CIVIL presented its preliminary assessment of the second round and the overall conduct of the 2025 local elections. According to the organization’s observers and analytical team, the process unfolded in formal order but with serious systemic and institutional shortcomings that undermine public trust in the electoral system.

Although election day in both rounds passed without significant incidents, behind the punctual opening of polling stations and administrative discipline lay deep-seated weaknesses, politicization, and institutional inertia. The elections were marked by widespread and blatant violations of the election silence, pressure on voters, indications and allegations of vote buying, as well as discrimination and violations of ballot secrecy at multiple polling stations.

The most alarming indicator of institutional failure remains the outdated Voters Register, which still contains the names of deceased persons. Fingerprint devices once again caused technical malfunctions and delays, while accessibility of polling stations for persons with disabilities remains a chronic problem.

CIVIL also highlights the extreme nationalist narratives and ethnic mobilization that shifted the focus from local issues toward identity-based, national, and even geopolitical themes — fueling fear and division instead of vision and accountability.

A Formal Process Without Substantive Integrity

Formally, the 2025 local elections appeared calm and regular, and citizens had the opportunity to express their electoral will. Yet both election days — in the first and second rounds — were accompanied by fundamental deficiencies that question the democratic integrity of the process.

Behind the administrative discipline and timely opening of polling stations were deep structural flaws, politicization, and institutional inertia that continue to erode citizens’ confidence in the electoral system. The state once again demonstrated that it lacks a fully functional, transparent, and trustworthy electoral mechanism capable of ensuring a process that truly meets democratic standards.

The Voters Register: A Chronic Source of Distrust

The most striking example of institutional failure is the outdated and unreliable Voters Register.
At polling station no. 2479 in Gazi Baba, 20 out of 399 registered voters are deceased — representing five percent of the entire list. This is not a mere technical oversight but a grave institutional failure that undermines the credibility of the entire process.

An even more absurd case was recorded in the municipality of Šuto Orizari (polling station 2957/1, “26 July” Elementary School), where a grandfather and grandson with the same surname found themselves in opposite roles — the deceased grandfather still listed as a voter, while the living grandson is missing from the register.

It sounds like a joke, but it is a grotesque reality that exposes a state administration treating electoral integrity as a formality rather than a foundation of democracy.

It remains unclear what exactly was done by the working group tasked with reviewing the Voters Register — established by the State Election Commission in May 2025 to “engage staff in a working group” for data processing (Frontline, May 22, 2025). The public still has no insight into its methodology, procedures, or the funds spent for this purpose. Such lack of transparency only deepens suspicions that negligence, not accountability, governs the foundations of the electoral process.

Technical Failures and a Culture of Incompetence

The fingerprint devices, introduced with promises to increase trust and efficiency, once again proved to be the weakest link in the election mechanism.

Breakdowns, delays, and long queues were reported in multiple municipalities across the country. Instead of trust and efficiency, they created confusion, frustration, and even ridicule.

In the second round, the number of technical malfunctions was lower — not because the system had improved, but because election boards evidently made greater efforts, and voting took place in only one-third of the municipalities. Yet the same problems observed since their introduction in 2021 persist, showing that the institutions have failed to learn from experience.

Numerous polling stations recorded violations of ballot secrecy — from loudly reading voters’ names to improperly placed voting booths and cases where election board members suggested to citizens how to vote.

There were also situations in which board members arbitrarily interpreted procedures and laws, thus obstructing the normal work of accredited observers and journalists.

These incidents are not exceptions; they reflect a broader culture of unprofessionalism and negligence, compounded by institutional impunity.

Nationalism and Ethnic Mobilization

The 2025 local elections were once again captured by nationalist narratives and ethnic mobilization that shifted the focus away from genuine local issues.

Instead of debating public services, urban planning, infrastructure, the environment, or municipal transparency, campaigns turned into battlefields of identity politics, fear, and polarization.

National and ethnic themes — particularly along the Macedonian–Albanian divide — were systematically exploited to incite fear and hatred, but also to foster party loyalty based on ethnic or religious affiliation.

Rather than a contest of programs and visions, citizens were once again subjected to emotional and symbolic manipulation, where historical myths, ethnic symbols, and national complexes were used as political weapons.

In many municipalities — if not all — the main strategy of political actors was to inflame ethnic narratives to consolidate their voter bases, creating artificial tensions and an atmosphere of confrontation.

Political elites and affiliated media deliberately used ethnic rhetoric as a tool of mobilization, often supported by regional propaganda centers promoting ideas of “threatened identity” or “national betrayal.”

What is particularly alarming is that these nationalist narratives are no longer marginal — they have become institutionalized, an embedded part of the political culture and media landscape.

Party elites treat ethnic issues as the easiest way to evade responsibility for real problems: poverty, corruption, dysfunctional institutions, and the disappearance of the public interest.

This phenomenon is not new, but in 2025 it reached a higher level of organization and cynicism.
Instead of building bridges of trust, political actors built walls of fear — turning local elections into referendums on ethnic dominance rather than competitions in democratic governance.

This model of “nationalized” local elections not only destroys the very idea of local democracy but also entrenches citizens’ dependence on party structures that rule through division rather than vision.

It freezes political evolution and extends the logic of ethnic bargaining into every sphere of public life — from employment and procurement to education and culture.

In such an environment, democracy is reduced to ethnic arithmetic, and society becomes hostage to its own fears.

Local elections, which should express citizens’ will for better communities, have instead become symbolic battlegrounds for national agendas disconnected from the realities of everyday life.

Foreign Influence and Information Manipulation

Beyond domestic weaknesses, the 2025 elections were also accompanied by systematic influence operations and manipulative campaigns originating from Russia and Serbia, channeled through local political actors, media outlets, and online networks.

These influences are not new — they are part of a broader architecture of hybrid operations targeting the country’s democratic system for years.

However, in this election cycle, they appeared more synchronized, more sophisticated, and more difficult to detect.

Investigations by CIVIL revealed that several narratives circulated during the campaign originated from pro-Russian and pro-Serbian sources, promoting themes such as “traditional values,” “defense of identity,” and “threats from the West and NATO.”

Integrated into the domestic political discourse, these narratives redirected public attention from local issues toward geopolitical divides — cultivating a sense of existential threat and the need for “national unity.”

Some media outlets, particularly online portals with opaque ownership and financing, distributed materials sourced from Serbian or Russian propaganda centers, often using social media and communication platforms linked to domestic political structures.

These materials were presented as “journalistic analyses” or “public commentaries,” but in essence reproduced foreign disinformation aimed at discrediting Euro-Atlantic values and institutions.

In many cases, identical content was amplified by party networks, fan pages, and individuals close to certain political circles — suggesting coordination rather than coincidence.

Such communication and media structures effectively import the propaganda logic of Belgrade and Moscow into the domestic context, creating an illusion of local legitimacy for messages fundamentally directed against the country’s democratic institutions and strategic orientation.

This phenomenon is particularly dangerous because it unfolds without clear regulation, transparency, or institutional response. CIVIL has long warned that these forms of foreign influence represent a direct assault on electoral integrity and national security.

They are not limited to the media sphere — their purpose is to foster distrust, weaken institutions, and demoralize pro-European and democratic forces.

The fact that no other media or institutional body has seriously addressed this issue reveals the depth of the problem: foreign influence has become normalized and embedded in the daily political and media discourse.

If these patterns of foreign propaganda, domestic politicization, and media manipulation are not systematically addressed, democratic processes will continue to function under conditions of informed deception rather than informed choice.

Massive and Blatant Violation of the Election Silence

The most visible and flagrant breach of election rules was the massive and brazen violation of the election silence.

Instead of a day of reflection and calm, the silence period turned into a day of the loudest propaganda. Political actors, party activists, and media — particularly online outlets with partisan or commercial ties — openly ignored the law and turned the ban into an empty formality.

CIVIL’s monitoring registered hundreds of cases of agitation through social media, disguised media reports, and public appearances by candidates and party officials even on election day itself.

Some online portals published party logos, images of marked ballots, and direct calls to vote — an open violation of the Electoral Code.

Television and online programs aired under the guise of “news coverage” but were clearly extensions of campaign messaging.

Political parties used their official pages and fan groups to spread propaganda content, which was massively shared through organized activist networks.

Institutions, as in previous election cycles, once again failed to act. The few detentions of individual offenders cannot be considered proof of a functioning system — rather, they expose the state’s inability to ensure lawful and equitable conduct of elections.

In essence, the law applies sporadically and selectively — to ordinary citizens, but not to politicians or media power centers.

This practice sets a dangerous precedent of impunity, turning the election silence into yet another tool of manipulation rather than a safeguard of voter free will.

Beyond the legal and ethical dimensions, the mass breach of election silence also has deep informational and security implications.

Social media and online outlets were not merely tools of party agitation — they were also channels for disinformation, manipulative narratives, and coordinated psychological operations with the hallmarks of hybrid influence.

Some of the content circulated during the silence period was identical to messages traced to Serbian and Russian propaganda sources — indicating the existence of a structured media ecosystem linking domestic political centers with external actors.

These findings are confirmed in CIVIL’s analysis “Russian Influence on the 2025 Local Elections: Pro-Russian Parties, Moscow-Linked Financiers, Russian Propaganda in the Media” (CivilMedia.mk, October 22, 2025).

Thus, the election silence was not merely violated — it was systematically exploited to distort public perception, deepen polarization, and erode trust in institutions.

This is a clear warning that the information security of the electoral process is severely compromised — and that democracy cannot be safeguarded through formal prohibitions alone, but through genuine institutional accountability and media transparency.

Pressure and Clientelism

The elections once again unfolded in an atmosphere of pressure, fear, and clientelist relations — where dependence on political centers of power replaces the free will of voters. Although there are numerous reports of such practices, only a small portion can be verified — not because they are rare, but because they are deeply normalized and difficult to prove.

In many municipalities, residents reported frequent visits by party officials, public enterprise directors, and public figures who “encouraged” citizens to demonstrate their loyalty. These pressures were often disguised as “friendly visits,” “consultations,” or “courtesy calls,” but their intent was clear: the fear of losing one’s job, social assistance, or local privileges.

At several polling stations, party activists were observed keeping records of who voted and who did not — a direct violation of electoral integrity. These activities were often accompanied by networks of vote buying, financed through party resources and coordinated by intermediaries on the ground.

CIVIL’s monitoring documented cases of “a job for a vote,” distribution of social aid packages, and pre-election promises of infrastructure projects made immediately before and during the campaign. All of this confirms a long-standing phenomenon of controlled democracy, where party loyalty is valued more than free choice.

In other words, vote buying and voter pressure remain systemic and normalized elements of the country’s political culture — part of a mechanism that transforms the electoral will into an instrument of control rather than an expression of democratic participation.

Inaccessibility and Discrimination

The elections once again confirmed systemic discrimination against elderly persons and persons with disabilities.

In many — if not most — municipalities, polling stations were located on upper floors without elevators, had inaccessible entrances, or lacked functional voting booths. In some cases, the booths designed for persons with disabilities were removed or set aside entirely. As a result, the state effectively denied hundreds of citizens their right to vote. This is not a technical omission — it is an act of discrimination.

According to the report of the Commission for Prevention and Protection from Discrimination (CPPD), prepared before the elections, there remain a series of unresolved recommendations regarding accessibility to polling stations for persons with disabilities — repeatedly postponed by responsible institutions (CivilMedia.mk).

Additionally, CIVIL’s own archive data indicate that in previous election cycles, more than half of polling stations were set up in ways that made them physically inaccessible to voters with disabilities (CivilMedia.mk).

During the 2025 elections, CIVIL observers once again reported polling stations lacking ramps, with improperly placed booths or stair-only access, making voting physically impossible for those with mobility impairments. In several cases, presidents of election boards even stated they were “not aware” of whether their polling stations met accessibility standards.

This situation is not merely a technical issue, but clear evidence of a discriminatory practice — one that undermines the democratic right of every citizen to vote on an equal basis.

Obstruction of Observers and Media

Although most election boards performed their duties conscientiously, CIVIL noted several cases of obstruction of the work of observers and journalists — a serious blow to the transparency of the electoral process.

At some polling stations, CIVIL observers were unjustifiably challenged, questioned, photographed, and in some cases even removed from the premises, despite holding valid accreditation issued by the State Election Commission (SEC).

At several locations, members of election boards wrote down observers’ ID numbers, photographed their credentials, and even claimed that “they were not authorized to observe” — a clear violation of election transparency principles.

CIVIL also strongly condemned cases of harassment and obstruction of media crews reporting from the field, including journalists who were verbally attacked by party activists. Such incidents create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship, directly violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the media and the public’s right to information.

The obstruction of observers and media is not an isolated lapse — it reflects a broader culture of non-transparency, politicization, and fear of oversight.

When institutions fail to react to such violations, they send a clear message: that accountability and scrutiny are seen as threats, not as democratic obligations.

Conclusion

Overall, the 2025 local elections confirmed a chronic deficit in political culture, institutional preparedness, and adherence to fundamental democratic standards.

Although the process formally followed legal procedures, its substantive integrity remained compromised — from the voters register and technical flaws, to violations of election silence and pressure on voters.

The state once again demonstrated that it lacks a fully functional, transparent, and trustworthy electoral mechanism capable of ensuring elections that genuinely meet democratic standards.

Both rounds passed without major incidents — but also without genuine integrity.

Voting took place, ballots were counted, and results were announced — yet beneath the surface of peaceful and “democratic” elections lie manipulation, fear, pressure, and apathy. This reflects a dangerous transformation of democracy into a ritual devoid of substance.

A serious institutional reform and professionalization of the electoral system are urgently needed — not mere declarations of commitment to democracy.

Prepared by the CIVIL Analytical and Hybrid Threats Monitoring Teams, in cooperation with partners within the Defending Democracy Global Initiative. Editorial coordination: Xhabir Deralla.

Date/Location: November 3, 2025 – Skopje

Project Note: Produced within the framework of “Democracy Navigator – A Strategic Response to Disinformation and Hybrid Threats (2025)”, led by CIVIL – Center for Freedom and supported by the Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Editorial Independence and Responsibility:
The analyses, findings, and conclusions presented in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the project partners or supporters. CIVIL maintains full editorial independence. All possible errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (Methodological Note): Research, drafting, and translation support were carried out with the assistance of ChatGPT (OpenAI), under the guidance of the authors. All AI-assisted outputs were reviewed, verified, and edited by humans. Full responsibility for the content lies with the authors.

Corrections and contact: Please send corrections or comments to CIVIL’s editorial team.

License: CC BY 4.0 — attribution required.