BACKGROUND

Elections are generally measured against two yard-sticks-whether they are "free" and whether they are "fair." The "freeness" of an election is measured according to the ability of voters to express their will free from intimidation. It includes the requirements of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. The "fairness" of an election is a measure of whether or not there is "a level playing field for all participants in the election process."3 Discriminatory election laws or media regulation, gerrymandering (re-drawing of electoral districts to change the likely results) or restrictions on the right of candidates to stand are all examples of unreasonable restrictions on the"fairness" of an election. Democratic elections must be both free and fair. Beyond election day, the implementation of results is an additional, practical measure of the success of an election.

International bodies that have monitored previous presidential, parliamentary, and local elections in Croatia have concluded that those elections were generally free. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) report on the 1997 presidential elections concluded that election authorities "administered a generally efficient process on election day."4 The United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe report on 1995 parliamentary elections considered the elections "to be free in terms of providing voters with a choice."5 The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe's report on the 1997 parliamentary, county, and municipal elections in Croatia reached similar conclusions.6

There is similar consensus among international observers that neither the 1995 nor the 1997 elections was fair. In its report on the 1997 presidential election, the ODIHR observation delegation "concluded that the process leading up to the election was fundamentally flawed and did not meet minimum standards for a meaningful and democratic election in line with OSCE standards."7 The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe's report on the 1995 parliamentary elections noted "the apparent unwillingness of the authorities to permit a truly open electoral system in which all had confidence or a genuinely free media to permit a more competitive campaign period."8 The commission's report on the 1997 parliamentary elections (for the house of counties) pointed to "restrictive media and the stretching of election rules to the advantage of the ruling party."9

Election-related concerns were also expressed by the international community during the so-called "Zagreb crisis." After opposition parties polled better than the ruling Croatian Democratic Union party (Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica, HDZ) in October 1995 city elections in Croatia's capital, President Franjo Tudjman vetoed four different mayoral candidates proposed by the opposition-controlled city council, installed his own candidate, and organized a referendum to redistrict the city that was boycotted by most of the city's inhabitants. Efforts by the president in April 1996 to dissolve the council and appoint a commissioner in its place were overturned by the Constitutional Court in May of that year. The resulting stalemate was resolved only when the HDZ regained control of the council in the April 1997 elections. The Zagreb crisis remains a potent reminder that the government may refuse to implement theelectoral results in the event of an opposition victory, as well as a reminder of the importance of the Constitutional Court in resolving electoral disputes.

Croatia has made progress in some areas since the last parliamentary elections for the house of deputies in 1995. One notable improvement is the growing confidence and strength of civil society in the country. The coalition GLAS `99 (Voice 99) brings together some 140 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) interested in raising public awareness about the importance of free and fair elections, while GONG (Gradjani Organizirano Nadgledaju Glasanje, Citizens Organized to Monitor Elections) is building a network of volunteers to monitor the election process. GONG will also conduct its own parallel tabular vote count (where a mathematical formula is applied to a sample of results to produce an accurate estimate of the overall outcome) which should minimize the possibility of tampering with ballots. Overall, Croatian NGOs, including human rights and legal aid groups, have become increasingly skilled at engaging the public directly, as well as influencing journalists and government officials to help bring about change. Croatia's vibrant civil society indicates its democratic potential and will undoubtedly play an important role in the country's further democratization.

The much improved security situation in the country is also cause for praise. While Serbs face ongoing administrative and legal obstacles to the exercise of their civil rights in Croatia, the violence that characterized the immediate post-war period in former United Nations (U.N.) sectors increasingly belongs to the past.10 The peaceful reintegration of Eastern Slavonia also represents some progress albeit circumscribed by the exodus of Serbs from the region and the limited returns of displaced Croats. Most recently, Croatia has made some progress in terms of meeting its obligations to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), transferring a high profile war crimes suspect in August and agreeing to transfer another, although cooperation with ICTY investigations into abuses related to the 1995 Croatian military operations "Storm" and "Flash" remains poor.11

In the realm of civil and political rights, however, much less progress has been made, despite Croatia's obligations as a member of the Council of Europe, OSCE, and a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.12 The assessments of the Monitoring Committee of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Mission to Croatia, as well as Human Rights Watch's own research, make clear that independence of the judiciary remains an elusive goal in Croatia.13 The one judicial institution in Croatia with a reputation for independence, the Constitutional Court, has recently been subject to political interference (see below). Lack of media freedom, particularly in the area of electronic media, remains a major constraint to democracy in Croatia. Freedom of assembly remains limited, despite the recent passage of a new law on October 22. And as noted above, Croatian Serb citizens still face discrimination in many areas of life, including the ability to participate in elections. Most directly, the new election law, adopted by the parliament on October 29, is flawed. The law fails to incorporate many of the recommendations on electoral reform repeatedly made by the OSCE, Council of Europe, European Union, and UnitedStates governments since 1996, including on the role of state-controlled television, minority representation, and the register of voters.