Also, we observed
in Kyiv on the district level on the following two days. Our reactions were
mixed, but mostly positive. It is our considered opinion that Ukraine made some
significant progress since last year’s local elections as well as the
presidential tally of 2010.
Perhaps the
reason for this generally positive review is that the electorate in Ukraine
over the years has matured to a level of sophistication that exceeds many of
the traditionally democratic societies.
In fact, the
maturation process has been arduous because of the numerous impediments set by
the ruling and financial elite intent on acquiring or retaining power. The
electorate includes not only the some 30 million voters, but the election officials
who were charged with the duties of carrying out the process on the local
precinct and district levels.
In places
witnessed by us, it seems those local officials have been trained and hardened
by negative experiences to such an extent that they approached their latest
duties with a strong will and remarkable dedication to prevent any hint of
fraud.
Furthermore,
the wide party affiliation that comprised the local and district commission
members bordered on the ridiculous. In one Kharkiv precinct, a Women’s
Solidarity Party representative served as secretary while in another, the
Anarchist Party representative chaired the local committee This ensured that
myriad interests were represented.
Commission
members followed the law painstakingly even though sometimes their
understanding of the law was misapplied. In the past they were hostile to
international observers. This time they welcomed them.
Attempts to
defraud, manipulate and influence are inevitable in any election where the
prize is significant. In Ukraine, legislative membership, aside from altruism,
carries much personal benefit including but not limited to immunity from
criminal prosecution. Certainly Ukraine’s latest round had its share of such
attempts. However, the preponderance took place in the time up to the elections
during the campaign phase. Unequal access to media is a common complaint in
democratic societies and Ukraine was certainly worse than western democracies.
After all the ruling party controls and influences the media in Ukraine through
various channels not limited to financial control and intimidation. Abuse of
administrative resources was another troublesome area. Officials in
governmental control often lavished financial benefits upon their society which
inured to their own personal welfare or that of their party colleagues.
However,
Election Day was not marred by egregious fraud. Sure there were attempts to
stuff the ballot utilizing the “at home” ballot, but in most instances the
precinct commissions caught on in advance.
Some
unregistered voters attempted to procure a ballot and vote, but were turned
away in most instances. The polling precincts were sometimes a little too
inconspicuous, with entrances on the side and no Ukrainian flag. Nevertheless,
voter participation was a healthy 58 percent, not the typical 90 percent common
to authoritarian societies, but more than the less than 50 percent which has
become the norm in healthy, but lazy democracies.
Who won and
lost is not the issue.
Certainly President
Viktor Yanukovych and his party together with their allies did not achieve what
they had hoped.
On the other
hand, the democratic opposition can consider this election more than a moral
victory.
Still much
depends on allegiances and the non-affiliated deputies whose favor will be the
subject of improper and outrageous bidding. We all know how easily those are
bought and sold in Ukraine.
The big
winner here is Ukrainian democracy and the Ukrainian people.
Surprisingly,
many of the other Western observers assessed the process in uncertain terms,
but falling short of the model.
We suspect
that for people from Chicago or even New York, like ourselves, the model is not
without its own blemishes. Chicago, until very recently urged its electorate to
vote early and often. In New York, the model was less outrageous—a mayor, who
was termed out, simply changed the city’s constitution without referendum and
then proceeded to buy the electorate with overwhelming money. Campaign finance
reform is a reasonable democratic safeguard needed not only in Ukraine.
The
international community needs to look at Ukraine objectively.
Sure,
Ukraine’s president is a thug. But at least in this one instance, he stepped
back and allowed what Vladimir Putin and the like would never permit.
The
democratic international community should continue to monitor Ukraine on human
rights, and insist on the release of opposition leaders. However, failing to
acknowledge that the most recent election in Ukraine was substantially free,
although not entirely fair, compromises the West’s
credibility.
Askold S. Lozynskyj and Adrian I. Dlaboha served as international election observers
from the Ukrainian World Congress/Ukrainian Congress Committee of America
mission.
