Hyperbolic or inflammatory assessments and
assertions bordering on distortion have marred any potentially intelligent and
objective analysis. Here are a few examples from relatively respected Western
publications and spoke persons:
“Ukraine’s streak of four relatively democratic
national elections, from 2004 to 2012, has come to an end with the October 28
parliamentary vote. The 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, which fields the largest and most credible election observation
missions, in a preliminary statement today said the vote represented and
apparent reversal in Ukraine’s democratic progress.”
“The parliamentary elections of 2012 approach
the elections of 2004 in dirtiness.”
Then:
“On Nov. 12, Ukraine’s Central Election
Commission issued the results of the parliamentary elections held on Oct. 28.
Zhanna Usenko-Chornaya, deputy chair of the Central Election Commission, passed
the judgment: ‘the dirtiest elections in Ukraine’s history.’ The European
Parliament, the European Commission, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly offered similar assessments.”
Also:
“…the government used its control over the
majority of the Central Election Commission to falsify tight single-mandate
races. In the end the commission refused to acknowledge the opposition
victories in five-single mandate constituencies and called new elections
there.”
I even heard a comparison of Ukraine’s
parliamentary elections to elections in the Russian Federation.
The reality is that compared with the Russian
election, Ukraine’s November 2004 presidential election, Ukraine’s presidential
February 2010 election and Ukraine’s local October 2011 elections, the Oct. 28 elections
were a step towards democracy. The OSCE, including the ODIHR, OSCE PA, PACE, EP
and NATO PA have issued two reports, one dated Oct. 29 and the most recent
dated Nov. 9. The earlier one concluded:
“The 28 October parliamentary elections were
characterized by the lack of a level playing field, caused primarily by the
abuse of administrative resources, lack of transparency of campaign and party
financing, and lack of balanced media coverage. Certain aspects of the
pre-election period constituted a step backward compared with recent national
elections. Voters had a choice between distinct parties. Election Day was calm
and peaceful overall. Voting and counting were assessed mostly positively.
Tabulation was assessed negatively as it lacked transparency.”
The more recent report addressed the issue of
tabulation and stated “the tabulation process was assessed negatively in 77 of
the 161 DEC (district election commissions, of which there are 225) where it
was observed by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM (election observation mission). The main
problems reported immediately after Election Day included DEC premises with
insufficient space, overcrowding, tension, and tampering with election
materials submitted by the PECs (precinct election commission). The lengthy
process of PEC results was exacerbated by long breaks announced by some DECs
and by the very high number of PECs that were obliged to compile corrected
protocols because of minor mistakes or because figures in their protocols could
not be reconciled…In a positive step, the CEC (Central Election Commission)
posted the election results by polling station on its website; however, some
essential data such as the number of invalid votes or the number of voters who
received ballots, were not included.”
Nowhere in the two OSCE reports can the
following language be found:”Ukraine’s streak of four relatively democratic
national elections, from 2004 to 2012, has come to an end with the Oct. 28
parliamentary vote;” or “The parliamentary elections of 2012 approach the
election of 2004 in dirtiness;” “the dirtiest elections in Ukraine’s history.”
Clearly, nowhere in the OSCE reports is there a reference or comparison with
Russian elections.
The outburst by a deputy chair of the CEC, made
many days prior to the CEC issuing final results was unsubstantiated, clearly
inflammatory even in its absolute terminology “dirtiest election” and never
endorsed by the Commission or any of its members. Attributing that outburst to
the entire commission is an intentional attempt to mislead.
Furthermore, in the five districts where the
CEC voided the elections, the winners were not opposition candidates. In fact
the final results had Party of Regions’ candidates leading in two districts,
independents leading in two others and the United Opposition leading in only
one.
I am not writing this piece to exonerate the Yanukovych
regime. Clearly, that regime worked very diligently and nefariously in the
pre-election campaign. However, the election itself was major victory for the
people of Ukraine, who worked equally diligently and scrupulously to ensure, as
best they could, a relatively free and accurate result. The results have to be
considered in the analysis.
Frankly, I am not sure as to the motivation
behind much of the Western hyperbole at best and distortion at worst
surrounding the election. I do think that it lessens Western credibility for
future assessments, advice and influence. More importantly it was and continues
to be a great disservice to the Ukrainian people.
Askold S. Lozynskyj is an attorney, former president of the Ukrainian
World Congress and has served as an international election observer in Ukraine
since 1990, including the Oct 28 parliamentary election.
