II. Executive summary
15. A successful electoral reform is built on at least the following three elements: 1) clear and comprehensive legislation that meets international standards and addresses prior recommendations; 2) adoption of legislation by broad consensus after extensive public consultations with all the stakeholders; 3) political commitment to fully implement the electoral legislation in good faith.
16. The electoral reform under consideration stemmed from the adoption, in December 2015, of a new constitution shifting the political regime of Armenia from a semi-presidential to a largely parliamentary one. Pursuant to the constitution, the new Electoral Code had to be adopted within a short time period (six months). While the electoral system is totally new, the reform addressed issues, such as the accuracy of voter lists, which had been the object of longstanding OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission recommendations. Importantly, the adoption of the new Electoral Code on 25 May 2016 was achieved with a significant majority and was followed by a broad political agreement between the governing and opposition parties on additional measures to enhance the preconditions for democratic elections (local elections will be held in the autumn of 2016 and parliamentary elections in the spring of 2017). Civil society organizations were also constructively involved in the negotiations, although they eventually did not sign the final agreement. The agreement formed the basis for additional amendments to the Electoral Code adopted by the Parliament on 30 June 2016, bringing about, in particular, the use of new technologies for the oversight of the electoral process, on condition that adequate funding is secured. Many of these additional amendments may be seen as measures to increase public confidence in the new electoral system and procedures. This situation shows a welcome constructive attitude on the part of both the majority and the opposition, which may be conducive to the good faith implementation of the new Electoral Code. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR underscore their support for this spirit of compromise and their wish for it to continue to prevail as regards the implementation of the Electoral Code and the election of a new Central Electoral Commission in the autumn of 2016.
17. In the first Joint Opinion on the draft electoral code, the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR made three key and several other recommendations. The new Electoral Code as amended on 30 June takes into account a significant number of these recommendations, notably:
Read also
– The time-period for the formation of political coalitions after the first round of elections has been doubled, from three to six days from the announcement of the official results in order to avoid a second round, and from two to five days from the decision to hold a second round in order to form a coalition to participate in it;
– Access to the so-called “signed” (in the new Code, “stamped” rather than signed) voter lists has been made possible, in two new ways. First, by using technical equipment to print a statement of the individual voter identification number of those who voted immediately after the end of voting. Proxies, observes and media representatives receive a copy of this statement and may check the individual voter identification numbers against the original signed voter list for a period of thirty minutes (extended from twenty minutes by the amendments of 30 June 2016). If the equipment has not been introduced, proxies may apply to the District Electoral Commission after the elections in order to consult the lists. While the two possibilities are currently alternative, their cumulative application could serve as another welcome confidence-building measure;
– The mandatory test for citizen observers has been removed. The requirement for specific provisions in the charter of the citizen observer organisations to have been in force for at least three years preceding the elections has been reduced to one year, but regrettably not totally removed;
– The requirement for the President to appoint the acting chairperson or a member of the CEC “in consultation with parliamentary factions” has been added, as a means to build consensus on the appointment of election officials;
– The independence of election administration officials has been strengthened by adding an exhaustive list of grounds for the early termination of their mandate;
– Women’s representation has been enhanced by increasing the minimum quotas for each gender on candidate lists from 25 to 30 per cent, and extending quotas for the first part of the list to each integer group of 3 instead of 4. These new quotas will, however, only apply from 2021 onwards;
– The CEC is now obliged to develop and publish training materials for the members of all electoral commissions, specialists, candidates, proxies, observers, and voters;
– The Code also clarified important regulations, in particular, addressing recommendations related to campaign and campaign finance, candidate de-registration processes, and complaints and appeals procedures.
18. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR had recommended in the first Joint Opinion that a gradual approach to the introduction of new technologies be adopted through pilots over the course of several elections, starting from the upcoming local elections. This would serve as an important measure to enhance confidence in the system and provide opportunities to address technical issues and ensure effective implementation. The Electoral Code now provides for the possibility of pilot tests to be undertaken during the upcoming local elections (Article 144.3). The introduction of new technologies will depend on whether or not adequate funding including by external donors will be available. If implemented, and as recommended in the first Joint Opinion, it remains important to further address a number of other issues, including harmonising new provisions with data protection laws and standards, ensuring public testing and certification of the equipment, guaranteeing contingency planning, providing sufficient training for electoral staff, and ensuring effective awareness-raising among voters and political parties.
19. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR had recommended in the first Joint Opinion to reconsider the restrictions on the number of participants in coalitions. The Armenian authorities have stated that they consider that such restrictions are essential in order to comply with the constitutional requirement of “stability”, and have maintained them.
20. Finally, recommendations of lesser importance contained in the first Joint Opinion were not or only partly followed. This includes recommendations related to a general prohibition of the misuse of administrative resources; the transparency of the tabulation process; electoral thresholds applied for political parties and alliances at different levels of elections, as well as those applied for returning electoral deposits; formation of candidate lists for minority representatives; nomination of candidate lists by groups of citizens; the deadlines for submitting the documents for registration of candidate lists in case of early elections; reasonable deadlines for accreditation of observers and media representatives; the scope and timeframe of the Oversight and Audit Service’s activities.
21. The Armenian authorities have explained that for some of these issues, the reason for not complying is to be found in the agreements with the opposition. This is the case in particular for the quotas for national minority representatives. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR encourage the authorities to revert to these matters in future electoral reforms.
