BAKU, 2 September 2024 – Azerbaijan’s early parliamentary elections did not offer voters genuine political alternatives and took place within a legal framework overly restrictive of fundamental freedoms and the media, although they were efficiently prepared, international observers said in a statement today.
Election legislation has remained substantially unchanged since the last parliamentary elections, leaving long-standing recommendations unaddressed, the joint observation mission from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) found. The candidate registration process was marred by overly burdensome requirements, inconsistently applied procedures, and cases of candidates withdrawing citing intimidation, while new requirements for political parties introduced further restrictions on their registration.
"These elections took place in a restrictive political and legal environment, the consequence of which was a lack of political pluralism coupled with the subdued and low-key campaign, all of which undermined the electoral process," said Michael Creed, Special Co-ordinator and leader of the OSCE short-term observers. "Furthermore, the dominance of ruling party affiliates within election commissions, alongside restrictions on access for independent domestic observers, run contrary to the principles of transparency and inclusivity, which are at the heart of democratic elections."
6.4 million voters were registered to take part in yesterday’s elections. This is approximately 1.2 million fewer than the number of citizens of voting age, raising questions about the accuracy of data and inclusiveness of the voter register. While preparations for the elections were carried out efficiently and there was an extensive voter information campaign, the election administration was effectively controlled by the majority party, impacting its impartiality and the integrity of the process. Observers assessed the opening and voting processes to be orderly and efficiently organized. However, there were serious irregularities and inconsistencies in the application of important procedures and safeguards, particularly during vote counting, that raised concerns about the integrity of the process overall.
The election campaign was barely visible, including online. Observers were informed of public sector employees and others who were forced to attend campaign events, causing concerns about intimidation of voters and their ability to cast their vote without fearing retribution. At the same time the increase in arrests and detentions of journalists and civil society activists, combined with the restrictive media legal framework, resulted in widespread self-censorship and severely limited the scope for independent journalism. Political debate became further subdued by the authorities’ declared intention to monitor the internet and social networks.
I“In these elections, the lack of genuine choice and engagement that led to pervasive political apathy among the population was quite evident,” said Lucie Potůčková, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. “Equally, the alarming trends of ongoing restrictions on media outlets and increased pressure on non-governmental organizations, including arbitrary arrests, decisively stifle political discourse. Without substantial reforms and change, these issues will continue to undermine democracy and rule of law in the country.”
While the law allows for citizen and international election observers, the vast majority of citizen observers were nominated by the ruling party and affiliated candidates, raising concerns about the access of independent observers to the election process. At the same time, restrictive legal provisions meant that well-known citizen election observer groups remained unregistered and deprived of funding, while some prominent members are under arrest or detention.
“There was regrettably no genuine political pluralism in these elections, with numerous candidates who wished to participate facing serious obstacles, election commissions that lacked impartiality, and restrictions that made the work of many citizen observers impossible,” said Ditmir Bushati, Head of ODIHR’s election observation mission. “Despite the efficiency of the process, these conditions did not allow elections to be held in line with democratic standards. We stand ready to support the authorities in implementing our long-standing recommendations to improve the overall process, for the good of all citizens."
Women made up 30 per cent of all registered candidates, a significant increase from 21 per cent in the previous elections. They were also well represented in the lower-level election administration, although this was not the case for the Central Election Commission. Overall though, women remain underrepresented in elected and appointed positions, and there are no affirmative measures to increase their political involvement.
The international election observation mission to the early parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan totalled 279 observers from 34 countries, composed of 225 ODIHR-deployed experts and long-term and short-term observers, and 54 from the OSCE PA.
For more information, please contact:
Katya Andrusz, ODIHR: +48 609 522 266 or katya.andrusz@odihr.pl
Anzhelika Ivanishcheva, OSCE PA: + 45 60 10 80 30 or anzhelika.ivanishcheva@oscepa.dk
L’Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques en France a publié fin août dernier la nouvelle version de son rapport annuel sur l’immigration. […]
L’article Motifs d’arrivée, emplois… Que disent les chiffres de l’Insee sur l’immigration en France ? est apparu en premier sur .
Credit: Dave Lintott / AFP via Getty Images
By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Sep 2 2024 (IPS)
A New Zealand bill that would roll back Indigenous rights is unlikely to pass – but it’s emblematic of a growing climate of hostility from governing politicians. A recent survey shows that almost half of New Zealanders believe racial tensions have worsened under the right-wing government in power since December 2023.
The Treaty Principles Bill reinterprets the principles of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. New Zealand’s founding text, this agreement between the British government and Indigenous Māori chiefs established British governorship over the islands in return for recognition of Māori ownership of land and other property.
The treaty was controversial from the start: its English and Māori versions differ in crucial clauses on sovereignty. Māori people lost much of their land, suffering the same marginalisation as Indigenous people in other places settled by Europeans. As a result, Māori people live with higher levels of poverty, unemployment and crime, and lower education and health standards, than the rest of the population.
From the 1950s, Māori people began to organise and demand their treaty rights. This led to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which defined a set of principles derived from the treaty and established the Waitangi Tribunal to determine breaches of the principles and recommend remedies.
In recent years, right-wing politicians have criticised the tribunal, claiming it’s overstepping its mandate – most recently because it held a hearing that concluded the bill breaches treaty principles.
Change in direction
The bill resulted from a coalition agreement forged after the 2023 election. The centre-right National party came first and went into government with two parties to its right: the free-market and libertarian Act party and the nationalist and populist NZ First party. Act demanded the bill as a condition of joining the coalition.
The election was unusually toxic by New Zealand standards. Candidates were subjected to racial abuse and physical violence. A group of Māori leaders complained about unusually high levels of racism. Both Act and NZ First targeted Māori rights, promising to reverse Labour’s progressive policies, including experiments in ‘co-governance’: collaborative decision-making between government and Māori representatives. Act and NZ First characterised such arrangements as conferring racial privilege on Māori people, at odds with universal human rights.
NZ First leader Winston Peters – who’s long opposed what he characterises as special treatment for Māori people despite being Māori himself – pledged to remove Māori-language names from government buildings and withdraw New Zealand’s support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He’s compared co-governance to apartheid and Nazi racial theory. He’s now New Zealand’s deputy prime minister.
New Zealand, though far from Europe and North America, has shown it isn’t immune from the same right-wing populist politics that seek to blame a visible minority for all a country’s problems. In the northern hemisphere the main targets are migrants and religious minorities; in New Zealand, it’s Indigenous people.
Bonfire of policies
If the bill did succeed, it would preclude any interpretation of the treaty as a partnership between the state and Māori people. It would impose a rigid understanding that all New Zealanders have the same rights and responsibilities, inhibiting measures to expand Māori rights. And without special attention, the economic, social and political exclusion of Māori people will only worsen.
The problems go beyond the bill. In February, the government abolished the Māori Health Authority, established in 2022 to tackle health inequalities. In July, a government directive ordered Pharmac, the agency that funds medicines, to stop taking treaty principles into account when making funding decisions. This is part of a broader attack on treaty principles, which the government has pledged to remove from most legislation.
Government departments have been ordered to prioritise their English-language names and communicate primarily in English, unless they’re specifically focused on Māori people. The government has pledged to review the school curriculum – revised last year to place more emphasis on Māori people – and university affirmative action programmes. It’s ceased work on He Puapua, its strategy to implement the UN Declaration.
The government has cut funding for most of its initiatives for Māori people. In all, over a dozen changes are planned, including in environmental management, health and housing.
What’s bad for Māori people is also bad for the climate. The intimate role the environment plays in Māori culture often puts them on the frontline of combating climate change. This year a Māori activist won a ruling allowing him to take seven companies to court over their greenhouse gas emissions, based in part on their impact on places of customary, cultural and spiritual significance to Māori people..
But the new government has cut funding for many projects aimed at meeting New Zealand’s Paris Agreement commitments. It plans to double mineral exports and introduce a law to fast-track large development projects, without having to navigate environmental safeguards. The draft law contains no provisions about treaty principles. Māori people will be disproportionately affected by any weakening of environmental standards.
Out in numbers
This is all shaping up to be a huge setback for Māori rights that can only fuel and normalise racism – but campaigners aren’t taking it quietly. The threat to rights has galvanised and united Māori campaigners.
Civil society groups are taking to the courts to try to halt the changes. And people are protesting in numbers. In December, when parliament met for the first time since the election, thousands gathered outside to condemn anti-Māori policies. At the swearing-in ceremony, Te Pāti Māori politicians broke with convention by dedicating their oaths to the Treaty of Waitangi and future generations.
That same month, 12 people were arrested following a protest in which they defaced an exhibition on the treaty at the national museum. Protesters accused the exhibition of lying about the treaty’s English version.
On 6 February, Waitangi Day, over a thousand people marched to the site where the treaty was agreed, calling for the bill to be rejected. At the official ceremony, people heckled Peters and Act leader Peter Seymour when they spoke.
Most recently, Māori people had a chance to show their discontent at a ceremony held in August to commemorate the coronation of the Māori King. Although normally all major party leaders attend, Seymour wasn’t invited, and a Māori leader told Prime Minister Christopher Luxon that the government had ‘turned its back on Māori’. The Māori King also called a rare national meeting in January, and the turnout – 10,000 people – further showed the extent of concern.
Wasted potential
At the same time, the Māori population is growing quickly – it recently passed the million mark – and is youthful. Compared to previous generations, people are more likely to embrace their Māori identity, culture and language. Māori people are showing their resilience, and activism has never been stronger. But this growing momentum has hit a political roadblock that threatens to throttle its potential – all for the sake of short-term political gain.
New Zealand’s positive international reputation is on the line – but it doesn’t have to be this way. The government should start acting like a responsible partner under the Treaty of Waitangi. It must abide by the treaty principles, as developed and elaborated over time, and stop scapegoating Māori people.
Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau