1. Electronic voting without sufficient
certification procedures
Where votes are cast by computer, the EOH calls for “the
establishment of inclusive and transparent certification procedures”
and “Facilities that produce a permanent paper record with a manual
audit capacity, and serious considerations to ensure a voter-verified
auditable paper trail.”
In Belgium the voters do not receive a paper printout to
deposit in a separate voting box after casting a vote on the computer.
Hence they cannot verify how they have voted. The automatic voting and
supervision of the voting is carried out by a small group of experts.
Neither the chairman of the voting office, his assistants, the
witnesses nor the voters can effectively supervise the voting
procedures. They have to rely on the correctness of the information
technology and the supervision of the latter by a few technicians.
Prior to the elections, the source code is only given to
experts appointed by Parliament and a number of information technology
specialists appointed by the political parties (and their work is
hampered by secrecy rules). Moreover, the party information experts
only receive the source code of the software, but not the software
which implements the lists.
The collected digital data may not be processed locally, not
even on the level of the constituency. The data have to be sent via
unsupervisable electronic transmitters to the central agencies of the
executive power, situated in Brussels. This is where all the data are
processed. The constituencies then learn their results from these
centralised agencies. This is a violation of the principle of the
division of powers.
2. Discrimination in campaign financing
The EOH states that “Regulations on campaign financing should not favour or discriminate against any party or candidate. [...] Where the government may provide funds for campaigning, this should be done on a fair and equitable basis.”
The EOH states that “Regulations on campaign financing should not favour or discriminate against any party or candidate. [...] Where the government may provide funds for campaigning, this should be done on a fair and equitable basis.”
In 1989, Belgium severely restricted the possibilities of
private donations to political parties. The general idea was that
political parties should not be dependent on gifts from private
enterprises or suffer undue influences from economic interest groups.
Individuals and enterprises are now restricted to donations to parties
of 500 euro per year. To compensate for the loss of what was then still
the major source of income for political parties, the parties get an
annual subsidy from the state. The amount of the subsidy is dependent
on the number of voters the party obtained in the last federal
election. Some criticized this system at its adoption, arguing that it
is hardly an improvement to have political parties dependent on the
state, rather than on private enterprise.
These critics have been proven right. Confronted with the
electoral rise of a party with a definite “anti-state” platform (Vlaams
Belang advocates the independence of Flanders), the state has started a
court procedure to stop the subsidies for this party. According to
Belgian law a party that shows itself “hostile to the European
Convention on Human Rights” is not entitled to party financing. In
2006, all the French-speaking parties, supported by the Flemish
Socialists (though not by Flemish Liberals and Flemish
Christian-Democrats) lodged a complaint against the Vlaams Belang,
arguing that some aspects of the Vlaams Belang platform are opposed to
the European Convention on Human Rights and that such a party is
undeserving of state subsidies.
The case is now pending. It has been suspended for the
election period, but will resume shortly after the elections.
The plaintiffs do not have to substantiate their charges
(nor would they be able to: nothing in the Vlaams Belang program goes
against human rights), as the court that will have to decide on the
question, the Council of State, consists completely of political
appointees. Members of the Court are chosen by the Senate. A majority
of them are political appointees of the parties that have lodged the
complaint.
The ruling by the Council of State is final. The option of
appeal to the Supreme Court was conveniently taken out of the law,
shortly before the complaint was lodged. The political parties that are
acting as plaintiffs in this case, would also rather not have the
European Court of Human Rights review the outcome of the trial: they
are already arguing that this case is about “political rights,” whilst
the ECHR would only be competent on questions of “civil rights.”
The loss of state subsidies does not return the right to
seek private financing. This means that the Vlaams Belang would lose
its major source of income by far, without the means of compensating
for this loss. The result would be a party that is, in the best case,
no longer able to campaign on the level of other parties, or, in the
worst case, forced to disband as financial losses accumulate.
3. Candidates and political parties do not have
access to the media on a non-discriminatory basis
The EOH states that “Candidates and political parties
should have unimpeded access to the media on a non-discriminatory
basis. [...] OSCE commitments, as agreed by all OSCE participating
States, call for unimpeded access to the media on a non-discriminatory
basis for all political groupings and individuals wishing to
participate in the electoral process. The media, taken as a whole, have
a responsibility to provide sufficient and balanced information to
enable voters to make a well-informed choice. [...] Possible problems
to be aware of: Defamation of candidates or distortion of candidate
messages by the media. [...]”
The Vlaams Belang’s access to the media is limited. This is
apparent in the state media (see below), but the situation is not much
better in the private media. There are few exact numbers on this
situation, but it is clear to even the most casual observer that the
Vlaams Belang gets a lot less coverage than other parties of similar or
even much smaller electoral support. Where coverage does exist, it is
often hostile and intended to discourage support for the party. The
hostility of all newspapers against the Vlaams Belang is clearly
demonstrated by their collective refusal to accept political
advertising by this party during this election.
4. The state media are clearly biased against
one party
The EOH states that “State-owned media, or public media,
have a special responsibility to provide balanced and neutral
information on the election and the contestants.”
Although the VRT (Flemish public television and radio) is
bound by law to provide objective and neutral news coverage, it
systematically discriminates against the Vlaams Belang.
This discriminatory attitude was actually confirmed in an
official memo by the VRT (“The VRT and the Democratic Society”). In
this memo, the management of the VRT stated “that it is advised
that representatives of the Vlaams Blok are excluded from certain
political debates and political coverage – including coverage of
activities in parliament.”
Political parties used to have the right to regular
party-political broadcasts on VRT television and radio. When it became
apparent that the broadcasts by the Vlaams Belang were getting the
highest ratings for this type of broadcast, the party-political
broadcasts were abolished.
The VB group in the Flemish parliament carried out research
into the coverage of political parties in news programs of the VRT. The
results were remarkable, though hardly surprising. Christian-Democrats,
Liberals and Socialists got 30%, 29% and 29% respectively. Vlaams
Belang, though the biggest political group in the Flemish parliament,
got only 7% of coverage.
The VRT has the habit of inviting political guests, not just
in news programs, but also in entertainment programs. Representatives
from all parties are regular guests in these programs. In its entire 30
year history, the Vlaams belang has NEVER been invited to such show.
5. Paid political advertising in daily
newspapers is available to all parties, except one
The EOH states that “If paid political advertising is
permitted in the public or private media, then the costs and conditions
should be reasonable and should be equally applied to all candidates.”
In the current Belgian election campaign, ALL daily
newspapers have refused to accept paid political advertising by the
Vlaams Belang. In Belgium, this is a very serious handicap in
campaigning. The law on party financing has put stringent limits on the
methods of campaiging. Parties cannot advertise on radio or television.
They cannot rent commercial billboards and cannot use any other type of
outdoor advertising. They cannot distribute any “gadgets” or any
objects that can be used for any other purpose than the distribution of
a political message (e.g. no pens, balloons, etc.). This leaves paid
political advertising in newspapers as one of the few means for a party
to get its message to the voting public. The Vlaams Belang is left with
private billboarding and door-to-door flyers as its only methods of
campaigning.
Typically in this context, there was also an attempt to
exclude the Vlaams Blok from door-to-door flyer distribution and to
limit the access of the Vlaams Belang to the Belgian postal services. A
government decision has given a state agency (the Centre for Equal
Rights and the Fight against Racism) the right to censure door-to-door
distribution of political pamphlets. Only an appeal to the courts saved
the Vlaams Belang from this type of censorship, but only during the
election campaign. It is still applies outside the election campaign
term.
6. One political party cannot hold meetings in
the capital
According to the EOH “Fundamental freedoms such as the
rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association must be
respected at all times. There should be no arbitrary or unreasonable
restrictions on campaign activities, meetings, or rallies. If permits
are required for public rallies or demonstrations, these should be
freely and equally available to all contestants. The government is
responsible for ensuring respect for these rights.”
In the current campaign, the Vlaams Belang has not been able
to stage any meetings at all in Brussels, the capital of the country.
Private owners of convention and meeting facilities have been put under
considerable pressure not to rent out to the Vlaams Belang. This
pressure was applied not only by militant action groups, but also by
officials, like the mayors of Brussels. The Vlaams Belang finally
managed to get a contract for the use of a meeting hall with RSC
Anderlecht (the football team of Brussels). The mayor of Anderlecht
intervened and the contract was consequently annulled. A protest march
by the Vlaams Belang against this type of undemocratic practices was
banned by the same mayor.
7. Intimidation of candidates
The EOH states that “It is particularly important that
campaigning should be free from violence or intimidation. There should
be no disruptions of campaign meetings. Citizens should not fear
retribution, such as loss of employment, for their campaign activities.”
From the guidelines for LTO’s of the OSCE: “A related issue critical to a democratic election is freedom from intimidation. LTOs should be alert to, and report any indications of, undue pressure on candidates, parties, or voters.”
From the guidelines for LTO’s of the OSCE: “A related issue critical to a democratic election is freedom from intimidation. LTOs should be alert to, and report any indications of, undue pressure on candidates, parties, or voters.”
In Belgium candidates of the Vlaams Belang are
systematically expelled from the three official trade unions
(Socialist, Christian-Democrat and Liberal). These three unions have
strong ties with the corresponding political parties. Since the 2006
municipal elections, already 500 candidates of the Vlaams Belang have
been expelled from the trade unions and the process continues.
This expulsion is not without consequences for the people
involved. In Belgium, the three official trade unions (the so-called
“representative” unions) are not simply private associations. They have
considerable rights and privileges, granted them by the state:
- The three official trade unions act as distributors of
unemployment benefits (Belgium is the only country in Europe where such
benefits are distributed by the trade unions, instead of by accountable
government agencies)
- The three official trade unions have a monopoly on “social
elections” (the election of representatives of the employees, which
have protection, rights and several competences acknowledged by law).
Non-members cannot stand in these elections.
- The three official trade unions have a monopoly on
“collective labour agreements” (CAO) with the employers. These
agreements are recognized by law and are binding for all employees of
the sector concerned, including non-members of those unions.
- Members of the three official trade unions often receive
social benefits which non-members do not receive, or to a lesser
extent. These benefits are distributed by the “Funds for Social
Security” which are financed by the employers and largely controlled by
the official trade unions.
- It is impossible for new or small trade unions to receive
the status of “official” (“representative”) trade union. For that
to happen, they would have to have at least 50,000 members
(conveniently exactly the number of members of the smallest off the
three) and be accepted into the National Labour Council (NAR). As such,
the official trade unions are assured of the absence of competition and
the undisturbed enjoyment of all of their rights and privileges.
8. One party has been banned. Next step will be
exclusion of certain candidates from the right to participate in
elections
According to the EOH “All political forces and movements
should be able to nominate and field candidates freely and on equal
terms. Any arbitrary or discriminatory practices for the purpose of
disqualifying or undermining certain candidates or political forces
contravene OSCE commitments. [...] There are certain reasonable
restrictions that may be applied to individuals wishing to run for
office. For example, it may be reasonable to exclude any person
currently serving a prison sentence for having committed a serious
crime. However, loss of candidate rights should be proportional to the
crime committed, and candidate rights should be automatically
reinstated once the sentence has been served. [...] Possible problems
to be aware of: Banning, suspension, or deregistration of parties or
candidates; Restrictive or discriminatory policies with regard to the
formation operation of political parties or civil society groups;
Selective implementation of the law with respect to the registration of
parties or candidates; [...]”
In 2004, the Vlaams Blok party was banned. Mere membership
of or cooperation with this party became an offence, punishable by law.
The Vlaams Blok reacted to this ban by disbanding and founding a new
party, the Vlaams Belang.
Shortly before the dissolution of the House and the Senate,
earlier this year, the government introduced a bill. The effect of the
bill would be that anyone convicted on the basis of the law on racism
would automatically lose all their political rights, including the
right to stand for elections, for a duration of ten years. Only lack of
time and the dissolution of parliament for the elections, prevented the
bill from being adopted. In all likelihood the bill will reappear and
be voted after the elections. The severity of the offence involved is
irrelevant. The loss of political rights will be automatic and will
apply to even the least offence and the smallest of sanctions.
9. The number of representatives is not
proportional to the size of the electorate
The EOH says that: “Equal suffrage implies that each
citizen’s vote should have the same value. This means that, under
proportional-representation systems, the number of representatives
for each district should be proportional to the size of the electorate,
[...] ”
Seats in the Belgian House of Representatives, expressed in
the votes required, are considerably cheaper for French-speaking
(Walloon) parties than for Dutch-speaking (Flemish) parties. In the
2003 federal election, a Flemish seat cost about 44,000 votes, a
Walloon seat about 38,000.
In that same election, just to cite one example, the Vlaams
Belang obtained 761,407 votes but got only 18 seats. The Mouvement
Réformateur obtained fewer votes (748,955) but got 24 seats.
10. Unconstitutional elections
According to the EOH “The legislative framework for an
election includes not only the election law but also a range of
legislation on related matters. Depending on the circumstances, the
legal analyst, and possibly other members of an EOM, may also need to
review constitutional provisions and other legislation relevant to the
election, including the law on political parties, citizenship laws,
voter-registration laws, campaign-financing laws, media laws, and
possibly elements of the criminal code and administrative code.”
A 2003 ruling by the Belgian Constitutional Court (Arbitragehof
- 26 May 2003) stated that the current electoral circumscription of
Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The discrimination resides in the fact that the French-speaking parties
can participate in elections on Flemish territory, while the opposite
is not the case. The government was given 4 years to remedy the
situation, but it chose to ignore the ruling. The elections in
Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde are unconstitutional, but will be held
nevertheless.