Men
are sent into the village for a boat, but the villagers go into a tizzy, risking
bloodshed until peace and
harmony is restored.

By the end of the
movie, each side has gained an appreciation for each other and everyone lives
happily ever after. 

This comedy aired at
the height of the Cold War and was the first film in this period to show
Russians in a positive light. 

Now, 48 years later,
it is clear that that the Russians are in fact coming, but not just to a theater near you and unlike the movie, it is not
funny. Their intentions are far from peaceful and instead of a boat that runs
aground they are riding into Ukraine on a tidal wave of an illegal referendum
on succession, issued at gunpoint. 

Returning to Kyiv
this week, it is clear that the only certainty in Ukraine is uncertainty. 

While the world
awaits the outcome of the Crimean referendum on March 16, it would be a mistake to view the vote
as a true expression of the will of the people. 

The question is, can
international press and pundits alike restrain themselves from reporting on the
succession vote as if it is a true reflection of what people in Crimea really
want? What do people in Crimea or Ukraine as a whole for that matter, really
want? 

This is the $15
billion question and, unfortunately, it will be no more clear on March 16 than it is today or was a month ago. 

Elections, when
organized fairly that meet international standards, are one of the most
important ways to channel public sentiment into fundamental decisions over leadership
and policy. If not organized in a fair manner, they weaken and compromise
democracy and rule of law. 

In the worst-case
scenario, the outcome of this referendum will be hailed as partial
justification for Russia´s naked ambition culminating in an aggressive
land grab of a sovereign country. After all, too much is being made of Russia´s historic ties to Crimean as a soft excuse for interference. 

Native Americans and
Mexicans have deep and historic ties to much of the land in the United States
but never in modern days would there be justification for an illegal referendum
to take back Texas or part of the Pacific Northwest. 

Therefore, no one
should wait with bated breath about the outcome. 

The sad reality is
the Crimean vote is nearly as predictable as the October 2013 presidential
election in Azerbaijan where a smartphone application released by the country’s
Central Election Commission showed longtime president Ilham Aliyev winning with
72.76 percent of the vote… a day before the election. The referendum in Crimea will show a
divisive victory for succession, yet we will be no further along in
understanding the true will of Ukrainian citizens and their desired
relationship with Russia. 

Prior to moving to
Ukraine, I was the director of a US-based nongovernmental organization focused
exclusively on the use of ballot initiatives and referendums. 

Over an eight-year
period, I studied or worked directly on more than 300 referendum campaigns. 

Americans use the
tool of initiatives and referendums
to create laws on some of the most controversial “hot button”
issues in US politics today. 

What I can conclude
from this experience is that how a referendum gets on the ballot is as
important as what the referendum is about. Referendums are easily manipulated
and can provide a false read on real public sentiment, particularly when heavy-handed
sponsors force something to the ballot, bending the rules of the game to get it
there, or rush the election date. The essential process of public debate
required for such serious and important issues cannot be trampled over. 

In 2006 the Venice
Commission on Democracy Through Law issued a Code of Good Practices on
Referendums, which is the standard bearer for countries who are members of the
Council of Europe, including Ukraine and Russia.

Best practices
stipulate that the authorities must provide
objective information on the referendum in question. This implies that the text submitted to a referendum and an
explanatory report or balanced campaign material from the proposal’s supporters and opponents should be made available to
electors sufficiently in advance. 

Troubling, the
language of the Crimean initiative leads voters down the path of an assumed yes
to Russia, with the only choice about method. The ballot questions ask voters
whether they would like to support the union of
Crimea with Russia (an act of irredentism) or return to the 1992 constitution
which effectively makes Crimea independent (i.e. secession). There is no
alternative –
one cannot vote for the status
quo of
remaining within Ukraine.

Venice Commission standards also require information to be
available in all the official languages and in the languages of
the national minorities. The code recognizes that democratic referendums are not possible without respect for human rights,
in particular freedom of expression and of the press, freedom of movement
inside the country, and freedom of assembly. Furthermore, the public authorities (national, regional and local) must not influence
the outcome of the vote by excessive, one-sided campaigning.

The Crimean referendum meets none of these standards. The choice of Crimean Tatars to boycott
the election is further evidence of an insufficient and unbalanced process for
taking this issue to public vote in a way that respects minority rights. 

Local and global
stakeholders have discounted what is being referred to as a ¨pseudo referendum.” This should
not be taken lightly. A joint statement as the Group of 7, called the vote
illegal and vowed unspecified “further action”
if
Russia annexes the peninsula.
”Given the lack of adequate preparation and the intimidating presence of
Russian troops, it would also be a deeply flawed process which would have no
moral force. For all these reasons, we would not recognise the outcome.” 

The largest and most well-respected Ukrainian election observation organizations, OPORA and the Committee of Voters of
Ukraine, with long-term experience of professional monitoring
of elections and referendums in Ukraine stated that they do not recognize the legitimacy of the voting scheduled for March 16 and
will not participate in official observation of these processes. Swiss Foreign Minister and OSCE chair Didier Burkhalter said
that in its current form the referendum is in contradiction
with the Ukrainian Constitution and must be considered illegal. 

The tool of referenda is an important and sacred right, as one
of the only true forms of direct democracy. But in the wrong hands, with biased
intentions, it will add no value to the public discourse and cheapen the
essential task of creating meaningful citizen engagement in these trying times. 

Were Russia truly
interested in a genuine and even-handed public debate on Crimea a process could
have been established to work with Ukrainian authorities to mediate any
concerns citizens have about property issues, taxation, trade relationships,
protection of ethnic rights, and the role of the central government. 

These uncertain
times demand increasing public trust in all institutions in Ukraine. That trust
begins with fair and balanced elections, including referenda. If trust and
fairness are not achieved prior to an election, than the outcome of the
referendum vote should not factor into the important and looming question of
what happens next in Ukraine. Outside of the movies, happy endings are more
possible when citizens are shaping their own destiny, not merely pawns in a
script that has already been written. 

Kristina Wilfore
is principal of Karakoyun Strategies based in Istanbul, Turkey