Today, some 20 out 57 member states to the OSCE do not recognize the legitimacy of the international observation institute. The electoral legislature of some countries (ex. Ireland) allows observations conducted strictly by local political parties. Domestic legislature stipulates no participation of the number of international organizations and institutions, including OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, in the capacity of international observation mission, and precludes the extending of invitations to that end. However, for some member states, invitation of the international observers and monitoring of the elections amounts to an obligation.
That provokes some compelling questions. Why is this very obligation not implemented by the good half of the OSCE member states, the ones who consider themselves the role models of democracy? May be this obligation is ought to be canceled, if this issue is dismissed as irrelevant by so many states? It must be stressed that many countries who do implement it are critical of such an observation practice.
For example, ODIHR decided not to deploy an observation mission to monitor presidential elections in France in 2012. It is based on its own conclusions that ODIHR chooses to send its observers to one country and not to monitor elections elsewhere, something that indeed evokes bewilderment.
Regrettably, this is yet another example of "double standards" practice. ODIHR deploys an extensive observation mission to monitor elections in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) while some other "advanced democracies" get a handful of limited mandate ODIHR observers on the ground or receive no monitoring mission whatsoever. Claims that those countries face no serious problems in the electoral system appear unconvincing. ODIHR clearly segregates in its assessments of developments in different countries.
ODIHR representatives use every opportunity to diminish the role democratic traditions and political processes in the CIS member states and to lambaste authorities and government institutions. In most cases, OSCE observers have totally divergent views compared to the ones of the official bodies of the CIS and other international observers. Presidential elections in Ukraine in 2004, in Russia in 2008 and Azerbaijan in 2013, stand as vivid examples.
In the meantime, there have been no records of observation missions criticizing elections in the countries of the European Union or the U.S. Opinions were voiced that the 2008 presidential elections in the U.S. were marred by organizational violations and held in antidemocratic environment. Those were the views of local human rights activists and observers. The ODIHR, however, ignored such positions and produced a final report that was anything but critical.
In his speech during the autumn session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE deputy David Wilshire said that, during the 2008 presidential elections in Montenegro, the ODIHR observers drafted an election assessment report while disregarding position of their colleagues from PACE.
In light of the aforementioned, it may be concluded that it is in the capacity of a contingent actor that the OSCE’s ODIHR oftentimes exerts political pressure as opposed to providing technical assistance aimed at the development of the electoral process, and in some countries, instead of facilitating the process of democratization, attempts to manage and direct the political processes by issuing some instructions.
A.Babayev
Bütün xəbərlər Facebook səhifəmizdə
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB