Editor’s note: Every week Kyiv Post journalist Oleg Sukhov picks a winner and loser in Ukraine’s drive to transform itself into a rule-of-law, European-style democracy.
Reformer of the week – murdered activists and journalists
Ukraine is becoming one of the most dangerous countries for anti-corruption crusaders. Reports on the murders of activists and journalists are becoming routine.
Oleksandr Komarnitsky, an activist for ex-Defense Minister Anatoly Grytsenko’s Civil Position party, died on June 23 after being beaten by police officers in the city of Vinnytsya. He had been in a coma for 12 days.
Meanwhile, Cherkasy-based journalist Vadym Komarov died on June 20 after being severely beaten on May 4. Journalists believe he was targeted for assassination because of his investigative journalism exposing corruption among local officials and politicians. No suspects have been identified and no arrests reported.
Kateryna Gandziuk, a whistleblowing municipal official, died in a hospital on Nov. 4 after numerous operations following an acid attack on her in Kherson on July 31. Up to 40 percent of her body had been seriously burned.
There have been at least 12 killings of activists and journalists in Ukraine since the 2013–2014 EuroMaidan Revolution, which ousted President Viktor Yanukovych. There have also been about a hundred violent attacks on activists and journalists since the revolution, including at least six attempted murders.
None of those who ordered the murders were found. Only in half of the murder cases, suspected hitmen were identified. None have been convicted yet. Yet Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko has denied accusations that cases were being sabotaged.
Anti-reformer of the week – Yevhen Radchenko
Yevhen Radchenko, a deputy chairman of the Central Election Commission, on June 24 defended the commission’s refusal to register ex-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s party for the July 21 snap parliamentary election. Radchenko denied any accusations of wrongdoing, saying the commission’s decision was lawful.
According to the documents submitted by Saakashvili’s Movement of New Forces to the commission, the party’s governing council on May 8 summoned a congress of the party scheduled for June 10. The congress delegated candidates for the parliamentary election.
The CEC said that the council could not have made the decision on May 8 because the early elections were called on May 21. The commission cited this as the reason for rejecting the party’s application for registration.
Saakashvili’s lawyers said that the party had made a misprint regarding the date of the governing council meeting, which was actually held on June 5. They argued that, according to Ukrainian law and recent legal practice, misprints and technical errors cannot be grounds for refusing to register candidates.
The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeals on June 25 canceled the CEC’s refusal to register the party. However, CEC chief Tetiana Slipachuk said on June 26 the commission did not have to enforce the ruling and that it would appeal it.
The CEC’s position is that the mistake means the application documents could have been faked.
Yet the court argued that the commission had no authority to check the legality of the party congress. It said that the commission “used a technical mistake to strip the party of its right to run in the election.”
Radchenko said that the party would have been allowed to fix the mistake had they not submitted the documents on the last day for registration, June 20.
The CEC’s position, as defended by Radchenko, is strongly reminiscent of the pedantic approach to bureaucracy one constantly encounters when applying for a work permit or dealing with state agencies in Ukraine.
Yes, there was a mistake in the paperwork of Saakashvili’s party. But it is better for democracy when election authorities err on the side of openness when registering candidates. While the commission has rightfully earned plaudits for its handling of the presidential election, its dogged dedication to disqualifying the Movement of New Forces seems more worrisome than the minor error made in the party’s paperwork.
