REPUBLISHED

10 points from the OSCE/ODIHR report on the 11 May elections

Erblin Vukaj · Originally published: 12 May 2025

The 11 May parliamentary elections were well organised but took place in a polarised environment, with the Socialist Party misusing public assets and reports of pressure on public-administration employees and on voters at polling stations.

This was the statement made on Monday by the OSCE/ODIHR international election observation mission as it announced its preliminary assessment of the elections.

In the report published on the afternoon of 12 May, OSCE/ODIHR assessed the elections as technically well organised but stressed that the country needs independent media and further electoral reform.

Presenting the report alongside other representatives, Michael Gahler, head of the European Parliament’s delegation observing the elections in Albania, said that, in its present state, our country cannot join the EU.

Gahler added that elections are an essential instrument of democracy and that all political actors must work towards consensus on the electoral framework and strengthen trust in the integrity of the process.

“Furthermore, I call on the new government to [continue] the successes [already] achieved, such as those in the field of justice,” Gahler concluded.

But what were the main points of the preliminary report? Citizens.al summarises all the points below:

1- Legal framework and electoral system

Parliamentary elections are based on the 1998 Constitution and the 2008 Electoral Code, supplemented by amendments made in 2021, 2024 and 2025, including voting by the diaspora from abroad.

OSCE/ODIHR notes that, although the legal framework is “sufficient to hold democratic elections”, it remains unclear and unsupported by comprehensive reform.

The report describes the proportional electoral system, with closed and preferential lists in 12 districts, as favouring the two major parties. It says that most seats are allocated through closed lists regardless of preferential votes for candidates, reflecting party leaders’ substantial influence over parliamentary representation.

2- Election administration

Albania’s parliamentary elections were administered by the Central Election Commission (CEC), 93 Commissions of Electoral Administration Zones (CEAZs) and more than 5,000 polling-station commissions.

OSCE/ODIHR assesses the process as transparent, with open meetings and regular participation by political actors. However, it cites allegations of politicisation among CEC members, as well as tight time and logistical constraints in delivering diaspora voting.

Marginalised communities were left outside the CEC’s voter-education campaign, while parties frequently replaced CEAZ members, particularly in the final days before voting. Compliance with the gender quota was minimal: women made up 31% of CEAZ membership but were poorly represented in leadership positions.

3- Use of technology

In the 2025 parliamentary elections, biometric voter identification was used at all polling stations, while the pilot of electronic voting and counting continued in only two districts.

This covered only 1.4% of registered voters, contrary to the legal requirement for a minimum of 10%, because of a political deadlock.

Electronic voting used touchscreen devices that produced printed vote receipts, while results were transmitted electronically after voting ended. Although public demonstrations were organised to raise awareness, OSCE/ODIHR assessed these as insufficiently proactive.

4- Voter registration

Voter registration within the country was carried out automatically through the civil register and was assessed by electoral stakeholders as transparent and inclusive. However, the automatic removal of people over 100 from the lists, intended to exclude the names of deceased people, was considered an unfair burden on this age group.

Electoral contestants were entitled to receive a complete copy of the voter list, increasing the process’s transparency, although concerns were raised about personal-data protection.

The final list was published on 2 April with 3,713,761 registered voters, including those abroad. Registration abroad (11 January–4 March) resulted in 245,935 voters from 85 countries, while around 41,000 applications were rejected for lack of appropriate documentation.

5- Candidate registration

The CEC registered all 8 political parties and 3 coalitions that applied by 12 March. Only one, the Albanian National Alliance Party, was led by a woman, Elena Kocaqi.

In total, 2,046 candidates contested 140 parliamentary seats, of whom 787 (38.47%) were women, slightly above the legal minimum, but all lists met the quota.

In line with earlier recommendations by OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, the option for party leaders to stand simultaneously in several electoral districts was removed.

No independent candidates were registered in these elections. During candidate verification, the CEC removed 16 people from their respective parties’ lists on the basis of self-declarations of criminal convictions confirmed by the General Directorate of Prisons. No electoral contestant challenged the decision, and replacement candidates were submitted on time.

6- Campaign climate

According to OSCE/ODIHR, the Socialists benefited during the campaign from state resources and institutional activities, which are legally permitted when carried out as part of official duties.

Government representatives took part in investment promotions and inspections that, in some cases, turned into direct campaigning. Meanwhile, the government approved policies forgiving fines and granting benefits to certain groups of voters before the four-month prohibition period, but implemented them during the campaign, raising suspicions of electoral motives.

The CEC was responsible for examining cases of misuse of public resources. Of 4,522 reported public activities, only 18 were prohibited as abusive.

Of the 166 complaints received, most concerned the use of state resources, tenders and social assistance. By 9 May, the CEC had decided only 118 cases, raising concerns about the mechanism’s effectiveness.

The report says the campaign saw numerous allegations of pressure on public-administration employees and marginalised communities to support the Socialist Party, vote buying, and organised-crime influence in some areas.

7- Campaign financing

OSCE/ODIHR says the electoral framework leaves gaps that undermine transparency and equality between parties in elections.

Parties can finance their campaigns with public and private funds, donations or loans. Although the law requires disclosure of funding sources, OSCE/ODIHR notes that no party has published information on donations or loans, and the CEC lacks the legal means to compel compliance with this provision.

The overall spending limit for a party is around 3.3 million euros, while the 2025 legal amendments excluded candidates’ expenses from this limit without setting a separate ceiling for them. The absence of regulation of online advertising and third-party spending creates opportunities to use undeclared funds and circumvent legal restrictions.

A media-reported case involving a 6 million dollar lobbying contract intended to secure access for the Democratic Party to senior levels of the US administration is cited as a typical example of such circumvention.

8- Media

According to ODIHR monitoring, the two main parties, the Socialist Party (PS) and the Democratic Party (PD), dominated media coverage, while other parties received less than 5% of television airtime. Most coverage included material produced by the parties themselves without being labelled as political advertising, contrary to the law.

Political programmes did not produce real debates between leaders, while television advertising was used only by the major parties.

OSCE/ODIHR notes that media independence, pluralism and integrity in Albania are compromised by opaque funding and close connections between media owners and political and economic interests, often dependent on public contracts.

Albanian Radio and Television (RTSH) is criticised for its lack of a broad audience, while the Audiovisual Media Authority is criticised for failing to guarantee genuine institutional independence.

Although the Constitution protects freedom of expression, defamation remains a criminal offence and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) targeting journalists are increasing. The temporary ban on access to TikTok harmed the opportunity for an equal campaign, particularly for non-parliamentary parties.

9- Minorities

Minorities were free to participate in the elections as voters and candidates, both within the main national parties and through two national-minority parties that formed part of the Democratic Party-led coalition.

However, OSCE/ODIHR notes that the requirement to field candidates in all electoral districts creates an obstacle to minority parties winning parliamentary seats.

There were also reports of pressure on Roma and Egyptian communities to sell their votes, while in some areas Roma voters were unclear about the location of their polling stations.

10- Election day

OSCE/ODIHR assesses election day as generally calm and transparent, but frequent departures from procedures were observed during opening and voting, including delays, problems with biometric devices and the presence of unauthorised individuals.

Observers reported that the secrecy of the vote was not respected in many polling stations, that there were cases of group voting, and that voter education on the new preferential-list voting procedures was lacking.

There were also cases of pressure, intimidation and possible vote buying, while individuals taking notes about voters appeared at some polling stations.

The lack of access for people with disabilities was a concern: 50% of polling stations were unsuitable for them, and there were no alternative methods for people who were immobile or in hospital.

In some centres, counting took place in a tense atmosphere, and there were cases where ballots were not shown on camera as required or results were not provided to party observers.

Delays in transmitting electronic votes and complaints about verification of votes from abroad revealed a complete lack of trust in the electoral system, particularly on the part of the Democratic Party.