The 2006 elections represent the most free mass media environment in Ukraine’s history
Ukraine’s upcoming parliamentary elections are a large improvement over those of previous years in terms of parties’ access to free media and reluctance by state officials to pressure participants; however, staffing problems at electoral commissions could still open opportunities for fraud on March 19, when voting is scheduled to take place, according to reports by major election watchdogs.
The biggest problem is with district and precinct electoral commissions, according to Ihor Popov, the chairman of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU), an NGO that receives funding mostly from Western sources.
Popov called the situation “disastrous,” pointing to understaffing and overloaded commissioners, which could lead to election results being disputed.
But, the CVU reported, the use of so called administrative resources, or official interference in the interests of one party or the other is “non-systematic and it did not have a crucial impact on the course of the campaign.”
The CVU, which drew its results from monitoring done in February, will marshal 5,000 observers on election day.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is expecting more than 600 observers on March 19.
District and precinct electoral commissions are problematic because “the low budget allocated for election commissions and unclear recruitment criteria hamper the hiring of qualified support staff,” reads an OSCE report.
“As of 24 February, 436 district electoral commission members had resigned, more than 10 percent of all district electoral commissions’ membership,” the report continues, citing low pay, long hours and greater responsibility for mistakes and fraud than in the past.
According to the OSCE, Ukraine’s Central Election Commission announced in mid-February that approximately 6 percent of precinct electoral commissions remained unmanned.
According to both the CVC and the OSCE, the state of electoral commissions ultimately has an effect on voter lists, which have been a major source of falsification in the past.
But the OSCE described Ukraine’s pre-election media situation as “active and visible.”
“The 2006 elections represent the most free mass media environment in Ukraine’s history. None of the national and local party headquarters leaders interviewed for this report said they had been denied media coverage,” reads a March 8 report issued by the International Republican Institute, a U.S. NGO which has been promoting and monitoring democratic development in Ukraine since 1993.
Unlike in previous years, candidates have been given equal access to the airways and journalists have been allowed to report without pressure or threats, IRI added.
In addition, the U.S.-based NGO said: “So far there have been no mass organized uses of administrative resources,” and the courts have been used more often to address complaints.
But IRI also notes “lack of experience and professionalism” at territorial and precinct electoral commissions, where it says seats are sometimes bought by parties.
It is here where fraud is likely. Everything from misspelled names on voter lists to illegal voting using the names of the more than 7 million Ukrainians working abroad.
On March 14, Ukraine’s parliament passed a bill that allows making changes in the voters lists on the day of the election with permission from a court.
The bill, prepared by the opposition Regions party, has been dubbed by President Yushchenko as nothing but an attempt to sabotage the elections.“Not in a single democratic country would it be possible to change the voter lists on the day of the elections,” Yushchenko said. “This is all done to have an opportunity to later, through courts, have the results of the elections recognized as invalid.”
