Slate's Bizbox
foreigners: Opinions about events beyond our borders.

Don't Vote, Don't ComplainThe United States should just shut up about the Serbian elections.

By Anne Applebaum
Posted Saturday, Sept. 23, 2000, at 12:00 AM ET

Serbia elects a new president this Sunday, and I detect a whiff of skepticism in the air. The Washington Post reports that "most foreign experts, as well as many Yugoslavs, say they expect the election that Slobodan Milosevic has called for Sept. 24 to be marred by substantial fraud in his favor." The president of the Democratic Party, whose candidate, Vojislav Kostunica, rates higher than Milosevic in independent polls, this week told a rally that the authorities fully intend to "rig" the elections, and he called on supporters to organize a campaign of civil disobedience should this be the case. The Serbian authorities have meanwhile refused all offers to place independent Yugoslav observers in polling stations, have jailed and harassed opposition politicians and student groups, and have orchestrated physical attacks on Kostunica, who has been pelted with everything from tomatoes to rocks.

Nothing whatsoever indicates that these elections will be even remotely free and fair. But perhaps there is one very thin silver lining: At least, given Milosevic's hostility to the outside world, there will be no foreign observers. True, neither the United States nor the European Union has been able to shut up altogether. Both have appealed to the Serbian people to vote against Milosevic, promising aid and the lifting of sanctions should he lose—thereby allowing Milosevic to accuse his rivals of being "tools of the West" and ensuring that at least a percentage of the Serb electorate swings staunchly behind him. No one likes to be pressured by Uncle Sam and his sidekicks; the Serbs least of all.

But things could be worse, given that the West's record on interference in other people's elections in general, and election monitoring in particular, ranges from naive to risible. In the former category, for example, ranks President George Bush's infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech, way back in 1991. That was when Bush Sr. showed up in Kiev, not long before a referendum on Ukrainian independence, and called upon the nation to oppose it: "Long Live the Soviet Union," he urged. Within weeks, Ukraine had voted overwhelmingly to become an independent nation.

More sinister is the West's recent record in Russia, where the tendency has been not so much to encourage a particular result but to beam sunshine on the entire election process, no matter how dirty, as part of the general Western campaign to appear friendly and to "stay involved." Sometimes, observers will even come close to admitting that this is what they are doing. As it happens, I met an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observer in Moscow on the eve of last December's parliamentary elections, who privately admitted that the organization would probably "go easy" on the Russian government, which had, among other things, pretty flagrantly ignored any sort of norms about equal media access. Her argument was that they had to do this, in order to ensure that they would be invited back in March to monitor the (more important) Russian presidential elections.

In retrospect, it might have been better not to have shown up at either event. In its final report on the Russian presidential race, for example, the OSCE complimented the Russian government on its "constitutional and legislative framework that is consistent with internationally recognised democratic standards" and noted that "the election also demonstrated Russia's continuing commitment to strengthen its democratic electoral institutions, which appear to have the public's confidence and acceptance, as demonstrated by the 69% turnout." It congratulated the Central Election Commission, which it said "performed effectively as an independent and professional body," and said that 98 percent of its observers had submitted positive reports from their visits to 1,724 polling stations.

And what really happened? A recent, brilliant, and vastly undernoticed piece of investigative reporting conducted by the Moscow Times over the past six months has shown that, in fact, cheating was so blatant and so widespread that President Vladimir Putin may not have won at all, let alone achieved victory in the first round. Among other things, the Moscow Times detected an additional 1.3 million voters (or should I say "dead souls") on the electoral roles, who mysteriously appeared between December and March, as well as the altering of results—that is, the totals in individual electoral precincts simply disagreed with the totals reported higher up, in territorial electoral commissions. In Dagestan alone, this sort of fraud meant that about 88,000 votes were stolen from other candidates and given to Putin.

Meanwhile, in Novosibirsk, those who voted for Putin were presented with a bottle of vodka (hence the 69 percent turnout, demonstrating the "public's confidence and acceptance" of the system). In Saratov, the staff of a local hospital was forced to spend election day at their workplace and to vote for Putin at the hospital: One doctor who refused, on the grounds that his wife was away and he had to take care of his children, was punished by his supervisor. In dozens of other regions, everyone from farm workers to college professors were bullied into voting for Putin, under threat of losing their jobs. And none of this even takes into account the relentless positive media coverage the Russian president received, in some regions amounting to a total monopoly.

Given that these are the sort of tactics that may well be used in Serbia, we should be grateful that neither the OSCE, nor the Council of Europe, nor anyody else will be there to legitimate the process. Without all of them standing around paying compliments to the Serbian electoral commission, it will be easier for Kostunica and the other opposition leaders to organize a genuine protest movement afterward, if Milosevic does decide to cheat or, as he has also hinted, declare a state of emergency to prevent anyone else from taking power. Now if we can just get everyone to stay quiet while this happens, perhaps he'll even have a chance of success.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Anne Applebaum is a Washington Post and Slate columnist. Her most recent book is Gulag: A History.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from the Fray:


If played well, though, election monitoring can have a really positive impact. Think of the recent presidential elections in Peru. Both the OAS and the Carter Center had agreed to send missions to the presidential elections in May. However, when it became really obvious that Fujimori was about to rig them, they very publicly pulled out, saying that even their presence in Peru would give a sheen of legitimacy to the election. Their decision not to show up put a very large dent in the credibility of Fujimori's re-election, adding to a bunch of pressures that finally came to a head last week. In this case, not going was not a matter of neglect, it was a deliberate decision that sent a very clear message, both internationally and in Peru. If and when Peru returns to full democracy, conscientious election monitoring will be able to claim part of the credit.

--F.Toro

(To reply, click here.)


As for the larger principle, that we should generally shut up about other people's elections--it would be the first time in at least 50 years. Admittedly, our position on other countries' internal politics have always been driven (or at least affected) by our own geopolitical concerns, but throughout the Cold War those geopolitical concerns were largely defined (or at least articulated) in terms of ideological difference--liberal democratic capitalism vs. authoritarian totalitarian communism. The West conveniently ignored those same concerns in allied countries, but it was the entire justification for our opposition to the Eastern Bloc, in contrast to previous eras when political enmity was typically based on claims of reparations owed for past wrongs, recovery of stolen territory or simple personal feuds. The West and the East throughout the Cold War more closely resembled religious enemies in their justifications for their actions than any previous secular states.

Also, Western "support" for the Yugoslav opposition may do more harm than good, but I'm pretty sure Aung San Suu Kyi and most of the people of Burma would prefer that the U.S. continue to "interfere" in their internal affairs. I can extrapolate from personal experience and tell you that most of these citizens welcome the so-called "interference"--when I was monitoring elections in Indonesia a little over a year ago, the reactions I received from average citizens ranged from utter indifference to deep appreciation that the outside world was paying attention and helping to keep their leaders honest. The only people who seemed suspicious or reluctant to talk to me were soldiers and local party leaders who had much to lose by seeing their grasp on power eroding.

And even if they did want us to butt out, how hands-off should we be? Clinton and just about everyone else agrees that the U.S. policy of inaction in Rwanda in 1994--while politically expedient in light of the deaths of U.S. Marines in Somalia a few years before--was a colossal and avoidable failure from both a moral perspective and in geopolitical terms (in light of the spread of that war to include at least eight other countries). The world has moved well beyond standing still as other governments oppress their citizens. That the application of criticism is sometimes spotty, selective, self-interested or counterproductive is a reason for its improvement, not for its termination.

--Greg

(To reply, or to read a longer version of this post, click here.)

(9/26)

Washington Post