|
Lima,
9 April 2001.
This preliminary report on the elections that took place on 8 April
2001 continues the series of declarations already put out by the
European Union Elections Observation Mission (EOM-EU). It has been
drawn up before the official announcement of the election results. A
final report will be published once the election is completed. The
Mission wishes to thank the Peruvian people who, through the
Government of President Valentín Paniagua, invited us to witness
these elections which represent the highest form of social freedom. We
should also like to thank the authorities and institutions for their
hospitality and availability.
During
the election campaign and on polling day the European Union Elections
Observation Mission headed by Mrs. Eva Zetterberg, in which a team of
European Parliament observers led by Mr Joaquim Miranda and Mr Ignacio
Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra participated, was present in the Departments
of Lima, La Libertad, Loreto, Arequipa, Ayacucho and Puno, and visited
the Departments of Amazonas, San Martín and Ucayali. The mission,
including the parliamentarians, as well as being present on the
ground, has had intensive contacts with a wide range of institutions,
political parties and social sectors, and has sounded out the views of
other national and international observer missions. The EOM-EU is
consequently in a position to make the following assessment:
Preliminary
Conclusions
These
elections conform fully to international electoral standards. The
European Union Mission wishes to congratulate the Peruvian people,
institutions and government on the success of these elections,
particularly when compared with the 2000 elections which were marked
by serious irregularities. In the short space of a few months the
negative factors which could have adversely affected the poll have
been overcome. We can thus declare that:
1.
The Transitional Government has called and organised the
elections in a neutral and impartial manner.
2.
The institutions responsible for the elections, namely the
National Jury for Elections (Jurado Nacional de Elecciones, JNE), the
State Office for Electoral Processes (Oficina Nacional de Procesos
Electorales, ONPE) and the National Identity and Civil Status Registry
(Registro Nacional de Identificación y Estado Civil, RENIEC) have
organised and managed the process in a neutral and impartial manner.
3.
The reformed legal framework has provided an appropriate
structure for fair, clean, and transparent elections in which there
can be real competition between candidates.
4.
The election campaign was conducted under satisfactory
conditions in which the rights of freedom of expression and of
association and the right to demonstrate were generally respected. It
was only rarely marred by acts of aggression or intimidation.
5.
The right to vote is practically universal for all citizens,
except, in accordance with the law, in the case of members of the
armed forces (FFAA) and the police.
6.
The process of bringing the electoral roll up to date was
sufficiently advanced to enable the elections to be held.
7.
Particular attention was paid to civic education for voters and
electoral officials, through the efforts of the JNE, ONPE, the
Ombudsman (Defensoría del Pueblo, DP) and certain non-government
associations such as Transparencia.
8.
Civil society came up with, and put into effect, initiatives
involving citizens in electoral monitoring. Those involved, rather
than being restricted by the electoral institutions, were registered
and accredited.
9.
The FFAA have accepted the new directives regarding neutrality
and impartiality, and efficiently provided security and logistic
support for the electoral process.
10.
In the absence of a statute on political parties, rules
regarding advertising, campaign costs and financial contributions to
parties and groups were drawn up. These have been of only limited
effectiveness to date.
11.
The news and opinion media have published a wide range of
varying and contrasting commentaries, a fact that has enriched the
electoral debate.
12.
The ONPE has arranged for adequate broadcasting time to be
allocated to all the parties and candidates, and all have had equal
access to the electronic media.
13.
The polling day was characterised by peaceful participation by
voters.
14.
The participation of citizens selected to act as election
officials was notably high.
15.
The poll, despite certain technical difficulties, has so far
passed off normally.
Preliminary
Observations
1.Administration
and election expenses
The
transitional government has succeeded in passing on its neutrality not
only to the civil and, in particular, the electoral bodies, but also
to the armed forces and the police in general. It had been necessary
for a large part of the staff of the electoral bodies to be changed in
order to prevent the reoccurrence of irregular practices, which had
been introduced and made widespread by the former regime. This has
strengthened public confidence in the new disposition. The fact that
not all those dismissed could be replaced throughout all these public
bodies, and particularly at department and local levels, does not
appear to have affected the electoral process as such.
The
Constitution guarantees that the electoral system, made up of the JNE,
ONPE and RENIEC, is independent of the political powers, and lays down
their respective responsibilities. In these elections the electoral
bodies and the Ombudsman went to great lengths to generate public
confidence through excessive procedures, audits, control and
supervision.
2.Rights
and Participation
Universal
adult suffrage is an essential element in democracy. The right of all
citizens, male and female, to participate in decision-making through
voting, is guaranteed to everybody by the present Peruvian electoral
regime, except military and police personnel and prisoners, both
convicts and persons pending trial. However, elections should involve
an even higher level of citizen participation for two reasons; firstly
because of the need to staff temporary bodies such as polling station
boards (Mesas de Sufragio, MS) and Subsidiary Electoral Tribunals (Jurados
Electorales Especiales, JEE); secondly and more importantly, because
the electoral system should generate confidence among citizens through
their direct involvement in its institutions.
It
is the EOM-EU’s considered opinion that, with regard to human rights
criteria on political participation (Universal Declaration Art. 21.1),
this aspect of the procedure is flawed. The electoral law is
restrictive regarding public participation because of the legal
requirement that all those serving on temporary electoral bodies
should have a "higher level of education" (Organic Election
Law articles 45 and 55). This least transparent phase in the electoral
procedure implies and encourages lack of public trust
When
dealing with rights, reference should be made to forms of
discrimination. In order to encourage the representation of women, who
traditionally suffer from discriminatory practices, the law implies
that not more than 70% of the candidates on a list should be of the
same sex. This condition has not always been respected, and complaints
to this effect have not been upheld. Progress has also been made with
regard to the participation of persons suffering from disabilities.
The law gives blind people the right to vote, and the electoral bodies
have examined problems relating to other forms of disability.
Furthermore,
the electoral regime does not take account of the requirement for
prior consultation when drawing up procedures, as provided for in the
International Labour Organisation Convention on Indigenous Peoples in
Independent Countries, which Peru has ratified and which the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regards as a human rights
instrument.
3.The
Campaign and Electoral Debates
At
first the campaign between the eight presidential candidates’
political groupings was characterised by a high level of civility and
serenity, including the possibility of a "governability
pact" between the main forces involved.
As
the campaign progressed, an increasing number of controversial
elements tended to marginalise discussion on candidate’s programmes
and on basic issues.
As
a result of a series of commentaries in the media on private matters,
leading to mutual recrimination, the political climate became more
bitter during the two weeks preceding the elections. The introduction
of ethnic elements into the debates is noteworthy.
Direct
and open confrontation between the principal opponents was, however,
avoided.
4.Media
coverage and involvement
Media
presence throughout the campaign was marked by a level of pluralism
that enabled all the candidates, parties and groupings to make their
ideas and programmes known to national public opinion.
The
new law on electoral time in the electronic media (the "franja
electoral") provided all the candidates with free airtime during
prime times.
However
it is clear that the debate on the programmes was conducted unequally
by the media. The communications strategy chosen by much of the media,
as well as by certain candidates, generally led to the production of
news that contained little analysis of political proposals.
Here
the treatment of opinion polls on voters’ intentions, by both
journalists and politicians, would bear watching. The regulation of
such polls by the JNE appears to be sufficient in so far as technical
and sociological assessment criteria are concerned, but the use that
was made of the results of polls tended to ignore important factors
such as the sample size geographical and social representativity.
5.The
vote and the count
Polling
stations opened more or less on time. As the maximum number of persons
for each polling station is only 200, there was ample time for all who
wished to do so to vote. A sizeable number of representatives of
political parties and voluntary organisations was present, more than
ever before in Peru. Polling station staff, ONPE co-ordinators, and
supervisors from the JNE and the ombudsman’s office, conducted
operations in a generally correct and efficient manner.
As
a general rule, the polling stations closed at 4 p.m. All persons
present at that time were allowed to vote. The counts, initially in
the polling stations and subsequently in the computation centres, were
conducted calmly, using the technical means available, in a manner
that generated confidence in the procedures. The proportion of
challenged decisions at polling station level was remarkably low.
The
fact that all election material was in Spanish gave rise to
difficulties in areas where indigenous languages predominated.
The
last-minute decision by the Constitutional Court to revoke a legal
clause imposing a preliminary results news blackout between 4pm and
10pm (with the possible exception of early results from ONPE), is
regarded as positive. The public was given the results of exit polls
and quick counts, the latter being more reliable. This has contributed
to ensuring a peaceful polling day.
Thanks
The
EOM-EU wishes to express its gratitude to the Delegation of the
European Commission and to its Head of Delegation, Ambassador
Jean-Michel Pérille, to the Embassy of Sweden currently exercising
the Presidency of Council, to the Embassies of the European Union
Member States represented in Lima, as well as to the other national
and international observer missions. It reiterates its thanks to the
citizens, the institutions and, in particular, the Government of Peru.
Information
about the Mission
The
European Union Election Observation Mission consists of a core team of
six persons, a group of twelve election campaign observers,
thirty-three polling day observers, eleven members of the European
Parliament accompanied by two support staff, all of whom acted as
short term observers, and eleven other local volunteers of European
nationality.
The
Election Unit is led by the Head of Mission, Mrs. Eva Zetterberg,
Vice-President of the Swedish Parliament. The group of
parliamentarians is led by Mr Joaquim Miranda and Mr. Ignacio
Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra.
The
Unit is based in Lima and has been operational since 24 February 2001.
The election campaign observers will have been in Peru for a total of
44 days, to which should be added 34 days for the second round. The 33
short-term observers will have been in Peru for 8 days. The 11 MEPs
will have been in the country for 6 days and may return for the second
round. The observers operated throughout the country, while
maintaining permanent contact with the core team.
For
further information please contact:
Internet
http://www.moeue-peru.org
Annex
2
Preliminary
Report (after second round)
Lima,
4 June 2001.
This preliminary report on the final round of the presidential
elections held on 3 June, 2001 forms part of the series of statements
published by the European Union Election Observation Mission (EOM-EU).
They can be found on its website (http:/www.moeue-peru.org). This
report follows on from the preliminary report on the parliamentary and
presidential elections that took place on 8 April, as a result of
which a second round became necessary as none of the candidates
obtained an absolute majority of valid votes.
This
report concerns the electoral process and the campaign between the two
rounds and on the Election Day, 3 June 2001. A final report will be
published later; this will re-examine the electoral system and the
electoral process, and may provide recommendations, which could be
submitted to the legally appointed government that will result from
this ballot. The elections must, however, conform to international
standards, and notably to international human rights norms which
should underpin the internal constitutional system as well as external
electoral observation.
Preliminary
Conclusions
In
general terms, this second round of presidential elections, like in
the previous round, has conformed to international standards, thereby
conferring political legitimacy. The European Mission would like to
reiterate its congratulations to the people, the institutions and the
government of Peru on the successful conclusion of the electoral
process. The challenge posed by Peruvian reconstruction can be
addressed in a spirit of optimism, for the following reasons:
1.
The transitional government has consistently maintained strict
neutrality and impartiality.
2.
Throughout the electoral process, the armed forces have acted
in a neutral and impartial manner and have efficiently maintained
public safety and provided logistic support under the authority of the
electoral institutions.
3.
For the period between the two rounds, the principal
institutions that make up the electoral system, and particularly the
National Jury for Elections (Jurado Nacional de Elecciones/JNE) and
the State Office for Electoral Processes (Oficina Nacional de Procesos
Electorales/ONPE), conducted the process efficiently, but failed to
keep the public adequately informed.
4.
The ONPE successfully solved the computer problems encountered
during the first round by deciding to use what had been the fallback
program. This proved to be ideally suited to the simpler needs of the
second round.
5.
The JNE and the Subsidiary Electoral Tribunals (Jurados
Electorales Especiales/JEE) took a long time to deal with challenged
votes, thereby delaying the decision on the date of the second round.
This delay was compounded by their determination to guarantee fairness
by accepting administrative challenges over and above those
specifically provided for in the electoral legislation.
6.
Public and private institutions have made greater efforts with
regard to civil education and the training of election staff, although
there was not enough time between the two rounds to remedy all the
deficiencies.
7.
Evidence from the second round confirms that party
representatives (personeros) can still impose their will at polling
stations where institutional or civil supervision is lacking.
8.
As there is still no law or statute on political parties, the
JNE issued rules regarding the publication of campaign expenses and
contributions received by political parties and groups. However these
rules have met with little success.
9.
As the election campaign proceeded, voter information improved
even though there were serious lapses into vindictive personal
exchanges and innuendo.
10.
The media and advertising provided the public with full access
to a wide range of opinions, thereby opening a way to a lively
political debate.
11.
The ONPE continued to provide the two candidates with
appropriate cost-free airtime in the public audio-visual media, as
required by law.
12.
Polling day was marked by a positive and calm atmosphere. There
were some delays and other incidents but nothing of major importance.
13.
Attendance of Polling Station staff was still irregular, and
their training was often inadequate.
14.
Civil electoral supervision initiatives passed off without
incident and were even encouraged by public institutions.
15.
Counting took place calmly and efficiently. Results were
announced much earlier than in the first round, and were accepted in a
peaceful manner by both the public and the political parties.
Preliminary
Observations
1.Administration
and election expenses
With
regard to the electoral process itself, the transitional government
maintained its strictly neutral position, which was effectively
emulated by all public institutions and in particular by the Armed
Forces and the National Police.
The
autonomy of the electoral institutions, guaranteed by the
Constitution, was scrupulously respected. No attempt was made to
influence the timing of the electoral process or the announcement of
the results. The Government made no secret of its concern that the
long delay between the two rounds might give rise to public lassitude
after more than a year of electoral tension. It also feared that
international confidence in the electoral process could be shaken. The
electoral institutions were not so sensitive about such political and
economic risks. According to the Constitution and the Organic
Electoral Law, electoral justice, of a summary and definitive nature,
is the responsibility of the JNE. However this body, the highest
authority with legal and supervisory powers over the electoral
process, decided that candidates should have improved legal and
administrative guarantees. Consequently the deadline for challenging
results was informally prolonged considerably. Due to the fact that
unchallenged voting papers are, in accordance with the law, destroyed
at the Polling Stations, it is difficult to verify discrepancies
between different copies of the voting records. Increased resources
have not led to improved or more acceptable electoral justice.
As
the software program used for the 8 April elections proved to be both
unsuitable and inefficient, ONPE decided to replace it with what had
been the fallback software. However, the new program could not be
tested until all the challenged votes had been dealt with, as the
servers were still being used to input data from the previous round.
The new program was at last successfully tested on 27 May amid
intensive publicity. The question of computer software then rightly
dropped out of public attention due to its purely technical nature.
Once the problems regarding the software program had been solved,
confidence in the performance of the electoral administration during
the second round was well merited.
2.Rights
and avoidance of discrimination
Between
the first and second round, the EOM-EU benefited from the assistance
of the Ombudsman's Office (DP), the Technical Secretariat for
Indigenous Affairs of the Ministry for Gender Issues, and the Spanish
Agency for International Co-operation. It was able to use the
facilities of the NGO Transparencia to hold a seminar and workshop on
major electoral issues. This was attended by organisations and
representatives of peasant and indigenous communities. They expressed
their dissatisfaction with the electoral roll, with the failure to use
indigenous languages for communicating electoral information, with the
location of polling stations, with the treatment of remote
settlements, with manipulation by political parties, etc. One of
problems addressed concerned identity documents. The National Identity
Document can only be obtained on presentation of a "libreta
militar" (military registration card), even though military
service is not obligatory. Another referred to the practice whereby a
person formally accused of terrorism by a judge is automatically
arrested without the possibility of a hearing in presence of a defence
lawyer.
The
peasant and native representatives made proposals to solve the
problems that they face with regard to political participation. These
focus on the use of their own language throughout the electoral
process; territorial and cultural decentralisation among the various
communities in Peru, and civic education in schools through agreements
with the electoral institutions and non governmental organisations and
not by unilateral action. These demands are in the spirit of the DP's
report on native communities in the first round of the elections. This
proposed that the electoral organisations should act in co-ordination
with the indigenous authorities.
The
DP continued to defend human rights in political participation in an
effective manner. As in the first round, ONPE co-operated with the DP
to this end. The JNE consistently refuses to acknowledge the
constitutional competence of the DP in matters relating to electoral
supervision. As has already been inferred, the highest electoral
authority still invokes a particularly legalistic interpretation of
the electoral regime.
Temporary
Residents' Polling Stations should legally be constituted in order to
facilitate voting, which is compulsory. These were not established
during the first round as they can only be set up when elections are
held using a Unitary District System and on that occasion, in the case
of the parliamentary elections, a Multiple District System was
employed. Neither were there Temporary Residents' Polling Stations for
the second round, even though the Unitary District System was used.
The
electoral administration undertook to provide all necessary facilities
to handicapped voters. The legal provisions regarding special
treatment for blind persons were extended to all disabled persons.
3.The
electoral campaign and the debates
The
period between the two rounds of voting could have enabled civil and
electoral education campaigns to be reviewed and extended. Full
advantage was not taken of this possibility. Instead this period was
marked by dispersion of effort, and concentration on the publication
of material with lesser emphasis on public coaching at the grassroots
level. Furthermore, the long period of uncertainty surrounding the
final results and the date of the second round affected the evolution
of the campaign. The level of debate degenerated and the tendency to
cast blank or spoiled votes increased. The lapse of time between the
two rounds of the same election tended to weaken the link that should
have been maintained between them in order for voters to realise that
both rounds are part of the same poll.
During
a significant period between the two rounds, electoral debate
fluctuated between two basic issues, namely, the concern that there
might be a worrying number of blank or spoiled votes, and the
prolonged negotiations on the political conditions and technical
details of a possible TV debate between the two candidates, which
finally took place 19 May.
After
a relatively calm interval, there were several incidents of underhand
activity including accusations and allegations regarding candidates'
private lives. On very few occasions were programs or policies
debated. Instead, the mass rallies of the last weeks of the campaign
became mere platforms for making untenable electoral promises.
One
political party not included in the second round nevertheless
continued to make questionable use of counter-propaganda against a
candidate. The parties disputing the second round also had recourse to
such practices, but as an additional element in their respective
campaigns.
Regarding
attempts to encourage blank and spoiled votes, which met with little
success in the end, it should be remembered that even though the
candidates might not reflect the views of a sizeable part of the
political spectrum, they had nevertheless been chosen freely by a
majority of the Peruvian people in the first round.
4.Media
coverage and intervention
During
the second round of the presidential election campaign, the media
distinguished themselves by respecting pluralist principles. As a
result, both candidates were able to make their ideas and programs
known to the public. Press and TV monitoring by the NGO Transparencia
in co-operation with the European Union showed that both candidates
were accorded remarkably balanced treatment.
The
legislative reform that provided airtime for candidates "on
non-cable TV channels and radios, both public and private, at a
nation-wide level" allowed ONPE to pay for the political parties'
franja electoral. This is a useful publicity instrument even though it
only concerns the electronic media.
The
major media event of the second round was the debate between the two
candidates which was broadcast live on 19 May. Even though it was
organised under extremely strict rules, in compliance with an
agreement made by the political parties themselves, the debate was an
important democratic experience and constituted a milestone. It
enabled the people to have a clearer idea about the candidates'
proposals before the second and final round. On that occasion all the
media behaved in a professional manner that was not always maintained
throughout the campaign.
It
is worth pointing out that early on E-day both candidates made public
appearances on the media. Even though the presence of the media,
previously informed about when each candidate would cast his vote, has
become an accepted custom, nevertheless behaviour that goes beyond
normal practice must be condemned as attempted illegal propaganda.
5.The
vote and the count
On
polling day the EOM-EU deployed forty observation teams throughout
eight departments around the country. Observation was carried out at
the Polling Stations, at the vote counts, and at the ODPE centres
where the results from the polling stations were being aggregated and
computerised.
That
the Peruvian people were able to vote according to democratic norms
was largely due to the excellent management of the electoral system at
the voting centres. The general tone of the second round was calm. The
armed forces and the National Police provided efficient co-operation.
As
in the first round, there were some delays in setting up Polling
Stations as some staff failed to show up. However these setbacks did
not vitiate the overall success of the operation, with citizens being
able to vote freely.
Throughout
polling day the MOE-EU observed that the rules, including those
governing the treatment of complaints and challenges, were respected
by the staff of the Polling Stations. In general officials, including
those involved in the count, behaved impartially despite the
inadequate training of certain Polling Station staff and the intrusive
tendencies of some political party representatives. Cases were
observed in which staff resisted and called attention to pressure from
political party representatives.
As
required by the law, the count in Polling Stations was not open to the
general public. However, political party representatives, inspectors,
supervisors and observers were present.
The
speedy collection of results (ACRA) from Polling Stations by the ONPE,
despite reservations expressed by the JNE, worked dependably and
efficiently. The computer program had been changed between the two
rounds, resulting in better than expected centralised computing and
calculating. The MOE-EU did not observe any exceptional occurrences
during this phase of the election.
Throughout
the electoral process the MOE-EU benefited from co-ordination with
other observation missions, notably, at national level, Transparencia
and Consejo por la Paz, and, at international level, the Organisation
of American States and the National Democratic Institute-Carter Centre.
Thanks
The
MOE-EU wishes first of all to thank the Peruvian people who, through
the Government of President Valentín Paniagua, invited it to witness
this supreme democratic manifestation, the general election. It must
express its gratitude to the Peruvian authorities and institutions,
and to the Peruvian media, for their hospitality and availability.
The
European Mission is also grateful to the other observation missions,
both national and international. The MOE-EU particularly wishes to
thank the Peruvian organisations, Transparencia, Consejo por la Paz
and the Instituto de Estudios Electorales, as well as the
international observation missions from the OAS led by Ambassador
Eduardo Stein, and the NDI-Carter Centre headed by Jimmy Carter
himself in the first round, and by Madeleine Albright in the second.
The
MOE-EU particularly wishes to thank the Delegation of the European
Commission and its head, Ambassador Jean-Michel Pérille, as well as
the Embassy of Sweden, currently occupying the council presidency, and
the Embassies of the other EU Member States represented in Lima.
Information
about the Mission
As
for the first round, the European Union Election Observation Mission
consists of a core team of six persons, a group of ten election
campaign observers, thirty-one polling day observers, eleven members
of the European Parliament accompanied by two support staff and three
interpreters, all of whom acted as short term observers, and fifteen
local volunteers of European nationality.
Throughout
the electoral process the MOE-EU was present in the Departments of
Lima, Loreto, La Libertad, Lambayeque, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Apurimac,
Cusco and Puno. Parts of the Departments of Ancash, Cajamarca,
Amazonas, San Martín and Ucayali were included.
The
Election Unit is led by the Head of Mission, Mrs. Eva Zetterberg,
Vice-President of the Swedish Parliament. The group of European
parliamentarians is led by Mr Joaquim Miranda and Mr. Ignacio
Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra.
The
permanent core team, composed of Mr. Bartolomé Clavero, Mr. Ulrich
Fanger, Mr. Adolfo Cayuso, Mr. Andrea Malnati and Mr. Scipion du
Chatenet, has been in Lima since 24 February 2001, and will remain
until 11 June 2001.
Annex
3
Media
Monitoring
The
NGO Transparencia was appointed by the European Commission to monitor
the main local media during the elections.
7
or 8 people composed the Transparencia monitoring team, they daily
monitored the following media:
TV
Channels
Canal 2
– Frecuencia Latina
Canal 4
– América Televisión
Canal 5
– Panamericana Televisión
Canal 7
– Televisión Nacional (the State-owned TV)
Canal 8
– Canal N
Canal 9
– Andina de Televisión
Canal 10
– Cable Canal de Noticias
Newspapers
El
Comercio
Expreso
Gestión
Liberación
Ojo
El
Peruano
La República
“Yellow
Press”
Ajá
El Chino
Correo
El Men
El
Popular
El
Tío.
Printed Press
To
present a clearer picture, the 13 newspapers analysed were divided in
two categories, according to their price: the newspapers costing more
than one Sol (or “serious press”) and the newspapers costing less
than one Sol (yellow or tabloid press).
The
following data show the number of readers of each of the newspapers
analysed, estimated by a recent research (Compañia Peruana de
Investigación de Mercado, December 2000).
Serious
Press:
El
Comercio
– 531.200 readers;
Ojo
– 221.400;
La República
– 182.900;
Liberación
– 87.800;
Expreso
– 80.000;
El Peruano
– 37.400;
Gestión,
is included in the category “other newspapers”.
Yellow Press:
Ajá
– 250.600 readers;
El Popular
– 137.900;
El Chino
– 134.900;
El Tío
– 119.000;
Correo
– 80.900;
El Men,
is included in the category “other newspapers”.
Television
The
following data show the number of watchers of each of the TV channels
analysed, on the basis of recent research (IMA Estudios de Marketing
S.A.C., from 16 to 19 of December 2000).
América
Televisión,
- 46,9 points of rating;
Panamericana
Televisión
- 43,9;
Frecuencia
Latina
- 36,5;
Canal
N
- 28,2;
Canal
A
- 26,5;
Andina
de Televisión
- 10,8;
Televisión
Nacional
- 9,4;
Red
Global
- 4,1;
Cable
Canal de Noticias, is not included in this research.
Annex 4
Campaign
expenses
Transparencia
presented (19 April) an analysis estimating the costs of all the
political parties in the mass media during the first turn of the
election. They monitored, with the help of the agency Media Check
S.A.C., 9 TV channels, 11 radio stations and 14 newspapers from 8
January (the first day after the end of the inscription to the
presidential elections) to 6 April (last day for published political
propaganda). The following data are only indicative, but can give an
approximate idea of the amounts invested in the media by all
candidates/political groups.
Estimated
cost of publicity in the media by political group:
|
Political
group
|
Estimated
cost in USD
|
Percentage
|
|
Perú
Posible (Toledo)
|
2.240.179,83
|
34.67%
|
|
Unidad
Nacional (Flores)
|
1.736.534,59
|
26.88%
|
|
FIM (Olivera)
|
949.048,13
|
14.69%
|
|
Solución
Popular (Boloña)
|
779.005,19
|
12.06%
|
|
Partido
Aprista Peruano (García)
|
624.797,30
|
9.67%
|
|
Todos
por la victoria (Noriega)
|
68.921,12
|
1.07%
|
|
Renacimiento
Andino (Gálvez)
|
45.575,70
|
0.71%
|
|
Proyecto
Pays (Arrunátegui)
|
7.265.00
|
0.11%
|
|
Somos
Perú-Causa Dem.
|
6.928,28
|
0.10%
|
|
Solidaridad
Nacional
|
2.322,41
|
0.04%
|
Total
|
6.460.577,53
|
100.00%
|
N.B.
the costs only include electoral campaign space in the mass media;
they are not taking into account any other expenditure (cf. for
billboards, rallies, etc).
Estimated
cost of publicity by type of media
|
Kind
of media
|
Estimated
cost in USD
|
Percentage
|
|
Television
|
5.857.452,0
|
90.7%
|
|
Radio
stations
|
433.585,0
|
6.7%
|
|
Newspapers
|
169.540,5
|
2.6%
|
|
Total
|
6.460.577,5
|
100.0%
|
Annex 5
Ayuda
memoria del Seminario “Participación Política y
Problemática
Electoral de los Pueblos Indígenas”
El Programa de Comunidades
Nativas de la Defensoría del Pueblo y la Misión de Observación
Electoral de la Unión Europea, con el apoyo de la Secretaría Técnica
para Asuntos Indígenas del Promudeh y la Agencia Española de
Cooperación Internacional, han organizando este seminario con la
finalidad de analizar la participación política y la problemática
electoral de los pueblos indígenas, y conocer más de cerca lo
ocurrido en las comunidades campesinas y nativas, durante la primera
vuelta en las elecciones generales de 2001.
El
mencionado evento se llevó a cabo el viernes 25 de mayo, durante todo
el día, en el local de la asociación civil Transparencia; y contó
con la participación de 48 personas, 16 mujeres y 32 varones, entre
ellos representantes de las más importantes organizaciones indígenas
nacionales y regionales, campesinas y nativas, tales como: AIDESEP,
CCP, CNA, COICAP, CONAP, COPIP, FARA, FARTAC, entre otras; al final de
este resumen se puede ver la lista de los participantes.
Dicho evento tuvo como objetivo
analizar las dificultades que enfrenan los pueblos indígenas en el
terreno electoral, particularmente. Se abordaron diversos temas como
la participación política, la capacitación cívica, el registro en
el padrón electoral, la emisión de documentación, la ubicación de
mesas, las distancias y transportes. Al final de la jornada se
elaboraron recomendaciones con miras a proponer soluciones a los
problemas planteados.
CONCLUSIONES
1.
La instalación de mesas en lugares distintos a los domicilios, dificultan
el acceso y aumentan el ausentismo.
2.
La selección y designación de personas sin dominio escrito del idioma
castellano como miembros de mesa, dificulta el trabajo en cada mesa,
haciéndose necesario la presencia de terceros.
3.
Persisten algunas deficiencias en los programas de capacitación tanto para
miembros de mesas como para la población votante, porque éstos son sólo
en castellano, no son anticipados, no se coordina con las
organizaciones indígenas y los dirigentes, y sólo se imparten en las
capitales de provincias.
4.
Se constata que faltan depurar los padrones electorales (fallecidos, presos,
con domicilios distintos, etc.) en comunidades campesinas y nativas,
lo cual crea problemas en el momento de la votación.
5.
Existen muchas dificultades para la obtención de los documentos de
identidad (altos costos, trámites complicados, lejanía de centros de
registro, trato discriminatorio en las oficinas de registros, etc.)
que no contribuyen a disminuir el número de indocumentados en
comunidades campesinas y nativas.
6.
Se debe reflexionar y buscar un procedimiento más ágil para el tratamiento
de los requisitoriados, especialmente en las zonas de población
desplazada.
7.
No se permite una adecuada participación política a los Pueblos Indígenas,
sería conveniente ver mecanismos más claros de participación y
representación de dichos Pueblos mediante normas que permitan el
acceso, por ejemplo: mediante una reforma constitucional.
8.
Falta de conocimiento de las obligaciones y responsabilidades de los
funcionarios públicos (alcaldes principalmente), por ello existen
actualmente muchos procesos de revocatoria.
RECOMENDACIONES
1.
Recomendar a la ONPE la precisión de las fechas en los
procesos electorales teniendo en cuenta, los factores climáticos y
que no interfieran con los calendarios económicos de los pueblos indígenas
(siembra, cosecha, fiestas).
2.
Sugerir a la ONPE coordinar con las organizaciones indígenas
de cada distrito electoral, los procedimientos adecuados de selección
de miembros de mesa, programas de capacitación y ubicación de las
mesas de votación
3.
Recomendar a la ONPE, coordinar con las organizaciones indígenas
nacionales y regionales para establecer mecanismos adecuados de difusión
en lenguas nativas, mediante fonía, radio, televisión, cuñas, trípticos,
afiches, etc.
4.
Recomendar a la ONPE, coordinar con las organizaciones indígenas
nacionales y regionales para una efectiva y eficiente capacitación de
los miembros de mesa y de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas indígenas,
mediante una autocapacitación, que involucre a los indígenas con
mayor instrucción y que sean ellos mismos quienes repliquen la
capacitación en sus propios idiomas, en sus respectivas comunidades
de origen.
5.
Recomendar a la RENIEC la depuración y actualización adecuada
de los padrones electorales para lo cual pueden recurrir a los
padrones comunales a fin de cotejar los datos de manera precisa.
6.
Recomendar a la RENIEC coordinar
con las organizaciones indígenas y municipios locales el
reempadronamiento de la población indígena, especialmente en las
zonas afectadas por la violencia política, facilitándoles el acceso
a los documentos de identidad.
7.
Recomendar a la RENIEC organizar campañas de difusión
dirigido a las poblaciones indígenas, en lenguas nativas, para dar a
conocer los requisitos para la obtención del DNI nuevos y en caso de
pérdidas así como la aplicación de multas.
8.
Recomendar al Jurado nacional de elecciones (JNE) revisar los
procedimientos de inscripción de candidatos durante los procesos
electorales, afín de posibilitar el acceso de ciudadanos indígenas a
dicha inscripción.
9.
Recomendar al Jurado Nacional de elecciones (JNE) elaborar una
propuesta legislativa a fin de proponer la no reelección de
candidatos tanto para el congreso como para alcaldes y regidores con
la finalidad de evitar la corrupción y manejo político de cada
cargo.
10.
Recomendar a la ONPE el nombramiento de coordinadores indígenas
en cada distrito electoral, especialmente en zonas de predominante
población indígena con la finalidad de facilitar los procesos de
capacitación en idioma, difusión de materiales y visitas permanentes
a las comunidades.
Annex
6
LONG
TERM OBSERVER WEEKLY REPORT
|
Observer
Name:
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Report
number:
|
|
|
Referred
to period:
|
|
1.
Preparation for the election
1.1
Geographical,
ethnic, gender, party affiliation exclusion;
1.2
Recruitment
of members of electoral bodies;
1.3
Training
of members of electoral bodies;
1.4
Election
material;
1.5
Accreditation
of domestic observers;
1.6
Polling
station locations
1.7
Other.
2.
electoral campaign
2.1
Party
Rallies;
2.2
House
to house campaign;
2.3
Candidates;
2.4
Citizen
attitude toward voting;
2.5
Other;
3.
voter education activities
3.1
Impact
of the voter education campaign;
3.2
Number
of persons involved, age and gender;
3.3
Level
of understanding of the electoral process;
3.4
Meaning
of the vote;
3.5
Secrecy
of vote;
3.6
Understanding
of plurality;
3.7
Schedule
and location of polling activities;
3.8
Voting
procedures;
3.9
Other;
4.
domestic observation
4.1
Electoral
monitoring Organisations;
4.2
Number
of persons involved, age and gender;
4.3
Level
of understanding of the electoral process;
4.4
Domestic
Observers presence of the area;
4.5
Level
of co-operation with the Domestic Observers.
5.
media
5.1
Fairness
of access to all political parties;
5.2
TV
and radio distribution in households;
5.3
Presence
of national electronic media in the area;
5.4
Impact
of state-owned electronic media in the area;
5.5
Impact
of private electronic media in the area;
5.6
Impact
of Press in the electoral campaign;
5.7
Presence
and impact of local electronic media in the area;
5.8
Number
of papers in favour of government and opposition parties;
5.9
Administrative
or governmental difficulties in Press distribution;
5.10
Other.
6.
Application of the electoral law
6.1
Political freedom;
6.2
Freedom of speech;
6.3
Freedom of movement;
6.4
Intimidation, violence;
6.5
Local authority prevention of electoral campaign;
6.6
Police and military activity;
6.7
Political campaign funding;
6.8
Recommendations for electoral improvement;
6.9
Other;
7.summary
impression
7.1
General
political situation;
7.2
Differences
between urban to rural areas;
7.3
Security
situation;
7.4
Indicate
any exceptional circumstances.
8.
list of contacts made
9.
Short Term Observers logistics
9.1.
Deployment;
9.2.
Transportation;
9.3.
Accommodation;
9.4.
Interpreters;
9.5.
Security;
9.6.
Hospital
facilities;
9.5.
Miscellaneous
10.
programme for the next week
11.
other subjects
Annex
7
|
|
MISION
DE OBSERVACION ELECTORAL
DE
LA UNION EUROPEA
PERU
2001 – 2ª VUELTA
Formulario
de observación del voto
|
Equipo
nº / Observador-a
Departamento
Provincia
Número/nombre
del colegio
Número de mesa
Duración
de la visita
|
Sí
No
|
|
|
|
1.
¿Hay material de campaña a menos de 50 mts. del colegio
electoral o dentro de él?
2.
¿Abrió la mesa dentro del plazo que prevé la Ley?
3.
¿Recibió la mesa el número correcto de cédulas de
votación?
4.
¿Tiene la mesa el suficiente material de trabajo?
5.
¿Se cerró la urna y se expuso de forma visible?
6.
¿Se revisó la cámara secreta?
7.
¿Se hicieron observaciones en el acta de instalación?
|
|
|
|
8.
¿Hubo problemas en la determinación del personal de mesa
a la hora de la apertura?
9.
¿Es el personal de mesa letrado?
10.
¿Le han provisto los miembros de mesa con la información
que les ha requerido?
11.
¿Está el personal de mesa informando a los votantes sobre
el procedimiento del voto?
12.
¿Está el Presidente y demás miembros de mesa actuando
imparcialmente?
13.
¿Está el Presidente y demás miembros de mesa actuando de
manera competente?
|
|
|
|
14.
¿Hay observadores locales presentes en el colegio
electoral?
15.
¿Observa alguna persona no autorizada dentro del colegio
electoral?
16.
¿Se comprueba la identidad de los votantes como prescribe
el procedimiento?
17.
¿Se comprueba la existencia de tinta en el dedo mayor del
votante antes de que se le permita votar?
18.
¿Se aplica la tinta indeleble correctamente en el dedo
mayor después haber votado?
19.
¿Se pegó el holograma en todos los DNI o Libretas
Electorales?
20.
¿Firman los votantes la lista de mesa después de haber
emitido su voto?
21.
¿Se permite el voto sin DNI o Libreta Electoral?
22.
¿Hubo algún problema de suplantación de identidad?
23.
¿Considera que se respetó el secreto del voto?
24.
¿Ha visto algún caso de voto familiar?
25.
¿Se otorga asistencia a los votantes discapacitados de
acuerdo a la Ley?
26.
¿Los discapacitados físicos pueden acceder fácilmente al
colegio electoral?
27.
¿Considera que el procedimiento de voto se ha respetado en
la mesa de votación?
28.
¿Hay personeros de partidos políticos en la mesa de
votación? Si “sí”, ¿de
qué partido?
Partido
Aprista Peruano
Perú
Otros. Por
favor, especificar ( ______________________ )
29.
¿Están los personeros de los partidos suplantando al
personal de mesa en sus funciones?
30.
¿Considera que los personeros de los partidos muestran una
actitud imparcial?
|
|
|
|
31.
Evaluación general del proceso de voto:
1.
Bueno – Sin problemas relevantes
2.
Pequeños problemas – No suficientes para alterar la votación
3.
Problemas graves – Podrían afectar al resultado
|
Annex
8
|
|
MISION
DE OBSERVACION ELECTORAL
DE
LA UNION EUROPEA
PERU 2001
– 2ª VUELTA
Formulario
de incidente
|
Número
de equipo
Departamento
Provincia
Distrito
Naturaleza
del incidente
Fecha
y hora del incidente
ESTE
FORMULARIO SE UTILIZARA PARA RECOLECTAR INFORMACION EN EL UNICO CASO EN
QUE EL OBSERVADOR LO CONSIDERE PERTINENTE POR LA NATURALEZA DE LA
DENUNCIA.
EL
MANDATO DE NUESTRA MISION NO CONTEMPLA EL INICIO DE NINGUNA MEDIDA
ULTERIOR.
EN
CUALQUIER CASO, REDIRIGIR AL QUERELLANTE A LA AUTORIDAD PERUANA
COMPETENTE.
|
Nombre del querellante
|
|
|
Presunta filiación política
del querellante
|
|
|
¿Aquién se redirigió al
querellante?
|
|
|
Nombre del acusado/organización
|
|
|
Presunta filiación política
del acusado/organización
|
|
|
Modalidad de queja
|
Verbal r
Escrita r
|
|
Incidente en referencia a:
|
Votación r
Cierre r
Cómputo de votos
r
Otros
r
|
|
Impacto de la queja
|
Departamento
r
Distrito r
Provincia r
Centro de voto r
|
Descripción
de los hechos
Comentarios
del observador
Annex
9
|
|
MISION
DE OBSERVACION ELECTORAL
DE
LA UNION EUROPEA
PERU 2001
– 2ª VUELTA
Formulario
del cierre y escrutinio
|
EJEMPLAR
DE RESERVA – EJEMPLAR DE RESERVA – EJEMPLAR DE RESERVA
Equipo nº/ Observador-a
Departamento
Provincia
Nº
de colegio/Nombre Nº de mesa
|
|
|
|
|
Procedimiento
de cierre
|
|
|
1.
¿Se permitió votar a la gente que entró antes de las
16:00?
2.
¿Se permitió votar a la gente que llegó después de
las 16:00?
3.
¿Se cerró el colegio electoral de acuerdo al
procedimiento?
|
|
|
Procedimientos
de recuento
|
|
|
4.
¿Firmó el Presidente y resto de personal de mesa el
Acta de Sufragio?
5.
¿Se interrumpió el escrutinio?
6.
¿Hubo diferencias entre votantes y cédulas?
7.
¿Leyó el presidente de mesa el contenido de las cédulas
con imparcialidad?
8.
¿Pudieron los personeros de los partidos políticos
revisar las cédulas?
9.
¿Actuaron los personeros de los partidos con
imparcialidad?
10.
¿Suplantaron los personeros de los partidos las
funciones de los miembros de mesa?
11.
¿Hubo intento de repartición de votos blancos entre
dichos personeros?
12.
¿Asistieron observadores locales al recuento de cédulas?
13.
¿Hubo impugnaciones?
14.
¿Se hicieron observaciones al acta de escrutinio?
15.
¿Se respetó la imparcialidad en el conteo?
16.
¿Se firmó el Acta de Escrutinio?
17.
¿Se anunció el resultado en un cartel/pizarra bien
visible tras el recuento?
18.
¿Se repartieron las actas como establece la Ley?
19.
¿Se destruyeron las cédulas escrutadas y no impugnadas?
|
|
20.
Evaluación del procedimiento de cierre
1.Bueno
2.Pequeños
problemas - no afectaron al cierre
3.Problemas
grandes – afectaron al cierre
|
21.
Evaluación del proceso de recuento
2.Pequeños
problemas – no afectaron el escrutinio
3.Problemas
grandes – afectaron el escrutinio
|
|
|
Comentarios
generales
(incluir
voto femenino y % de participación)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Annex
10
Ballot
sheet for 8 April elections
|
