Ukraine presidential election was competitive and fair, with few violations that didn’t influence the result, top election watchdog Opora concluded on April 22.
“Systematic violations that could have influenced the electoral results were not found,” said Olha Aivazovska, head of Opora, adding that the election was held in accordance with the law.
The second round of Ukraine’s presidential elections was held on April 21, with comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy receiving 73 percent of the vote, and the incumbent president Petro Poroshenko receiving around 24.5 percent of the vote.
Poroshenko acknowledged defeat, congratulating his opponent and promising the newly elected president a strong opposition.
Opora, which has 200 full time observers, had around 1,500 observers during election day. The organization cited that the campaign was held in a democratic competitive fashion.
The parallel vote count of Opora was very close to the official count: Opora counted that 73.2 percent of voters supported Zelenskiy, while 24.3 supported Poroshenko. 2.5 percent spoiled their ballots. Opora cites that the maximum margin of error was 1.5 percent.
Over 99.9 percent of polling station in which Opora observers were present didn’t have any violations.
However, even though the overall result wasn’t questioned by the organization and widespread vote buying wasn’t recorded, a number of minor incidents were reported.
One direct vote obstruction incident occurred when a polling station in Lebedynske, a village in Donetsk Oblast, near the front line, 740 kilometers from Kyiv, didn’t open on time. The polling station eventually opened at 4:15 p.m.
The main concern, however, was that a number of voters weren’t able to vote due to not living near their place of registration, something which every Ukrainian citizen must have, to receive social benefits such as free healthcare and voting rights.
The process of people changing their polling stations prior to elections, was marked with substantial waiting lines, with Opora citing that this factor might have influenced a number of people to stay at home.
According to Opora, the use of administrative resources was a factor in these presidential elections. Local officials campaigned for certain candidates and local budgets were cut to serve specific interests.
The organization cites pension indexation as well as local programs designed to pay social benefits prior to elections, as a factor that might have influenced voting.
Oleksandr Kliuzhev, an Opora analyst, during the April 22 press-conference stated that the organization recommends adopting proper legislation as well as legalizing the actual financing by candidates of their representatives and logistics, meaning those working on the regional level in the name of a given candidate.
“A significant part of regional activity had signs of unofficial financing,” said Kliuzhev.
The unclear campaign financing, as well as improper agitation using both TV and online media, is something worth mentioning, according to Opora.
“We are happy that democracy has prevailed,” said Aivazovska, “however we have poor legislature, coping with new challenges,” summed up Aivazovska, adding that the organization hopes all problems would be cleared prior to parliamentary elections, scheduled for October.
