Transparency Serbia (TS) said that, in its Final Report on the April 2022 elections in Serbia, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) pointed to serious problems related to the misuse of public recourses and election campaign financing.
It is said that, in its Report, the ODIHR gave nine priority recommendations and 17 other recommendations that Serbia should fulfill so the next elections could be conducted in line with democratic standards.
The ODIHR assessed that, while fundamental freedoms were largely respected during the campaign, “the combined impact of unbalanced access to media, undue pressure on public sector employees to support the incumbents, significant campaign finance disparities and misuse of administrative resources led to unequal conditions for contestants,” said the TS.
The TS adds that, in the Report, ODIHR also noted that the president and the prime minister presented a large number of public infrastructure projects during the campaign thus making the conditions for competing in the elections unequal.
In connection with the new Law on Financing Political Activities, the ODIHR said that its long-standing recommendation to introduce a campaign expenditure limit per list of candidates or per candidate remained unaddressed, and noted that public campaign subsidies are disbursed shortly before election day, limiting the possibility for contestants to use them effectively.
In addition, the ODIHR is asking Serbia to introduce rules on campaigning by third parties, and effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for inaccurate reporting on election campaign expenses, and points to the need for the Criminal Code to be brought in line with the Law on Financing of Political Activities.
It is said that the ODHIR stressed the need for “a clear separation between official functions and campaigning activities, and for measures to prevent misuse of office and state resources.”
Among other things, it is recommended to extend the 10-day ban on the media coverage of certain state officials’ activities for the entire duration of the campaign period, said the ODIHR, while Transparency Serbia described this as one of the weakest points in the ODIHR Report.
Transparency Serbia said that the problem of public officials’ extensive campaign must be solved at the root, by clearly defining the public officials’ regular activities and those they are not allowed to engage in during the campaign.
The ODIHR said that national public broadcasters covered the activities of all campaign contestants, but that they “provided extensive uncritical news coverage to public officials who were also candidates,” while private broadcast media with national coverage “presented the election campaign without meaningful editorial input and focused their news coverage on state officials.”
It is said that the ODIHR added that, despite its mandate to oversee the broadcast media, the Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (REM) “remained overall passive in the campaign period.”
The ODIHR recommendations also stipulate that the election administration should take measures to enhance the effectiveness of dispute resolution, said the TS.
