Last fall’s local elections were a great disappointment for many non-partisan election watchers who had hoped that bad elections in Ukraine were a thing of the past. Unfortunately, three months into the reform effort, the president’s initiative looks to be equally disappointing.

The most important thing the working group can do is reassure Ukrainians of all political stripes that future elections will be fair.

This means maintaining elements of past laws that contributed to several years of democratic elections in Ukraine while solving problems that cropped up last fall. Just as important is making sure that all parties trust the process leading to the needed changes.

Inclusiveness means everyone with a significant stake in election outcomes must have a place at the drafting table. This includes major opposition parties – both inside and outside the parliament – and civil society organizations.”

Kristina Wilfore.

A visibly fair drafting process would have gone far to address accusations that political expediency had the upper hand throughout last fall’s election season, which ended in a vote that failed to meet democratic standards in the view of many credible groups.

Concerns about politicization of local elections were seen in comments by every non-partisan election observer group, including the European Union, as well as the National Democratic Institute, OPORA and the Committee of Voters’ of Ukraine, as well as others. Restoring confidence is possible despite sharp political polarization in Ukraine, but the reform process must rest on three principles – inclusiveness, transparency and accountability.

Inclusiveness means everyone with a significant stake in election outcomes must have a place at the drafting table. This includes major opposition parties – both inside and outside the parliament – and civil society organizations.

Transparency and accountability require making election law reform accessible to ordinary citizens and taking into account input from the major electoral contestants in the draft legislation that is eventually produced.

Unfortunately, the current working group falls short in all three areas.

The government, which formed this election law drafting commission unilaterally, has not fully welcomed major opposition parties or non-partisan civic organizations.

While some members of the opposition and civil society have been included during later meetings of the working group, their belated participation is not a substitute for substantial involvement. Furthermore, the working group remains a heavily pro-government body.

As for transparency, debate, deliberation and drafting – the group’s central functions – are going on behind closed doors, where participants lack the ability to make real decisions.

At the first meeting, those gathered were told that the president would make all decisions on the new law and that its basic structure had already been determined and was non-negotiable.

Group members also learned they could not suggest topics for discussion or be informed on how topics were chosen. There have been no drafts to review and no explanation of how the group’s comments are being integrated into the drafting process.


Ultimately, the success of the election reform effort will depend at least as much on the public confidence it inspires as on its technical merits.”

Kristina Wilfore.

And, a working group process that was originally slated to continue through September has apparently been cut short.

On Feb. 22, working group chairman and Justice Minister Oleksandr Lavrynovych announced that the group is wrapping up and should have legislation before parliament soon.

In a Jan. 30 interview with The Washington Post, Yanukovych pledged his intention to hear a broad range of international and domestic voices as part of the reform process, which NDI and others applauded. But that seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

What can be done to save the reform effort?

At a minimum, any real election law drafting project must include representatives of all the major parties and blocs contesting elections and civil society.

As the working group process is winding down Yanukovych has another opportunity to reassert his leadership in this regard. Time should be set aside for the working group, including civil society participants in recent meetings, to scrutinize the full draft of any proposed legislation.

A further step, opening the draft up to public review and comment would signal even more strongly the President’s interest in transparency, inclusiveness and fairness.

Ultimately, the success of the election reform effort will depend at least as much on the public confidence it inspires as on its technical merits.

Competing candidates and parties must believe that the rules are fair and that they are carried out in a balanced manner. Citizens must believe that their vote will count.

Given the doubts expressed in so many quarters about last fall’s local elections, Ukrainian citizens deserve an electoral reform process they can trust.

 

Kristina Wilfore is Director of the Ukraine office for the National Democratic Institute (www.ndi.org). NDI’s work in Ukraine is supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and other donors.The views expressed are not necessarily those of USAID.