The mayors of Ukraine’s largest cities, except for Lviv, have endorsed President Petro Poroshenko’s re-election campaign. Yet his results in the March 31 presidential election in Dnipro, Kharkiv and Odesa — all cities with at least 1 million residents — lagged far behind those he received in the 2014 presidential election.
The results in Kyiv and Lviv, where Poroshenko is more popular, were better.
Civic activists and political analysts attribute Poroshenko’s bad showing in Dnipro, Kharkiv and Odesa to their mayors’ reluctance to heavily use administrative resources and commit voting fraud as well as their questionable loyalty to Poroshenko.
On March 31, Poroshenko got 9 percent in Odesa Oblast, 8 percent in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and 8.52 percent in Kharkiv Oblast. This can be compared to 41.8 percent in Odesa Oblast, 44.7 percent in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and 35.3 percent in Kharkiv Oblast in 2014.
In Kyiv, whose Mayor Vitali Klitschko is also allied to Poroshenko, the result was better: 25.6 percent, compared to 64 percent in 2014. Surprisingly, Poroshenko received the best result in Lviv, whose Mayor Andriy Sadovy is in opposition to him: 35 percent in Lviv Oblast voted for the president, compared to 70 percent in 2014.
Imitation of support
Dmytro Bulakh, head of the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center; Vitaly Ustymenko, head of the AutoMaidan civic group’s Odesa branch, and Artem Romanyukov, head of Dnipro’s Civic Control group, said that city governments in their respective cities had used administrative resources only in a limited way. They said that city administrations had campaigned for Poroshenko among public sector employees.
They argued, however, that Kharkiv Mayor Gennady Kernes, Odesa Mayor Gennady Trukhanov and Dnipro Mayor Borys Filatov pretended to support Poroshenko but in fact did little to help him. Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko added that Klitschko had not helped Poroshenko either.
“They didn’t help at all,” Fesenko said. “Both Kernes and Trukhanov imitated support. They ostensibly supported Poroshenko but in fact if they had wanted they would have used their administrative resources and added 10 to 15 percentage points to Poroshenko.”
The most effective way to demonstrate loyalty would be through pressuring election commissions and rigging election results, he added.
“Without using brute force at polling stations, it’s impossible to achieve desired results,” Ustymenko said.
Vote buying
The only resource that could have helped Poroshenko in the big cities was his alleged vote buying scheme using local government subsidies, Fesenko said. It has apparently given him up to 5 percentage points nationwide, he added.
Poroshenko’s campaign denied the existence of the alleged scheme, which is being investigated by the police.
In February Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who reportedly has a conflict with Poroshenko, exposed the Poroshenko campaign’s alleged nationwide vote-buying scheme. Avakov said it involved 200,000 paid campaign workers, was expected to cover from 700,000 to 6 million voters and would cost some $56 million.
Avakov said that voters identified as loyal to Poroshenko were asked by campaign workers to fill in applications for such state subsidies.
Ustymenko argued, however, that the alleged vote-buying scheme had apparently malfunctioned in Odesa and had not achieved the result that Poroshenko wanted.
On a leash
Poroshenko has so far used criminal cases to keep Trukhanov and Kernes on a leash, Fesenko argued. Poroshenko has denied using law enforcement to pressure them.
In August a Poltava court closed a case against Kernes, who had been charged with kidnapping two EuroMaidan Revolution activists, torturing them and threatening to kill them in January 2014. Kernes’ critics attributed the closure of the case to a deal with Poroshenko aimed at supporting his re-election.
Kernes has also been investigated over embezzling up to Hr 15 billion by allocating land to fake cooperatives. However, he has not been officially charged in this case, and Bulakh also attributes this to an alleged deal with Poroshenko. Kernes has denied all accusations of wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, Trukhanov has been investigated in several corruption cases and was arrested in 2018 for allegedly embezzling Hr 100 million. However he has been released without bail and has not been suspended from his job, and an illicit enrichment case against him was closed earlier in March.
Moreover, Russia has confirmed that Trukhanov had Russian citizenship.
However, Ukrainian authorities have failed to react to this fact despite the ban on double citizenship for officials.
Trukhanov has also denied all accusations of wrongdoing. His critics, including Ustymenko, attribute Trukhanov’s ability to stay afloat to his alleged deal with Poroshenko.
Romanyukov also said that Filatov could have been pressured through several cases opened against Kolomoisky and his allies in 2015. They were investigated over alleged kidnapping, embezzlement, hijacking and organized crime and denied the accusations.
Switching sides?
Ironically, Filatov, Kernes and Trukhanov used to have links to Kolomoisky, who is accused of backing Poroshenko’s competitor Volodymyr Zelensky, although Zelensky and Kolomoisky deny that they are political allies.
Filatov used to be a business partner and close ally of Kolomoisky. In 2014 to 2015, he was a deputy of Kolomoisky when he was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
Since then, they have parted ways, with Filatov allying himself with Poroshenko and backing his nomination for presidency in January. Meanwhile, Kernes has backed Vidrodzhennya (Revival), a party linked to Kolomoisky.
Ustymenko argued that Kolomoisky and Trukhanov had a close partnership back in 2014 to 2015, when Kolomoisky ally Igor Palytsya was the governor of Odesa Oblast. Kolomoisky also has major business interests in Odesa, mostly in real estate.
Ustymenko and Fesenko said that Trukhanov, Filatov and Kernes might switch back to Kolomoisky.
“It’s easier for (Trukhanov’s group) to switch their allegiance to Kolomoisky instead of organizing some fraud during the election and saving hopeless Poroshenko with a colossal disapproval rating,” Ustymenko said.
Fesenko said that Zelensky’s victory could be more beneficial for Kernes and Trukhanov because they believe he will be a weak president. He said that the mayors saw that a majority of the population supported Zelensky and they don’t want to go against the trend.
“Regional elites will begin to play with neutrality,” Fesenko said. “Why should they bet on supporting Poroshenko?”
