Vivid State of Nation 2005

Vivid State of the Nation archive:

Archive

Regulars
STATE OF THE NATION
Accountable? Who us?

by Mark Percival
April 2005

In late February, the OSCE issued the report of its assessment mission, which observed the parliamentary and presidential elections of last autumn. The mission involved 18 specialists from OSCE member states, a much more restricted involvement than in the 1990s. This time the organisation was only able to visit a limited number of polling stations, and carried out no media monitoring at all.

This low key approach reflected a misplaced confidence in the Romanian electoral system, which was proved deeply flawed by the 28 November contest. The OSCE mission was further hindered by weak cooperation with local NGOs. There seemed little coordination between the OSCE and Pro Democratia’s internal monitoring mission, which would have allowed better deployment of the OSCE monitors as a rapid reaction force to be dispatched to trouble spots.

Failure to monitor television and press coverage during the election was a serious weakness, since media manipulation is a form of indirect fraud. The report does refer to the deterioration of media freedom in Romania since 2000 in general terms, as well as criticising some over-rigid regulations imposed by the National Audiovisual Council which led many broadcasters to be cautious or avoid election coverage altogether for fear of punitive fines. Yet the OSCE fails to draw attention to the gross bias towards the PSD on television broadcasts, resulting from the system of allocating time in proportion to the level of support enjoyed by each party.

By some Byzantine logic, this allowed “filmed material” (read: commercials) about the ruling party which ran for 12 or 13 minutes, placed alongside slots for the Alianta lasting only 30 seconds, next to spots of similar length for insignificant ethnic parties. Given that TVR is the only source of information for large segments of the population in rural areas, this presented a totally distorted impression of the contest, suggesting that the main opposition grouping was a minor party. The OSCE report also neglects to mention the mass purchases in the early hours of newspapers and magazines on a number of occasions when these carried stories particularly embarrassing to the ruling party, during the days immediately prior to the first round, tactics reminiscent of those adopted by the communists in the late 1940s.
The report does draw attention to the well documented problem of multiple voting, pointing out the difficulties caused by Romania’s electoral system which allows voters to cast their ballots at any polling station in the country, simply by entering their names on supplementary lists. There was no clear reason, the OSCE points out, for the government’s decision to abandon voting cards, in favour of electors presenting laminated general purpose identity cards. The only means of control with these was the application of a stick down stamp, easily removable, allowing multiple voting.

The OSCE mentions allegations of fraud by the Central Electoral Bureau (BEC), based on the reduction in the number of invalid votes (a mathematical impossibility) on 29 November between 12 and 5 pm in almost exact proportion to a corresponding increase in votes for the PSD. The OSCE report fails to draw any clear conclusion, pointing out that an enquiry by an independent Serbian NGO exonerated the BEC, accepting the official explanation that non voters in certain districts had been added to the void ballots list by mistake, an error rectified on 29 November. Yet the reasons why this Serbian organisation in particular was chosen ought to be investigated, as well as the astonishing coincidence in timing and between the discovery of the apparent error and the increase in votes for PSD almost in exact proportion to the drop in the number of void ballots.

There are still many unanswered questions about the 28 November contest, which can only be answered by a full enquiry, including detailed analysis of the supplementary lists to determine the extent of multiple voting. Such an enquiry should not shrink from demanding a fresh contest, if the fraud proves significant enough to have influenced the result.

As well as this immediate issue, 28 November also raises questions about the Romanian electoral system, in particular the extent to which it provides for accountability of parliamentarians to a specific group of electors whom they represent. The system of supplementary lists, allowing citizens to vote anywhere in the country by claiming to be “in transit” distorts the principle of representation, since those voting away from their place of residence will not be voting for their own MPs, but for somebody else’s. Consequently, this system should be abandoned, and replaced with postal or proxy voting for those absent from home, as in most developed countries.

Representation should be further improved by introduction by 2008 of uninominal voting, as advocated by Asociatia Pro Democratia in 2003, involving the creation of single member constituencies, thereby creating a much stronger personal link between the electorate and their representatives. This is essential for the future credibility of Parliament, currently the least respected national institution according to most opinion polls. Uninominal voting makes Parliament more responsive to local concerns, and under existing systems there is a very high level of communication between parliamentarians and their constituents. British MPs frequently travel back to their constituencies (often every weekend) and hold “surgeries” (usually weekly) to which any elector in the area is invited, and which provide a forum in which citizens can voice their concerns to their elected representative. Further, citizens frequently write to their MP, who is legally obliged to give at least a holding reply within 21 days.

Uninominal voting also acts as a check on political parties, since the MP is accountable directly to a specific electorate rather than to a party list. In Britain it is very important to be a “good constituency MP” and parties watch very carefully the way their MPs relate to their constituents. If a particular MP fails to represent his or her electorate satisfactorily, they can risk being de-selected by the local constituency party, who might choose another candidate instead. While the main defect of the British one round system is that it squeezes out third parties, this can largely be rectified through adoption of the French method of two round uninominal voting (so there would be a second round in the parliamentary elections as well as for the presidency).

Uninominal voting failed to be introduced in 2003-4, largely because of fear among some analysts of the short-term political consequence that it might favour the ruling PSD. Now that Romania’s political situation is highly fluid, it is not at all clear who would be the winners and losers from such a system among the major parties. Consequently, this is the ideal time to work out an electoral system which represents Romanian citizens best in the long term. Clearly one big loser would be the UDMR, which would win in Hargita, Covasna and perhaps a few other areas, but overall would have less parliamentary seats. The party’s losses could be mitigated by abandonment of the 5 per cent rule, which is not necessary under a uninominal voting system. However, the demise of the UDMR would be a natural effect of modernisation of the Romanian political system. Ethnic parties should not really have a prominent role in a developed democracy, since minority rights should be guaranteed by the constitution and upheld by the courts, leaving these groups of citizens free to vote according to ideological and policy preferences. Their choices are limited when they vote en masse for an ethnic party.

Much work has to be done before Romanian citizens begin to see Parliament as genuinely representative of their interests. However, introduction of uninominal voting by 2008 would be a step in the right direction.

Mark Percival is the managing director of Romania Think Tank, about which more can be found by visiting www.rtt.ro