Ukrainian Local Authority Election 2010 - The Verdict

By Author: People First Foundation
Total Articles: 17
Comment this article

The most detrimental reported breaches being:
The adoption of a new law, prior to the election, which exacerbated the imbalance of representation of political parties in the territorial election commissions created many opportunities for ‘manipulation' of the vote.
The blocking of "false" branches of the "Batkivshshyna" party in Kiev and Lviv regions also meant that the real "Batkivshshyna " were blocked from the race in those key areas and over 3,800 (32%) of the 12,000 electoral constituencies.
Flaws in the territorial election commissions (TECs) selection process that became obstacles to individual candidates or smaller parties.
Cases where candidates who were unfairly rejected from TECs who later received court orders for their registration were met with a stalling tactics that delayed them from entering the TECs until after the election.
Instances of direct violation of the principles of individual and secret voting on Election Day due to failure to fully adopt standard organizational procedures.
The lack of quality training and strict control procedures governing the printing ...
... of ballots - many of the companies that printed ballot papers did not possess the necessary state licenses, and in some cases there was excessive printing of ballots (Kharkiv 43,000 and Ivano-Frankivsk over 200,000).
The suspiciously slow response of government institutions and law enforcement officials in investigating reports of threats and pressure on candidates.
The blatant violation of counting procedures, including the falsification of ballot count seals.
Evidence of manipulation of exit polls to increase the apparent support for pro-government candidates.
The pressure from militia and secret services on individual candidates in order to coerce them to participate in elections, and also pressure on observers, forcing them to perform their mission at specific polling stations rather than those of their choosing.
The refusal to accredit certain international observers without good reason.
The deliberate creation of grounds for declaring a poll false in some districts, including transportation of the wrong ballots to polling stations, or the exclusion of candidates from the ballot papers who were not officially withdrawn from the race.
Unexplained discrepancies between the number of ballots issued and the number returned at territorial and district election commissions.
The low quantity of election commission members and lack of sufficient training, which led to slow and unprofessional work.
The crossing out of certain candidates from ballots in the last day before the election.
Attempts to mass transport voters to vote in multiple constituencies for candidates sympathetic to the governing powers.

The reaction of observers

Reaction from the European Union
High Representative for International Affairs and Security Policy of the ‘European Union' Catherine Ashton expressed concerns over the local elections in Ukraine. In her opinion, the messages relayed by representatives of numerous observation missions detailing violations during the elections on October 31st have undermined confidence in Ukraine's ability to perform elections let alone strengthen its democracy.
Representatives from the ‘Council of Europe' observer mission noted that the local elections did not meet the full standards of the ‘Council of Europe'. Head of the Delegation of the Congress of the Local and Regional Authorities of Europe H.Mosler-Tornstrom focused his comments on the fact that the voting procedures did not meet European standards for fair, transparent and professionally organized elections.
Meanwhile, President of the ‘European Peoples Party' Wilfred Martens expressed his disappointment at how local elections were enacted, concluding that this situation proves a significant retreat from democratic standards in Ukraine.
Member of European Parliament from the ‘Green' faction Rebecca Harus aptly noted that Ukrainian opposition parties should take care to prepare a political agenda of some genuine merit.
An observer from the ‘Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe' N. Mermahen noted that about 60% of the population expected violations and manipulations before the elections. The credibility and legitimacy of the Ukrainian political system has once again come under doubt.

Reaction from the United States
The government of the ‘United States' said in a statement that the local elections in Ukraine on October 31st were not at the level of openness and fairness established in the recent presidential elections; held in early 2010. According to the U.S. government, the primary source of problems on Election Day was the Law on Local Elections, adopted by Parliament in July this year, which allowed the administrative resources to be used to build pressure during the local elections, creating an imbalance in the composition of election commissions, subsequently complicating the procedures of registration and voting.
On November 3rd the ‘U.S. Embassy' in Ukraine published a statement that described the elections on the 31st of October as a step backwards when compared to the recent presidential elections.
The ‘National Democratic Institute' commented that the environment surrounding the local elections on October 31st was significantly worse than the presidential election earlier this year.

Reaction from within Ukraine
Chairman of the Ukrainian civic network ‘OPORA' Olga Ayvazovskaya announced that the local elections in Ukraine took place in non-compliance with international standards because they did not ensure a fair, transparent and democratic process.

According to statements from the Chairman of the ‘Committee of Voters of Ukraine' (CVU) A.Chernenko, the elections were far from a step forward for Ukrainian democracy.
Observers from the ‘Civic Assembly of Ukraine' concluded that the country has turned a blind eye to abuses of political power - allowing democratic standards and freedoms to slip into neglect. They gave the assessment that the local election campaign was the worst of its kind in the last 5 years.
Official reaction
The President of Ukraine noted that the problems that arose during the local elections related to imperfections within the electoral legislation. According to the President whilst there were various technical problems, systemic violations of the election process were entirely absent.
Envoys of the Minister of foreign affairs Konstantin Gryshchenko explained that Ukrainian democracy is still very much alive at this time. Ukraine's Foreign Ministry announced that it expects a fruitful cooperation with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe in the field of improving the electoral legislation and plans to use their recommendations for the development of democratic institutions in Ukraine.

People First comment: The overwhelming verdict of the recognised national and international bodies overseeing the local elections in Ukraine on the 31st of October is that it fell well below international standards of democracy. The Presidential administration, the government and the Ukrainian electoral commission should be congratulated, once again, for shooting themselves in the foot.
Party of Regions was on course to win these elections fairly, perhaps not by a landslide but certainly by an appreciable margin, such was the lack-lustre performance of the opposition parties. This was a golden opportunity for the authorities to prove once and for all that Ukraine is a modern democratic state that understands and adheres to international electoral standards. All they had to do was to run a text book election and they would have been hailed the world over.
But no they had to win ‘their' way, not through the legitimacy of the ballot box but by games more suited to the school playground. They had to give the President the gift of even more power despite the fact that in the process they totally undermined his national and international credibility and did yet more damage to a national reputation already in tatters.
Had the authorities run a clean election then the memory of the 2004 ‘rigged' election would have been expunged and the Orange Revolution finally consigned to history. As it is that memory has only been re-enforced, the international stereotypes of Ukraine enhanced and the opposition emboldened.
What did Party of Regions actually win? They may have more power but they have appreciably less legitimacy, they may control more cities but they have lost credibility with the Ukrainian people, the international community, the international stock markets, investors and financiers and all of this on the eve of a major summit with the nation's biggest trading partner, the European Union.
One has to draw the conclusion that either the authorities are spectacularly naïve or they have no real interest in forming a bond with Europe as this election will be seen as part of their ‘European values' test, a test they have well and truly failed. In Brussels they may claim that they will clean up the election law it should never have been changed in the first place. They may claim that the opposition are simply being hysterical but this is not the view of the international observers or a view supported by the stilted and pro-government reporting in the Ukrainian media.
The result of this election is not really about who won, but what was lost. The Presidency and the government lost credibility and with it international respect. The financial aristocracy behind Party of Regions lost as international investors now have even less reason to trust them. The country lost its last shreds of reputation as a member of the democratic community. Those who were elected lost as they will always have a question mark over their legitimacy and finally the people lost as in many cases their preferred candidates no longer represent their interests.
There was no victory for the those in power, or the opposition, or the people, as the turn out for this election was the lowest on record and 7% of those who took part in the ballot voted against all the candidates. Who won? Nobody.