Do CIS elections matter: to whom and why?

1. Do CIS elections matter: to whom and why? Aleksanteri Election Seminars Do Elections Matter? Rallies, Reactions, Reforms Helsinki, 25 January 2012 Mats Lindberg

2. My professional experience and approach • 10 years with the Council of Europe, including 2 years as Special Representative in Azerbaijan • 3 Years as Election Adviser at OSCE-ODIHR with ”responsibility” for e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, the Russian Federation and Belarus • Not a researcher • This presentation given in private capacity and will mainly draw on my experiences in, and refer (mainly, but not only) to, the above CIS States

3. What CIS States under review have in common • At no point in history real democracies until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 – many at no point after either • More or less presidential systems • Power as a rule does not change hands as direct result of election outcome

4. What CIS States under review have in common (Cont.) • Most people more interested in basic security and decent living conditions than in democracy – including young people • Very low level of campaigning with very weak campaign platforms. Focus on candidates, not platforms. • All CIS States signed up to become members of the OSCE and many also to the Council of Europe (and thereby to adhere to the election standards of these two organizations), in the ten years which followed the break-up of the Soviet Union.

5. Cultural differences – and similarities from Oslo to Dushanbe • Campaign financing: private or sponsored? Selling shares or cows to finance election participation? • Family voting • Certain disrespect for rules in familiar setting

6. Positive and negative incentives to take part in elections – asvoter or candidate • +/- Do people think elections matter? • + The belief of the well educated (middle class) in the usefulness of democratic elections (+ pensioners vote out of habit) • + Clan-based societies • +/-The economy • + Reactions to (incorrect) elections as catalyst for change

7. Positive/negative incentives to take part in elections (Cont.) • +/- Ethnic or linguistic minorities • - Parallel (moral) authorities and service providers • - Recent armed conflict • - Immunity from prosecution • - Fear of job loss or failed exams

8. Positive/negative incentives to take part in elections (Cont.) • - Fraud/blocked election administration – leads to apathy • - Personal gain or self-preservation • - No possibility to retire • - Parliamentary elections in a presidential system

9. A few anecdotes • The Russian hotline • The Uzbek Plov-lady • Hände hoch!

10. International influence and interest • Idealism and pragmatism (including business interests) • Stability and instability • Election time as a time of taking positions – and its consequences • (partially) failed attempts at more democracy and their consequences

11. Conclusions: Do elections in CIS States Matter? • Not as much as they should, due to presidential dominance (vis-à-vis parliament), systems of status quo or fraud… • But still matter to a significant degree, not because of election results but due to consequences of elections, before and after election day: • Short term public good • Reactions - concessions, repression or revolution

12. Conclusions: Do elections in CIS States matter? • Time for politicians to express themselves – for better or worse • Reactions from outside World

13. What could be done to make elections matter more in CIS area • Easier said than done…but: • European political foundations’ work • Campaigns to make young people interested in politics • Scholarships to the West • Improve electoral legislation • Offer incentives to neutral election officials • Train media

14. Thank you! • Questions? • If not now, perhaps later? : mats.lindberg2010@gmail.com