More than any prior election, the 2008 Kyiv mayoral and city council races produced some of the most unique, underhanded
and wacky electioneering the capital has seen.
Campaign workers scribbled offensive graffiti, handed out fake circus passes on behalf of opponents, and in the case of the incumbent, abused the stateowned media, particularly in the city’s metro cars, observers reported.
“Ordinary Kyivans simply couldn’t orient themselves, and that influenced what really happened on May 25 – Kyivans didn’t care about the elections,” said Otar Dovzhenko, deputy chief editor of Telekrytyka, a publication that monitors Ukrainian media.
Only 53 percent of Kyiv’s eligible voters cast a ballot in the election, according to the Kyiv Territorial Election Commission.
Though only exposed to democracy for 16 years, in that short time span, Kyiv’s politicians and residents demonstrated they are quite deft and creative in election tactics, outdoing styles and techniques seen in Western countries.
The excess of stunts and advertising left no room for a sober debate of serious issues confronting Kyiv residents, Dovzhenko said.
“The most frightening and harmful technology involved drawing voters away from information” Dovzhenko said. “The audience had access only to advertisements. All the political talk shows were taken off the air, so there was no discussion among the candidates except a duel of billboards”.
While some voters were amused, others were disgusted.
“This is not democracy, it’s a parody of democracy,” said Yuriy Matkovskiy, a 68yearold teacher who voted for the Communist Party of Ukraine.
Sense of humor
From the very first days of the election campaign, candidates seemed to do their best to answer a philosophical question, “Just what is the kind of mayor Kyiv needs?”
Vitali Klitschko took the first stab at it, declaring on billboards that Kyiv needs a strong mayor. Oleksandr Turchynov of the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc retorted that Kyiv needs a wise mayor. Then Klitschko decided that Kyiv needed an honest mayor instead of a strong mayor, namely himself.
The Party of the Regions of Ukraine candidate Vasyl Horbal decided to parody them all.
In his ads that ran in Kyiv’s metro cars, Horbal first scowled to look strong, then posed with a philosophical look to appear wise, then finally blinked his eyes angelically to prove he is honest. At the end, he adds the mayor should fight for the rights of Kyivans. Curtain.
That wasn’t Horbal’s only attempt at humor.
The most popular party in Ukraine, the Party of Regions, played off its unpopularity in Kyiv through its “Hug Me” outdoor campaign.
In the ads, Horbal and his Regions allies walk through downtown Kyiv holding “Hug Me” signs, mimicking a similar effort in Western Europe in which anonymous people held “Free Hugs” signs, inviting strangers to hug them as part of an antiHIV/AIDS discrimination campaign.
Year after year, among the Tymoshenko Bloc’s campaign trademarks are tshirts with slogans that ridicule their opponents.
In this election, the tshirts targeted the main enemy Chernovetskiy, declaring, “Buckwheat Bungles” (referring to the Chernovetskiy campaign’s tactic in the last election of giving away free buckwheat), “Kosmos Went Crazy” (referring to Chernovetskiy’s nickname Lyona Kosmos), and “Astronaut to Outer Space.”
The humor wasn’t limited to tshirts.
The Tymoshenko Bloc produced pseudotraffic signs, posted along Kyiv’s roads and highways, depicting Chernovetskiy’s visage and a cork along with the slogan, “Chernovetskiy is the main traffic jam in Kyiv.” (The Ukrainian word for cork, probka, is the same as traffic jam).
An unknown political sponsor produced perhaps the most humorous election slogan, “Hide grandmother’s passport, don’t let her vote,” which was spread throughout the Internet and plastered throughout the city on stickers.
The message referred to the inclination of Kyiv’s pensioners to vote for Chernovetskiy and his bloc because of his promises to boost pensions, as well as deliver free packages of sunflower oil and buckwheat, which swayed many in the 2006 election.
Innovative promotion
A few creative stunts to promote political parties emerged during the campaign.
At its peak on May 21, the Civic Action Group of Kyiv killed two birds with one stone, offering fresh notebooks to voters who brought them campaign leaflets and newspapers from competing parties.
“We aim to clean Kyiv of its dirty political leaflets,” said Oleksandr Pabat, leader of the Civic Action Group.
Meanwhile, the Agrarian Party of Ukraine tried to attract the electorate’s attention by organizing bazaars which sold meat, sausage, sugar and tea at a 10hryvnia discount.
They used the event to tell voters they prepared court complaints against the AntiMonopoly Committee of Ukraine, blaming it for ignoring its responsibility to control food prices.
Even the holidays became election fodder.
The Tymoshenko and Klitschko blocs distributed Easter cards, the Klitschko Bloc sent presents congratulating women on Mother’s Day, the Communists marched down the main boulevard Khreschatyk on Victory Day and the Oleksandr Omelchenko Bloc distributed congratulatory cards on Bank Worker’s Day.
The Orange Revolution’s success in recruiting rock stars and holding concerts to inspire political action was echoed in the 2008 mayoral campaign.
Just two days before Election Day, nationalist party Svoboda hosted an afternoon rock concert on Independence Square, featuring performers who sing in the Ukrainian language.
Reaching far broader appeal was a concert organized that evening by the Party of Regions, which invited German rock legends The Scorpions to perform at the neighboring European Square.
As rain began to fall, the audience gladly donned their “politically colored” cloaks provided by the Party of Regions.
With balloons in their hands, the concert could have been mistaken for a Party of Regions rally if looking at it from afar.
However, the concert may not have convinced the young Kyivans, who were ridiculing the Party of Regions and its candidate by the evening’s end.
Below the belt
Kyiv’s mayoral election had a dark undertone, in which the campaigners used below the belt tactics to sway voters against their competitors.
Close to midnight in midApril, anonymous telephone callers posed as Chernovetskiy campaign workers, contacted voters and asked the residents, many of whom were upset to have been woken from their sleep, to cast their vote for Chernovetskiy.
“These are our opponents’ dirty political tactics and we ask Kyiv residents to resist such provocations,” said Alla Shlapak, cochair of Chernovetskiy Bloc faction in Kyiv City Council.
Belowthebelt blows were delivered in the last weeks of campaigning, and Volodymyr Lytvyn Bloc candidate Viktor Pylypyshyn was among the most serious victims.
Throughout Kyiv, graffiti sprayed on metal fences and concrete buildings alleged Pylypyshyn favored a nontraditional sexual orientation.
Apparently, Pylypyshyn’s enemies sank even lower and played a dirty trick on children during the election battle.
Kindergarteners received free passes from their teachers to the circus or zoo on May 16 and 17.
“This free invitation from the Lytvyn Bloc can be exchanged for two tickets from Lytvyn Bloc representatives near the central entrance,” the passes stated.
Those who took their children to the circus or zoo with their free passes were disgusted to find out that not only was no one waiting to collect them, but they were worthless.
“These people don’t have a bit of morality or conscience,” Pylypyshyn said on May 18, adding that distributing fake free passes to children topped all meanspirited stunts attempted in the past.
Violating ethics
Among the biggest mysteries of the 2008 election was whether Mykola Katerynchuk’s mayoral bid, as well as his eponymous bloc’s City Council campaign, was a spoiler candidacy hatched to leech votes away from the Tymoshenko and Klitschko blocs.
That Katerynchuk’s “Not Shameful” campaign was a project funded by Chernovetskiy was widely speculated among Kyiv voters, thanks to commentaries by political pundits and even candidates themselves, such as Yuriy Lutsenko who led the Our UkrainePeople’s SelfDefense Bloc for the City Council election.
In fact, political insider Taras Berezovets said the only effective underhanded political tactic in these elections was smearing Katerynchuk as a spoiler candidate receiving financing from Chernovetskiy.
The 2008 mayoral election will also be remembered for its rampant “jeansa,” the Ukrainian term for television news reports and newspaper articles paid for by political candidates.
Among those candidates reported to have paid jeansa are the Lytvyn Bloc and its mayoral candidate Pylypyshyn, Katerynchuk and his bloc, the Tymoshenko Bloc and Turchynov and the Svoboda nationalist party and its leader Oleh Tiahnybok.
“This election campaign demonstrated an unprecedented amount of hidden and open preelection advertising in news and analytical programs,” Dovzhenko said. “In my view, out of all the information in the media on the Kyiv elections or about candidates, not less than 90 percent were prepaid.”
Jeansa materials used to fail, “but now I would admit a reverse tendency,” Dovzhenko said. “Prepaid materials worked, and this would definitely cause more demand for it the next time.”
Topping all those accused of ethical violations was Chernovetskiy and his abuse of governmentfinanced media to promote his own candidacy and that of his bloc.
Municipal newspapers Vechirniy Kyiv, Khreschatyk and Ukrayinska Stolytsia published articles that smeared Chernovetskiy’s enemies and cast him as the ideal candidate, citing his accomplishments in improving utility services and boosting social payments.
Chernovetskiy campaigners were distributing the Verchirniy Kyiv newspaper the day before Election Day, in flagrant violation of election laws, and openly encouraged readers to endorse Chernovetskiy.
Chernovetskiy’s media blanketed the capital, and if Kyiv residents didn’t have a newspaper thrusted at them, then they were subject to watching repeated vignettes on the metro’s television screens, depicting Chernovetskiy’s government’s accomplishments during his two years as mayor.
It also helped Chernovetskiy to have a 24hour television network at his disposal, and city government offices where he allegedly stored campaign materials and held campaign press conferences in violation of ethics.
Breaking the law
It wasn’t only the Chernovetskiy campaign that violated the May 24 advertising blackout, as Mykhaylo Brodskiy Bloc campaigners were also spotted distributing materials that day.
Buying votes replaced falsifying them as the main illegal activity in the election.
The Novynar magazine reported the Lytvyn Bloc was among those who organized networks to buy votes, particularly in the residence halls of Kyiv’s numerous universities.
Of course, some laws were made to be broken. Campaign spending was limited to about $100, 000 per candidate, a provision universally disregarded by everyone involved.
In fact, the 2008 mayoral campaign was the most expensive in history, with competitors spending an estimated $206 million in advertising alone, the CVU reported.
Election budgets average $25 to $40 million, making the notion of a $100, 000 campaign ridiculous.
