Albanian parties should focus on and learn from the entire OSCE/ODIHR local elections report, not just the parts they see as favourable.
The OSCE/ODIHR mission released last week its final report on the local elections in Albania, offering a balanced and well-researched review of what happened during the local elections period. The report sticks largely to the facts as they happened, which results in both positive and negative observations. There are also key recommendations for needed future improvements.
Both of Albania’s main political parties said the report was objective, yet they predictably came up with totally different interpretations of what the OSCE/ODIHR monitoring officials said in the report.
The main ruling Democratic Party and the main opposition Socialist Party both chose to focus on the parts that help their cause. Beyond seeing things as black or white, as the Socialists and Democrats respectively interpreted them following the release the report, the OSCE/ODIHR monitoring officials clearly make observations of variable shades of grey.
Let’s look at a few key statements in the report:
ՉWhile the elections were competitive and transparent, they were highly polarized, with mistrust between political parties in government and opposition.
ՉWhile there appeared to be less abuse of administrative resources for campaign purposes than in previous elections, organized efforts to pressure or intimidate voters persisted.
ՉThe highly disputed post-election actions taken by the Central Elections Commission with regard to determining the results of the Tirana mayoral race, even though partially upheld by the Electoral College, further undermined confidence that the CEC was acting as an impartial and independent body.
Beyond the implementation of the elections and disputes from that implementation, the OSCE monitors found gaps in Albanian laws on local elections that led to several problems. They also recommended changes to the Albanian electoral laws to ensure that some of the issues don’t rise again.
The fact is that neither the Albanian public, nor the country’s politicians, need the report to understand the local elections did not go smoothly. The tense political climate in which they were held, and which the report notes in its opening, made it very hard to hold a perfectly normal electoral process. The tortuous and contested release of results for the most important race, the one for Tirana mayor, made sure that the elections would have a question mark associated with them in the eyes of at least half the electorate.
Yet, judging by the conditions in which the elections where held and the long history of contested elections in post-communist Albania, these local elections could have been even more problematic. They were far from perfect, but they worked. They failed in solving the political crisis, especially due to the problems associated with the all important Tirana race, but in the rest of the country they guaranteed local governance would continue through elected officials. The alternative was to transfer the deadlock at the central level to local elections.
As is the case with many recent elections, we are left with lukewarm feelings and diplomatic statements about how the elections went and forced into a pragmatic decision to hope for better elections next time.
Albanian politicians, at least publicly, will never accept election results that don’t go their way, for in Albania, according to the politicians, the elections are always stolen, never lost. They are always black and white propositions. Accepting the shades of grey in the OSCE/ODIHR and learning from the entire text might be a good first step if the next elections are to break the negative trends seen so far.
