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
