Ukraine held a free and fair presidential election on Jan. 17, but fears remain that the run-off vote on Feb. 7 will be marred by fraud.
Ukraine held a free and fair presidential election on Jan. 17, a consensus of international and local observers found. However, fears remain that a cutthroat campaign – combined with a flawed election law – could lead to massive fraud in the Feb. 7 decisive round.
However, despite fears of vote-rigging – fueled by first-round winners Yulia Tymoshenko and Victor Yanukovych – no widespread election fraud was recorded by either side in the qualifying heat among 18 candidates.
The true test will come in the Feb. 7 runoff, which is shaping up as a close battle. Tymoshenko made every effort this week to persuade other “democratic” candidates to support her in the second round, but the losing 16 candidates have not yet obliged.
Free and fair
“Ukraine has proven it can hold a clean election, even under an incomplete and unclear election law, confirming the desire of the Ukrainian people to freely choose their leaders,” said Matyas Eorsi, head of delegation of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly. “However, a major challenge ahead for Ukraine’s politicians is to play by the rules rather than with the rules.”
International observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe gave high marks to the hotly contested first round that “showed significant progress over previous elections, meeting most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments.”
Local watchdogs Opora and the Committee of Voters of Ukraine said they didn’t record any “serious or systematic violations that might have influenced the overall result of the presidential election.”
Ironically, lawmakers from parties and factions led by first-round winners Yanukovych and Tymoshenko amended the law in a way that OSCE said included “many shortcomings” and were a “step backward” for ensuring a solid electoral legal framework, which currently remains “unclear and incomplete”.
Still, OSCE Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini said, “if implemented in good faith and in a non-restrictive manner, the legislation could provide an adequate basis for holding democratic elections.”
Olha Aivasovska, head of Opora, a nationwide network of civic activists, expressed concern over the possible abuse of homebound voting since procedures for this have been changed often and lack clarity. One example is a corrupt election commission member conducts a home visit and secures a predetermined vote, in 2004 many never visited homes and instead completed “dead soul” ballots. On Jan. 17, 3 percent of voters have voted at home, enough to tip the scales in a tight race.
Should there be a narrow gap in the election result, Tagliavini argued that such issues as the homebound voting, adding voters to the voter’s list and voting in special polling stations may be taken as an argument to contest the election result.”
Local election experts also cited the opportunity for the “kerchief” scheme. Taking advantage of the flawed voter lists that contains names of ineligible voters or “dead souls,” a pre-designated election commission member usually wears a clearly visible accessory, such as a kerchief, a protruding necklace or eye glasses. A voter approaches that commission member with any passport and receives a “dead soul” ballot and uses it to vote for a particular candidate.
Experts faulted lawmakers for failing to fix the glitches in the presidential election law, which has far more defects than the law on parliament election.
“We know the second round (of voting) will be very difficult,” Aivasovska. “We can expect anything and everything from the two front-runners; they might not stop at anything to ensure their victories.”
The OSCE mission also noted the Feb. 7 struggle ahead and reiterated its intention to send out the same number of observers – more than 800 – in the second round and only those with monitoring experience in the first round. OSCE delegates also recommended not amending the election law in between rounds, despite the defects, citing the dangers of training election commission employees in time and properly implementing any new procedures.
Election watchdogs in Ukraine echoed the importance of having large numbers of observers to watch the electoral process. “We especially need more long term observers because many (election) violations could happen outside of polling booths during homebound voting, for instance,” Aivazovska said.
But given the fact that Ukraine has held three high quality national elections since December 2004, some feel the standard is set and there’s no reason to lower the bar. “The standards are quite high and I hope that the next election will correspond to this standard,” Tagliavini said.
Seeking support
Immediately after polling stations closed on Jan. 21, current prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko called on defeated candidates – mainly Sergiy Tigipko, Arseniy Yatseniuk, incumbent President Victor Yushchenko, parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn and Anatoliy Hrytsenko – to back her. All of them garnered a combined 29 percent of the vote, compared to first-place finisher Yanukovych’s 35 percent of the vote. Tymoshenko trailed him by 10 percentage points.
“I’m open to negotiations in order to move forward with unifying the democratic forces,” Tymoshenko said. “I think this is the task of all democratic forces that represent 60 percent of the people so that in the second round Yanukovych doesn’t get one additional vote,” she stressed.
However, Tigipko, Hrytsenko and Yatseniuk have publicly said they will not endorse any candidate, and will not ask their voters to support either candidate.
“I’m going to check off the ‘against all’ option,” Yatseniuk said, who scooped 7 percent of the vote, on Shuster Live TV show Jan. 17.
One political expert said Tymoshenko could win even if negotiations with the losing candidates don’t go anywhere.
“Irrespective of the outcome of Tymoshenko’s talks with the outsider candidates, more than half of the voters who voted for Tigipko, Yatseniuk, Yushchenko and Lytvyn, will certainly vote for her,” said Victor Nebozhenko, director of the sociology institute Ukrainian Barometer, on Germany’s Deutsche Welle.
“Yanukovych’s voter base has been exhausted. Although it was strong and compact and never betrayed him, it did not grow,” Nebozhenko said. “Tymoshenko, as a great communicator, has a chance to win this election.”
Others believe it’s too soon to make such predictions. Yevhen Kopotako of Research and Branding Group, who conducted one of six exit polls on Jan. 17 and is considered close to Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, said that voter preferences in the second round from among the candidates that lost are too complex and require research.
“This requires time. I’m working on these models right now, but it’s too soon to make any concrete projections,” Kopatko said.
Kyiv Post staff writer Mark Rachkevych can be reached at [email protected].
