OSCE: VOTING OF REFUGEES ABROAD

AIM Sarajevo, September 12, 1996 - According to the latest and official data publicized by the OSCE Mission in Sarajevo, 75 per cent of the total number of refugees from Bosnia & Herzegovina registered in the interim electoral register voted abroad. This practically means that out of 520 thousand voters abroad registered to vote either in person or by mail, almost 390 thousand actually came to the polls. The highest response was noted in Denmark - 91 per cent, then follow the Netherlands, Germany, Macedonia, Croatia ...

OSCE officials assessed that this was a big percentage and that they could be satisfied with what had been done in the voting process abroad. However, they did not conceal the diffuiculties which accompanied voting in 55 countries of the world, starting from the problems in registering voters, to delivery of voting material to home addresses of refugees and confusion with ballots. These problems and pressure exerted by B&H officials and representatives of political parties on Ambassador Robert Frowick, chief of OSCE Mission, resulted in prolongation of the deadline for delivery of ballots to OSCE offices or the Centre for counting in Sarajevo until September

1. Therefore, it can be expected that the number of voters from abroad might increase, and the satisfaction of international officials accordingly. The fact that about 140 thousand refugees from abroad applied to come to B&H to vote on the day of the general elections will also contribute to it.

If, however, the figure of those who voted is compared with the total number of refugees and citizens of B&H abroad, then the assessment about the success of voting can, to say the least, be questioned. The first omissions in organizing the elections abroad occurred in the process of registration. According to the data of Bosnian officials, about two million citizens of B&H are abroad, so, in fact, only a little over one quarter of them were given the opportunity to register in electoral registers and in this way ensure the possibility to vote. Officials of the OSCE did not consider this humble percentage particularly important nor decisive for the total outcome of the election process, and accepted just a part of complaints and appeals referring to registration of voters.

A large number of voters abroad did not receive ballots in time, like for example, in Australia and New Zealand, where many citizens of the Federation received ballots for Republika Srpska and vice versa. In some countries voting had begun before it was planned (Turkey and Hungary). It perhaps need not be repeated that the elections abroad had been organized before it was decided to postpone municipal elections, so that the refugees had received all five ballots, including the ones for the local level. Noone has so far even dared try to clarify how votes of refugees for municipal authorities would be treated and whether they would be rejected as invalid.

There is simply an abundance of facts which point out to the conclusion that the whole organization and regularity of elections abroad are questionable. That is why the evaluations of OSCE officials are more of an attempt to find at least a single bright point and favourable fact in the chaos and entanglementof the election procedure, but also in the omissions of the international mission in B&H - such as the figure of 75 per cent of the voters abroad - than a realistic assessment of the elections outside B&H.

"Those who will not vote now, need not be too disappointed, because they will have elections in 1998 and then it will be possible to correct the omission made now", Ana Jaksic, deputy director of OSCE Election Office, commented on the difficulties in registration of voters abroad and in B&H about twenty days ago.

This stance which characterizes not only the foreigners involved in the election process but also domestic people, so that new worries concerning the elections in B&H pushed voting abroad aside. Perhaps the interest for it will increase and passions stir up after counting of the ballots from abroad and after publication of the results.

Of course, not just the OSCE and the international community should be accused for all the omissions which characterized voting abroad. A large part of the responsibility for poor response of the voters lies with state agencies of B&H, more precisely with the diplomatic and consular representatives abroad and political parties. The ones and the others frustrated the uninformed and confused voters with their behavior more than they did to be at their service.

For example in Germany, where there are about 500 thousand Bosnian refugees and citizens with the right to vote, only a single telephone in Bonn was at the disposal of those who sought information about registration of voters. Foreign Ministry did establish a Coordinating Committee for following the elections abroad. However, head of this board is Bekir Alispahic, one of the leaders of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA) and the man who, according to allegations of some B&H journals, has contributed more to creation of confusion among the electorate abroad than to assisting the refugees. Many tend to go even further, so there are quite a few assessments that the activities of the Coordinating Committee abroad were engaged more in propagandist activities in favour of the SDA than they were concerned about offering relevant information on the elections to the citizens regardless of nationality and political convictions.

Additional confusion among the voters was caused first by the call issued by the SDA and the Party for B&H to refugees not to vote due to manipulations with Form P2, and then new appeals to vote after all. The call to boycott and then the appeal to vote were addressed to the voters in the interval of only two days, so that it remained a complete mystery what leaders of the two most influential parties among the Bosniacs wished to achieve by such a frivolous political game. It is true, however, that leader of the Party for B&H, Haris Silajdzic, succeeded with Robert Frowick to nullify validity of the Rules of the Interim Electoral Commission after September 14. After that, according to Silajdzic's assessment, there was no obstacle for the refugees to vote. Was that sufficient compensation for all the omissions made in organization of elections abroad it is hard to tell. But that there was an abundance of games and frivolity towards the electorate abroad, it is quite certain. Perhaps everything that happened concerning voting of refugees best illustrates how concerned B&H truly is about its citizens abroad and what it is ready to offer them.