ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ | След. »»
Overview
Campaign Finance
Media
Election Administration
Citizens of the Russian Federation will again elect the President of the Russian Federation next year. A newly revised draft of the federal law governing this election is currently being considered by the State Duma. This draft law incorporates significant revisions to Russia’s Law on Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights, adopted on March 30, 1999. That law and this draft reflect the extensive experience of Russians in conducting elections during the past decade, and are the product of hard work and serious thought by election experts in the State Duma and the Central Election Commission (CEC). As a result of this legislative process, the draft law expands, refines and improves the election law that governed the elections for the President in 1996.
The International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) has provided information and analysis to assist development of election laws and procedures in Russia since 1993. IFES has worked particularly closely with both the State Duma and the CEC during the months leading up to presentation of this draft law. To further assist the Duma in refining the Law, IFES offers the following specific observations and suggestions in the attached Commentary regarding the current draft of the federal law for elections to the Presidency.
In addition, IFES takes this opportunity to stress the importance of seeking mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability in the electoral process. These mechanisms should be sought both within the procedures established by law and through practices within a democratic civil society. Based on the international experience and the observation of the development of the election framework in Russia, we can highlight three key areas that could benefit from further review: campaign finance, mass media, and election administration.
Campaign Finance
In the area of regulation and disclosure of political finance activity, IFES has long advocated that limitations upon contributions to candidates and electoral associations and blocs, and upon their overall campaign expenditures, should not be set unreasonably low. However well intended, severe limitations upon political giving and spending tend to stifle political action and, as evidenced from prior elections, encourage widespread, unreported «off-the-books» financial activity that wholly thwarts the law’s purposes. Compliance with legal requirements for reporting campaign receipts and disbursements by candidates and electoral associations and blocs must be strongly encouraged and enforced with graded penalties.
The election law should distinguish between prohibiting campaign-related activities and other, politically neutral activities. For example, the development of voter education or rights awareness activities by charitable organizations or the provision of assistance to the election apparatus should be made clearly a legal activity.
Finally, IFES notes that while the increase in disclosure reports from candidates is a positive development, we would encourage an additional financial report submitted between voting rounds for increased transparency.
Media
As an intermediary between the voters and candidates, the mass media plays an essential role in the electoral process. While the draft law builds upon the experience of the current State Duma elections and the provisions of the Law on Basic Guarantees, the issues of access and coverage as they stand in the Draft Law would benefit from additional thought in two areas: pre-election campaigning and the issue of neutrality of news broadcasts.
The international experience demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of countries, such as Canada, France, and the United Kingdom for example, regulate extensively mass media access, especially TV broadcasts during an election period. Since these regulations impose limits on the freedom of expression of participants, they are generally limited to short time periods tied to the electoral campaign. The ban proposed in the Draft Law between the time the decision to call for elections is published and the registration of a candidate of all campaigning activities seems to exceed the international norm regarding control of the media prior to the registration of a candidate. While launching their election campaigns, all participants command different levels of political «capital» and different financial, organizational, and other resources. The role of the State ought to create equal conditions for the participants to run the period of the election marathon, thereby leveling out, to a certain extent, the obviously disparate capacities held by the established frontrunners and outsiders. This is different then providing for equal opportunities by eliminating pre-election campaigning altogether.
Furthermore, a definition of what «pre-electoral campaigning» means and the distinction between «advertising» and «coverage» is important and we respectfully suggest that such a provision be included in the law. For example, in the provisions issued by the Ukrainian CEC this is made clear by its definition of «political advertising» as «information containing «emotional appeal, creative imagery, repetitiveness, expressiveness, conciseness; with the aim of propagating ideas, views, program documents of a candidate in order to shape his/her political image, create a favorable public opinion about him/her» and so on. In the United States, political campaigning, limited to specific regulations, is generally limited to messages which directly induce a citizen to «vote for» a candidate. We can provide more examples as required.
The second issue of neutrality of the broadcasts is a murky area in which Russia is a pioneer in this respect, alongside few countries, by seeking to regulate the coverage which candidates, in particular incumbents, receive during the election period through the electoral law. A broadcaster may cover events of a current office holder as if they were news, when in fact they are campaign events. News coverage of press conferences and public statements made by a candidate who is also a public official (other than conferences and statements that directly relate to his or her official duties) should be subject to equal time rules.
In most countries, fair coverage is also guaranteed through the standard regulations that affect defamation in civil law. The onus for preventing defamation should rest with the candidate, not the broadcaster. Defamation or an offense against the honor of a candidate should be limited to statements that include a materially false statement, where the speaker knows or reasonably should know that the statement is false and is likely to injure the target’s reputation. The European Court on Human Rights has made clear that speakers may not be punished for publishing opinions about public officials, even if offensive, so long as the opinions are not based on a materially false statement or fact.
Election Administration
The draft Federal Law reproduces the main parameters of the election system used in the presidential elections: nominators and form of nomination of candidates, voting procedure, procedure for determining election results. IFES identifies three areas where changes could have a significant impact. First, the establishment of a floor level of participation of 50% of the voter list could have serious political consequences if this level was not reached on election day – which, as the experience of Ukraine’s Parliamentary elections shows, outweigh any benefit of high participation. Second, the scope of normative regulation of election procedures is much wider than in the current Federal Law «On Election of President of the Russian Federation». The draft Federal Law provides for much tougher sanctions against candidates for violation of various rules laid down by the election law, while leaving little change in the «life or death» approach for the sanctions and penalties. It is important that the sanctions established for various offences be adequately «graded» to the gravity of the offence and their application be predictable for the participants of the electoral process. Third, specific changes will undoubtedly strengthen the Draft Law by:
- ensuring uniformity of language (i.e., «political public association» is labeled in three different ways);
- having predictable time limits (i.e. 90 days instead of three months);
- increasing the measures of security in the process (i.e. placing the Precinct Election Commission seal on the ballot only at the time the voter is to receive the ballot);
- allowing the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation to continue to cooperate with international partners during the election process, in support of voter participation, training, and other informational initiatives;
- The addition of a provision about the consequences of an «act of god» on the outcome of an election will strengthen the Presidential election law.
While the draft law improves the capacity of the election laws to achieve these objectives, specific suggestions can be found in the attached comments that provide specific recommendations for each article of the Law. The recommendations go beyond the issues mentioned above. IFES will continue to offer suggestions for further improvement, but again wishes to note the substantial progress and fundamental opportunity represented by this current federal law for elections to the State Duma. IFES looks forward to the elections next year as another milestone in development of democracy in the Russian Federation.
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at our earliest convenience at the address mentioned above.
ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ | След. »»
| 
