Transnistrian referendum, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transnistria
This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Transnistria

President Igor Smirnov Parliament Political parties Disputed status War of Transnistria Human rights 2006 presidential election See also: Politics of Moldova
Other countries · Politics Portal view • talk • edit

The 2006 referendum in Transnistria took place in Transnistria on 17 September 2006. On that date, Transnistria voted to continue its de facto independence and seek closer ties with Russia.

1 Official results
2 Reactions
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Official results

Data issued by Transnistrian authorities show that of the 555,500 inhabitants, a total of 394,861 were registered to vote, down 5.6% from a year earlier.^[1]

The referendum asked voters:

Do you support the course towards the independence of Transnistria and the subsequent free association with the Russian Federation?
Yes: 97.2% - No: 1.9% - Invalid/undecided: 0.9%
Do you consider it possible to renounce Transnistria's independent status and subsequently become part of the Republic of Moldova?
Yes: 3.3% - No: 94.9% - Invalid/undecided: 1.8%

Voter turnout was 78.6%, substantially more than the 50%+1 required by law to validate the referendum.^[2] On the day of the referendum, no exit polling was allowed within 25 meters of polling stations, to prevent disruption of voting.^[3]

[edit] Reactions

Poster announcing the 17th September Referendum in Transnistria

International organisations, such as the OSCE^[4], European Union, GUAM, and some other countries (Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, Ukraine, Turkey, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia, Iceland, Norway) did not recognise the referendum.^[5]^[6]

According to Russian News Agency RIA Novosti, more than 130 international observers monitored the referendum and reported that "they did not register any procedural violations during the secret balloting",^[7]. However no international monitoring organizations sent any observers to it.

Viktor Alksnis , a deputy from the Russian party "Rodina" stated that referendum in Transnistria was held without any violations of legislation and democratic standards.^[8] Previously Viktor Alksnis is known described the Transnistrian Republic as the base from which the Soviet Union's restoration would begin.^[9]

In the opinion of the Ukrainian foreign ministry, the situation in Transnistria fails to meet the conditions of a free will expression by citizens. ^[10] According to the OSCE, the media climate in the Transdniestrian region is restrictive. Authorities there continue a long-standing campaign to silence independent opposition voices and movements.^[11]

The OSCE gave its verdict on the referendum in advance of the voting, and decided not to send any observers to monitor it. ^[12] 130 observers from CIS and Europe and from eleven election monitoring organizations who did attend the referendum had different reactions. ^[13] The representative of the Congress of Russian Communities from Moldova declared that the referendum was held according to international standards.^[14]

In contrast the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Moldova (HCHRM) claims to have observed a series of infringements at the referendum ^[15] but evidence has been presented to substantiate this. No other sources have so far expressed similar accusations or given any indications to believe that the statements of HCHRM are true.

Sergei Bagapsh, president of Abkhazia(Alkhazia claims independence from Georgia, but has a disputed status), has said his republic "supports the aspirations of Transdniestria toward independence and its choice of unification with Russia." ^[16]

Karel De Gucht (Chairman of the OSCE) expressed an opinion about the "lack of basic requirements for free and fair elections, such as freedom of the media, freedom of assembly and political pluralism, in the region pre-determined the results" and argued that the questions in the referendum are suggestively worded.^[17] In a possible manipulation of the public opinion, people are asked to choose between freedom ("free association") and loss of independence ("renounce the Transnistria's independent status"), between reality ("support the course") and possibility ("consider it possible") This formulation could have resulted in a response bias. ^[18]

Victor Josu, deputy editor-in-chief of Russian-language Moldovan newspaper Moldavskiye Vedomosti, an accredited observer, described the referendum as a successful public relations action (regardless of violations and a lack of recognition) and reported favorably on a comparison between "recognized Chişinau" and "unrecognized Tiraspol" in an article which emphasized the openness, transparency and glasnost of the referendum process.^[19]