The Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU) is a non-partisan citizens’ election monitoring organization with 160 branches throughout the country. In November 2002, CVU began a program of long-term observation in parliamentary constituency #82, (Melitopol rayon), where a by-election was held December 8. On voting day, CVU deployed 50 observers to monitor the conduct of voting and the tabulation and reporting of results. This statement summarizes our findings.

The by-election was called after the death of the previous incumbent, Oleh Oleksenko, of the Our Ukraine bloc. Independent candidate Vasyl Khmelnytsky was the victor in this week’s vote.

CVU has monitored elections in Ukraine since 1994. Most recently, it conducted long-term and election-day observation for national parliamentary elections on March 31, 2002 and three repeat elections on July 14. English language versions of CVU election statements, as well as further information on the organization, are available at: www.cvu.kiev.ua

MAJOR OBSERVATIONS

The election process in this by-election was not a step forward towards democratic elections in Ukraine. In fact, the vote was held in an environment that fell far short of recognized democratic standards.

The pre-election period was marked by widespread vote-buying by several contestants. Voters were asked by campaign workers to sign “contracts” pledging their vote to a candidate in exchange for small sums of money. This practice was largely unknown in Ukraine until July’s by-election in Cherkassy, where candidates first tried to buy votes on a large scale. The apparent “success” of this practice in Cherkassy seems to have led to a much more intensive effort in Melitopol. CVU observers witnessed or received credible reports of vote-buying at such a large scale that we cannot rule out that the practice influenced the outcome of the election.

Law-enforcement bodies charged with ensuring that election contestants follow the law were totally passive even in the face of widespread criminality during the campaign. Illegal campaign practices were well-known in the district yet the responsible authorities took no action whatsoever.

There were significant problems with voter registries. The names of thousands of eligible voters were absent from registries while thousands of other entries contained small errors that proved an impediment to voting. City courts charged with resolving disputes over voter registrations were inundated with dozens of complaints but were unable to rule on many of them in a timely manner. Part of the problem lies with the election law, whose article (#84) governing voter registries in special elections lacks sufficient guidelines and prescribes too short a period of time for this work to be carried out properly.

Unlike in previous campaigns, partisan interference by executive branch officials was not a major feature of this election.

District and polling station commissions performed their functions relatively well. No major problems were observed on voting day or in the counting, tabulation and reporting of results.

RECOMMENDATIONS