Ukraine’s local elections on Oct. 25 were free and competitive, but marred by procedural violations and allegations of vote-buying and abuse of administrative resources, Ukrainian and international election monitors said in their preliminary reports.
Observers also raised concerns about inconsistent COVID-19 safety measures and a controversial public opinion poll conducted by President Volodymyr Zelensky outside polling places.
Complicated by the pandemic, this year’s local elections took place under the new Electoral Code following a series of reforms that changed the administrative division of Ukraine and granted more power to local authorities. This made them among the most important local votes in Ukraine’s modern history.
In three separate briefings on Oct. 26 and Oct. 27, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Opora election watchdog, and the European Network of Election Monitoring Organization (ENEMO) commended the professionalism and efficiency of the Central Election Commission in the face of challenges.
Voter turnout was 37%, lower than in all previous local elections. Although the votes are still being counted, it is already clear that some cities will hold runoffs in their mayoral races.
The Opora network did not register large-scale or systemic violations that could influence the results of the vote. Observers recorded predominantly procedural irregularities at 9% of the polling stations.
Read more: Local election violations: Fake polling stations, missing booths, naked Femen activist
Ukrainian police have opened 159 criminal proceedings and filed 324 reports on administrative violations. A part of them were for vote-buying, bussing voters to polling stations and abuse of the right to change one’s voting address.
The ODIHR also called the voting process “generally calm and well-organized.” However, its observers recorded the abuse of state resources and government office by city and oblast administrations.
Based on its monitoring of media coverage, ODIHR said that Ukrainian media failed to provide unbiased and balanced coverage of the candidates. Paired with a high volume of unmarked advertising in broadcast media, it deprived voters of the opportunity to make informed choices, Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, head of the ODIHR mission, said on Oct. 26.
Although the campaign was generally free, paid-for materials in media (so-called “jeansa”), disinformation and smearing (“black PR”) remain a concern, Pierre Peytier, deputy head of the ENEMO mission, said on Oct. 27. According to a report by Institute of Mass Information, a Ukrainian media watchdog, nearly 40% of all paid-for materials placed in Ukrainian media in October were promoting Opposition Platform, a pro-Russian party with 44 seats in parliament.
ENEMO also highlighted the increased role of social media and messengers in the campaigning, which was limited by the ban on mass events due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Poor COVID-19 measures
Weeks before the local elections, Ukraine has seen a rapid increase in COVID-19 infections, and the number of active cases is nearing 200,000. The coronavirus has killed over 6,400 people.
Olha Aivazovska, head of the Opora network, criticized the central government for failing to ensure safe voting during the pandemic.
Despite multiple calls from election officials and watchdogs before Oct. 25, the government did not issue uniform guidance on what kind of supplies local election commissions would need to protect their members and voters at polling stations. Nor did it give clear instructions on how much money should be spent for these purposes.
The local authorities were left to their own devices and budgets. As a result, anti-epidemic measures varied greatly on election day.
“At some polling stations, members of commissions who organized home voting had protective suits. Others did not have them,” Aivazovska said on Oct. 26. “Because of that, sometimes members of a commission refused to join mobile groups to go to voters in self-isolation (due to COVID-19).”
Moreover, the parliament did not pass amendments to the Electoral Code to formalize holding elections during the pandemic.
Canceled races in Donbas
In August, the civil-military administrations of Severodonetsk and Lisichansk, newly created by President Zelensky, recommended the Central Election Commission to cancel the elections in 18 communities in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts due to security risks.
Observers raised issues with the decision, which deprived nearly 500,000 voters of their constitutional rights.
Severodonetsk and Lysychansk are considered safe, and presidential and parliamentary elections were held there last year. Even in Avdiivka and Shastya, located close to the frontline, residents could participate in the 2019 elections.
“The decision lacked transparent criteria. Why some elections can be held on those territories, and others can’t?” Gísladóttir from ODIHR said.
Election code
Observers welcomed some changes to the Electoral Code, which was adopted in December 2019 and amended in July, such as the introduction of gender quotas for party lists for local councils. According to the Opora network, 44% of 271,000 candidates were women.
However, Aivazovska said it was a mistake to introduce a party monopoly on nominating candidates. Under the new code, independent candidates may run only in small towns or villages with populations fewer than 10,000 people.
This led to the so-called “party franchise” which local elites and activists had to resort to in order to participate in the elections, Aivazovska said.
Presidential poll
President Zelensky’s opinion poll, conducted outside polling places on Oct. 25, was controversial from the moment of its hasty announcement 12 days before the elections.
Read more: Zelensky unveils 5 questions for his Oct. 25 poll
While it was determined that holding such an opinion poll outside of the polling stations was not against the law, the public and experts questioned the legality of its results, its methodology, its sources of funding and its true purpose. The poll has alternately been perceived as a test run for a future plebiscite or a gimmick from the president to attract voters to his party, Servant of the People.
Read more: Zelensky’s election day opinion poll marred by poor planning, chaos
The presidential poll was characterized as chaotic and unrepresentative, and its results as having no legal force. Nevertheless, Oleksandr Korniienko, leader of the Servant of the People party, presented its results at a briefing on Oct. 26.
Funded by Zelensky’s political party and echoing his administration’s policy proposals, the poll “appeared to have created unfair political advantage,” both ODIHR and ENEMO said.
The poll also “blurred the line between the state and the party,” Gísladóttir of ODIHR said.
In addition, Peytier of ENEMO said that President Zelensky played an active role in the campaigning by participating in several events to promote Servant of the People candidates.
Aivazovska from Opora harshly criticized the president’s direct involvement in campaigning for his party and his rejection of scientific polling, which requires a representative sample and methodology.
“The president has to perform his duties, not exercise a political campaigning trick, which might have been effective but harmed the idea of people’s power and undermined trust into sociology,” she said.
Interviewers were present outside 55% of polling stations, according to Opora observers. Fewer polling stations (38%) were covered in western Ukrainian regions, where Zelensky and his party have lower ratings, compared to the south (79%), central and eastern regions (55%).
