|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU) is a non-partisan citizens’ election monitoring organization with 160 branches throughout the country. In May 2002, CVU began a program of long-term observation in the three constituencies in which parliamentary by-elections were held on July 14th. On voting day, CVU deployed 260 observers to monitor the conduct of voting and the tabulation and reporting of results. This report summarizes our findings.
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. English language versions of all CVU election statements, as well as further information on the organization, are available at: www.cvu.kiev.ua
BACKGROUND
Ukraine held parliamentary elections on March 31st this year. But the results in three single-mandate constituencies were declared invalid and by-elections were scheduled to fill the resulting vacancies. In constituency #18 (Vinnytsia oblast), the Central Election Commission (CEC) found that, because of administrative shortcomings, a large number of voters were unable to cast ballots on election day. In constituency #35 (Dnipropetrovsk oblast), the CEC ruled that procedural violations in the vote count at several polling places called the integrity of the result into question. Finally, in constituency #201 (Cherkassy oblast), it was said the presence on the ballot of a candidate whose registration had been cancelled the day before created confusion for voters.
CVU monitors in these districts on March 31st observed the same problems cited by the CEC in its decisions. However, many similar violations took place all over Ukraine without other election results being declared invalid. CVU post-election analysis indicated that the candidates who received the greatest number of votes on March 31st were: S. Melnyk (Socialist Party, #18); O. Zhyr (Our Ukraine, #35); M. Bulatetsky (Our Ukraine, #201). The official winners of the July 14th by-elections were: M. Odainyk (Our Ukraine, #18); V. Drachevsky (Independent, #35); and N. Shufrich (Social Democratic Party United, #201).
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The election process in these by-elections did not mark a step forward towards democratic elections in Ukraine. Many of the serious problems in the March 31st election process have not been addressed.
The integrity of the election varied significantly between the three constituencies, with the result in constituency #18 being fairly credible, despite some violations. By contrast, the election process in constituency #35 was thoroughly corrupted and, as a consequence, its results cannot be recognized as valid.
The manner in which the candidacy of O. Zhyr (Our Ukraine, #35) was cancelled the day before the election demonstrates that Ukrainian courts and election administration bodies are being used for partisan political purposes.
As was the case in the March elections, state officials illegally interfere in the election process by openly supporting certain candidates and by trying to thwart the work of their opponents. Both practices are clearly in violation of Ukrainian law, but these laws are almost never enforced.
Ukrainian legislation does not adequately provide for repeat elections. The CEC tried, with some success, to address certain problems by issuing several special instructions.
MAJOR OBSERVATIONS
Electoral Environment
State officials continue to involve themselves in the election process in Ukraine. Such interference is specifically prohibited by the country’s election law, which requires “impartial treatment of parties (blocs) and candidates … by bodies of state power, bodies of local self-government, their officials and officers, and heads of enterprises, institutions, and organizations” [Article 10.2.7].
During these by-elections, the nature and intensity of this activity varied greatly between one constituency and another. The situation was particularly severe in constituency #35 where local officials warned voters that social welfare programs would be drastically reduced if voters returned O. Zhyr to office. On two occasions, oblast governor M. Shvets openly campaigned for independent candidate V. Drachevsky, the eventual winner. Drachevsky is also the deputy head of the oblast’s Interior department. On June 19, inspectors under his command impounded a car carrying 2,000 copies of Zhyr’s party newspaper, Faces. Throughout the campaign, local companies refused to print the paper and its editorial staff were evicted from the office they rented. Zhyr’s campaign workers were harassed by the local police and Zhyr himself was denied his allotted free air time on a government-owned television station.
By contrast, CVU observed only one instance of state interference in constituency #201, when local officials ordered village mayors to provide free office space to the campaign of N. Vitrenko. In constituency #18, a large number of state employees, including deputy governors, became involved in the campaign of P. Melnyk. Although they did so only as private citizens, and CVU has no evidence of that they were coerced, the heavy support for P. Melnyk by state workers does raise suspicions.
Legal and Administrative Framework
Article 82.3 of the Election Law states that “voting [in repeat elections] shall be conducted by the same constituency election commissions and polling district election commissions in the same polling districts using the same lists of voters that were used for the regular elections”. This procedure requires elaboration and reform. For instance, the law allows citizens who did not run in the original election to register as candidates for the repeat election. This provision is in conflict with the one freezing the makeup of election commissions. These commissions are supposed to be composed of the representatives of candidates, but new candidates are given no opportunity to nominate new commissioners. Likewise, if no provision for updating voter registries is made, citizens who have moved to the district or turned 18 years of age since the regular election may be denied the right to vote. The CEC tried to deal with such problems by issuing special instructions for these elections.
Likewise, the decree of the Cabinet of Ministers on July 1st that old Soviet passports were no longer valid created some confusion since a large proportion of voters, especially in rural areas, rely on these passports as their primary form of documentation. CVU appealed to the Ukrainian government to extend the validity of these documents and is pleased that its request was granted. Unfortunately, this decision was not adequately communicated to all polling stations.
The district election commissions (DEC) in Vinnytsia (#18) and Cherkassy (#201) functioned efficiently, transparently and according to the law. The same cannot be said for the DEC in Dnipropetrovsk (#35), however, which decided to revoke the registration of O. Zhyr the day before the election for alleged campaign finance violations. CVU has no information on the accuracy of the claims against Zhyr, but is very concerned about the process by which he was de-registered. Having voted to remove Zhyr late on the evening of July 12th, the DEC refused to issue an official protocol documenting its decision until 5pm on the 13th, saying it was “too busy”. Without this protocol, Zhyr was unable to appeal the decision to the Central Election Commission. The CEC, in turn, seemed to adopt the same practice, waiting until 11:30pm to turn down his appeal. This left Zhyr only ½ hour to appeal to the Supreme Court. At the same time, the DEC ordered polling station commissions to begin crossing out his name from the ballot at 6pm. In other words, even if the CEC had ruled in his favor, Zhyr would already have been effectively removed.
Few concrete steps were taken to improve the performance of the polling station commissions (PSC), which performed so poorly during the March 31 elections. Polling stations continued to be placed in inadequate facilities without sufficient material resources. Commissioners received very little additional training. PSCs did not receive voter registries in a timely manner; when they did, they rarely bothered to check these lists for errors. In constituency #35, some PSCs did not function even the day before the election, making it impossible for voters to check the registry or obtain permission to vote by absentee ballot. The work of PSCs in all three districts suffered from the resignation of a significant number of commissioners, leaving some PSCs with only the legal minimum number of members. Where new commissioners were added to PSCs, the selection process generally followed the law.
The Election Campaign
As was the case for the March 31st elections, violations of legal provisions on fair campaigning were widespread. A number of candidates in all three constituencies distributed small goods and services to voters. Many campaign materials were printed without necessary publication and circulation information. Campaign violations were especially numerous in constituency #201, where a number of voters reported that they were offered money in exchange for their vote and where some campaigns distributed slanderous allegations about their opponents.
Voting
The process of voting on election day was generally orderly. The long lines, violations of ballot secrecy and general frustration that marked the process on March 31st did not recur. It is difficult to determine whether this positive change was because of greater professionalism on the part of commissioners or because lower voter turnout in these by-elections placed less strain on the resources of the PSCs. CVU did observe a few isolated cases of campaigning at polling sites and voters given ballots without proper identification.
CVU representatives witnessed attempts to bribe voters at 20 polling stations (out of 105 in total) in constituency #201. There are unconfirmed allegations of similar practices elsewhere in the constituency.
Counting and Tabulation of Results
Vote counting and tabulation at the polling sites monitored by CVU was conducted according to the law. The timely publication of results raised confidence that higher election commissions had not tampered with official protocols.
RECOMMENDATIONS