In a civilized Western democracy, both Yulia Tymoshenko and Victor Yanukovych would have been hounded out of the political arena long ago for their astounding hypocrisy. Tymoshenko has the gall to claim that she "rid the energy sector of corruption", when she previously exploited that very same energy corruption to rack up an undeclared personal fortune frequently estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yanukovych waxes philosophical on his conversion to the ways of democracy and warns that Tymoshenko plans to use state resources to falsify the voting, even as he continues to insist that massive, state-sponsored fraud did not take place in the 2004 presidential election in Eastern Ukraine on his own behalf.
The above are only the most obvious examples of why neither of these individuals are morally qualified to seek the highest office in the land. Let’s be perfectly honest: in a Western country, both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych would probably have been convicted of serious crimes against the public interest, and be serving substantial prison terms.
And yet, morally qualified or not, the inescapable fact here is that one of them will be chosen as independent Ukraine’s fourth president, in what observers hope and expect will be the most free and fair election in the history of the post-Soviet space. This places the onus of responsibility for the outcome squarely on the shoulders of Ukraine’s citizens. However, the Ukrainian Constitution offers them a nominal way out of their predicament.
The "against all" option on Ukrainian ballots (literally, "I do not support any candidate") is a relic of the Soviet system. In Parliamentary elections and the first round of presidential elections, the "against all" option is little more than a curiosity; if two or three, or even ten percent vote "against all", this has practically no effect on the ultimate result of the vote.
However, in a second round, winner-take-all presidential contest pitting two candidates head-to-head, the existence of "against all" drastically changes the dynamic of the process. There is a very real potential that a relatively small number of disenchanted voters may, paradoxically, directly affect the result of the election by their refusal to support a candidate.
There has been considerable debate among political scientists about whether "against all" defends a moral right of the voter to express his/her displeasure, or acts as a trojan horse that undermines democracy by providing the mere illusion of participation.
I sometimes explain to Ukrainian acquaintances that in November 2004, I wasn’t too happy to have to choose between John Kerry and George W. Bush (there is no "against all" option on U.S. presidential ballots). But I grudgingly went to the polls and cast my vote, because failing to do so would have been a) irresponsible and b) an insult to the millions of people around the world who would be willing to risk life and limb to be able to vote in a free election in a Western country.
In the current Ukrainian presidential race, the voters of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th-place candidates (Sergiy Tigipko, Arseniy Yatseniuk, and Victor Yushchenko) hold the key to the election outcome. These voters accounted for 25.5 percent of the electorate that turned up at the polls, while Yanukovych’s first-round lead over Tymoshenko was 10.3 percent. Some simple arithmetic (and adjustments for the votes of a couple of other minor candidates) tells us that Tymoshenko needs to convert four-fifths of these floating voters over to her column, in order to be absolutely sure of defeating Yanukovych in the runoff.
The greatest intrigue surrounds the 3rd-place Tigipko, who brought home 13 percent in the first round. Tymoshenko wasted no time in offering Tigipko – via a nationally televised announcement – the prime minister’s job in the event of her victory. Tigipko refused – sort of. In his response to the offer, also carried on national television, Tigipko said that the two finalists "will have to battle it out on their own". But he then added that he will remain open to the offer after the completion of the runoff. This cleverly-designed scenario gives Tymoshenko a natural claim on Tigipko’s voters without Tigipko having to make a politically risky advance endorsement.
Yatseniuk and Yushchenko, for their part, combined to win 12.5 percent (mostly in western oblasts). So far, the Yanukovych campaign appears to be counting on many of these floating voters to choose "against all", instead of making a concerted effort to compete with Tymoshenko for the votes outright.
This is a short-sighted strategy, and could contribute to the same polarization of the electorate (on the familiar east-west axis) that led to Yanukovych’s defeat in the 2004 election. If the 2010 campaign turns into another divisive referendum on who is Ukrainian and who is not, there may be a replay of the 2004 turmoil, but this time with far more damaging long-term consequences for the country.
Yatseniuk and Yushchenko have both announced that they intend to vote "against all". While neither explicitly called on their supporters to do the same, their intentions are transparent. Such a publicly-advertised disavowal of responsibility is, in my view, unworthy of leading politicians in a democratic country. What’s the point of deliberately making a trip to the polls in order not to vote? Why go around singing the praises of European democratic values, if you haven’t got the political courage to make a definitive choice in one of the most important elections in your nation’s history?
If Yatseniuk and Yushchenko really believe, as they have variously charged, that Tymoshenko is a threat to democratic institutions, a "pro-Kremlin project", and possesses billions of dollars in illicit offshore wealth, then they should put their money where their mouths are, and vote for her opponent. And if they don’t believe these things, they ought to stop sniping at Tymoshenko, admit that she out-polled them fair and square in the first round, and give her their votes in the runoff.
In stump speeches in Western Ukraine during the past week, Tymoshenko has been addressing audiences with the line: "A vote against all is the same as a vote for Yanukovych." The message is being repeated by the premier’s prominent supporters and broadcast multiple times per day on the Tymoshenko-friendly Channel 24 television news outlet.
Apart from this being a glaring exaggeration of the truth (a vote "against all" by a floating voter is only half as damaging to Tymoshenko, in terms of electoral math, as a vote for Yanukovych would be), I disagree with the assessment on purely philosophical grounds.
A vote "against all" is not a choice to indirectly support this or that candidate. It is simply a decision to let others decide for you. It’s a vote against participation, against taking responsibility. A high "against all" total will damage the credibility of the Ukrainian election and make it that much harder for whomever is chosen to govern effectively over the long term. In that sense, it is in Yanukovych’s interest as well as Tymoshenko’s to discourage such votes.
Ukrainian voters, especially those in western regions where the level of "post-Orange" political disillusionment is high, should think long and hard before giving up their right to influence the electoral process. Then again, it’s easy for me to say. I’m not the one who has to go behind the curtain on Feb. 7 and make the choice.
Will Ritter is a former managing editor of the Kyiv-based IntelNews information agency. He can be reached at .[email protected]
