Lidiya YERMOSHINA: "Aleksandr Lukashenko's defeat in the election will be my personal tragedy"

2001-08-27

Lidiya Yermoshina, chairwoman of the Central Commission for Elections and National Referenda (CEC), answers the questions of BelaPAN's correspondent Yury Potemkin.



Ms. Yermoshina, some journalists believe the current election campaign is boring and flat, lacking the excitement of the contest. Do you share this opinion?

It is not boring for me. Every day is eventful for me. I mean complaints that we receive every day addressed at the Central Commission. I notice no monotony therefore in this campaign. Perhaps, voters do. Perhaps, they expected something different and brighter. But then, how do we understand an election campaign that is not boring? It is the exposing each other with compromising materials. Is this normal? We do understand that a scandal is always more attractive from the information point of view than normal, calm routine work. But I like routine more.

The CEC issued the resolution under which state-run media must give an objective and comprehensive coverage of the presidential campaign. Does this happen in practice?

The CEC resolution only regulates the procedure of releasing the candidates' platforms through the state-run media. In fact it regulates only three aspects: the publication of the platforms in eight national state-run newspapers, providing the airtime on television, and on the radio. So far, none of the candidates has complained about the inequality or violation of their rights concerning the TV and radio airtime and newspaper coverage. [Since the time of the interview, one of the candidates, the leader of the Liberal-Democratic Party Sergei Gaidukevich, filed a complaint against the state radio for censoring his statement].

There is a complaint about the newspaper Sovetskaya Belorussiya, which has published the election platform of the presidential candidate [Aleksandr] Lukashenko. The main criticism is that it exceeded the size allocated by the Central Commission. The only possibility to improve the situation at the moment is to provide additional newspaper size to all the other candidates to have their platforms published. Provided they want to do it, of course, because they should have a clear idea of what to say. Today we faxed letters to the editors of the eight national newspapers urging them to provide more newspaper size to candidates' platforms, if the candidates should ask it, in order to ensure equal conditions for all the candidates. But it concerns only amendments to the platforms, not personal comments or appeals to the voters. The newspapers should publish platforms only. Why do I emphasize it? Because Ms. [Valentina] Polevikova [a campaign manager of the opposition coalition's single candidate, trade union leader Vladimir Goncharik] brought a two-page text today - a comment to Vladimir Goncharik's platform - and asked to add the comment to the platform. The request should be denied due to several reasons. First, for the text to be published, it should be an amendment to the platform; second, the material is anonymous, that is, it was apparently penned by Polevikova. Naturally, this request cannot be met, although we forwarded it to the Sovetskaya Belorussiya editor. It is his right to meet the request. But if considers it at variance with the law he can turn it down. Some of our candidates say that information about Lukashenko accounts for 99 percent in the Sovetskaya Belorussiya. Moreover, they examined private newspapers Narodnaya Volya and Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, and also made a conclusion that 60 percent of their size is devoted to Lukashenko. In this case, however, the amount of criticism against the person in question, the amount of counter-propaganda is much more than against the other candidates. Speaking about equality, these publications should be asked to give as much criticism to the other presidential candidates. This is the only way.

As for the state-run newspapers, one can only lodge complaints against them if they conduct a heavier campaign for one of the presidential candidates. But covering the work of the current head of state does not violate the law. Why should the publication of the Presidential Administration cover the work of the chairman of the Federation of the Trade Unions of Belarus [Goncharik]? This is nonsense. The work of the chairman of the Federation of the Trade Unions of Belarus is covered by another publication, which is subordinate to the FTUB, and the current president naturally has no claims for being featured there. That is why it is wrong to assess indiscriminately the newspaper size devoted to this or that candidate. One can only weigh whether the presidential candidates were granted airtime and newspaper coverage for election propaganda on an equal footing. The Central Commission took all the necessary measures to that end.

You said in an interview with the newspaper Zvyazda that two "dirty" information campaigns had been launched in Belarus - one to discredit election commissions and the other to discredit Aleksandr Lukashenko. Do you notice a third campaign - the discrediting of the other presidential candidates in the official media?

Let's say put it this way: any insinuation can be countered by counter-insinuation. The state-run media have straddled the fence for a long time waiting for the campaigning to start. By the way, now all the state-run media have the right to discuss election platforms of the presidential candidates. And they certainly have the right to present a negative opinion. Because they protect and represent the interests of another candidate from the information point of view. One should also say the following: it is not the Electoral Code that applies here but the law on the media, which gives any journalist and any editorial board the right to voice their opinion on this or that event. The Narodnaya Volya voices one point of view and criticizes one candidate, while state-run newspapers voice another point of view. That is why everything is quite balanced.

I would also like to emphasize that the norms of the electoral law, which provide for full equality in all aspects, have been designed for a sterile situation, when society is free from confrontation. But there is a heavy information attack in society, which is propped by secret financing sources. Is it a sterile situation when voters find in their letter-boxes special editions of the Nasha Svaboda and Rabochy newspapers, as well as some other publications, with the circulation of allegedly 299 copies [a publication with the circulation under 300 copies does not have to be registered with the State Press Committee]? It is an information attack, which is moreover illegal, as it is forbidden to issue special editions and pass them out among the voters. There should be no leaflets and posters signed by Zubr [an unregistered opposition youth movement], which are posted all over the city. There should be no Goncharik's leaflets posted yet, but they have been posted for two days without having been paid. I did not sign the account for Goncharik's posters until today. They do not exist de jure yet. That means that a secret source has financed and supports this election campaign. What sterility can we talk about then? When it is no longer present in society I may summon Pavel Yakubovich [editor-in-chief of the Sovetskaya Belorussiya] to the Central Commission and suggest that he revise the newspaper's information policy. But at present each candidate should be protected. It is not only the current head of state who should enjoy the equality of rights and obligations. It should apply to all. Aware of the realities in society, the Central Commission lets the events take a natural turn.

You mentioned illegal leaflets in Goncharik's support that appeared in Minsk. Will this fact be discussed at the CEC meeting?

The facts are considered when some of the candidates makes a complaint. What if we consider these leaflets? I know Mr. Goncharik's answer beforehand. He had been preparing for it when he filed the relevant application last Friday. He will say that it was done by his rivals to incriminate him. It only makes sense to consider the issue at the CEC meeting if we find out the financing source of these publications and those who ordered them. It is usually found out accidentally. But we hate to take any repressive measures against any of the candidates.

So a complaint by other candidates is the main condition?

Of course, it is.

How can you explain a delay in sending an invitation to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)? Will the mission have time enough to conduct an effective long-term observation? There are four weeks left instead of the six originally planned.

I am sorry, of course, that they arrived so late, because the election campaign was so flawless from the point of view of its organization by the government agencies and election commissions that it can be demonstrated to any international observers. Will they be able to conduct an effective observation? Of course they will. They mostly deal with papers anyway. Plus they study the political, moral and social situation in the country. How do they study it? By meeting with the election runners, political parties, non-government organizations, etc. In addition, the OSCE Consultative and Advisory Group [OSCE AMG] permanently works in Belarus. The main thing is that the ODIHR mission should not take the position of the OSCE AMG. I have repeatedly told Mr. [Hans-Georg] Wieck [head of the OSCE AMG] and have already told the mission's head Mr. [Hrair] Balian that it is not right to prepare and present reports based on only one point of view. Unfortunately, all Mr. Wieck's reports on the situation in Belarus are based on the complaints of the authorities' opponents. He is not interested in the Central Commission's opinion, probably because professionals work there. It is easier for him to take complaints that he received and make the conclusion that the campaign in the Republic of Belarus is accompanied by numerous complaints. He has never inquired about the Central Commission's conclusions on the complaints, and whether they were confirmed. That is why I warned the ODIHR mission against the danger of conducting a one-sided observation of the election campaign. If the mission members meet with non-government organizations, they should meet with the other wing of public organizations - those that support the authorities. When the two opinions are compared the observation will be objective. Everything depends, therefore, on the will of those who arrived to observe.

Still, why was the invitation made so late?

I think the Republic of Belarus and its government agencies were quite humiliated when this OSCE institution made its decision in 2000 during the parliamentary elections [The OSCE sent only a technical assessment mission then]. The invitation was not sent until the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made sure that the OSCE ODIHR leadership's wish was firm, not ambivalent and that it meant to send a full-fledged mission. I think this is the right of our foreign political office to study everything first and only then make steps.

A month ago the mission of the Association of Central and East European Election Officials (ACEEEO) made recommendations on improving the organization and the election campaign process. Which recommendations have been taken into account? Which have not?

Let's not consider every recommendation of this or that mission an absolute truth that should be fulfilled. We observe our legislation and I think we can point out the following achievements: first and foremost, the candidate nomination and registration procedure was transparent and fair. Presidential Decree #20 [requiring presidential bidders to declare their income and property and that of their immediate relatives], which they feared would be discriminatory, was not applied. On the contrary, each disputable case was interpreted in favor of a presidential candidate. The process of considering the complaints was also transparent, open and fair.

As for the recommendations that were not met, there were two suggestions, as you know, which required a change in legislation. Namely, to grant associate membership in the Central Commission to representatives of presidential candidates and to increase the number of the candidates' proxies. But these two suggestions ran counter to the third one, urging the president to abstain from issuing decrees. The president took that suggestion. But I can say that in general those innovations had no particular sense. What can an associate commission member do? A candidate's proxy can be present at the Central Commission's meetings and enjoy the same rights. An associate commission member cannot vote, he can only give advice. But a proxy can give advice too. That is why I believe that the candidates' rights were not violated because those suggestions were not met.

Speaking to the journalists you called the opposition-organized parallel vote tabulation "charlatanism". Yet you say that election commissions will take a neutral position on exit polls. What is the difference between two procedures?

They are different things. Why do we say we will be neutral about the exit polls? Because it is not regulated by the electoral law.

Actually everything that is beyond the polling station's boundaries is not regulated by the Electoral Code. But what [Ales] Belyatsky [leader of the Viasna human rights center, a coordinator of independent observation] is going to conduct, the so-called parallel vote tabulation, is quite a different thing. It is done in the following way: after the voting is over, the voting results records are posted at the polling stations. The data from the records taken from some 500 polling stations - we do not even know which ones - will be transmitted by phone or by fax to a center. Having received the data from the 500 polling station, which makes only 8 percent of the total, the center will make a forecast result of the voting across the country. Under the law, first, only election commissions' members have the right to state the voting results. Second, the dissemination of the data related to 8 percent of the polling stations (they can be taken from Minsk only, which does not give an objective picture across Belarus) can result in the grand falsification of information that will be released to the media. The reliability of such vote count is very doubtful. That is why we strongly object to it, because this procedure is not used in other countries.

How many voting ballots will be printed?

We do know exactly yet how many voters will be on the lists. The data will be clarified by August 26. But we have placed a final order for printing 7,760,000 ballots. This includes a small reserve, about 300,000 for the entire country. It makes 2-3 percent.

Will the ballots be printed in the Belarusian language?

Yes, they will. By the way, contrary to what the media reported, [Oleg] Trusov [head of the Belarusian Language Society] should not take credit for that. We always print voting ballots only in the Belarusian language, as well as the records.

The Belarusian Helsinki Committee suggested that you change the records' form so that they would state specifically the number of those who voted at home and those who voted early. According to the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, this would have made the election process more transparent. Why did the CEC not take into account the suggestion?

Because the legislation provides for summing up only the votes "in favor" and "against", as well as the number of people who voted in the election.

But the early voting results are calculated separately anyway?

They are calculated in order to verify these control figures, that ratio later. Besides, the ballot has been approved and printed, and training has been conducted. It is virtually impossible to change all that during three weeks as they suggested.

Being the CEC chairperson, it will be your task to declare the victory of any candidate on September 10. But being a voter, will you be upset if Aleksandr Lukashenko loses the election?

It will be a personal tragedy for me as an average voter. A personal tragedy not of the CEC chairperson who will lose her job. It will be a personal tragedy of a person who is not a Belarusian by nationality. I am perfectly aware that if another candidate, especially a nationally oriented one, comes to power, my relatives and I will automatically become second-class people. That is why I would think of it as a personal tragedy.