The ex-president of the Central Election Commission Iurie Ciocan, who also headed the commission for the establishment of single-member constituencies, tried to explain the controversial decisions on the number of constituencies set up in Transnistria (two) and the diaspora in Europe (one). The authors of a new Sic! article say Iurie Ciocan, speaking as a “technician”, invoked the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the theory of political sciences. “In both of the cases yet, he was wrong, either out of ignorance or because he wanted to manipulate,” reads the article.
Asked about Transnistria, Iurie Ciocan didn’t show he was bothered that two constituencies were established for a region where only 16,000 people voted in the presidential elections and only one constituency was formed for the European diaspora, where 115,000 people voted. He argued: ”The theory and standards proposed by the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe say that the single-member constituencies represent particular territories in order to give political representation to these territories”. In fact, the Venice Commission said it differently: “The delimitation of constituencies is an important means of promoting equal voting power in all the electoral systems,” said the authors of the Sic! article.
“Under the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, «equal voting power […] entails a clear and balanced distribution of seats (of MP) among constituencies on the basis of one of the following allocation criteria: population, number of resident nationals (including minors), number of registered voters, and possibly the number of people actually voting. An appropriate combination of these criteria may be envisaged. […] The geographical criterion and administrative, or possibly even historical, boundaries may be taken into consideration,” says the article.
According to the authors, it is recommendable to take into account not only the number of registered voters, but also the number of those who actually vote. The Commission again contradicts Iurie Ciocan, who argues that the law says to take into account not the number of citizens, but the number of voters on the main electoral registers used in the last national elections. Iurie Ciocan forgot to mention that the law provides this because its authors ignored the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
The article makes reference to the recent statement of the EU Ambassador in Chisinau Peter Michalko, who clearly said in a TV program that the Commission’s recommendations weren’t respected in a way that would be satisfactory to say that no questions are generated.
The authors of the article also say that ultimately nether the theory of political sciences nor the Venice Commission help a lot Iurie Ciocan. His assertions either manipulate intentionally, which would make Mister Ciocan more politician rather than “technician”, or show that he superficially read the opinion of the Venice Commission and the theory of political sciences. In both of the cases, his assertions generate questions as to the quality of the reform that was implemented under his guidance.
The full article (in Romanian) can be read here.
Sic! is a fact-checking, synthesis and analysis project implemented by IPN with support from the Soros Foundation Moldova and Black Sea Trust.
