Comments on the OSCE-ODIHR data of March 20, 1998

As a follow-up to my comments on the OSCE press statement of March 18,
the OSCE provided a statistical summary of the OSCE-ODIHR data on March
20, 1998.  After the review of this data, the conclusion is that the
observation contains a certain number of inadequacies. 

Agitation and unrest 

The summary states that there was "agitation or unrest" in a total of 7%
of polling stations.  This percentage could be considered important if
it did not appear at the regional level to be in correlation with the
figures given on polling stations being overcrowded.  It is an
undisputed fact that overcrowding leads to tension in the closed
atmospheres which in turn brings about agitation of the people
involved.  "Unrest" - a degree higher of  "agitation" and also a rather
vague word - can in most cases also be linked to overcrowding.  
With the full data the correlation between unrest and overcrowding at
polling station level would be determined.
Lastly, but just as importantly, overcrowding is not indicative of fraud
or intimidation but may well be the result of lack of organization or
inefficiency.

Persons exhibiting authority 

On the one hand, the summary states that in 1 out of 4 observations
(25%?) noted, there were "persons exhibiting authority", including
police and security personnel.  On the other hand, it gives rather low
figures on intimidation of voters and even lower figures on campaigning
at polling stations.
First question: does this figure (25%) include police officers who were
in the polling station after having been called in by the members of the
electoral commission in conformity with the decision of the Central
Electoral Committee?
Second question: what is meant by "persons exhibiting authority",
specially when not accompanied by intimidation and/or campaigning in
polling stations?
Intimidation of voters is indicated as a percentage (4%) and in figures
it is equal to 39 cases throughout the country, 10 of which are in
Yerevan.  To say that "anything above 2% for agitation or unrest
underlines a widespread problem" is to forget again the correlation
between that factor and overcrowding.  
As to campaigning in polling stations, the summary gives only 19 cases.  

Collective voting and voting outside polling booths 

This is common practice in the territory of the ex Soviet Union.  They
have voted this way for years and it is not by passing a law that you
will get an immediate response
The key is to see if anyone is looking at the way citizens are voting
and influencing them, so that the given figures: 125 cases of collective
voting and 36 of voting outside of polling booths, have no significance
if no further indications are given.  

"Voters refused the right to vote"

"Voters refused the right to vote", as it is written in the
questionnaire, has a judgmental and negative connotation.  It should
have been "voters who where unable to vote".  Most cases were probably
due to the absence of identification papers that were required because
great care has been taken so that citizens could be added to the
additional list right up to the day of voting.

Overall conclusions by regions

When considering the 4 items as "bad" and "very bad", 3 of them are
linked to the same issues:
· Procedures not followed.
· Voters not understanding the process.
· Poor performance of the Precinct Electoral Committee.
All these issues deal with the complex procedure of using a detachable
coupon from the ballot.  This procedure is very unusual and not found in
other democracies of the world. In practice, voters do not know what to
do with the coupons; further, the additional lists have to be worked
out; and all of this, in addition to overcrowding, led to poor
performance by the Precinct Electoral Committees.  
These "overall" conclusions by regions are not significative of fraud or
intended mismanagement but lack of training linked to this very complex
procedure.

Overall Evaluation 

The idea behind introducing a final "overall evaluation" of the election
was to have the observer, right after he or she had dealt with the
details and once in the car, to write down an overview of what he or she
had witnessed.  In the questionnaire this appreciation is not in the
right place but precedes other "overall opinions" on technical points.
This can only confuse the observer which, in turn, leads to a high
percentage (16%) of the observers finding the overall process "bad" or
"very bad".  Lastly, this percentage raises an issue: what were the
proportion of  "bad" and the proportion of "very bad"?

Comments of the observers

Another very important mistake in the questionnaire lies in the way the
space for additional comments is presented.  It had been clearly
indicated in EU and OSCE meetings that the part of the questionnaire
for additional comments had to be presented, for example, in a similar
way to this:
- Comments on personal observation
(Brief indications given as examples pertaining to the country or
election) 



- Comments repeated to you
(By whom)




The reason is that on Election Day observers are under great pressure
partly because they have to keep checking on the validity of whatever
information that they are given.  Therefore, however good their training
might have been, and on that I have no information, the questionnaire
serves them as a reminder, especially for first time observers.
The "overall evaluation" ("very good", "good", "bad", and "very bad")
should be at the end of this page. (This page should be filled out in
the car before it leaves and not in the polling station)

General outlook of the questionnaire

The computer work linked with the questionnaire was started in 1995 for
the Duma elections of the Russian Federation.  I am sorry to see that
the observation of the Armenian elections lacks the technique that a
number of institutions and practitioners have worked hard to put
together.



March 21,1998
Yerevan, Armenia