which need to be recorded in Azerbaijan even before the ballot boxes have been opened.  These rules are too complicated to be observed.  Armenia has simplified her procedures after the ones used previously were so complicated that no administration could possible cope with them.  The recommendations to observers need to be entirely reconsidered.

* Bernard OWEN is general secretary of the Centre for the Comparative Study of Elections and a lecturer at the University of Paris