The clash between the opposition and the majority has once again shifted to Electoral Reform. Just hours before the Commission meeting, co-chair Oerd Bylykbashi asked the Socialists to change the agenda, while also setting a firm deadline: until 11:00.
What PD is seeking ahead of the meeting
According to the request made public, the opposition is seeking the removal from the agenda of the item related to reflecting the new territorial map in the Electoral Code.
In its place, Bylykbashi wants the Commission to examine the issue related to ODIHR recommendations on guaranteeing equality in the race, separating the state from the party, and prohibiting the abuse of state power in elections.
The opposition’s argument: the item was introduced unilaterally
In the version presented by Bylykbashi, the first item on the agenda is not an OSCE/ODIHR recommendation and was not agreed between the two co-chairs of the Commission.
He claims that this issue was introduced unilaterally and was immediately opposed by opposition members in the Commission’s communication group as soon as the agenda was announced.
Debate over the Commission’s priorities
According to the opposition, the issue related to separating the state from the party was discussed earlier in the Commission during June-July, and a consultation roundtable was also held on it with partners, international experts, and civil society.
Along these lines, the PD presents this item as a priority that must be concluded before the May 9, 2027 elections, suggesting that the addition of other issues to the agenda risks shifting the focus of the debate.
The deadline set for the majority
Bylykbashi requests that by 11:00 the secretariat formally communicate the amended agenda to the Commission.
He also argues that the Commission’s mandate ends on November 30 and that any deviation from the priorities, according to the opposition’s version, hinders the achievement of this process’s objectives.
PD’s request comes at a time when the debate over Electoral Reform remains politically charged and with little room for real consensus between the sides.
At its core, the clash is not only about the agenda, but also about control of the agenda of a process that affects the rules of the electoral game.