sign in sign up
<<
Home , Counties of Croatia, Croatian Spring

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Mission to H e a d q u a r t e r s 3 February 2005

Background Report

Victory for President Mesic; Renewed Debate on Electoral Reform

President Mesic was re-elected in the second round of the presidential election. The incumbent President came first in all of Croatia, except two (Licka- and Sibenik-). Jadranka Kosor, her government-backed opponent representing the moderate and pro-European right-wing, nevertheless achieved a respectable result. According to domestic observers, the electoral process was free and fair, although a number of outstanding problems, such as out-of-country voting, were highlighted by various Croatian commentators and actors. Prime Minister Sanader declared in Parliament, on 19 January, that he would support some changes to the electoral legislation. The Mission intends to submit proposals based on previous ODIHR recommendations and on the results of a roundtable organized in November 2004 in .

I. Results of the second round On Sunday 16 January, President Stjepan Mesic won a second five-year term term with 65.98 percent of the votes, while the candidate of the centre-right Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), Jadranka Kosor, obtained 34.02 percent. The official turnout of 51.10 percent of voters was similar to that of the first round (50.59 percent). In the first round, President Stjepan Mesic, who was supported by the centre and left-wing parties, received 48.92 percent of the votes and thus failed by a small margin to win. Jadranka Kosor came second with 20.30 percent and was followed by the independent candidate Boris Miksic who received 17.79 percent. Observers noted that Mesic’s final result was the highest percentage of votes won by a presidential candidate since Croatia gained its independence (Franjo Tudjman won the elections in 1992 and 1997, and Mesic in 2000). With this landslide victory, Mesic, aged 70, will further extend his long political career. Already active in the “Croatian Spring” of the early 70s under the Yugoslav era, Prime Minister of Croatia within the Yugoslav , later chairman of the presidency of in its final months, then speaker of the from 1992 to 1994, he will represent Croatia while the country takes the final steps toward full integration into the (EU). The election results show that Mesic retains a popularity reaching beyond the center and left-wing. Jadranka Kosor, 51, represented the renovated and modern stream within the HDZ. Although Kosor did not make an significant inroad in the centre of the political landscape her result

Florijana Andrašeca 14 Telephone: Fax: E-Mail: File Name: 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia + 385 1 309 6620 +385 1 309 6621 [email protected] BR 1/2005 was widely seen as respectable. In her first address to the public after the official results were known, she thanked Prime Minister and HDZ President Ivo Sanader for “having the courage to nominate a woman as presidential candidate”. Out-of-country voting took place in 50 countries at 155 polling stations. In alone, there were 42 polling stations in operation. The results confirm the strong right-wing inclination of the approximately 99,000 diaspora voters: Jadranka Kosor won an overwhelming 82 percent, Mesic receiving only 17 percent. Conversely, several counties of the Dalmatian coast of Croatia, a war-affected region, traditionally considered as HDZ strongholds, placed Mesic in the first position. Both the counties of and -Neretva gave 58 percent to Mesic, 41 percent to Kosor. In Split- and Sibenik-Knin counties, Mesic and Kosor ran almost equal (respectively 51 / 49 percent in Split-Dalmatia, 49 / 50 percent in Sibenik-Knin) but Kosor surpassed Mesic in Licka-Senj (52 / 47 percent, respectively). In the war-affected Eastern part of , Mesic won in -Srijem county with 62 percent (38 percent to Kosor) and in -Baranja with 69 percent (30 percent to Kosor).

II. Campaign themes First round The first round was marked by a very short official campaign, between 16 December and 2 January, coinciding with the Christmas and New Year period, and a high number of candidates (thirteen) trying to spread their political messages. Mesic’s candidacy rallied eight center and left-wing parties, the main being the Social Democratic Union (SDP), the Croatian People’s Party (HNS) and the (HSS). The right wing was more fragmented: the government-backed HDZ candidate, Jadranka Kosor, was in competition with another centrist candidate, Djurdja Adlesic from the Social Liberal Party (HSLS), which is part of the governing coalition, and several far-right candidates, namely Slaven Letica supported by the (HSP), Ivic Pasalic from the Croatian Bloc (HB) and Ljubo Cesic Rojs, who presented himself as a war veteran. There were several other independent candidates, including Boris Miksic, a less known Croatian-American businessman. The candidates largely relied on emotional rather than issue-oriented campaign themes. Kosor chose the low-profile slogan “people before politics” in order to insist on the dignity of citizens, particularly families and war veterans, and on women’s rights. Mesic argued that during his term in office he had helped overcome Croatia’s international isolation, promoted stability and facilitated the establishment of the rule of law. For his second term, he wanted Croatia to become “a country of prosperity” where citizens would “live from their work and knowledge”. The independent Boris Miksic took strong nationalist positions, saying that if elected, the ICTY indictee General Gotovina would be allowed to walk freely in Croatia. But, unlike other far-right candidates, he gave a modern twist to his campaign through an aggressive billboard campaign and detailed promises of economic development in depressed areas. Almost a decade after the end of the 1991-1995 war, the invisible fault lines dividing the society on the conduct of the war were still perceptible. Kosor blamed Mesic for not attending the commemoration of late President Tudjman’s death. She said in Dubrovnik that she “will never forget who the aggressor against Croatia was”. By contrast, prior to the

1 campaign, Mesic made a controversial statement that was seen as exonerating Montenegro for its part in the war against Croatia. Together with Prime Minister Sanader, Kosor also visited Bosnia-Herzegovina on 20 December and stated that “Croatia must care for who live outside Croatia, especially for Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina”. Throughout the campaign, Mesic questioned the role in Croatian politics of ethnic Croats in Bosnia- Herzegovina, who massively supported HDZ in this and other elections. Cooperation with ICTY, in particular regarding the Gotovina case, was commented on by all candidates, in particular after the 17 December decision on the conditional start of Croatia’s EU entry talks. Both Mesic and Kosor seized the opportunity to reaffirm their strong commitment to Croatia joining the EU. Mesic added that “there is no single reason why we (Croatia) would protect Gotovina since we extradite all other indictees”. By contrast, far-right candidates expressed their support for Gotovina.

Second round Minority representatives, who were requested by Prime Minister Sanader to support Kosor in the name of the governmental coalition agreement, declined to do so. The far-right Croatian Party of Rights (HSP) called on its supporters to vote according to their political orientation. Mesic announced an “affirmative campaign”, advocated a national strategy to prepare Croatia’s economy for EU accession, and said he would focus his second term on reviving the economy. He said that he would not run his campaign in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that Croatia should assist Bosnian Croats in achieving equal status with the two other constituent ethnic groups, but stressed that they should “seek their happiness” in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Kosor said that she would strongly fight for national interests, insisted again on traditional moral values, and asked for a referendum on a for abortion. In three TV duels, the two candidates insisted on the same ultimate goal, joining the EU, with what observers deemed to be only minor differences in approaches (Kosor believed for example that Croatia’s judiciary was able to process war crimes, while Mesic said that national courts were only partially ready). They both said that they would build friendly relations with neighboring countries, but not to the detriment of Croatia’s interests. Co-operation with the ICTY was particularly highlighted by comments made by the candidates in the first televised debate, when asked by a moderator what they would do if they saw fugitive General Gotovina in a café. Kosor replied that she had not seen him for a long time, and would probably not recognize him. Mesic said that every citizen is obliged to cooperate with The Hague Tribunal and he added: “I would invite the General to sit down [at my table] and remind him of his claim that he respects institutions”. This exchange became the subject of an extensive media discussion. Both candidates criticized each other for the lack of transparency on their campaign funding, and went as far as casting mutual accusations of money laundering. Observers noted that throughout the campaign, the debate between the two main candidates had been tough and sometimes personal. The final results confirm that nationalist themes do not guarantee by themselves electoral success and that Croatia’s political scene is gradually moving toward European patterns. III. Conduct of the elections

2 The organization of the election was under the responsibility of the State Election Commission (SEC) while GONG, the leading election support NGO in Croatia, cooperated closely with SEC. GONG sent up to 1000 observers through the country during the first and second rounds. Its monitoring activities were supported financially by the Mission. For the first time in a Croatian national election after independence, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) did not dispatch a monitoring mission. According to GONG’s report, the second election round was, like the first, conducted in a “tolerant and democratic” atmosphere and in accordance with electoral regulations, despite a varying degree of professionalism of the polling committees. GONG expressed renewed satisfaction with its cooperation with SEC. However, after the final result, GONG and the media highlighted a number of persistent problems, such as the lack of a permanent electoral commission to supervise the electoral process; the poor update of voters’ lists which comprise nearly as many registered voters as the total population of Croatia (4,0 million registered voters in Croatia out of a population of 4,4 million) and the loose control of out-of-country voting, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The alleged irregularities in the region of Herzegovina (Bosnia-Herzegovina), which had been invoked by the independent candidate Miksic as an explanation for his defeat, were extensively covered by the media after the first round. GONG stepped up its monitoring efforts for the second round, and in order to obtain a first-hand insight on the situation, but without conducting a formal monitoring, the Mission deployed 8 teams of SEC-accredited observers in Serbia () and Herzegovina (Bosnia-Herzegovina). According to Mission staff, voting in the visited polling stations in Serbia and Montenegro was conducted in an orderly and professional manner. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the members deemed that the electoral process was relatively satisfactory, although a number of outstanding issues continue to hinder the quality and trustworthiness of the voting. The main issues of concern noted by the Mission were the insufficient professionalism of some polling committees and party observers, the poor maintenance and update of voters’ lists, the lack of adequate and preventive control of double voting (“cross-border voting”).

After his victory, President Mesic reaffirmed that Bosnian Croats should not be seen as a Croatian diaspora, but as one of the three constituent peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and he added: “Someone who wants to be the must not collect his votes in another country”.

In the course of the campaign, various Croatian actors repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with other issues such as the selection of candidates, the transparency of campaign funding and fair access to public media. These themes, which are still covered by the media, highlight the need to further pursue electoral reform. Several high-ranking officials made statements in favour of modifications of the electoral legislation, in particular concerning out-of-country voting. Prime Minister Sanader stated in Parliament on 19 January that after the next local elections (in May), the Government was willing to initiate the establishment of a permanent State Election Commission (SEC) for all elections.

The Mission intends to submit reform proposals based on the conclusions from the November roundtable held in Zagreb and ODIHR recommendations from previous elections.

3