Independent observers report from elections

I am posting a report from independent observers that monitored the Kurdish elections. The report gives crystal clear information of the foul play that occurred during the elections and of the IHEC not being independent. It is also clear that observers were few in Erbil governate, and in Duhok governate they were absent.

----------------------------------------------------------

By: The Independent Network for Observing the Parliament and Presidency Elections in the Kurdistan Region: 25-7-2009

The network includes the following Organisations:

KIE - Kurdistan Institute for Elections

DHRD - Democracy and Human Rights Development Centre .

CSI -Civil Society Initiative

WOLA -Women's Law Assistant

On 25th of July 2009, the elections for the Kurdistan parliament and presidency took place in the 3 governorates of the Kurdistan region, Duhok, Sulaymaniya and Erbil. 78% of voters participated in this election.

The Independent Network for Observing the Elections, consists out of four NGOs mentioned above. With the help of 902 monitors, the Network observed the elections during the three stages; a) renewal of the records of voters, b) the election campaign and propaganda activities, and c) the general election’s day itself.

In all three stages the monitors have recorded many breaches by the different parties that participated in the elections. Some of the irregularities are noted below:

1) The Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC)

The IHEC in Iraq is one of the important organisers and regulators of the election process. If there are any flaws with the IHEC, this could influence and affect the whole of the election process.

The Independent Network therefore has focussed on the functioning of the IHEC. Underneath a listing of findings and recommendations:

a) The two mobile numbers, which were allocated by the commission for easy communications, were not working properly, in fact, the numbers were inactive during most of the election period.

B) Most of the commission staff showed a lack of information and knowledge in some election stations in order to perform good quality and effective monitoring, and to provide supervision during the process. It was clear that more training would be needed for future election events.

C) Some of the organisers and directors of different election stations were not independent. It was very clear to the observers that they were under the influence of a political party. Some of them they were found to be in a better relationship with the political party than the election commission. It was abundantly clear that this assisted these officials with falsification and illegal activities. Due to these activities there were many illegal votes which will influenced the results of the elections. As an example, in some of the election stations, party members were allowed to observe inside the station, without proper permissions, thereby influencing the voters. This happened especially in Erbil City.

D) The voting station’s staff did not make sure about some of the names of voters, and allowed some to vote without their names being recorded in the station’s voters list.

E) The special elections closed at 6pm and the general election at 7pm. The transport of some of the boxes however, did take place as late as 12pm. Due to a lack of transport vehicles. The budget for the elections however was to the amount of 37 Million US$ Dollars, making the excuse as to the lack of vehicles due to budget shortages doubtful. The extra time in closed voting stations however, could have been used for illegal activities.

F) There was centralism from the commission to the election stations. It was noted that the supervisors of election stations used the form number 111 especially often after 3pm.

G) The elections were prolonged with one hour during the general elections’ day, without presenting proper evidence for the need of this extra hour, thereby putting the independency of the election commission under questioning.

H) While announcing the results, the president of commission mentioned in advance the election results that the elections went ok and there were no reported problems. Again, an event as this adds questions to the independency of the commission. Added to this that he also made a comment that the IHEC had to re-count 300 boxes, how could he have made such a positive comment if no checking had been carried out?

2) Stages of the Election Process:

First: the length of time to compile the electoral lists:

The limited time span of this stage was clear in both the special and general elections. Many of the voters were not recorded and shifting of the names, which were listed under the form 111 to new stations, were not allowed. These are big shortages of the IHEC in Iraq as over the last years this has happened several times, without real solution being found. Problems with registrations happened in both the 2005 elections, and later in the governor’s elections in the 14 Iraqi governorates on 31st of January 2009.

Second: The Election Campaign:

1) The election propaganda started before the scheduled date. Some parties started their meetings and the publishing of mottos and logos in publications in advance of the permitted date.

2) Government positions were used in the election propaganda.

3) “Vote buying” took place as well as pressurising people to change their minds.

4) Some parties used government buildings and departments for the display of election propaganda, e.g. posters and banners.

Third: A special day for voting, July 23, 2009

1- Publication of names of special voters in the recorded list of voters.

2- There were threats and pressure on voters in order for them to change their minds.

3- Some members of the police or security forces were not able to vote as their names were not recorded in the voters’ list.

4- Some government officials were in the voting stations without valid reasons. It was obvious they weren’t there to take part in the voting.

Third: General Voting Day, July 25, 2009

The independent Network only observed the election in the two cities of Sulaymaniya and Erbil, with its main focus on Sulaymaniya, as there was immense competition between different parties. This why from the total of 902 observers, 877 observed the election activities in Sulaymaniya city and only 25 observers in Erbil, mainly in the city centre.

The general overview from the observation notes, which we received from Sulaymaniya city, tells us that no serious falsifications took place, which influenced the result of the election. The few cases that were recorded in Sulaymaniya were not organised! However, from the reports, which were received from our observers in Erbil city, it clearly shows organised falsification that definitely influenced the result of the election.

3) Sulaymaniya City:

From a total of 887 forms, which the Network received back from Sulaymaniya city, the following breaches were noted:

1- Voting station officials allowed adding of names that were not recorded in the electoral list, thru the use of form (111). This made it possible for voters to vote twice. The Network strongly recommends that the IHEC needs to be very carefully checking the boxes that might contain this kind of double votes, to assure if there were falsifications.

2- The use of the form (111) was a seriously doubted by the observers, as the forms, which were filled out, did not contain important changes especially with regard to the changing of names from one station to another. This allowed the voter to register and place a vote in two stations. The commission needs to carefully check the boxes that contain this kind of fraudulent votes to assure whether or not falsification has taken place.

3- The lack of experience and training by the observers of civil society NGOs. Especially not knowing details about their duty's and rights, made it difficult for the monitoring staff to interfere in the process and the activities of the voting station’s staff. More training of Network and IHEC staff is strongly recommended and needed.

4) Erbil City:

The Network’s 25 observers recorded many breaches and fraudulent activities during the voting. Several of these are listed underneath:

1- During the day of voting, Kurdistani list members, only 30 meters away from the station, carried out propaganda activities. This is against the law. These kind of activities happened on both election days (special- and general election).

2- Several individuals entered polling stations with placards and photos of the Kurdistani list and their candidate for the presidency.

3- Some members of the police-force and party members were moving around inside the voting stations, carrying their weapons, but official permissions. This intimidated the voters and spread fear among them.

4- There were some posters for the kurdistani list and their candidate for presidency inside the election stations.

5- The director(s) of the voting stations voted by him or herself to help the illiterate people, but without asking for their opinion as to whom they would want to vote.

6- Some army officials entered with many armed guards into the voting stations after 6pm. However, members of the army voted during the special election day (July 23); there was no reason for the military staff to enter the buildings in such an intimidating way.

7- After 6pm, several voting station guards made threats to voters, telling people to vote for the Kurdistani list.

8- Some of the organisers and station directors were making clear propaganda for the kurdistani list.

9- Double voting was carried out by supporters from the Kurdistani list with full support from the directors of the stations and party officials.

10- Some “Moqtar”, district supervisor/responsible, entered the voting stations without permission or license from the IHEC commission and asked voters to vote for the Kurdistani list.

11- Threats were made against some Commission members, and pressurised to allow people to place votes, who were not on the voters registration list.

12- Several non-official people entered the room during the counting of the votes and stayed their for some time, clearly trying to influence the counting.

13- Names were added to the registration list; the excuse was made that others mistakenly signed for them, and they needed to place their own votes.

This is a post-election report, based on 902 forms that were received from the Network’s monitors. Each form consisted out of 65 questions, and was prepared by the observers before the election events took place. At a later date a detailed reported will be compiled and published containing all specifics from the questionnaires.

July 31, 2009: Independent Network for Observing the Parliament and Presidency Election.