“The exercise of women’s individual voting rights: a democratic requirement” - CG (9) 7 Part II

(10/05/02)

Rapporteur: Diane BUNYAN (United-Kingdom)

---------------------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION

‘Family voting’ describes voting practices that disenfrancise women. Family voting occurs in three ways: by a male family member accompanying one or more women relatives into a polling booth – ‘group’ voting; family groups voting together in the open – ‘open’ voting; a male family member collecting ballot papers that rightfully belong to one or more women relatives and marking those papers as he sees fit – ‘proxy’ voting. This behaviour stems from cultural attitudes and practices that fail to recognize women’s right to full and equal citizenship with men. It is facilitated by polling officials refusing to adhere fully to electoral laws.

Independent election observer reports from the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly and Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) along with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) identify family voting occurring in some parts of greater Europe, most notably in former Soviet states (Appendix 1). The practice was brought to the attention of the Council of Europe Bureau by the Congress delegation that observed the local elections in ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ on 10 and 24 September 2000. Subsequently, the Committee on Social Cohesion, at its meeting on 23 March 2001, stressed the paramount importance in a democracy of a woman’s right to an individual, free and secret vote and was of the opinion that the problem of family voting, observed in several countries in Greater Europe, was unacceptable from the standpoint of women’s fundamental rights.

For the preparation of this report, the election monitoring reports adopted in the last few years by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE were examined so as to measure the scale of the problem in Council of Europe member states and applicant states. As rapporteur I would like to take this opportunity warmly to thank Yvonne Galligan, Director of the Centre for Advancement of Women in Politics at Queen’s University in Belfast and member of the Council of Europe Group of Specialists on Balanced Participation of Women and Men in Political and Public Decision-Making, for her essential contribution to the drafting of the report. The Congress has also established close co-operation with the Equality Division1 of the Directorate General of Human Rights, which provided very valuable advice on developing an integrated approach to the problem within the Council of Europe.

Agneta Kyller, Congress representative with the CDEG, took part in a hearing held by the Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in Paris on 7 March 2002, which saw a fruitful exchange of views and wide-ranging discussion on this crucial issue regarding the exercise of democratic rights. New approaches have also emerged in connection with development of the integrated project on “Making democratic institutions work” launched by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in 2001 and with the Venice Commission’s work on drafting a code of good practice in electoral matters.

Lastly, contacts have been established with members of the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG), the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Stability Pact Equality Task Force and the Gender Equality Grouping of the Liaison Committee of NGOs holding consultative status with the Council of Europe with a view to gathering information and examples of best practice.

The protection of individual voting rights is a fundamental basis for democracy and is provided for in the constitutions of member states in the Council of Europe. These constitutional provisions invariably provide for universal suffrage for all citizens over 18 years, direct and free elections to parliamentary and local assemblies and a secret ballot. Many constitutions go further and protect women’s equal political, civic, social, cultural and economic rights with men (Table 1). Electoral laws and regulations derive from these basic principles. In addition, the right of women to exercise their vote is protected by international law (Article 7, CEDAW). All countries surveyed have at a minimum acceded to the Convention and are legally bound to put its provisions into practice. This makes Article 7, guaranteeing women’s political rights, enforceable in member states.

However, cultural practices that reflect the dominance of patriarchy over democracy in some member states lead to women being disenfranchised. This problem is apparent in member states with relatively new democratic political structures, unlike in older democracies where the individual right to vote is well established. This transgression of international, constitutional and electoral law results in many female citizens being denied their right to vote. It confirms, in a very fundamental way, the observation of the Council of Europe’s group of specialists on equality and democracy, that ‘the equal value and dignity of women and men, although already accounted for in the legislation of the majority of countries, has still not been entirely recognised de facto’.2 This results in a faulty functioning of democratic participation and undermines the legitimacy new pluralist democracies are striving to achieve. As the Declaration adopted at the 4th European Ministerial Conference on equality between women and men observes:

The marginalisation of women in public life and democracy is a structural factor that is linked to the unequal distribution of economic and political power between women and men and to attitudinal stereotypes regarding the social roles of women and men. These stereotyped social roles limit the scope for both women and men to realise their potential.3

The extent of the problem

Family voting is a problem that to date has not been recognised in the documents of the Council of Europe on gender equality in political decision making. The many papers dealing with this matter recognise that women had a long and difficult struggle in order to obtain the right to vote, but presume that once women gained this right, they were free to exercise their franchise. In these papers, then, discussions on gender equality focus on measures to eliminate the many other discriminations against women.

An assessment of election reports by independent observers from the Council of Europe and OSCE reveals that between 1995 and 2001 family voting was identified as a recurring problem in16 countries in greater Europe (Appendix 1). The severity of the problem varied from one country to another and also from election to election: family voting was seldom observed in Poland and Bulgaria and was of minor significance in Hungary; over time family voting appeared to decrease in Georgia, but it continued to be a widespread practice in other former Soviet states. Explanations for family voting provided to election observers focused on local attitudes and traditions, where it is deemed normal that men speak and act for women in public and political affairs. In some areas, the practice of family voting was associated with ethnically-based cultures. In other areas, the practice was identified as a post-communist phenomenon rather than an ethnic one. It appears from observer reports that the majority of observations of family voting occurred in rural communities. In many instances polling officials made little effort to stop the practice – even though it was in violation of electoral and constitutional laws. Some observers too, treated the practice of family voting as a matter of lesser importance than other infringements of the electoral process.

As a first step to addressing this problem the constitutional position regarding the right to vote and equality between women and men in member states where this problem was noted (Appendix 2) was investigated, along with the extent of acceptance of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). A summary of the findings can be found in Table 1:

TABLE 1: Constitutional provisions for equality and the right to vote in Member States of the Council of Europe, and implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Member state

Constitution

CEDAW

Albania

Art 1: Free elections
Art 3: Protection of human rights
Art. 18: Non-discrimination on named grounds (including gender)
Art. 45: Right to vote, secret ballot

A. 11.5.94

Armenia

Art 3: Elections, secret ballot
Art 4: Protection human rights
Art. 16: Equality before the law (general)

A. 13.9.93

Azerbaijan

Art 2: Elections, secret ballot
Art 25: Equality between women and men
Art 54: Right to participate in political life
Art 55: Right to participate in state governing
Art 56: Citizens right to vote

A. 10.7.95

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Art 1: Free, democratic elections
Art 2: Human rights and non-discrimination on named grounds (incl sex)

D. 1.9.1993

Bulgaria

Art 6: Non-discrimination on named grounds (incl sex)
Art 10: Elections, secret ballot
Art 42: Citizens right to vote

C. 8.2.82

Croatia

Art 14: Equal rights (named groups)
Art 45: Right to vote, secret ballot

D. 9.9.92

Czech Republic

Art 6: Majority rule
Art 10: Protection of human rights
Art 18: Elections, right to vote, secret ballot

C/D. 22.2.1993

Estonia

Art 12: Non-discrimination on named grounds (incl sex)
Art 56: Citizens right to vote
Art 57: Voting age
Art 60: Parliamentary elections, secret ballot
Art 156: Elections for local government, secret ballot

A. 21.10.91

Georgia

Art 7: Protection human rights (general)
Art 14: Equality before the law, named grounds (incl sex)
Art 28: Right to vote
Art 49: Parliamentary elections, secret ballot

A. 26.10.94

Hungary

Art 8: Protection human rights (general)Art 56: Equality between men and women
Art 66: Equality between women and men
Art 70: Elections, right to vote
Art 70A: Non-discrimination, named grounds (including gender); penalty for discrimination; fair opportunities
Art 71: Secret ballot

C. 22.12.80

Latvia

Art 6: Parliamentary elections, Secret ballot
Art. 8: Voting age
Arts. 89-91: Protection rights (general)

A. 14.4.92

Lithuania

Art 29: Equality, named protections (incl sex)
Art 34: Citizens right to vote
Art 55: Secret ballot for national parliament
Art 119: Secret ballot for local government

A. 18.1.94

Moldova

Art 2: Popular sovereignty
Art 4: Protection human rights
Art 16: Equality before the law, named grounds (including sex)
Art 38: Secret ballot, right to vote

A. 1.7.94

Poland

Art 32: Equality before the law (general)
Art 33: Equal rights of men and women; equal opportunities between men and women, including holding office
Art 62: Right to vote
Art 96: Secret ballot for parliamentary elections
Art 97: secret ballot for Senate elections
Art 169: Secret ballot for local elections

B. 30.7.80

Romania

Art 4: Non-discrimination on named grounds (incl sex)
Art 16: Equality before the law
Art 34: Right to vote
Art 59: Secret ballot
Art. 120: local government elections

B. 7.1.82

Russian Federation

Art 2: Protection of human rights
Art 19: Equality of rights, named grounds (incl sex); equal rights and opportunities between women and men
Art 32: Right to elect and be elected to governance bodies
Art 81: Secret ballot for presidential elections
Art 96: Elections to Duma

C. 23.1.81

Slovakia

Art 11: International treaties on human rights paramount
Art 12: Equality; guarantee of rights of named categories (incl sex)
Art 30: Secret ballot and equal right to vote

D. 28.5.93

Slovenia

Art 14: Protection human rights, named grounds (incl sex)
Art 43: Right to vote
Art 80: Parliamentary elections, secret ballot

 

Ukraine

Art 3: Guarantee of human rights
Art 21: Equality (general)
Art 24: Non-discrimination, named grounds (incl sex); equal opportunities between women and men
Art 70: Right to vote
Art 71: Secret ballot

C. 12.3.81

‘The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’

Art 8: Recognition of citizens’ rights
Art 9: Equality before the law, named grounds (incl sex)
Art 22: Right to vote; secret ballot

D. 18.1.94

For CEDAW: A= Accession; B = Declarations/reservations; C= Reservations subsequently withdrawn; D= Succession. Sources: www.psr.keele.ac.uk/const.htm, consulted on 2 December 2001; www.un.org/womenwatch consulted on 4 Dec 2001.

Given the constitutional provisions and commitment to CEDAW as summarised in Table 1, family voting has no legal basis for existence. Nonetheless, local attitudes, traditions and perceptions of women’s civic roles facilitate the continued disenfranchisement of women in many post-communist countries.

The political and social explanations of the problem of family voting appear to be of some substance. In particular, there is some legitimacy in the ‘incomplete democracy’ explanation that suggests that voting practices in new pluralist democracies are not as established as they are in consolidated democracies, and that therefore the fundamental principle of one person, one vote, based on a secret individual ballot, is not yet fully assimilated into electoral practices.

The second explanation, offered in some cases, suggests that women are less literate than men, and therefore need to be assisted in casting their vote. This explanation belies a more fundamental perception of women’s social role, viz that political and public activities are the preserve of men. To test this explanation fully would require a considerable amount of detailed country-specific data, disaggregated according to region and ethnic background, and is beyond the scope of this study. Nonetheless, an examination of macro-level gender-related indicators seems to suggest that overall, while women are less economically, politically and socially privileged than men, they are present in the workplace and in decision making, and are, in general, as literate as men (Table 2). With the exception of Moldova, women gained the right to vote in the early or mid 20 century. Women are present in a decision making capacity in politics and economic life, providing role models and claiming a public space. While women’s earning power is only between one half and two-thirds that of men, at least one half of all women of working age participating in paid employment. In addition, with the exception of Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina and, to a lesser extent, Romania, women’s literacy levels are quite similar to those of men.

Table 2: Political, educational and economic inequalities between women and men, 2000

Member state

Women’s right to vote

Female legislators

Female legislators, senior officials and managers (% of total)

Female labour force %

Female earned income as proportion of male earned income

Adult illiteracy rate

Men Women

Albania

1920

6

-

41

-

9

23

Armenia

1921

3

-

48

-

1

3

Azerbaijan

1921

11

-

43

-

-

-

Bosnia and Herzegovina

1949

7

 

38

 

2

12

Bulgaria

1944

26

-

48

-

1

2

Croatia

1945

21

26

44

.55

1

3

Czech Republic

1920

16

23

47

.64

-

-

Estonia

1918

18

35

49

.63

-

-

Georgia

1918, 1921

7

-

47

-

-

-

Hungary

1918

8

34

45

.57

1

1

Latvia

1918

17

39

50

.65

0

0

Lithuania

1921

11

39

48

.67

0

1

Moldova

1978,
1993

13

-

49

-

1

2

Poland

1918

20

34

46

.61

0

0

Romania

1929, 1946

11

26

44

.58

1

3

Russian Federation

1918

8

37

49

.63

0

1

Slovakia

1920

13

32

48

.65

-

-

Slovenia

1945

12

31

46

.61

0

0

Ukraine

1919

8

38

49

.54

0

1

‘The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’

1946

7

-

42

-

-

-

Note: - means that the information was not available.

Source: UN Human Development Indicators in UN Human Development Report 2001 at www.undp.org/hdr2001 consulted 12 December 2001; Inter-Parliamentary Union database for women in parliament,at www. ipu.org, consulted 12 December 2001; World Bank statistics at www gendstats.worldbank.org.

Thus, the above indicators reinforce the perception that family voting is a problem in specific areas and possibly among particular ethnic groups in the Greater Europe where the socio-economic profile of women may not as advanced as that portrayed in Table 2. Therefore, any initiatives to tackle the problem must be based on country-specific research that identifies the root cause of family voting and the particular geographical and social locations in which it is a problem.

Addressing the problem

Family voting is a difficult and sensitive issue. It requires attention from a number of different sources including the Council of Europe, individual member states, democracy-building non-governmental organizations and election training providers. An issue in the tackling of this problem is the difficulty in independent monitoring of elections in member states of the Council of Europe to ensure that this practice is on the decline. Equally problematic in some instances is bringing governments of member states around to recognizing that the problem exists within their jurisdiction. This may in part be due to the reluctance of governing authorities to admit that women are victims of prejudices and stereotypes that restrict them to a subordinate citizenship, with ready explanations of ‘cultural exceptions’ hiding a serious manifestation of unfair treatment. However, women’s individual right to vote, freely and in secret, must be accepted in all democratic societies, and a failure to do so is a failure for democratic electoral practices and a diminution of a government’s (national, regional or local) democratic legitimacy. As the Beijing Platform for Action4 notes:

The empowerment and autonomy of women and the improvement of women’s social, economic and political status is essential for the achievement of both transparent and accountable government and administration and sustainable development in all areas of life…without the active participation of women and the incorporation of women’s perspective at all levels of decision making, the goals of equality, development and peace cannot be achieved.

In the light of the foregoing, the following recommendations for eliminating the practice of family voting are offered for consideration:

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is in a strong position to advocate the upholding of the highest standards of democratic electoral practices in member states, and can do so by means of a range of initiatives designed to support institutional and individual democratic capacity:

1. Working through the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, the Council of Europe can encourage the twinning of local and regional governments across member states as inter alia a means of supporting best democratic electoral practices. Twinning could also facilitate the bring together of women from similar ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds to share experiences of the electoral process and to engage in an informal process of awareness-raising on women’s rights as political citizens;

2. The Parliamentary Assembly could draw attention to the inappropriateness of the practice of family voting in its ongoing work on the participation of women and men in politics and public life;

3. Working in co-operation with the Assembly and CLRAE, the Steering Committee for equality between women and men (CDEG) could bring forward a resolution to the Council of Ministers seeking to uphold, enforce and support best practices in voting behaviour and enforcement of electoral law in the democratic electoral process in member states;

4. Working in co-operation with the Assembly and CLRAE, the CDEG could commission research on best practice and effective strategies regarding awareness-raising programmes on women’s rights as political citizens;

5. The Committee on Social Cohesion could alert the other relevant statutory committees of the Congress to this practice and develop with them a concerted programme of action for the elimination of family voting that would involve election observers, democracy-building organizations and women’s non-governmental organizations;

6. Through appropriate channels (eg CLRAE), the Council of Europe could support the activities of democracy-building non-governmental organisations and women’s organisations in raising local awareness of women’s rights as political citizens, including their right to vote;

7. The significance of family voting as a disenfranchisement of women and a form of electoral fraud to be emphasized in election observer training and briefings carried out by the Council of Europe;

8. To give effect to the Declaration agreed at the 4th European Ministerial Conference on equality between women and men (Istanbul 1997), and especially to the commitment to ‘ensure that the realisation of equality between women and men is a part of the monitoring of member States’ fulfilment of their democratic obligations’;

9. Widespread dissemination of Council of Europe reports on good practices and strategies for achieving gender-balanced representation in political and social decisionmaking. This could be accompanied by seminars on women’s political rights organized in co-operation with local women’s ngo’s and democracy-building agencies;

10. Encourage national delegations to refer the problem of family voting to their parliamentary committees on women’s rights and to their ministries with responsibility for electoral law and for women’s rights;

11. Bring the problem of family voting to the attention of European review meetings of the Beijing Platform for Action.

Member States

Member states are already constitutionally and legally committed to upholding democratic electoral practices, including the equal voting rights of women and men. Their attention now needs to be directed towards the implementation of these commitments:

1. The electoral law to contain a clause holding election officials legally liable for failure to uphold democratic voting practices. Electoral commission officials should be aware of the risk of severe sanction if fraud is discovered in a polling station for which they are responsible. This sanction should be enforced for family voting as well as for other infringements of the electoral law;

2. Election officials should be fully trained in the conduct of a democratic poll, with the importance of individual voting and the secrecy of the ballot emphasized, and a zero tolerance of practices that diverge from these principles;

3. Election officials should have adequate infrastructural and personnel support to enable them carry out their duties in accordance with best democratic practices;

4. Electoral commission and election officials should rigorously enforce democratic procedures;

5. Consideration should be given to having non-locals officiate elections in regions where family voting is more likely to occur (eg rural areas);

6. Complaints procedures should be accessible, easily understood and swiftly addressed, incorporating an effective investigative procedure;

7. Public information campaigns should be conducted in advance of elections that emphasise the importance of the individual right to vote and family voting as an unacceptable and illegal practice. These could take the form of targeted women’s rights education that includes voting rights as well as being part of more general public education programmes on democracy. Women occupying decision making positions could be used as role models and as champions of women’s right to vote and to participate in democratic decision making;

8. Political parties should be obliged to develop democracy education programmes, incorporating gender equality modules, in order to qualify for state funding;

9. Women’s groups in political parties should be encouraged and supported to address the problem of family voting;

10. General citizenship and equality education should be provided in schools, with an emphasis on women’s equal rights with men in the political, civic, social and economic spheres. These programmes should seek to address local traditions and cultural practices and perceptions that consign women and girls to a subordinate citizenship;

11. Literacy education should be a basic right for all, with equal access for women and girls of all backgrounds and identities to full educational opportunities;

12. Local and regional governments to promote awareness of women’s equal political and civic rights and promote best voting practices through print and broadcast media, seminars, public campaigns. These programmes to tackle sexist attitudes and language, and adopt as a model the Media Awareness Campaigns devised by the Stability Pact Gender Task Force;

13. Democracy-building non-governmental organisations should be supported and facilitated in their work by national, local and regional governments. In particular, they should be assisted in educating and informing the population regarding individual voting rights;

14. Ballot papers should be sensitive to voter needs – eg dual-language ballot papers, party symbols on ballot papers – to enable women voters make individual voting decisions without recourse to assistance from others;

15. National governments should table a political statement explaining that women have an equal right to vote with men, and forbidding the denial of women’s right to cast their ballot;

16. National governments should promote research that investigates the causes and extent of family voting, and on the basis of findings draw up a national programme to eliminate this practice, with timetables, targets and monitoring mechanisms;

17. NGOs should develop their activities as pressure groups working for equality in the political process, with a special focus on women’s equal right to vote;

18. NGOs should initiate and /or develop activities and training programmes aimed at informing women about their civil and political rights – programmes such as the Developing Active Women’s Citizenship programme of the Gender Task Force of the Stability Pact could be used as models;

19. NGOs should monitor elections in their localities to assess the extent of women’s participation in voting and submit a report to the Electoral Commission regarding the pattern of women’s participation and the extent to which women were free to cast their ballot in private;

20. Women’s ngo’s should be encouraged and supported by all appropriate means to network with democracy-building ngo’s to pool experience, knowledge and strategies for supporting women’s right to vote;

22. Governments (national, regional, local) to support extending the ‘Women Can Do It’ political awareness-raising and grassroots women’s political empowerment programmes devised through the Stability Pact Gender Task Force to regions where family voting is an issue.

Empowering women as political citizens
This study of family voting clearly shows that women are not sufficiently empowered to exercise their political rights. This situation is brought about by a combination of direct denial of their rights as women voters and women’s own lack of awareness of their rights as political citizens. In this section, a number of innovative practices are described that have the potential to enhance women’s knowledge of their rights as political citizens and empower them to exercise their democratic choice at the ballot box. They are chosen to reflect a diverse range of imaginative ways of raising women’s political consciousness and nurturing confidence in exercising their rights, and should not be seen as the only activities of this kind.

“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey: Working with rural women:
One of the problems of doing gender work in societies or ethnic groups that hold to traditional practices is that women are seldom allowed to assemble with ‘strangers’ without the presence of their men-folk. In the course of investigating the problem of family voting, it became clear that this was often a major impediment to grass-roots awareness-raising activities. One NGO activist working on development and human rights issues in the Albanian community in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” described her strategy for gaining the ear of women while discouraging men from being present. She came to realise that there was one particular issue that the men would absent themselves from in a public forum, and that issue was women’s health. She used this issue as a way of gathering women together and after the health concerns were discussed, the group would turn their attention to other policy matters of practical relevance to women’s lives.

This strategy was similar to that used by a woman party activist in rural Turkey during an election campaign in the 1990s. The new, pro-religious Welfare Party (founded in 1983) sought to gain electoral support, and the head of the provincial branch of the party returned to her home village in Western Turkey near the city of Bursa. There, she asked a relative to organize a women’s meeting when the men had gone to the coffee shops. Women from neighbouring villages also came along to the meeting, at which she campaigned for votes for her party. When the votes were counted, the Welfare Party did exceptionally well in the village and surrounding area, much to the surprise of many!5

These two examples illustrate that there is often a need for imaginative strategies for gaining access to rural women, particularly when they live in traditional communities. The effectiveness of these strategies of access depends on a number of important considerations, the first of which is trust and an understanding of confidentiality among the group and between the group and the activist. The second consideration is that the activist is known, or familiar to, the women. The third consideration to take into account is that this is but a first step in gaining access to women who by custom and practice lead very sheltered lives. It requires the activist/ngo to have a plan that progressively empowers women to assert their political rights.

Nonetheless, this strategy, if accompanied by a public campaign on voters’ rights directed towards men and women, can be a useful tool in educating women as to their political entitlements.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Women voters can do it

The concept of empowering women as voters is a familiar one in the context of South East Europe, and many countries in this region have devised a range of strategies around this theme. The Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) project is an ambitious one, designed to increase the participation of rural women voters in BiH 2002 general elections, and is intended to run from March to December. In particular, it has three stated goals:

o To increase the turnout and decrease the number of spoiled ballots of rural women voters while also checking women’s voter registration
o To increase awareness in rural areas of the secrecy of the ballot, and diminish the problem of family voting
o To increase understanding in rural areas of the new BiH election law.

Designed by the Stability Pact Gender Task Force (SPGTF), the project addresses the serious reality of rural women’s lack of awareness of the voting process and of their new role in democratic elections, hence the prevalence of family voting. This initiative is undertaken by the Gender Task Force and a coalition of women’s politically aware NGOs and will empower local women from 40 communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fieldworkers will also research women’s voter registration in villages while enabling voter awareness meetings to take place in these villages. Women will be informed of the new election law, and given basic information on where their polling station is located and on how to fill in a ballot paper. Where possible, local women municipal councilors will be invited to join and meet their women constituents, while rural women will get additional opportunities to meet and interact. This project calls for a high level of co-ordination. It will be directed a national project board of 20 person. SP GTF Regional Centre, Zagreb will carry out overall supervision, monitoring and evaluation of the project. GTF BiH will carry out the implementation through local partners, under the direction of the project board.

The Women Can Do It technique, developed in Norway, is a large-scale training tool for women politicians but also works as a pre-electoral awareness-raising technique. In this approach, a few trainer/activists are educated for the work, and they train other trainers and activists to be aware of the potential of women in politics and to develop their skills. An unexpected side effect has been that many of the trainers have themselves become political candidates. The example of Croatia below illustrates the potential of this strategy.

Croatia: Women Can Do It initiatives

In 1997 five Croatian women did Women Can Do It training in Budapest and brought their ideas home to start training Croatian women. Each year since then more trainers have been trained and local training meetings have expanded, reaching small groups of women in many localities. Each trainer joins with another to agree to organize up to three local training events in their own region. In the lead in to the 2001 local elections, some 80 separate local one-day training sessions gave women a basic knowledge about gender equality and the need for more women in politics. Many of the local training actions were supported by male politicians and mayors.

In addition to the Women Can Do It training, other activities were organized. Women’s groups such as B.a.B.e and the Center for Women’s Studies organized seminars and workshops to train women in debating techniques, public appearance and public speaking. These activities were supported by an advertising campaign encouraging voters to vote for women with special shopping bags, badges, posters, leaflets and television spot. The gadgets were distributed through a bus tour in 23 cities in 12 days, accompanied by a band, which helped to increase media attention. The combined efforts worked: the local elections saw an increase in women at council level from 4% to 20%. A large proportion of the elected women had attended the Women Can Do It training sessions.

The advantage of a programme such as Women Can Do It is that it empowers women to become active political citizens – through encouraging them to support women candidates or providing them with the skills needed for representative office. It also raises general expectations among women that they have an equal right to partake in political life with men. This knowledge, in the longer term, can diminish the practice of family voting. In the meantime, other measures can be taken to encourage women develop a sense of their political rights and entitlements.

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Go Out and Be Active

A wide variety of actions to foster awareness raising among women were engaged in to raise the participation of women as voters in 2000, leading up to the elections in September and December. Go Out and be Active (GOBA) aimed to address women as a specific group and empower them to overcome political apathy. It lasted 5 months and was implemented by a wide coalition of women’s groups and other NGOs, independent of the political parties. The activities consisted mainly of advertising campaigns with billboards, stickers, leaflets, buttons, promotional materials such as hats, bags and t-shirts, radio jingles, press releases and a website. Direct actions, concentrated in cities, were highly imaginative and attracted considerable media attention. These included hanging a laundry-line crossing Belgrade’s main square with posters and leaflets from all the participating women’s groups. Happenings and performances were also organized on other cities and the campaign was among the first to get their posters up after the elections were announced. As a result of these efforts, the female turn-out increased to equal that of men.

APPENDIX 1

Information on family voting as observed by the Parliamentary Assembly,
the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe
and the OSCE in recent elections

Albania

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bosnia and Herzegovina

22. The specific conditions under which the elections took place resulted in an extremely complex voting procedure, particularly for the absentee and tendered ballot voting. Effective remedies to ensure simplification and greater transparency as well as allow for better planning and anticipation of difficulties should be found before the next elections take place. The secrecy of tendered ballots was a legitimate concern. Rules for family voting also need to be better defined.

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

Georgia

23. Family voting was one of the most common violations of the Electoral Law in some areas. At several polling stations the observers saw family members entering the booths together or one member of the family voting for another member. In some cases, the polling station officials allowed it, taking into account the age of the voter and physical difficulties to vote. This violation could be explained by the fact that in Soviet times people had been allowed to vote for members of their family who were ill or absent at the time of the elections.

It must be emphasised that some observers did not see any examples of this practice, and that many polling station officials and local observers were especially vigilant in this regard.

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

„The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia“

While such a practice might be understandable in cases of need, such as sight or other disabilities, the delegation cannot accept that one person should determine how a whole family is to vote. Some observer teams also witnessed ballot stuffing operations, when one person arrived with several voters' cards and lodged multiple votes. In these same polling stations, the delegation observed record turnouts (in the order of 95%) and a real plebiscite for one of the candidates.

Moldova

Poland

Romania

Russian Federation

45. However, in the 100-odd polling stations which the members of the ad hoc committee visited on election day, they noted a number of irregularities which deserve due consideration by the authorities concerned:

Slovakia

Ukraine

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

 

1 http://www.humanrights.coe.int/equality/default.htm

2 Final report of the Group of specialists on equality and democracy, EG (97) 1, p. 4

3 Declaration on Equality between Women and Men as a Fundamental Criterion for Democracy (Istanbul 1997), MEG-4 (97) 18.

4 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted by the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 4-15 September 1995), p. 109.

5 Thanks to Professor Yesim Arat, member of the expert group on the balanced participation of women and men in political and public decision making, for this information.