Hans-Georg WIECK: "These were not free and fair elections, so our task continues"

2001-09-12

BelaPAN interview with the head of the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group in Belarus.

Mr. Wieck, could you tell us how you evaluate the recent electoral process in Belarus?

The existing constitutional and legal framework in Belarus creates conditions that favored and favor the incumbent president as a candidate in the presidential elections. The "vertical" structure [of the executive] insures the control over the electoral commissions. The control of the state over the mass media -- the electronic mass media and major parts of the print media -- favors the president. The provisions of the electoral law on the presentations of the candidates in the media were no compensation for the year-round control of the government over the media and the constant criticism and negative opinion against persons who are not supporting the government. So the framework conditions of the election were very unfavorable for the challenging candidates.

Framework conditions aside, do you think there were any serious problems in the actual organization of the voting process and the vote count?

These components of the electoral process also provided advantageous conditions for the president. First, the non-control and the non-monitoring of the ballot-boxes during early voting and mobile voting. Second, the obstacles created for the observers to follow the actual voting - the checking of the voter lists and the checking of the incoming voters. Third, the procedure for the counting of the cast votes. A number of changes has been introduced into the actual vote counting and aggregation by the chairpersons of the precinct commissions, which opened the door for abuse. There were instances where mobile boxes were carried to 40 persons, but when the mobile box was opened it had 400 ballots cast. The discrepancy between the voting for [the incumbent Aleksandr] Lukashenko in the ballot boxes for early voting and the Lukashenko vote in the regular ballot-boxes was striking, enormous, and it cannot be explained.

Could it be explained by a possible trend that Lukashenko voters were more likely to vote early, because the main challenger Vladimir Goncharik had called on his supporters not to vote early?

Only marginally. Also, the results show a very interesting pattern in the regions and in the city of Minsk. In all regions the votes cast for Lukashenko differ very little, between 2 percent. It is very unusual, and it was much different [during the first presidential election in Belarus] in 1994. There is also a discrepancy between the votes cast and the actual voter turnout.

What are the sources of this information?

The domestic observation network and international observers.

What do you think of the work of the Independent Observation network of domestic observers? They have not released their figures of parallel vote tabulation. Does it mean that it has failed?

The parallel vote tabulation was planned for a situation as in the parliamentary by-election this March or in the parliamentary election of last year. This year, however, the protocols [of the vote count] already contained most of the changes. Most of the changes were undertaken at the precinct level, while in the past the changes were undertaken after the protocols, at a higher level, or by revising the protocols in the second report from stations.

Do you see any positive outcomes from this electoral process?

Of course. It is very important that the civil society was able to agree on a broad social and political basis centered at the political center, with elements to the left and to the right. I also draw your attention to the initial report of the three parliamentary delegations and the ODIHR, which emphasized the emergence of the political structure and the civil society. It went to identify the independent (and other) observer structures. There is no distinction between these groups of observation, because it is part of the social structure, it is part of the civil society. Third, we noted a large percentage of young people in the observation teams and in the initiative groups.

Do you think that many of those people can be now frustrated because of the violations they have seen?

It can be, but I am sure that this human potential will continue to work together and address new tasks in civil society and democracy-building.

Mr. Lukashenko has been accusing you and the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group of interfering in Belarus' internal affairs. He even promised to expel you, saying that there is no more work for AMG in Belarus any more. What role do you see for the AMG in the future?

Actually, Mr. Lukashenko has discontinued to threaten expulsion. He admitted that it was all about election campaign. It is not a problem related to me personally. It is related to the relationships of Belarus with the OSCE since last year's parliamentary elections. At one time the target was Mr. Duve, the OSCE representative for the freedom of the media, at another moment it was the ODIHR, and another moment it was the AMG.

But what role do you see for the AMG after the elections?

The advise for the government, the opposition and the NGOs, as pointed out in the Istanbul summit declaration signed by President Lukashenko himself in November 1999. To support the dialogue for free and fair elections, and these were not free and fair elections, so our task continues.

Some analysts say that after securing his office Mr. Lukashenko will liberalize at least his economic policies and maybe his political stance. Others predict a harsher clampdown on the civil society. What is your opinion on this?

I cannot comment on this. I can only say that according to public opinion polls he has the support of about 45 percent. No one can explain how this jumped in the elections to 75 percent. We shall see what policy conclusions he draws from that.