BILJANA JORDANOVSKA

The electoral process in North Macedonia has again found itself in the focus of the public due to the controversies surrounding the amendments to the Electoral Code. Though there were initiatives to ease the conditions for participation of independent candidates in the local elections, the Parliament failed to make a final decision.

Political mathematics and missed opportunities

The amendment proposed by the Levica party, which would require independent candidates to collect signatures from only 0.5% of registered voters in a municipality, instead of 1%, was adopted, but not enough to satisfy the independents. However, the Parliament did not vote on the changes, leaving the fate of independent lists in a legal and political uncertainty.

SDSM and VMRO-DPMNE, although expressing regret for the “missed opportunity”, were perceived by the public as political entities that are calculating with the current situation more than they are truly intending to create conditions for fair and inclusive elections. Which is not the first time, and not exclusively for the independent candidates.

And here is also the Badinter majority that was not there and for which the European Front was blamed (read DUI, which at the end didn’t vote), showing how broad the political support of 2/3 of the MPs is.

Independents in anger, institutions in contradiction

Citizens supporting the independent lists reacted strongly – they consider that they have been put in an unequal position, which directly limits their constituently guaranteed right to participate in elections. While the legislative government failed to reach a consensus, the SEC came out with a decision that independent candidates may participate in the elections with only two collected signatures.

This further opened the dilemma: Are the institutions acting in accordance to the law, or are they adapting to current political pressures?

SEC President Boris Kondarko voted in favor of the Rulebook on regulating the procedure for collecting signatures for submitting candidate lists submitted by a group of voters, believing that as it is, it will help in the smooth running of the electoral process, but that he doesn’t agree with it.

“I think that it should be without collecting signatures, but the Rulebook proposes at least two signatures from two voters, which essentially doesn’t change anything, which is why I will vote for this Rulebook”, said Kondarko.

Democracy put to the test

This plot calls into question the stability and predictability of the electoral system. Instead of clear rules and equal conditions for everyone, we are seeing a situation where independent candidates are moving between rigid demands, ad hoc decisions, and political calculations.

This case once again opened the topic: Is Macedonian democracy ready to provide real space for civic initiatives and independent candidates, or will it remain completely controlled by the big parties? Though we already know the answer to this question.

What about the other proposed amendments?

It isn’t the first time that proposed amendments to the Electoral Code have been passed through a shortened procedure after elections have been announced. The fact that they didn’t pass in the Parliament can be interpreted in several ways, mostly in the context of the independent candidates, because what it contains as a proposal doesn’t change anything in the context of the existing Electoral Code and the electoral process itself.

And they were put to a parliamentary procedure under the pretense that “The changes have the goal to provide a clearer, more transparent and inclusive electoral framework, which will increase legal predictability and fulfill the recommendations of domestic and international observers (ODIHR).”

If we put aside the technical alignment of the ministries due to their merger or separation with the change of government following the 2024 parliamentary elections (the “Ministry of Labor and Social Policy” is replaced with the “Ministry of Social Policy, Demography, and Youth” alignment with current organizational structures), one more provision remains with the proposed, but not adopted, amendments – the definition of internet portals.

In the Code’s glossary (Article 2), a new item 26-a is added: “Electronic media (internet portals)”—defined as online media registered in The Register of Online Media Publishers, which aligns the legislation with the Law on Media – which has no direct connection to the glossary itself, nor do they belong in Article 2, item 26, which states: “Paid political advertising” is election campaign participants’ direct access to voters, through which the election programmes, viewpoints and candidates are promoted for a fee. Types of paid political advertising are advertisements, announcements, political elections videos, music videos used as anthems of election campaign participants, broadcasts or recordings of rallies, meetings and other appearances of election campaign participants”.

CIVIL’s position

The active and passive right to vote is the foundation of democracy. Any restriction or administrative barrier that prevents independent candidates and civic initiatives from participating in elections is a direct blow to democracy and pluralism.

CIVIL reminds that independent candidates are a crucial part of the electoral process, as they should, as a rule, provide space for civic representation outside of the party framework.

CIVIL expresses serious concern about the way in which independent candidates are treated before the local elections and the way in which decisions are not respected, primarily the Constitutional Court, which cancelled the disputed articles amending Articles 61 and 62, and the delay in adopting proposed amendments that would support the Constitutional Court’s decision, the delay in putting the Draft Law to a vote, and the lack of political will and support from the MPs to adopt them, the legal vacuum that the SEC has brought itself into by lowering the threshold to two signatures.

This could lead to further legal analyses and possible future changes if the Parliament adopts new legal provisions.

The competent institutions must ensure equal conditions for all participants in the elections. Democracy must not be held hostage to political calculations and institutional blockage.

Translation by: N. Cvetkovska