1. CITIZENS’ CONFIDENCE IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM Public opinion research
March, 2018.
This project is supported by the European Union through the Delegation of the EU to Montenegro. The findings of this research are exclusively the responsibility of the author and do not reflect attitudes of the EU.

2. CONTENT:
About the project and research
Methodology
Key findings
Research results
Contact

3. About the project and research:
Centre for Monitoring and Research (CeMI) is implementing a project titled “Let Fair Elections Become a Habit! – Building Trust in the Integrity of the Electoral Process in Montenegro.” The overall objective of the project is to contribute to a higher level of consolidation of democracy and rule of law in Montenegro. The specific objective is to increase the level of public trust in the integrity of the electoral process, by advocating for adequate changes of institutional and legal electoral framework, in accordance with international standards, thus building a consensus within the political society and civil society organizations in Montenegro. The main target groups of this project are: political parties, electoral management bodies, state authorities, the Parliament – which is the “Associate” on this project, the international community, civil society, citizens with an active right to vote. The project is implemented with the support of the EU.
Within this project, CeMI conducted a public opinion research by questioning citizens’ attitudes about the political situation in the country. The goal of this research is to question the degree of citizens’ confidence towards the electoral system, by looking at the electoral process, the institutions responsible for conducting elections and political parties. Public opinion research has been conducted on a representative sample the size of 1019 adult citizens of Montenegro. The representative sample is defined as a random three-stage stratified sample. The sample frame is based on the information from the 2011 census and the electronic phonebook. Stratification of the sample was done on the municipal level, type of estate, age categories and gender. Gathering of data was conducted between the 10th of March to the 31st of March The survey was done using the CATI (Computer-assisted telephone interviewing) method, on the sample of the population that owns a landline telephone in their household. The survey was done over the phone and the average length of the questionnaire was eight minutes.

4. Methodology Realization:
Research conducted in the period from the 10th to the 31st of March 2018
Sample frame:
Population of Montenegro 18+, Estimation of the population according to the citizens census from 2011 and statistic data about birth and death in the period from
Sample size:
1019 respondents
Type of sample:
Three-stage random representative stratified sample
Stratification: Type of settlement
Unit of the first stage: Territory (municipality divided according to the type of settlement), the size is proportional to the number of residents
Unit of the second stage: Household (selected by random dialing of phone numbers)
Unit of the third stage: Respondents within the household (first birthday, combined with quotas by gender and age groups)
Type of research:
One-time, CATI (telephone survey ), questionnaire (average length 8 minutes)
Places of research:
16 municipalities in Montenegro, allocation by municipalities is proportional to the number of citizens
Stratification:
By gender, age, type of settlement
Error:
±3.05 % for occurrences with incidence of 50%, level of confidence 95% (marginal error)
Incidence 1% 3% 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Error
0.61%
1.04%
1.35%
1.83%
2.18%
2.44%
2.64%
2.80%
2.91%
2.99%
3.04%
3.05%

5. Key findings:
Based on public opinion research conducted on the representative sample of respondents, the data shows that approximatelly half of respondents (52.7%) state that they are satisfied with the way democracy works in Montenegro. The number of respondents who are completely satisfied has grown from 9% (2016) to 21% (2018).
Most of respondents, 60.2% evaluate that corruption is present in the political system of Montenegro. Respondents that are not members of any political party show a more critical attitude towards the degree of corruption present in the political system.
35.4% of respondents show trust in institutions responsible for conducting elections, compared to 30.7% of respondents that do not have trust and 27.5% of respondents that gave a neutral response to this question. Expressed through the five degree scale, where one is the minimal and five is the maximal grade, the average level of citizens’ trust equals 2.99.
Confidence that the Central Voter Register is up to date and correct, is shown by 42.0% of respondents. Every fourth respondent, precisely 27.7% of respondents do not have confidence, and 24.9% gave a neutral answer.
That the Parliamentary elections in 2016 were fair and free, evaluate 45.5% of respondents, compared to 32.6% of respondents who gave a negative answer.
More than half of respondents, 58.5% believe the opposition parties should not continue the boycott of the Parliament, compared to 18.4% of respondents who support the boycott.

6. Key findings:
Evaluating the work of electoral institutions on a scale from one to five, the lowest average grade is given to the Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APC) and it equals Satisfaction with the work of electoral institutions state between 33.7% and 47.2% of respondents, which points to a relatively insufficient level of satisfaction.
Based on the opinion of 70.6% of respondents, the polling board should be composed both of representatives of political parties and officials of local administration. Similarly, 60.7% of respondents evaluate that the State Election Commission should be composed both of representatives of political parties and independent experts, predominantly with experts.
More than half of respondents think that it is necessary to regulate by law the obligation of parties to keep records of their members, to introduce procedures for election of party leadership directly by party members and to introduce procedures for the democratic nomination of candidates for MPs.
Based on the opinion of 45.1% of respondents, party leadership should be determined on elections where interested citizens could participate as well, which represents a growth in relation to data from 2016, when 32.0% of respondents had the same attitude.
That the upcoming, Presidential elections will be free and fair, evaluate 52.4% of respondents, compared to 26.3% of respondents who evaluate the opposite.

7. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

8. Overview of research findings: Democracy in Montenegro
Based on data gained from the public opinion research on the representative sample of 1019 respondents, somewhat more than half of respondents (52.7%) state that they are satisfied with the way democracy works in Montenegro, compared to 41.7% of respondents who are not satisfied. A positive change is noted in the perception because in March of 2016, 46% of respondents stated that they were satisfied with the way democracy works. Significant increase in satisfaction of respondents is indicated by information that the number of those who are completely satisfied has grown from 9% (2016) to 21% (2018).
56.6% of respondents from the central region are satisfied with the state of democracy in Montenegro, as well as 50.7% of respondents from the north of the country. In the southern region, satisfaction is expressed by a somewhat smaller number of respondents, where 41.4% of respondents state that they are satisfied with the way democracy works in Montenegro. The distribution of answers is significantly different in relation to categories of nationality, age and party membership. Respondents that state they are currently a member of a political party show a higher degree of satisfaction with the way democracy works (59.4%), compared to those respondents who are not members of any political party (49.0%).

9. Overview of research findings: Political corruption
Most of the respondents, precisely 60.2%, evaluate that corruption is present in the political system of Montenegro. Only 12.6% of respondents state that corruption does not exist, and 9.7% does not know or does not want to respond to this question. Distribution of answers is significantly different in relation to categories of territory (divided by regions), education, nationality and party membership. Respondents that state they are not a member of a political party show a more critical attitude towards the degree of presence of corruption in the political system, where 63.1% state that corruption does exist. Among respondents that say they are a member of a political party, more than half, 54.0% evaluate that corruption is present in the political system.
Difference in the attitude towards the presence of corruption in the political system also exists among respondents from different regions. In the south, 65.2% of respondents evaluate that corruption is present, compared to 59.9% of respondents from the central region and 56.8% from the north, who have the same attitude. Respondents with a higher degree of education tend to state that corruption is present in the political system of Montenegro more often.

10. Overview of research findings: Trust in the institutions of the electoral system
Trust in the institutions responsible for conducting elections have 35.4% of respondents, compared to 30.7% of respondents who state they do not have trust and 27.5% of respondents who gave a neutral response to that question. Expressed on the five-degree scale, the average level of citizens’ trust is 2.99.
A higher level of trust is shown by respondents who state they are a member of a political party, so one half of these respondents state they do have trust in the electoral institutions. Among respondents who are not party members, 31.5% state they have trust. Respondents of the Serbian nationality show the smallest degree of trust (16.3%), while among Montenegrins 45.6% of respondents state they have trust in the electoral institutions.
Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APC) is evaluated with the lowest average grade (2.89), on the five-degree scale that indicates respondents’ satisfaction regarding the quality of work of electoral institutions. The average grade of the quality of work of the State Audit Institution is 3.05; For the Constitutional Court 3.08; State Election Commission 3.17; Municipal Election Commissions 3.18; Ministry of Internal Affairs 3.18; Polling boards 3.26; The highest grade 3.4 is given to NGOs for their work during election process monitoring. Satisfaction with the work of the mentioned institutions and organizations state between 33.7% and 47.2% of respondents, which shows a relatively insufficient degree of satisfaction.

11. Overview of research findings: General rating of the electoral system
Trust that the data from the Central Voter Register is up-to-date and correct, have 42.0% of respondents. Every fourth respondent, more precisely 27.7% of respondents, state they do not have trust and 24.9% gave a neutral response. Among the respondents who state they are a member of a political party, 57.2% have trust, which is a significantly higher degree compared to respondents who are not a member of any party (37.4%).
That the Parliamentary elections in 2016 were fair and free, evaluate 45.5% of respondents, compared to 32.6% of respondents who gave a negative answer % state they cannot estimate, and 4.3% do not know or did not give an answer to this question. On the sample of respondents who answered positively or negatively, 58.3% of respondents have a positive attitude, while 41.7% of respondents show a negative attitude and estimate that the Parliamentary elections were not free and fair. Respondents from the northern and central region show a more positive attitude, as well as respondents who are members of a political party. Distribution of answers varies based on categories of nationality and gender.
More than half of respondents, 58.5% think that opposition parties should not continue to boycott the Parliament, compared to 18.4% of respondents who supported the boycott. Distribution of answers varies significantly in relation to: region, education, party membership and nationality.

12. Overview of research findings: Attitude towards existent legislation
According to the opinion of 70.6% of respondents, the polling board should be consisted of both representatives of political parties and local administration officials. Similarly, 60.7% of respondents evaluate that the State Election Commission should be consisted of political parties’ representatives and independent experts predominantly. 23.2% of respondents evaluate that the SEC should be consisted of independent experts exclusively, while 8.3% of respondents evaluate that the SEC should be consisted of political party representatives exclusively. According to the existing law, just one member of the SEC who is an expert on issues of electoral legislation, is chosen from representatives of the civil society, NGOs and universities.
Similarly, 70.6% of respondents evaluate that the polling board should be consisted of both representatives of political parties and local administration officials. According to the existing law, the polling board is consisted of representatives of political parties who are part of the local administration.
More than half of respondents think that it’s necessary to regulate by law the obligation of parties to keep records of its members, to introduce procedures of electing party leadership directly by party members, and introduce procedures of democratic nomination of candidates to become MPs. There is not a provision in the existing legislation related to the stated obligation of parties, but they can be defined by a party’s statute.
According to opinion of 45.1% of respondents, party leadership should be elected on elections in which all interested citizens could participate. In relation to data from (32.0%), there is an increase in number of respondents who believe that all interested citizens should be able to participate in elections for party leadership. Also, there is a noticeable decline in the number of respondents who think that party leadership should be elected at the party’s Congress, since it was 29.0% in 2016 and now it is 20.5%.

13. Overview of research findings: Work evaluation of polling boards
Based on the sample of respondents who were members of the permanent composition of a polling board, 64.1% state they are satisfied with the work of the polling board, in which they participated the previous time. The number of respondents in the sample was 99.
Based on the sample of respondents who were authorized political party representatives in the polling board, out of 44 respondents 61.1% are satisfied with the work of the polling board, compared to 17.4% who are not satisfied.
Among respondents who were observers for a political party at a polling station, 69.4% evaluate the work of the polling board as satisfactory, compared to 12.9% of respondents who are not satisfied with the work of the polling board whose work they monitored the previous time. The number of respondents in the sample was 47.
Based on the sample of 8 representatives who were observers at a polling station for an NGO, 63.9% state they are satisfied with the work of that NGO in the process of election monitoring.
That the upcoming, Presidential elections will be free and fair, evaluate 52.4% of respondents, compared to 26.3% of respondents who state the opposite. Almost one fifth of respondents (19.6%) cannot estimate, while 1.7% did not give an answer to this question. Distribution of answers varies in relation to categories of gender, nationality and the degree of trust in the electoral system institution.

14. RESEARCH RESULTS

15. Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Montenegro?
N=991; BO=28 (2.8%)

16. Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Montenegro?

17. Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Montenegro?

18. Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Montenegro?

19. Do you think corruption is present in the political system of Montenegro?

20. Do you think corruption is present in the political system of Montenegro?

21. Do you think corruption is present in the political system of Montenegro?

22. Do you think corruption is present in the political system of Montenegro?

23. How confident are you in the institutions responsible for conducting elections?

24. How confident are you in the institutions responsible for conducting elections?

25. How confident are you in the institutions responsible for conducting elections?

26. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?
M=3.26; N=906; BO=113 (11.1%)

27. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

28. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

29. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

30. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

31. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

32. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

33. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

34. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the work of the following institutions?

35. According to your opinion, who should be a member of the polling board?

36. According to your opinion, who should be a member of the State Election Commission (SEC)?

37. Do you have trust that data from the Central Voter Register is up to date and correct?

38. Do you think that the last Parliamentary elections (2016) were free and fair?

39. Do you think that the last Parliamentary elections (2016) were free and fair?

40. Do you think that the last Parliamentary elections (2016) were free and fair?

41. Do you think that the last Parliamentary elections (2016) were free and fair?

42. Do you think that the opposition parties should continue to boycott the Parliament?

43. Do you think that the opposition parties should continue to boycott the Parliament?

44. Do you think that the opposition parties should continue to boycott the Parliament?

45. Do you think that the opposition parties should continue to boycott the Parliament?

46. Do you think that the opposition parties should continue to boycott the Parliament?

47. According to your opinion, should the law regulate the obligation of parties to:

48. According to your opinion, should the law regulate the obligation of parties to:

49. According to your opinion, should the law regulate the obligation of parties to:

50. According to your opinion, in which way should party leadership be elected:

51. Are you currently a member of a political party?

52. Did you vote on all past elections since you’ve had the voting right?

53. Were you sometimes denied the right to vote at a polling station?

54. Are you planning on voting in the upcoming elections?

55. Were you ever a member of the permanent composition of a polling board?

56. How do you evaluate the work of the last polling board you were a member of?

57. How do you evaluate the work of the last polling board you were a member of?

58. Were you ever an authorized political party representative in a polling board?

59. How do you evaluate the work of the polling board in which you participated as a party representative the last time?

60. How do you evaluate the work of the polling board in which you participated as a party representative the last time?

61. Were you ever an observer for a political party at a polling station?

62. How do you evaluate the work of the polling board whose work you monitored the last time?

63. How do you evaluate the work of the polling board whose work you monitored the last time?

64. Were you ever an observer for an NGO that monitors elections at the polling station?

65. How do you evaluate the work of NGOs in the process of election monitoring?

66. Do you believe that the upcoming elections will be free and fair?

67. Do you believe that the upcoming elections will be free and fair?

68. Do you believe that the upcoming elections will be free and fair?

69. Thank you for your attention!
Centre for Monitoring and Research Phone/Fax: (0) Adress: Blvd Josipa Broza 23A Podgorica, Montenegro Working hours: 8h-16h