Belarus To “Think Over” the Limit of a Number of International Observers

Mikalay Lazavik, the secretary of Central Election Commission of Belarus, said “the activity of OSCE observation mission leaves a hard after-taste” and two OSCE observers are enough to observe elections in Belarus.

Mikalay Lazavik, the secretary of Central Election Commission of Belarus, said “the activity of OSCE observation mission leaves a hard after-taste” and two OSCE observers are enough to observe elections in Belarus.

He made his statements during a press-conference at the Embassy of Cuba in Belarus on 17 January, 2008.

“Today there is no mission which is more secret than OSCE observation mission. Neither the states, that hold elections, nor the Central Election Commission know what the final conclusions are based on. We have tried twice to get from OSCE the documents, the negative conclusions were based on, but we have not received them because there are no such documents. The conclusions are made in advance. More than that, one or two months before elections U.S. Department of State makes its preliminary “prognosis” on whether the elections will be democratic or not. And this prognosis becomes the basis of a document that OSCE international observation mission makes as a result. This is my subjective opinion that they have completely compromised themselves and it would not be worth it to invite them to observe the elections”, Lazavik said.

According to the secretary of the Belarusian CEC, Belarus together with Russia “should think over the limit of a number of international observers”.

“12 OSCE observers were present at the elections in Poland, there were 20 of them in the USA, but 700 in Belarus. What for shall we have so many?” Mikalay Lazavik asks. He compared the number of observers on elections in the USA to the number of polling stations, and came to a conclusion that two OSCE observers are enough to observe elections in Belarus.

Curtis Budden, the spokesman of Office for Democratic Institutes and Human Rights of OSCE (OSCE ODIHR), gave his comments to Mikalay Lazavik’s statements.

“ODIHR uses a tested methodology that allows its observers to monitor an entire election process, including the campaign, the legal framework, the work of the election administration, and the work of the media, as well as activities in polling stations on election day. Our conclusions are based on the findings of our core team, long-term observers, and short-term observers, and they are made publicly available in a series of interim reports prior to any particular election, a preliminary statement the day after an election, and an in-depth final report published about two months after an election. As always, our final reports include numerous recommendations aimed at improving the electoral framework to assist states in ensuring that they hold democratic elections. It is, of course, up to the states themselves to implement those recommendations”, Curtis Budden said.

“Before deploying an election observation mission, we almost always send what is called a needs assessment mission to the country in question. That mission meets with candidates, political parties, the election administration, media, NGOs, and other interested parties to gather information about the election environment. In addition, ODIHR reviews the findings of previous election missions to that country and also determines whether or not previous recommendations have been implemented. A number of factors go into determining the size of an election mission, including whether or not the country has a history of holding democratic elections. ODIHR thus determines how many observers are needed to ensure credible observation. Since different countries have different conditions and different democratic traditions, the number of observers needed for any particular election mission can differ depending on the specific circumstances”, OSCE ODIHR spokesman admits.

Andrei Aliaksandrau
[email protected]