The Oct. 31 local elections in Ukraine – seen by some observers as undemocratic if not altogether riddled with fraud – may leave an international stain on Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s democratic credentials, which were always suspect in the first place.
For Ukrainians, the upshot domestically is that they may not get any chance to change their political leadership until the next parliamentary election, likely in 2012.
And that chance, when it comes, is far less than democratic: citizens are allowed to vote only for or against political parties, who choose their slate of candidates. Not even peaceful protests are shaping up as a good option to register dissent, with authorities increasingly cracking down on such gatherings.
Internationally, if the West – including the European Union, United States and Canada – continues to insist that Ukraine lives up to democratic principles, then integration efforts appear to be in jeopardy.
Free trade agreements that could lift Ukraine out of poverty and make its economy more competitive are not likely to be reached with the EU anytime soon. Nor do relaxed visa requirements appear to be in the offing, further intensifying the nation’s inward focus.
While many Ukrainians have put the vote behind them, those watching closely have found enough problems to question the legitimacy of the contests, the first elections to have taken place since Yanukovych came to power on Feb. 25.
We admit this [that the election law is imperfect and that the elections did not meet high standards].”
– Viktor Yanukovych, president of Ukraine.
Given the president’s history, which includes alleged complicity in the undemocratic presidential elections of 1999 and 2004 (when a vote was rigged in his favor), some had expected that Yanukovych would at least have tried to ensure that the vote was democratic. Instead, Yanukovych is more apt to hear criticism of his performance when he arrives in Brussels, Belgium, on Nov. 22 as part of the EU-Ukraine Summit.
“We admit this,” Yanukovych said on Nov. 10, belatedly admitting that the election law was imperfect and that the elections did not meet high standards, according to comments quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency, which is seen as friendly to the president.
Although it has been nearly two weeks since the elections, territorial electoral commissions are still struggling to achieve and report a final vote count. The inexplicable delays and lack of transparency only fuel allegations of fraud.
Moreover, no single place exists to obtain the results and assess the transparency. The Central Election Commission said it is not responsible of announcing the results of all 15,000 election races. The law says the task falls to regional election commissions.
A member of a territorial election commission in western Ukraine’s Ternopil demonstrates an election ballot during the Oct. 31 local elections. The right-wing Svoboda party mustered the most voter support in the region. (UNIAN)
The legal deadline for publishing official results was Nov. 5. Yet, many election commissions fell behind because of recounts and numerous complaints from parties and their representatives.
When the results are in, however, the president’s Party of Regions is expected to control all but four of 25 oblast councils and two-thirds of municipal offices.
Problems in Kharkiv
One of the most glaring examples of a troubled contest came in the mayor’s race in Kharkiv, the nation’s second largest city.
In the city’s mayoral elections, GfK Ukraine exit poll gave 34.7 percent for ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party representative Arsen Avakov, while his top opponent, Hennadiy Kernes from the Regions Party, got 30.9 percent.
But in a protracted vote count announced on Nov. 4, Kernes was declared the winner by a slim margin – 0.63 percentage points.
Hlib Vyshlinsky, GfK Ukraine deputy head, would not comment on the possibility of vote rigging in the Kharkiv poll, but stands by its exit-poll results showing Avakov as the winner.
Furthermore, attempts by Avakov to challenge the results and seek a recount were hastily turned down by a court on Nov. 9. On the same day, several thousand protested and demanded a repeat mayoral vote.
Problems in Ternopil
Meanwhile, in western Ukraine’s Ternopil Oblast on Nov. 7, about a hundred supporters of the right-wing Svoboda party besieged the regional election commission for 10 hours, demanding election officials to publish the election results in all the region’s polling precincts. Such disclosure is a basic principle of democratic elections.
The protesters also called on law enforcement agencies to investigate alleged attempts to falsify the vote.
Problems in Lviv
In the elections for the Lviv city council, 18.6 percent of the protocols were considered invalid, Zaxid.net reports, casting doubt on the election results.
According to election observers, people voted for candidates and local party branches that had quit the race, but whose names were still on the ballot.
Fallout debated
Olha Ayvazovska, head of the US-funded OPORA, one of the two largest election monitoring groups, said the problems with the local elections were forecast well ahead of the Oct. 31 vote. The election law was changed in the last few months.
The election commissions were stacked with pro-presidential Regions Party supporters. Candidates for the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko did not appear on the ballots in two of their strongholds, Lviv and Kyiv oblasts, for disputed reasons.
And obstacles were erected in the vote count and appeals process that lessened the transparency of the vote.
The Oct. 31 vote a “a well-orchestrated scheme to appoint, not elect, people to key posts in local government.”
– Yulia Tymoshenko.
OPORA concluded in a Nov. 4 statement that “local elections in Ukraine were not conducted in accordance with international standards and did not comply with good practices of election organization and conduct.”
Looking ahead
In the days after the election, the U.S. and European Union cautiously criticized the election’s fairness.
However, Alexander Rahr, a German political analyst, doesn’t think the Oct. 31 vote will have much impact on the nation’s relations with the West.
“What is important for the West is that the International Monetary Fund keeps helping Ukraine to keep the country financially afloat,” Rahr said.
“We won’t see serious alienation on the part of the Western countries, at least not now. Certainly, Westerners will not close their eyes and will keep criticizing Ukrainians when needed, but will keep engaging Kyiv as they also do not want to lose Ukraine and let it completely go into Russia’s orbit.”
While Ukraine’s Constitutional Court decides whether parliamentary elections should take place in 2011 or 2012, depending on which version of the constitution is adhered to, more political battles lie ahead.
During a Nov. 9 press conference, Tymoshenko called the local elections the dirtiest and most dishonest ever.
Now we have a system of power that is controlled by one political force, from top to bottom. And we have seen how the work at the top – in the parliament and in the Constitutional Court.”
– Oleksiy Haran, the director of the School of Political Analysis at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
Iryna Bekeshkina, head of the Kyiv-based Democratic Initiatives Foundation, said the questionable local elections may merely be a dress rehearsal for the parliamentary ones, just like the rigged elections in the city of Mukachevo in 2004 were seen as a forerunner to the rigged presidential vote of Nov. 21, 2004, in which Yanukovych was declared the winner.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court, spurred by hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who took to the streets in the Orange Revolution, declared otherwise.
The justices found so much fraud that determining a winner was impossible, so they ordered a new election, won on Dec. 26, 2004, by Viktor Yushchenko.
Some see the outlines of an authoritarian regime in the making, complete with show elections, sanctioned “opposition,” muzzled news media and curbs on civil liberties.
Kyiv Post staff writer Yuriy Onyshkiv can be reached at [email protected]
