Interview: Darko Aleksov, President of the Citizens’ Association MOST

MOST monitors are not election guards

Behind you are the parliamentarian elections where the citizens’ association MOST was once again involved as a monitor. In comparison with the past, which level of achieved democracy would you put these elections to?
According to the preliminary evaluation expressed by MOST immediately after the elections, the course of these elections has been evaluated as stable, but with kinds of incidents that were characteristics of the previous election cycles, such as filling ballot boxes, that this time was of quite lower intensity, in comparison with proxy and group voting, that were increased. There were also problems with the implementation of the procedure of counting votes. Most of the irregularities were repeated when voting was repeated at 29 polling units. Most shadow during these elections was cast over by the pre-election campaign, that is, the incidents in it. However, the citizens once again showed that they were not to blame; they can appear at the polling units with dignity and realize their right to vote. Party activists have been initiators of irregularities both in the past and during these elections.

I would also like to mention that the most numerous domestic monitoring mission at the elections, MOST, has this time assigned 3500 monitors at the polling units and additionally, on the election day, mobile times were also organized, that were logistic support and monitored the places where there were not our monitors. The pre-election period was followed by our volunteers and coordinators and on the basis of their reports we estimated the course of the pre-election campaign. There will be an appropriate place in the report for the evaluation after the elections, as well as the process of complaints and objections submitted by the parties.

 

Did the citizens show (un)expected trust towards you? How could they communicate with MOST, did they use the offered opportunities to get involved in registering what happened during the elections?
MOST is a civil society organization; it works in the name and benefit of the citizens. They know it very well and support it. In a non-election period they are also actively involved in the MOST project and activities. We have a database of more than 10.000 citizens that have been part of our monitoring missions. For these elections the interest was also big.

Due to limited funds, part of the citizens who wanted to contribute towards transparency of the process had to be turned down and we deeply apologize for that. There were also calls on the free phone number 080 both during the campaign and on the election day. It enabled getting a wider and more various picture of what was really happening.

 

The monitors registered lots of irregularities and one of them was even removed while voting was repeated in the Tetovo village Brodec. Were you exposed to pressures by the parties and their followers in order to disturb your work?
On the election day tensions are present and very normal. Different people have different characters, so we cannot say that the whole party had shared the opinion of their representative at that polling unit. It is true that in Brodec there was misunderstanding between representatives of political parties and that a few monitors, among them our monitor, too, were removed from the polling unit. However, it cannot be characterized as pressure, or as disturbing our work. Fortunately, it was an isolated case.

Our monitors cannot be “guards” of the election process. They are there to see what is going on and to report on it. If someone decided to disturb the process and make our monitor leave the unit, he/she would do it. In the instructions we give them, it is clearly stated that their security is a priority. There is no need for him/her to argue and insist on staying there, as we would mark the voting at that unit as disturbed. Before the beginning of the elections MOST realized contacts with almost all political subjects involved in the process and their management got familiar with our activities and way of work. Such approach does not leave any space for possible misunderstandings and pressures.

Our work is transparent and MOST is open for cooperation and exchange of information with any subject being part of the election process. I think that such way of work is positive and it enables getting a real picture of the conditions.

 

Before the official beginning of the election campaign, you publicly pointed to the parties that they rushed, but they went on. How much were your warnings, suggestions and results respected by state institutions and foreign organizations in the country during the election process, but also before and after it?
In my opinion, MOST implications have been taken into consideration and respected. The atmosphere in the pre-election period was such that it seemed that nobody listened what we were saying. A small contribution to this situation was made by the dissociations of the State Election Commission, that is, its self-proclamation as non-competent. However, our mission is to follow the process and report on it. Everything that was noticed during these elections will find an appropriate place in our report and the references included in it. We shall not forget that most of the references from the past election cycles have found an appropriate place in the existing Election Code and they have improved the solutions. The experience from the implementation of these elections should certainly be taken into consideration and issues that lead to confusions should be clearly defined before next elections. To answer your question, yes, our implications have been respected by the competent institutions and the involved parties in the process. That evening everyone waited for us to announce the results, didn’t they? This time it was once again proved that our results were the fastest and the most accurate.