· 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 (Fatherland) party in Kyiv and Lviv regions also meant that the real Batkivshshyna were blocked from the race in those key areas, and more than 3,800 (32 percent) of the 12,000 electoral constituencies.
· Flaws in the selection process for territorial election commissions that became obstacles to individual candidates or smaller parties.
· Cases where candidates who were unfairly rejected from territorial election commissions who later received court orders for their registration were met with a stalling tactics that delayed them from entering the territorial election 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 – more than 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of the wrong ballots to polling stations, or the exclusion of candidates from the ballot papers who were not officially withdrawn from the race.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.
In her [Catherine Ashton’s] opinion, the messages relayed by representatives of numerous observation missions, detailing violations during the elections on Oct. 31, have undermined confidence in Ukraine’s ability to perform elections, let alone strengthen its democracy."
European Union reaction
Catherine Ashton, high representative for international affairs and security policy of the European Union, 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 Oct. 31, 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 democratic standards. 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.
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…"
United States reaction
The government of the United States said in a statement that the local elections in Ukraine on Oct. 31 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 Nov. 3, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine published a statement that described the as a step backwards when compared to the recent presidential elections.
Reaction from within Ukraine
Olga Ayvazovskaya, chairman of the Ukrainian civic network OPORA, announced that the local elections did not ensure a fair, transparent and democratic process.
The 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 lackluster 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."
Official reaction
President Viktor Yanukovych noted that the problems that arose during the local elections related to imperfections within the electoral legislation. While there were various technical problems, systemic violations of the election process were entirely absent.
Envoys of the Foreign Affairs Minister Konstantin Gryshchenko explained that Ukrainian democracy is still very much alive.
People First comment: The overwhelming verdict of the recognized national and international bodies overseeing the local elections in Ukraine on Oct. 21 is that it fell well below international standards of democracy. The 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 lackluster 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 textbook election and they would have been hailed the world over. Had the authorities run a clean election then the memory of the 2004 rigged presidential election in favor of Yanukovych would have been expunged and the Orange Revolution, in which Viktor Yushchenko triumphed as president, finally consigned to history.What did Party of Regions actually win? They may have more power, but they have appreciably less legitimacy.
Viktor Tkachuk is chief executive officer of the People First Foundation, which seeks to strengthen Ukrainian democracy. The organization’s website is: www.peoplefirst.org.ua and the e-mail address is: [email protected]
