Campaign for Permanent Election Law

Double-Edged Blade

AIM Banja Luka, 20 May, 1999

In the middle of the month of March, a campaign for the permanent election law was launched in Bosnia & Herzegovina. A project under this title is carried out by OSCE on the basis of the conclusion of the Madrid Declaration which says that "a program shall be developed to reach the public in order to present the permanent election law and in order to assist in its adoption by the Parliamentary Assembly of B&H".

According to OSCE material distributed to the public, the campaign is aimed at involving the citizens of B&H in the debate on the election system and election law to enable the National Task Group which is engaged in drafting the permanent election law to acquire information what the citizens expect of the election system. The public debate will be conducted through discussions, seminars, round table discussions and contact programs in the media, in non-governmental organizations, associations of citizens, political parties and legal experts.

The ambitiously conceived project was preceded by a public opinion poll which yielded results which might make the whole campaign useless and even counter-productive. It turned out that ethnic affiliation and ethnic interest were the main motivation force for the voters. For half of the pollees, ethnic identity is the primary factor in making the choice when voting and for a quarter of them, ethnic identity ranks second in importance among reasons for making the decision while voting. With such logic of the electorate the whole story about changing election rules could be understood as a "conspiracy" against ethnic identity and ethnic rights, which is skilfully used in election campaigns by both the nationalists in power and the opposition.

What the changes of election rules may refer to, nobody wishes to say. In OSCE they say that this is not a campaign for OSCE to express its opinion and that citizens of B&H should "fully participate in elaboration of the draft law". Judging by the echoes arriving from the public, heated discussions may arise concerning a few rules and principles which should be amended in order to democratize the election process. Primarily there is the question whether the election system should be changed by introducing a bigger number of electoral districts and by combining the proportional and the majority system. There are opinions that voting for closed lists of political parties gives preference to the parties and exclude personal election. The elected candidate in such an election system, it is claimed, represents the interest of the party, not the voters. "Regulations and rules of OSCE were so far in fact not real election rules. The people voted according to the principle of proportional representation of the party, not knowing who was on the lists", says professor of constitutional law, Dr Mico Carevic. Carevic believes that the citizens should be enabled to choose between persons, not political parties.

The opinion is also stated that the existing election system manifested a serious inadequacy due to the fact that according to it, citizens of certain regions often are not at all represented in the assembly. This fact is used as an argument in favour of introduction of electoral districts which would have their representatives in the parliament and in favour of a mechanism which would enable recall of elected representatives on all levels.

Voting in absence is also a problem which in previous elections was the main argument in favour of declarations that the results of the elections were forged. According to ones, the citizens who have the right to vote but are not in B&H should not be enabled to vote except in case they have expressed serious intention to return and live in B&H. Others believe that citizens who are absent and who mostly have the status of refugees elsewhere, are entitled to elect representatives in the authorities who will decide about their return, so it is pure nonsense to raise the question of their franchise.

The existing rules on election of representatives into joint authorities of B&H could raise severe polemics. So far it was possible to hear opinions in public that members of B&H Presidency should be elected by all the citizens of B&H. As an argument it is stated that they do not represent interests only of their ethnic group, but of all the citizens of B&H, due to which all the citizens should decide about their elections. Opponents of this stand claim that in this case the Serb or Croat member of Presidency could be elected by the majority Bosniac people, and that any other possibility except the existing one would be contrary to the principles of the Dayton accords.

In political circles in Republika Srpska the opinion prevails that passing of the election law and organization of elections is in the jurisdiction of the entities. They refer to the constitution and its compatibility with the constitution of B&H. Should this stand be insisted on, adoption of the permanent election law could be questioned.

The election campaign in Republika Srpska might raise the question of franchise of the Serbs who had fled from Croatia and who have in the meantime acquired citizenship and certain civil rights in RS. This category of persons did not have the right to vote in previous elections because they were not in the electoral register before the war.

Although the public discussion on election rules is a significant step towards democratization in general and development of the culture of dialogue, it can hardly be expected that the national group for elaboration of the draft permanent election law will find corroboration in the public discussion for radical amendments of the existing election rules. Those who have until recently criticised these rules will now strongly defend them because they have enabled them stabilization in power on principles of ethnic domination.

Branko Peric

(AIM)