2 November 2011 in Lviv was discussed weather a new law “On Elections of the People’s Deputies of Ukraine” will provide fare and open parliamentary elections, or not.
The discussion was focused on the election system which would meet all demands of the modern society and on the analysis of the bill No. 9265-1, developed by the group of deputies headed by Oleksandr Yefremov. The representative of CN OPORA Oleksandr Neberykut on the beginning of discussion mentioned, that “the experience of parliamentary elections in 1998 and 2002 shows that Ukrainians should beware of majority system.” For example, according to the expert calculations, on 1998 elections 58% (more than 15 million) of constituents gave their votes for candidates that didn't win. So, their votes were wasted. Only 31% of constituents supported winners. That time the parliament received deputies-"anti-record holders”, which managed to win with less than 15% of supporters (10,3% - Oleksandr Zadorozhniy, 12,2% - Leonid Kosakivs'kyy, 12,5% - Stanislav Safronov, 12,8% - Yevhen Zhovtyak). Generally speaking, 133 deputies were supported by less than 30% of all voters. In 2002 this problem repeated: 51% (nearly 13 million) of voters on parliamentary elections became “mutes”, and only 36% gave their votes for the winners. “We can confidently forecast that on 2012 elections more than 50% voters will not influence on the election results in single-mandate districts”, - stated the expert.
When comparing majoritarian system to proportional, there is quite a different picture. For example, in 1998, 66% of constituency supported winners and only 25% voted for candidates who didn't win the elections. In 2002, the percentage of votes for winners to the wasted votes was 76% to 18%.
Election program coordinator of the Civil Network OPORA Olha Aivazovska stated that on the hearings will be supported the document, developed by the regional governor Yefremov and other people’s deputies, because there is such political will. Today, when the bill reached the parliament, we have reasons to talk about possible falsifications on 2012 elections and that they will be organized not better than local elections in October last year.
Expert of the Venice Commission Yevhen Radchenko draw attention to the importance of choosing the type of election system. According to Mr. Yevhen, none of the systems used before in Ukraine was adequate. “It's like shooting sparrows with a cannon”, - said the expert. And that proposed electoral system (mixed) - "is excessively inappropriate for Ukraine and we can wait nothing good from it’. However, the best in this situation we may consider proportional system with open regional lists.
Svitlana Kononchuk from the Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research shared her impressions of work in the group on improving electoral legislation. According to the expert, “Ukraine – is a state where the time comes back, and it’s especially obvious when we see the actions made for concentration of the power in one dominative political group, and one of its mainstays is the Party of Regions.”
“Our state believes that the parliament is not a political institution where political interests of the citizens must be represented, but a gathering of “carcasses” to form the majority”, - thinks Svitlana Kononchuk. Besides that, the representative of the Consortium of Election Initiatives named proposals to the law that have potentially manipulative character: uncertainty in redistricting, the possibility of double-entry of candidates, possibility to change place of voting without changing the residential address, the possibility of commissions to make decisions without a quorum, unsecured ballots, etc. “If this Law will be adopted in this editing, we may already start talking about unfair and uncompetitive elections”, - stated the expert.
On the thesis from the audience that we, so to say, have lost, and now discuss normative and procedural things, and why, indeed, we snatch at this bill, Election program coordinator of the CN OPORA Olha Aivazovska answered: “Nothing is lost yet. It seems to me, that the question of election system is more perspective and strategic. "If all former standards will be followed, than the election system itself is not so important”, - this is a quotation from the Venice Commission Code of Good Practice. The election system is important in our reality, because the efficiency of the parliament depends on it. It has no influence on presence or absence of falsification on the elections. Falsification is possible with any system. The corruption concerns not only candidates, but also voters which are ready to sell their votes. That’s why the electoral system is a strategic question that should be discussed. Our aim – is to inform the community about pluses and minuses of the proportional system with open lists. That’s why technical and procedural issues are as important as the electoral system itself.”
To answer a question from the audience about mass media in electoral process, Yevhen Radchenko quoted some Articles of the bill, according to which mass media will be more restricted in publishing information concerning elections. The problem is that an edition which has no agreement with CEC, DEC (Article 61), can’t publish information about the voting procedure. The question arises: Can they publish information without agreements? It turns out, that they can’t. Concerning electioneering, it is forbidden to spread deliberately false information about the party or candidate, which false or slanderous character was determined in a court. In case of disobedience, the edition will be deprived of license. It seemed to be a way to deal with the hidden advertising. However, according to the Article 73 (12), mass media can’t give subjects of political process opportunity to react on a slander. “So, mass media will not publish answers of candidates, what is indeed positive, - thinks Yevhen Radchenko, - or they will be constantly meeting with court claims from the subjects of election process.” Thus, mass media will not publish any material at all, or will publish ordered material. “Elections will be held in an information vacuum” – states the expert.
Another part of the debate was dedicated to a discussion of election commission and constituency formation. “By current regulation the empowered team can receive 30 potential mandates, which will be divided in a way to deliberately increase the number of districts, what means that there will be more districts in one part of Ukraine, and less in another. Such abuse will be difficult to prove. Thus, we have classical technology of the “electoral geography”, which firstly, reduces the possibility of the oppositional parties to come to the parliament, and secondly, it is a classical example of manipulation and doesn’t rise public confidence in the proposed bill.” - ended expert of the Venice Commission Yevhen Radchenko.