President Viktor Yanukovych’s commentary on Ukraine’s Oct. 31 local elections could have come from the pages of a Lewis Carroll novel. “Overall, it is good that there were no systematic violations. This is emphasized by international observers and the police,” he said.
But his summation was at odds with the international community, which condemned them as rigged and unfair. Perhaps it was asking too much to expect a different reaction from a leader who has demonstrated duplicity throughout the nine months of his presidency – pledging allegiance to democratic values when meeting Western dignitaries, while ruling with an autocratic hand at home, oppressing the media, the opposition and civil society.
This duplicity manifested itself again when the Ukrainian leadership brushed away accusations of large-scale electoral fraud and issued a statement about plans “to improve the national election legislation… to make sure the drawbacks of the current elections are not repeated.” The statement says that a special working group which would involve American and European experts “will bring Ukrainian legislation in compliance with recognized democratic standards.” The Foreign Ministry says that, by May, a number of amendments will be put down for public consideration.
Residents in a small Kyiv Oblast village, Plesetske, gathered on Nov. 10 to protest what they view as a rigged Oct. 31 election of lawmakers to their city council. Similar protests have erupted across Ukraine since the disputed vote was held. (UNIAN)
So why do the authorities intend to amend a law which, in their own words, helped to produce free and fair elections? Obviously, the statement is a facade – a sop to soothe strong criticism of the elections from the West.
Ukraine’s Oct. 31 local elections did not meet standards for openness and fairness set by the presidential elections earlier this year.”
– U.S. State Department’s statement, later echoed by European organizations.
The office of Catherine Ashton, the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, issued a statement that was critical of “the electoral framework and the administration of the elections.” It said that they “undermine public confidence in the electoral process and in the further consolidation of democracy in Ukraine.” In response, the incumbent leadership glossed over her concerns, alleging that the EU provided “quite positive feedback.” It now pretends to listen to how things could be improved.
These latest elections indicate a U-turn in our country’s recent political history. They are a complete departure from the democratic principles which took root in Ukrainian politics after the 2004 Orange Revolution, which allowed Ukraine to hold a string of truly free and transparent elections.
How credible is President Viktor Yanukovych’s intention to revise the election law if today, 10 days after the elections took place, their official results are still not declared? Does this not suggest that ballot boxes continue to be stuffed, protocols are being rewritten, and the results of the elections changed with the assistance of judges and law enforcement structures?
The authorities did not ask for international experts’ advice earlier this year when deciding to postpone the elections by six months, nor when it prevented the opposition running in blocs of parties. They knew perfectly well that changing the election law in the run-up to the elections was contrary to the Council of Europe Venice Commission recommendations. They knew that fully controllable election commissions are plain undemocratic. Many of these commissions went on to refuse to register opposition candidates and approved the bogus opposition candidates put on the ballot.
Our party, Batkivshchyna – the largest opposition party in the country – was denied its candidates on ballot papers in 3,368 polling stations. This repression went in parallel with the intimidation of opposition, media and civil activists in the run-up to and during the elections.
On Election Day, the authorities resorted to old, well-tested tricks of unstamped ballots and pre-signed protocols. Hundreds of thousands of additional ballots were printed illegally and observers were prevented from entering polling stations and territorial election commission premises to monitor the violations. The elections turned into a well-orchestrated scheme to appoint, not elect, people to key posts in local government in Ukraine.
The barrage of international criticism over the elections needs to be fortified by a relevant resolution from Brussels. But such a resolution on Ukraine has been delayed twice by the Socialists in the European Parliament. Bizarrely, Yanukovych’s Party of Regions – the party of oligarchs and big businessmen – signed a cooperation agreement with the Socialists on Oct. 14, which is being used to cynical effect.
Elmar Brok, a member of the European Parliament with the European People’s Party, and fellow parliamentarian and party member Michael Gahler, were clearly outraged by the Socialist Group’s move. They accused them of “dragging their feet” and said “the issue of the nature and conduct of elections is far too serious to play party-political games.”
For so long, millions of Ukrainians have looked to the EU to uphold democratic values. Brussels should be clear that Ukrainian democracy, Yanukovych-style – as demonstrated by these recent elections – is unacceptable.
Finally, it is important for the Ukrainian government to understand that Ukraine’s European integration credentials are directly linked to the quality of democracy and respect for European values inside the country. Recognizing the challenge will be a positive sign in itself.
Hryhoriy Nemyria is foreign policy adviser to opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine’s former prime minister, and is the former deputy prime minister of Ukraine responsible for European integration.
