The CEC was divided on most contentious issues and frequently voted along majorityminority party lines. The representatives of the two main parties at the CEC often made political statements that added to the tension.
The work of the CEC was negatively affected by the failure of local governments to submit information necessary for logistical preparations and of parties to provide lower-level election commission members within the legal deadlines. This resulted in the late establishment of Commissions of Electoral Administration Zones and of Voting Center Commissions as well as in problems to provide training to all commission members.
Controversy arose because many local governments failed to allocate public spaces for campaign posters, or did not inform parties accordingly. In some places, campaign stands and tents were removed by local authorities.
The Ministry of Interior provided apparently contradictory figures on the progress of the ID card application process which decreased public confidence in the reliability of information provided by the Government, and thus fuelled allegations.
The monitored broadcast media were biased in their coverage of the main parties and provided limited coverage of other contestants. There was a lack of editorial independence of most media outlets,
especially TV stations, compounded by the absence of transparency regarding ownership.
The Media Monitoring Board (MMB) at times made assessments which showed a lack of independence and used an inadequate methodology to discharge its duties as set out in the Electoral Code. The MMB generally failed to propose compensatory measures for “smaller” parties to receive the amount of airtime they are entitled to under the Electoral Code.
Loopholes in the legal provisions to ensure representation of women as candidates created opportunities for parties to circumvent their intent, thus diminishing their impact.
The lack of transparency in campaign finance is a matter of serious concern.
Krijoni Kontakt