Members of the Central Election Commission published an article “Who is the keeper of electoral standards?”

Member of the Central Election Commission (CEC) Igor Borisov and lawyer Alexander Ignatov published a scientific article in which they analyze the methods and principles of work of regional international organizations monitoring elections. The main conclusion is that the most qualitative methodology for assessing observation results has been worked out in the regulations of the CIS and the Organization of American States (OAS). But the OSCE ODIHR has the weakest and most vague regulatory framework and, moreover, suffers from double standards. There is reason to think about which observers should be invited to the Russian presidential elections, concludes one of the authors of the article.

It is not yet clear which international observers from which organizations will be allowed to participate in the Russian presidential elections next year. The chairman of the commission, Ella Pamfilova, only told reporters that the CEC had invited representatives of a number of countries. When asked whether there will be observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) during the presidential elections in the Russian Federation, the head of the Central Election Commission responded with an evasive “we’ll see.” Meanwhile, in the article “Who is the keeper of electoral standards?” (published in the fourth issue of the journal “Electoral Legislation and Practice” for 2023) member of the Central Election Commission Igor Borisov and his colleague from the Russian Public Institute of Electoral Law (ROIIP) Alexander Ignatov prove that it is in the work of European international organizations – OSCE, CE, EU – there is a bias from objectivity and validity towards “political expediency” and ideological bias.

In his material, Mr. Borisov analyzes and evaluates in detail the surveillance techniques and technologies of the OSCE, CIS, SCO, African Union (AU) and OAS in several areas. These include the methodological foundations of observation and the principles of forming the governing bodies of missions, the uniformity of their dispatch to different countries and the presence of recommendations that are not consistent with international obligations and the constitution of the states organizing elections. The OSCE observation methodological framework is documents that were developed by the ODIHR without the consent of the OSCE participating States and published without prior approval or consideration by any collegial governing body, the article notes. The methodological basis for monitoring elections in the African Union and the Organization of American States has also been developed by specialized units of the executive bodies of these structures. While the CIS is the only organization whose observation methods are approved by the statutory bodies, that is, they are the result of a consensus of all participating countries, the authors of the study believe.

The CIS, SCO, AU and OAS uniformly send election observation missions to all states organizing elections, subject to an invitation from them. The number of missions sent is adjusted by objective characteristics, taking into account the size of the state and the number of polling stations. In the activities of the OSCE/ODIHR, the authors of the study observe a “clear geographical imbalance.” A larger number of missions are sent to the states “east of Vienna”, their numbers are significantly higher, and their functions are expanded as much as possible. In addition, the authors of the article note, the activities of the OSCE/ODIHR also revealed a clear relationship between the size of the mission and the assessment of elections: the larger the mission, the worse the assessment.

In turn, the CIS is the only organization that has a detailed methodology for assessing the electoral process for compliance with international standards, formalized and set out in the organization’s methodological documents. “The presence of such a methodology significantly increases the openness of the activities and the objectivity of the election observation mission’s conclusions,” say the authors of the article. As a result, they come to the conclusion that there is “some inertia in the perception of the “superiority of Western democracy””: the OSCE/ODIHR has “the weakest and most vague regulatory framework associated with the methodology for assessing national electoral procedures, which does not exclude the involvement of this organization in working for “political order””. The CIS and OAS look better, the authors of the article believe, but the CIS missions poorly promote their undoubted advantages.

Igor Borisov says that the conclusions they draw with Mr. Ignatov should not be directly extrapolated to the composition of international observers of the Russian presidential election – rather, it is a matter for reflection. “We are not closed and are ready to show the openness of our electoral procedures, but we analyze the real situation: who actually promotes the development of democracy, including within the framework of international institutions, and who resolves other issues in pursuit of their political goals,” he explains. At the same time, Mr. Borisov recalls, the unprecedented external pressure under which the current campaign is taking place makes us think carefully about how necessary it is for representatives of various international observation institutions to be present at the elections in March, including those whose activities run counter to democratic values ​​and, as a rule, pursues the political interests of the “collective West”. In accordance with the law, the CEC member recalls, international observers are invited to elections by the government, the Federal Assembly and, within their competence, the CEC. There are no formal deadlines for this, but invitations are usually sent closer to voting day. Indeed, within the framework of the electoral process, international observation is not the main task, but one of many. The primary task is to organize and prepare all conditions for the free expression of the will of voters and participants in the election race, Mr. Borisov emphasizes.

Let us recall that even in 2021 the OSCE mission did not monitor the State Duma elections. But then the organization itself refused to observe, since the Russian side, citing the difficult epidemic situation, did not agree on the number of observers proposed to it.

Political scientist Alexander Asafov does not rule out that the current presidential campaign may take place without the participation of observers from a united Europe. It is difficult to say what decision the CEC will make, he notes. However, in the current new reality, the role and possibility of participation of many international missions is being reconsidered in principle. “Our task is to organize observation in such a way that all procedures are clear and transparent for voters, and not to try to prove something to biased experts,” he emphasizes. But there will most likely be international observers, Mr. Asafov adds, including at foreign sites: there is interest in the campaign in many countries.

Anastasia Kornya