In April 2019, the election campaigns of presidential candidates Volodymyr Zelensky and Petro Poroshenko were marked by high level of competitiveness and escalating confrontation. Candidates for the post of President of Ukraine made quite active use of mass media, social network services and outdoor advertising media for campaigning purposes. Political confrontation between presidential candidates centered around the problem of organizing a public debate with their participation. Despite the fact that the Law of Ukraine “On Election of the President of Ukraine” and corresponding resolution of the Central Electoral Commission provide for organization of TV debate using state budget funds, the candidates reached an agreement to finance the public debate from their election funds. At the time of publication of this report, the format of such debate remains unclear. Civil Network OPORA calls on Volodymyr Zelensky and Petro Poroshenko to take part in official TV debate financed from the State Budget of Ukraine in order to guarantee the voters’ right to information about presidential candidates. This should provide necessary conditions for fruitful discussion between presidential candidates and politically unbiased moderation of the debate.
Candidates for the post of President of Ukraine didn’t conduct intensive election campaigns in the regions. Activity of their local structures was limited to fulfillment of organizational tasks and distribution of campaign materials. Volodymyr Zelensky and Petro Poroshenko didn’t make any visits to the regions. Instead, they communicated with voters through the use of mass media and social network services. On the one hand, this trend is an indication that candidates are trying to reach out to a larger number of voters with the help of their messages. On the other hand, voters were deprived of the opportunity to interact with candidates through participation in meetings, rallies or other mass events. The level of activity of well-known supporters (VIP electioneerers) of presidential candidates has also decreased as compared to the first round of voting. According to OPORA’s observers, in the month of April Petro Poroshenko was the leader in terms of the intensity of use of various campaigning methods.
The process and the results of formation of district election commissions for conducting the second round of voting were of much higher quality as compared to the earlier stage (first round) of formation of DECs. More than two thirds (69%) of all members of the newly formed DECs were working in district election commissions during the first round of voting. In the process of formation of DECs presidential candidates were actively recruiting persons who worked as members of DECs or official observers in the first round of voting, but represented the interests of other candidates or non-governmental organizations. All DECs were formed with the inclusion of maximum allowed number of members (14 persons) within the time limits prescribed by Law and commenced work in a timely manner. Both presidential candidates were represented in DECs in a well-balanced and proportional manner. Their representatives took up roughly the same number of senior positions (chairpersons, secretaries).
The process of formation of precinct election commissions was one of the key challenges in organizing the second round of voting. 15% of all members of PECs were appointed upon the recommendations of DEC chairpersons due to the fact that presidential candidates failed to submit sufficient number of nominees for the positions of PEC members. Almost 60 thousand people were involved in the work of election commissions through the efforts of DECs. 48% of all members of PECs represent Volodymyr Zelensky, 37% of PEC members represent Petro Poroshenko. The crisis situation resulting from candidates’ failure to make full use of their right to form PECs once again highlighted the need to improve the quality of administration of electoral process. In particular, the state government should provide more financial incentives to citizens who are involved in organization of electoral process.
Civil Network OPORA’s observers didn’t record any systemic violations of electoral legislation in the run-up to second round of regular election of the President of Ukraine. At the same time, intensive adverse publicity campaigns directed against presidential candidates testify to the need for continuation of expert and parliamentary debate on finding the balance between the right to disseminate information about elections and transparency of campaign finance. No less important is the task of preventing the publication of fake news about candidates and voter misinformation that took place during this election campaign. Similarly to the first round of presidential election, illegal payments to electioneerers and members of election commissions made by structures and representatives of presidential candidates remains an acute problem. In April 2019, OPORA’s observers became aware of alleged attempts to make illegal payments to electioneerers, members of election commissions and official observers representing the interests of presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko. According to OPORA, in the run-up to 2019 regular parliamentary election the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine should foster the efforts to legalize the necessary expenses of candidates on logistics and staffing support as well as counteract vote buying. Abuse of administrative resources didn’t play a significant part in pre-election campaigning, although some isolated cases of this sort were still recorded.
Activity of Central Election Commission
In the month of April, key activities of the Central Election Commission were focused on acceptance of vote counting protocols of district election commissions on certification of election results within the boundaries of corresponding territorial election districts. On April 7, 2019, following on from the results of examination of DEC protocols, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine adopted a Resolution No. 759 to schedule the second round of regular election of the President of Ukraine for April 21, 2019. The names of two candidates who won the largest number of votes in the first round of presidential election – Volodymyr Zelensky (30.24% of all votes) and Petro Poroshenko (15.95% of all votes) – were included in the ballot papers for conducting the second round of presidential election. It should be noted that the official data of the Central Election Commission was almost entirely congruent with the results of simultaneous vote counting (parallel vote tabulation) conducted by Civil Network OPORA.
Furthermore, the key decisions of the CEC were related to approval of the text of ballot paper for conducting the second round of presidential election on April 21, 2019, calendar plan of presidential election, registration of official observers from foreign countries and international organizations, formation of district election commissions and introduction of amendments to the expenditure estimates.
The text of the ballot paper for second round of voting was approved by the CEC and printed only on one side of the ballot paper in Ukrainian language. The text fits to one blue & gray page with dimensions of 200 x 150 mm, including a two-tone watermark, protective fibers, protective graphic anti-scanner elements and protective paints. The CEC adopted a decision to authorize the State Special Communications Service of Ukraine to transfer the ballot papers for second round of voting to district election commissions located in the corresponding territorial election districts.
Within the framework of the procedure for providing additional information and clarifications the Central Election Commission promptly responded to the ongoing high-profile issues related to organization of the second round of voting, including determination of current status of certain electoral subjects, conduct of TV debates and resolution of the problem of understaffing in the precinct election commissions.
One of the drawbacks of high-profile public discussion about electoral debate between presidential candidates resides in the fact that it was focused on the expediency and appropriateness of mandatory and clearly defined legal provisions rather than the format of the debate. In this context, it may be said that the CEC adopted a well-balanced and reasonable position and conducted public communication concerning the need to ensure strict compliance with the Law “On Election of the President of Ukraine”, which clearly specifies the date, timing, duration and procedure for holding televised debates (Article 62). TV debates are financed from the State Budget of Ukraine and shall be held on the last Friday before the second round of voting between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. TV debates are broadcast live and should be no less than 60 minutes in duration. According to the CEC Resolution No. 472 as of May 5, 2014, TV debates shall be held at the premises of the National Public Broadcasting Company of Ukraine. The debates are held in TV studio whose interior must not contain any campaign materials in support of any candidates. Agents and other authorized representatives of candidates are not allowed to participate in TV debates. It is prohibited to demonstrate pre-prepared video material, campaign material as well as other materials about candidates.
On April 18, 2019, the CEC adopted a special Resolution to specify the timing of TV debate. The debate shall be broadcast live on Suspilne TV channel on April 19, 2019 from 21:00 to 22:00. This decision can’t be considered as compulsory or necessary, but it was adopted in full compliance with the provisions of electoral law for the purpose of ensuring the voters’ right to access to comprehensive and unbiased information about the electoral process.
Given the fact that presidential candidates failed to submit sufficient number of nominees for the positions of members of precinct election commissions (as was the case in more than 40 electoral districts in eight oblasts of Ukraine and the city of Kyiv) which forced DECs to fill the ranks of PECs within short timeframes, the CEC called on citizens to get involved in electoral process in the role of members of election commissions. Civil Network OPORA appreciates publicity efforts of the CEC which are aimed at attracting public attention to the possible ways of solving this problem. However, it should be noted that the mechanism for filling the ranks of election commissions upon the recommendations of the chairmen of higher-level commissions remains non-transparent and creates incentives for public administration bodies to exert administrative pressure on this process.
In the course of preparation for the second round of voting, the Central Election Commission repeatedly informed the public about earlier Clarification (CEC Resolution No. 54 as of January 11, 2019) of the status of certain electoral subjects. According to this document, in the case where the CEC adopts a resolution to schedule the second round of election of the President of Ukraine, presidential candidates who were included in the ballot papers for second round of voting, their authorized representatives and agents, official observers representing presidential candidates and political parties that nominated these candidates as well as official observers from NGOs shall retain electoral subject status. Therefore, not only authorized representatives and observers representing the two presidential candidates, but also all other registered observers (more than 80 thousand observers representing 139 NGOs) shall continue to exercise their powers in the second round of voting as provided for in the legislation.
Furthermore, on April 15, 2019, the CEC completed the process of registration of foreign observers for the second round of presidential election. The CEC registered a total of 2,700 official observers representing 20 international organizations and 21 foreign states (by comparison, a total of 2,344 observers were registered in the first round of presidential election).
Formation and commencement of work of district election commissions
Central Election Commission adopted a Resolution No. 773 to form 199 district election commissions for the purpose of organizing and conducting the second round of presidential election scheduled for April 21, 2019, within the time limit prescribed by Law (before 10th April 2019). District election commissions are composed of 14 members who are nominated by presidential candidates included in the ballot papers for the second round of voting. The two presidential candidates have equal representation in DECs – 7 members apiece.
Petro Poroshenko submitted the maximum allowed number of nominees (7 members) to all 199 district election commissions. As a result, he was represented by a total of 1,393 members in DECs. Volodymyr Zelensky was just shy of exhausting his membership quota – he submitted a total of 1,379 nominees for the positions of DEC members in 197 DECs. Volodymyr Zelensky is not represented in two district election commissions (DEC No.57 and DEC No.58) located in the city of Mariupol. In accordance with the established procedure, the CEC filled the ranks of these commissions upon the recommendation of CEC chairman. As a result, all 199 DECs were formed with the inclusion of 14 members.
According to OPORA’s estimates, the CEC allocated senior positions in DECs between the two presidential candidates in a well-balanced and proportional manner. Volodymyr Zelensky’s nominees took up 99 posts of chairmen and 98 posts of secretaries in district election commissions, while Petro Poroshenko’s representatives took up 100 posts of DEC chairmen and 99 posts of DEC secretaries. Two persons were appointed to the positions of DEC secretaries upon the recommendation of CEC chairman.
69% (or 1,898 persons) of all members of the newly formed district election commissions performed the duties of DEC members in the first round of 2019 presidential election. The remaining 31% (or 861 persons) are newcomers who weren’t on the district election commissions formed for conducting the first round of presidential election on March 31, 2019.
54% (or 746 persons) of Volodymyr Zelensky’s nominees for the positions of members of the newly formed DECs were on the district election commissions in the first round of voting. Of these, 159 persons (or 21%) were nominated for the positions of DEC members by Volodymyr Zelensky in the first round of voting, while the rest represented the interests of other candidates. The number of presidential candidates whose DEC members shifted to Volodymyr Zelensky’s camp is larger as compared to those who shifted to Petro Poroshenko. However, the proportions of such “party-switchers” contributed by each of the candidates are insignificant. In particular, in the first round of voting 44 persons (6%) were nominated for DEC members by Mykola Gaber, 43 persons (6%) were nominated by Oleh Liashko, 40 persons (5%) were nominated by both Anatoliy Hrytsenko and Oleksandr Shevchenko, 34 persons (5%) were nominated by Yulia Tymoshenko , 29 persons (4%) were nominated by Serhiy Taruta.
On the one hand, the magnitude and method of transfer of DEC members from one candidate to another highlights the problem of the so-called dummy candidates. On the other hand, this is an indication of high level of coordination and interaction between certain candidates.
In terms of gender representation, 40% of 2,786 members of district election commissions are men and 60% are women. Women occupy 53% of the total number of positions of chairpersons and 72% of all positions of secretaries in DECs. Women account for 64% of the total number of DEC members nominated by Petro Poroshenko, and 56% of the total number of Volodymyr Zelensky’s nominees for the positions of DEC members are women.
Nearly 86% of the total number of DEC members have past experience of working in the election commissions. By comparison, in the election commissions formed on February 18, 2019, the proportion of members with past experience was smaller – 65%. Presidential candidates participating in the second round of voting did not resort to mass replacements of DEC members in the first round of election campaign (Petro Poroshenko replaced 4.5% of his representatives in DECs, while Volodymyr Zelensky replaced 22% of DEC members). It is expected that there will be few replacements of DEC members in the second round of voting given that two thirds of all members were working in district election commissions during the first round of presidential election held on March 31, 2019.
First meetings of district election commissions
The work of election commissions within the framework of preparation for the second round of voting was organized at a higher professional level as compared to the first round of presidential election. District election commissions were obliged to hold their first meetings not later than two days after the date of formation thereof by the Central Election Commission – on or before the 12th of April. OPORA’s observers analyzed the commencement of work of DECs by way of attending the first meetings of 157 out of 199 district election commissions (or 80% of all DECs) in combination with remote data collection.
All 199 DECs held their first meetings in a timely manner. The vast majority of district election commissions (184 out of 199) held their first meetings on the day following their formation (April 11), eight DECs convened their first meetings on April 10, and seven DECs held first meetings on the last day of legally established period - April 12.
The first meetings of all 199 DECs reached the quorum for adopting decisions (no less than two thirds of DEC members were present at the meetings and took the oath). Almost half of DECs (94) held first meetings in the presence of maximum allowed number of members (14 persons), 13 members were present at the first meetings of 61 DECs, 12 members were present at the first meetings of 33 DECs, 11 members attended the first meetings of 7 DECs, 10 members were present at the first meetings of 4 DECs. By comparison, none of the DECs held their first meetings in the presence of all 14 members in the course of preparation for the first round of presidential election. According to OPORA’s observers, less than 1% of all members of DECs refused to perform their duties and resigned from membership (by comparison, 4% of all members of DECs resigned from membership in the first round of presidential election). About 2% of all members of DECs (57 persons) are internal migrants who came from other oblasts of Ukraine (8% came from other oblasts in the first round of presidential election).
The decisions adopted at the first meetings of district election commissions were mostly related to approval of work schedules, duty tables and assignment of duties between DEC members. DECs adopt their decisions in an open way and on a collegiate basis. Senior members (chairpersons, secretaries) play a key role in the decision-making process, while the majority of other members are not actively involved in the discussion.
The majority of election commissions demonstrate cooperative attitude towards observers, journalists and other interested electoral subjects by creating conditions for unimpeded access to their meetings. However, the vast majority of election commissions do not inform the public about the date and time of their first meetings.
Recordkeeping is conducted in compliance with the rules of law - secretaries of DECs keep minutes of the meetings, adopt protocol decisions and resolutions that are placed on bulletin boards and published in local newspapers. However, the decisions of district election commissions are not published in full and prompt manner on the CEC website. This problem remained unresolved both during previous elections and in the course of preparation for presidential election scheduled for March 31, 2019.
In general, at the stage of formation of DECs and conduct of first meetings of DECs observers didn’t record any problems that were typical for the first round of presidential election - frequent refusals of DEC members to perform their duties, the presence of internal migrants from other regions on the commission which resulted in large-scale rotation of members of DECs.
Formation of PECs
Presidential candidates submit their lists of nominees for the positions of members of precinct election commissions that are formed for the purpose of organizing the second round of regular election of the President of Ukraine.
According to the current legislation of Ukraine, candidates for the post of President of Ukraine shall enjoy the right to form PECs on parity basis. In the case of large polling stations (more than 1500 registered voters), each candidate shall submit 8 nominees for the positions of PEC members; in the case of medium-sized polling stations (500-1500 registered voters), each candidate shall submit 7 nominees; in the case of small-sized polling stations (less than 500 registered voters) each candidate shall submit 6 nominees. Depending on the size of the polling station, PECs shall be composed of 16, 14, 12 members, correspondingly.
Candidates for the post of President of Ukraine had the opportunity to submit their lists of nominees for the positions of members of PECs not later than eight days before the second round of voting (on or before the 12th of April). Based on the lists of nominees submitted by presidential candidates, DECs were obliged to form PECs not later than 5 days before the Election Day (before April 15, 24:00).
In the event that presidential candidate fails to submit the maximum allowed number of nominees for the positions of PEC members, DEC shall form the precinct election commission upon the recommendation of DEC chairman on the basis of proposals submitted by DEC members.
In this case, DECs are obliged to comply with requirements of the Law of Ukraine concerning the maximum allowed number of members of PEC (PECs are composed of 16, 14 or 12 members).
Civil Network OPORA has been conducting real-time monitoring of the process of formation of precinct election commissions for the second round of presidential election. According to OPORA’s observers, 192 DECs (92% of the total number) formed PECs within the time limit prescribed by law. Of these, 73 formed PECs on the last day of legally established period.
6 DECs failed to meet the deadline for forming precinct election commissions. PEC located in territorial election district No. 59 (Donetsk oblast) was formed later than all the rest - on April 18, 2019, following the CEC intervention. CEC adopted a special resolution and placed DEC under an obligation to form the PEC.
District election commissions were forced to fill the ranks of some PECs through their individual efforts due to the fact that presidential candidates failed to make full use of their PEC membership quotas.
DECs used various methods for informing voters about the possibility of getting involved in the work of PECs. Meanwhile, the CEC published a statement calling on the citizens to help resolve the problem of understaffing of precinct election commissions.
According to OPORA’s current data, almost 60 thousand people were additionally involved in the work of election commissions through the efforts of DECs. All these people were appointed as members of PECs upon the recommendations of DEC chairmen. In such a manner, DECs filled the ranks of approximately 11,330 PECs (at least one member in each of these PECs was appointed upon the recommendation of DEC chairman). Total number of formed PECs – 29,801.
Presidential candidates’ representation in PECs in the second round of regular election of the President of Ukraine (based on data collected from 198 DECs)
|
Total number of PEC members nominated by Petro Poroshenko |
Total number of PEC members nominated by Volodymyr Zelensky |
Total number of PEC members nominated upon the recommendations of DEC chairpersons |
Total number of PEC members |
% of PEC members nominated by Petro Poroshenko |
% of PEC members nominated by Volodymyr Zelensky |
% of PEC members nominated by DECs |
|
150 647 |
195 564 |
59 851 |
406 062 |
37% |
48% |
15% |
Despite the fact that candidates had legislative capacity to ensure equal representation in PECs, they didn’t make full use of it. Presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky’s representatives account for 48% of the total number of members of precinct election commissions. Meanwhile, Petro Poroshenko’s representatives make up only 37% of the total number of PEC members. 15% of all members of the newly formed precinct election commissions were appointed upon the recommendations of chairpersons of DECs. The fact that presidential candidates failed to submit the maximum allowed number of nominees for the positions of members of PECs caused problems in the activity of DECs at the stage of formation of lower-level election commissions.
More than 30% of all members of PECs within the boundaries of electoral districts in Cherkasy, Luhansk, Kherson, Odesa, and Zakarpattya oblasts were involved in the work of precincts election commissions through the efforts of DECs. In a number of other areas, this indicator was also high. By contrast, in Rivne, Vinnytsia, Lviv, Khmelnytsky and Ternopil oblasts presidential candidates made the most of their right to form PECs on parity basis.
% of PEC members nominated by DECs as compared to Petro Poroshenko’s and Volodymyr Zelensky’s representation in the newly formed precinct election commissions (based on data collected from 198 DECs)
|
Region |
% of PEC members nominated by Petro Poroshenko |
% of PEC members nominated by Volodymyr Zelensky |
% of PEC members nominated by DECs |
|
Cherkasy oblast |
15% |
48% |
38% |
|
Luhansk oblast |
14% |
49% |
37% |
|
Kherson oblast |
15% |
50% |
35% |
|
Odesa oblast |
15% |
50% |
34% |
|
Zakarpattya oblast |
21% |
48% |
32% |
|
Kyiv city |
22% |
50% |
29% |
|
Kirovohrad oblast |
24% |
50% |
26% |
|
Chernihiv oblast |
27% |
48% |
24% |
|
Kyiv oblast |
29% |
47% |
24% |
|
Chernivtsi oblast |
24% |
52% |
24% |
|
Poltava oblast |
37% |
47% |
16% |
|
Zaporizhzhya oblast |
36% |
49% |
15% |
|
Sumy oblast |
45% |
42% |
14% |
|
Zhytomyr oblast |
42% |
44% |
13% |
|
Kharkiv oblast |
40% |
50% |
11% |
|
Dnipropetrovsk oblast |
41% |
50% |
10% |
|
Donetsk oblast |
49% |
43% |
8% |
|
Volyn oblast |
44% |
48% |
8% |
|
Mykolayiv oblast |
46% |
48% |
6% |
|
Ivano-Frankivsk oblast |
50% |
45% |
5% |
|
Ternopil oblast |
49% |
49% |
3% |
|
Khmelnytsky oblast |
49% |
49% |
2% |
|
Lviv oblast |
50% |
49% |
1% |
|
Vinnytsia oblast |
50% |
50% |
0% |
|
Rivne oblast |
50% |
50% |
0% |
The Law of Ukraine “On Election of the President of Ukraine” stipulates that representatives of each candidate shall take up equal number of posts of secretary and chairperson in the process of allocation of senior positions in PECs. Chairperson and secretary of the precinct election commission can’t represent the interests of one and the same presidential candidate. According to OPORA, representatives of presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko took up 27 894 senior positions in PECs, while Volodymyr Zelensky’s representatives took up 29 798 senior positions.
Civil Network OPORA welcomes the efforts of CEC and DECs aimed at resolving the problems related to formation of PECs, which allowed for avoiding further destabilization of electoral process. However, 4 DECs made attempts to prevent OPORA’s observers from monitoring the process of formation of PECs. Such incidents were recorded in territorial election districts No.39 (Dnipropetrovsk oblast), No.91 (Kyiv oblast), No.122 (Lviv oblast), and No.132 (Mykolayiv oblast).
At the time of publication of this report, OPORA’s observers concluded that DECs created necessary conditions for the proper functioning of PECs.
Pre-Election Campaigning Activity of Presidential Candidates
Pre-election campaign in the run-up to second round of voting officially began on April 8, 2019, that is, on the day following the adoption of CEC resolution to schedule the second round of presidential election (the corresponding CEC Resolution No. 759 was published on April 7). Therefore, the two presidential candidates-winners of the first round of voting had twelve days to conduct their pre-election campaigns (from April 8 to April 19 inclusive). Tight time limits for conducting pre-election campaign influenced the format of campaigning activities of presidential candidates who focused their efforts on media and outdoor political advertising. It should be noted that candidates continued using various latent forms of this campaigning method during the period from March 30 to April 7 despite the legislative prohibition. In particular, presidential candidates have published several video clips in mass media and made public calls for holding pre-election debates, as well as continued placing campaign materials on the Internet sites and outdoor advertising media. During this period, candidates resorted to “shadow” financing of campaign activities using sources other than their election funds. The law stipulates that withdrawal of money from all running accounts of election funds should stop at 18:00 on the last Friday before the Election Day (March 29) and resume on the day of adoption of decision to include candidates in the ballot papers for the second round of voting (April 7).
The key feature of pre-election campaign in the month of April resides in the fact that presidential candidates didn’t make any visits to the regions. While Volodymyr Zelensky refrained from holding street events (rallies, pickets, meetings with voters) throughout the course of election campaign, Petro Poroshenko was one of the leading candidates in terms of the number of visited regions and organized public events up until April (in March 2019 he made visits to 18 oblasts). The level of regional activity of VIP electioneerers has also decreased. In fact, observers didn’t record any cases of pre-election charity activities in support of candidates.
Overall, the month of April was marked by significantly lower level of campaigning activity of presidential candidates and their campaign teams as compared to the earlier periods of electoral process. In April, the regional campaign headquarters of Petro Poroshenko abandoned the practice of mass-scale installation of street campaign tents that were actively used throughout the course of election campaign. At the same time, they continued distributing printed campaign materials (newspapers) through a network of agitators. Volodymyr Zelensky’s team refrained from targeted distribution of printed campaign materials, although such materials were available at the regional headquarters of the candidate.
In the absence of regional campaigning events, placement of campaign materials on outdoor advertising media (billboards, city-lights) and political advertising in online and print media were the most common forms of campaigning activity.
In April, placement of campaign materials on outdoor advertising media remained the dominating form of campaigning activity of both presidential candidates (cases of outdoor political advertising were recorded in all regions of Ukraine). Updates in the content of political advertising included the introduction of new slogans in combination with more intensive use of “black PR” and covert campaigning technologies (in particular, campaign materials with no source data featuring a human figure that resembles Petro Poroshenko, bearing the inscription “The End” and stylized in the same way as Petro Poroshenko’s campaign materials were placed on billboards; numerous publications and printed materials bearing the marks of black PR directed against Volodymyr Zelensky were distributed at the regional level).
Campaign materials intended for placement on outdoor advertising media were ordered and distributed by central campaign headquarters and didn’t have any regional specific features. Throughout Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko’s campaign team installed billboards that depict Poroshenko confronting the President of Russia Volodymyr Putin together with a new slogan “April 21 - the decisive vote”. Billboards with a slogan “The most important thing is not to lose our country” as well as outdoor advertising materials bearing the inscription “Think” were also widespread across the country.
In the month of April, members of Volodymyr Zelensky’s campaign team were installing city-lights with new slogans “The end of the epoch of lies”, “The end of the epoch of greed” and “The end of the epoch of poverty” in several regions of Ukraine.
In addition to outdoor political advertising, candidates were actively disseminating political advertising materials on the Internet, including information bearing the marks of dirty campaigning tricks.
Despite the low intensity and smaller scale of distribution of campaign materials in the run-up to second round of voting, the election campaigns of presidential candidates have become more confrontational and were aimed at mobilizing various groups of population supporting one or another candidate. In April, activists of civic association “Vidsich” and members of Ukrainian Galician Party (who were active throughout the Lviv region) took an active part in the campaign directed against Volodymyr Zelensky in several regions of Ukraine. Representatives of these civic groups hold conversations with citizens (door-to-door canvassing and meetings in crowded places), as well as distribute newspapers and leaflets calling on the citizens not to vote for Volodymyr Zelensky.
Representatives of Petro Poroshenko’s campaign team are the only ones who exhibit activity in the segment of printed campaign materials (cases of distribution of printed materials were recorded in the vast majority of Ukrainian regions). In particular, members of Poroshenko’s campaign team distribute the newspaper “Make your choice on April 21” in the regions (the front page depicts Petro Poroshenko confronting Volodymyr Putin together with a slogan “April 21 – make your choice!”).
At the regional level, observers recorded cases of public support for presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko voiced by community leaders, politicians and members of non-governmental organizations.
Overall, in the month of April the campaign headquarters of both candidates decided to wind down public activity and focused on organizational aspects of electoral process, such as the staffing of district and precinct election commissions. It is telling that other electoral subjects who participated in the first round of voting (candidates and their campaign teams, local offices of political parties) didn’t voice any public support for candidates participating in the second round of voting. However, observers recorded some isolated cases of cooperation between local party offices and campaign headquarters of presidential candidates in the process of formation of election commissions (for example, local offices of AUU “Batkivshchyna” and “UKROP” party in Luhansk oblast cooperated in favor of “Servant of the People”).
Violation of Electoral Legislation. Cases of Non-Compliance with Electoral Standards
The low intensity of pre-election campaign in the regions and at the level of territorial communities resulted in insignificant number of electoral violations. Due to the lack of noticeable activity of local structures of presidential candidates, OPORA’s observers didn’t record any cases of systemic non-compliance with the electoral law.
The period between the first and second rounds of voting was marked by adverse publicity campaigns. To a greater extent these campaigns were directed against presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky, and to a lesser extent - against Petro Poroshenko. According to OPORA’s observers, mass-scale adverse publicity campaigns were often anonymous and they were financed from unknown sources.
Abuse of administrative resources didn’t play a significant part in the election campaign. However, several public authorities and officials failed to adhere to the principle of political neutrality. In the period between the first and second rounds of presidential election, law enforcement agencies were responding to reports on illegal payments to members of election commissions and electioneerers that were allegedly made by participants of regular presidential election held on March 31, 2019.
Provision of financial incentives to voters
In the run-up to second round of regular presidential election, observers recorded several incidents involving citizens who received payments from structures related to presidential candidates. As a rule, alleged facts of illegal payments involved official observers, members of election commissions and electioneerers representing the interests of certain presidential candidates. The Law of Ukraine “On Election of the President of Ukraine” does not provide for making legal payments to electioneerers, official observers and members of election commissions representing the interests of candidates for the post of President of Ukraine. However, according to clarification adopted by CEC, candidates and voters have the right to enter into gratuitous contracts on the provision of campaigning services. Furthermore, citizens may be reimbursed for the actual costs incurred in the process of pre-election campaigning in favor of presidential candidate at the expense of candidate’s election fund.
In the reporting period, officers of Kivertsi police station in Volyn oblast informed the media and observers about alleged fact of violation of electoral legislation in Olyka (Kivertsi rayon). The alleged fact of violation took place at the premises of local house of culture and involved unidentified persons who made illegal cash payments to citizens who were campaigning in favor of candidate Petro Poroshenko during the first round of presidential election. More than 700 thousand UAH were seized from unidentified persons within the framework of operative investigation measures. Law enforcement agencies opened criminal proceedings on the suspicion of criminal offence covered by section 2 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
In Mykolayiv oblast, OPORA’s observers were informed about alleged fact of cash payments to citizens as a reward for their work performed in favor of presidential candidate on the Election Day – March 31, 2019. These cash payments were made by non-governmental organization “Institute for Development and Promotion of Democracy”. Furthermore, in the city of Severodonetsk (Luhansk oblast) a local citizen filed a report to the National Police of Ukraine claiming that he didn’t get paid the promised monetary reward for performing the duties of official observer and campaigning in favor of presidential candidate. This citizen informed the police and OPORA’s representatives about the fact that electoral structures of presidential candidate allegedly owe him 2,800 UAH for campaigning services, 2,640 UAH for conducting public opinion poll and 1,000 UAH for performing the duties of official observer. Observers located in other regions also received reports on illegal payments to citizens who performed campaigning services (for example, in the city of Khmelnytsky and in Kirovohrad oblast such reports were received on a regular basis).
According to OPORA, the experience gained in the course of regular presidential election testifies to the need for implementing additional legislative regulation of staffing and logistical costs of candidates’ election campaigns. This regulation should motivate candidates to legalize their actual expenses while avoiding the risk of using legitimate mechanisms for bribing the voters. In order to accomplish this task the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine should conduct a significant discussion in the run-up to 2019 parliamentary election.
Abuse of administrative resources in the election process
In April 2019, OPORA’s observers noted a dramatic drop in the intensity of abuse of administrative resources as compared to pre-election campaigning period in the run-up to first round of voting. As a rule, public officials and employees of local executive bodies and local self-government authorities refrained from participating in the election campaigns of candidates. However, similarly to election campaigning period preceding December 31, 2018, the official websites of several oblast and rayon state administrations continued publishing campaign materials in support of presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko. According to section three of Article 58 of the Law of Ukraine “On Election of the President of Ukraine”, official communications informing the public about activities performed by presidential candidates during the electoral process within the framework of fulfillment of their official duties and powers as provided for by the Constitution and other laws of Ukraine shall not be interpreted as pre-election campaigning (provided that official communications do not contain any comments, videos, audios, films or photo illustrations bearing the marks of pre-election campaigning). The problem resides in the fact that official communications of local authorities were often accompanied by comments on electoral matters or contained statements made by the President of Ukraine with regard to his direct participation in the electoral process.
Mass-scale incidents involving placement of campaign materials on the official websites of public authorities in support of presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko were recorded in Kyiv, Zakarpattya, Zaporizhzhya, Ternopil and other oblasts of Ukraine. As a rule, information messages of local authorities did not contain direct appeals to vote for the incumbent Head of State, but were aimed at supporting his election campaign or carried a negative connotation with respect to activities of presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky. For example, the official website of rayon state administration in Zaporizhzhya oblast published information materials under the title “A drug-addicted person can’t act as a Supreme Commander-in-Chief. President Petro Poroshenko” containing a link to the official website of the President of Ukraine.
OPORA’s observers received reports about citizens’ trips to informal debates between presidential candidates in the city of Kyiv that were organized by rayon state administration. In Ivano-Frankivsk oblast, these reports were confirmed through communication with representatives of Tysmenytsya and Rohatyn rayon state administrations. The sources of funding of such activity of the two rayon state administrations were not identified in the process of fact-checking.
Observers didn’t record any other serious incidents involving abuse of administrative resources in favor of presidential candidates.
Adverse publicity campaigns directed against presidential candidates
Large-scale adverse publicity campaigns directed against presidential candidates played an important part in pre-election campaigning. Adverse publicity campaigns were conducted by way of publishing negative content in local media, distributing printed adverse publicity materials of unknown origin among voters and using the outdoor advertising media to cast discredit on presidential candidates. Adverse publicity campaigns involved several non-governmental organizations that campaigned against presidential candidates. According to the results of OPORA’s monitoring, campaign materials carrying negative connotation were mostly directed against candidate Volodymyr Zelensky, although Petro Poroshenko also suffered from adverse publicity campaigns to some extent. Adverse publicity campaigns directed against Volodymyr Zelensky involved cases of dissemination of false information about candidate’s election program and public statements.
Awareness and adverse publicity campaigns directed against presidential candidates actualized the problem of shadow sources of campaign finance, since a significant part of adverse publicity materials do not contain any information about customers. Transparency of funding of political and election processes is one of the key electoral standards. On the other hand, significant expenditures on adverse publicity campaigns financed from unidentified sources cast doubt on the effectiveness of state control over political and electoral finances.
The law of Ukraine “On Election of the President of Ukraine” imposes a ban on publication of knowingly false information about presidential candidates in mass media. In particular, a media outlet accused of publishing knowingly false information is obliged to provide candidate with an opportunity to refute a slander upon candidate’s request. The course of pre-election campaigning in the run-up to second round of voting testifies to the need for strengthening the standards of media activity under conditions of ongoing electoral process.
At the same time, efforts aimed at preventing misinformation campaigns and violations of the procedure for conducting and funding of election campaigns should not interfere with citizens’ right to disseminate information of public significance about candidates and electoral process. In this context, OPORA calls on the Ukrainian parliament to consider further measures to improve regulation in the field of election campaigning and public information during the electoral process.
According to OPORA, the National Police of Ukraine took measures in response to revealed facts of distribution of allegedly illegal campaign materials. This activity of the police drew a mixed reaction from voters, given the fact that citizens have the right to disseminate information of public significance about elections and candidates. Nevertheless, the activities of the National Police of Ukraine were well-balanced in terms of responding to alleged facts of illegal adverse publicity directed against the two presidential candidates. For example, the National Police of Ukraine informed the public about measures taken in response to provocative outdoor advertising featuring Petro Poroshenko and distribution of printed materials directed against Volodymyr Zelensky.
At the time of publication of this report, OPORA concluded that favorable conditions were created for free expression of the will of citizens in view of the absence of mass-scale incidents bearing the marks of vote buying and abuse of administrative resources. Despite this, the National Police of Ukraine must maintain adequate level of attention to all reports on alleged violations of electoral law.
Procedural violations in the work of election commissions
Due to untimely transfer of data from DEC No.143 to the CEC, the Central Election Commission failed to form temporary polling stations aboard the ships that sailed off under the State flag of Ukraine after March 31, 2019. As a result, 380 seamen were deprived of the right to vote in the second round of presidential election scheduled for April 21, 2019. Despite the fact that DEC No.143 received all the necessary information on April 2, 2019, this DEC failed to transfer the information to the CEC in a timely manner, which made it impossible to form the temporary polling stations on shipboard within the prescribed time limits (that is, not later than ten days before the Election Day).
Recommendations
To the National Police of Ukraine:
- Ensure compliance with the prohibition to conduct election campaigning in breach of the time limits prescribed by Law (April 20 and April 21, 2019), including cases of conducting adverse publicity campaigns directed against presidential candidates.
To the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine:
- Ensure the adoption of amendments to the law in order to regulate the practice of involving citizens in pre-election campaigning activities in favor of presidential candidates. These amendments should take due account of the expediency of legitimizing any reasonable expenses of candidates and the need for preventing bribery of voters.
- Facilitate the adoption of Draft Law No.8270 on ensuring the inevitability of punishment for electoral crimes in order to strengthen the capacity to counteract abusive practices during the election process.
- Facilitate the adoption of the draft Law of Ukraine on ensuring the voting rights of internally displaced persons and other citizens mobile within the country.
To the Central Election Commission:
- Refrain from the practice of granting permission to attend the CEC meetings for electoral subjects whose right to attend the meetings is guaranteed by law.
- Strengthen media and public outreach by way of informing them about draft decisions and already adopted decision of the CEC
- Refrain from unequal treatment of domestic and international observers while ensuring compliance with international standards