Oleksandr Neberykut /Civic network Opora/ specially for elect.in.ua
The assertion that the government in Ukraine does not actually represent interests of the citizens seems bold and unexpected to very few people. The unquestioning fact is that approximately two thirds of Ukrainian citizens1 don't trust administrative bodies, what means they cast doubt upon their ability to work for the benefit of society. First of all, it is about the Verkhovna Rada, which traditionally remains the leader in the notional rating of social non-acceptance.
However, the reason of such negative popularity is in the method of its formation rather than in the quality of its work. That’s why we can talk forever that the Parliament is a mirror of society which have chosen it, or naively believe that we choose a government which we deserve, explaining to yourself and everybody where “buttonpushers” (deputies which push buttons instead of other deputies), “conductors”(which show others to vote or not), “fighting showdowns” or self-nominated deputies which took side of a faction come from in the Verkhovna Rada.
But the real problem lies elsewhere. In Ukraine, the parliament is a mirror of electoral system, in the development of which Ukrainian society wasn’t involved at all. Consequently, we choose not the government that we want and deserve, but those which the existing electoral system allows us to choose. The electoral system in Ukraine is traditionally developed “on request” of the political force which forms the majority and is able to adopt in the Verkhovna Rada a necessary law. The demand of political expediency and specific advantages for “the requesting” hereby takes place of the matter of public interest. As a result – no matter who is going to win the elections, if there is no confidence in the rules themselves, there will be no trust to the winner.
We choose not the government that we want and deserve, but those which the existing electoral system allows us to choose.
Opinion polls show significant differences in Ukrainian society concerning electoral system which people find the most appropriate for themselves: nearly third part supports the proportional system with open lists, almost the same quantity is for the mixed system, and a little more than one third – for the majoritarian2. It at least shows the fact that people are not sure in the acceptability of any of these systems because they are afraid to be deceived. And they do have good reasons for that. Today, any of the current Ukrainian parliamentary electoral systems was not optimal from the standpoint of public interest. It happens not because our country is unique and there is no acceptable electoral system for it yet, but because the government every time made a conscious choice in favor of profitable for itself electoral system. And every time this choice was, so to say, far from the best. The same is happening now, when we come back to the worst electoral system form used in Ukraine during the last 20 years – so-called mixed (parallel) electoral system.
Mixed electoral system provides choosing one half of the parliament by the majoritarian scheme in districts, and the other half – by the proportional voting scheme based on party lists. There are two types of mixed systems in the world – Parallel system and Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP). They are also called as "unrelated" and "bound" mixed systems. What is common between them, is a dual format of choosing the parliament – the first part of deputies is chosen by one method, the second – by another. The difference between them is that voting by MMP gives more proportional results - the percentage of votes received by a party is proportional to the percentage of obtained mandates. It happens because during the allocation of seats obtained by a party in the nationwide district, the results of voting for the party in majority districts are taken into consideration. Thus, in this system both methods of voting are literally “mixed” and complete each other, leading to the proportional result. Such system is used in Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, and Mexico. When using the parallel electoral system, the majoritarian and proportional components are used independently from each other, leading to half-proportional results.
Today, any of used parliamentary electoral systems in Ukraine is not optimal from the standpoint of public interest.
In 1998 and 2002 in Ukraine was used parallel electoral system, which people wrongly used to call simply a mixed electoral system, not specifying which one is meant3. As a matter of fact, we use two different election systems at the same time, and voting leads to very different consequences. Moreover, in our reality these two systems, instead of completing each other, strengthen each other’s deficiencies.
Parallel electoral systems, in contrast to mixed proportional, is a relatively recent invention, and are used in the world as a tentative only for approximately 20 years. Between twenty countries which use parallel electoral system most are countries of Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe: South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, Kingdom of Thailand, Nepal, Senegal, Republic Seyshelly, Kingdom of Lesotho, Republic of Guinea, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania. Which example follows Ukraine when choosing a parallel electoral system is difficult to say. In 1990es this choice could be possibly made because the same system was used for the election of the State Duma of Russian Federation in 1993. However in 2003 Russian government refused it. Some Ukrainian politicians were also wise enough to refuse the parallel system for parliamentary elections in 2005. Today, hoping for unawareness or short memory of Ukrainian citizens, the current political leadership of the country unceremoniously returns Ukraine to the electoral system which in 1998 and 2002 has deprived millions of Ukrainian voters the possibility to elect their deputies. The biggest failure was in the majority component of the parallel electoral system.
In 1998 in voting participated 26,5 million of voters (70,8% of total). All 225 candidates that won in single-mandate majoritarian districts in general received a little more than 8 million votes, what is 30% of those who took part in the voting. Thus, a half of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the 3rd convocation (1998-2002) was chosen by only one third of electors who voted. The others, and it’s 15,3 million (58%), supported candidates which were not chosen to the parliament. So, this 15 million of voters did not influence the election results. If we add to them electors who voted against all (almost 2 million) and whose ballot papers were declared void (a little more than 1 million) - we will get unbelievable figure - more than 18 million of voters. We can receive even more convincing picture if include those who didn’t came to the polling stations – in 1998 there were 11 million. So, we have 29 million of Ukrainian electors (76%) which actually received government which they didn’t choose. Can electoral system which has led to such failure in voting results be acceptable for the society?
The situation repeated on 2002 parliamentary elections. In the voting participated 25,8 million of electors (69,2% from the total). Majoritarian deputies were supported by 9,4 million of electors (36%) of those who came to the polling stations. Again, a little more than one third of electors had chosen a half of the Verkhovna Rada of 4th convocation (2002-2006). 13 million of voters (51%) played no role in elections. Lets add to this number almost 2 million of electors who voted against all and almost 1,5 million ballot papers that were declared void. We receive 16 million of voters which consciously went to polling stations, voted, but their votes did not influence the formation of the parliament elected by the majority component in 2002. Adding to this number almost 12 million of electors who didn't participate in the elections, we will receive 28 million of Ukrainian voters (73%) which for the second time after 1998 got the government they hadn't chosen. The worst is the fact that today we have no reasons to doubt that the same situation is going to repeat in spring 2012.
Thus, in 1998 and 2002 a half of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine was chosen by approximately one third of all voters (8 and 9,5% respectively), which took part in elections or one fifth of all registered electors. In comparison, for deputies chosen by the proportional component in 1998 voted 17,5 million of voters, and in 2002 – 19,5 million. It’s respectively 66% and 76% of voters which participated the elections or 47% and 52% of all registered voters. In means that deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of ІІІ and IV convocations, chosen by the party lists, actually represented in three times more voters than majoritarian deputies.
In case we move away from generalizations concerning all majoritarian deputies, and consider specific candidates - the situation is even less optimistic. For the overwhelming majority of the certain majoritarian deputies, chosen in 1998, it was enough only 20-30%of votes (30-40 thousands of votes in average) to be chosen to the parliament. In particular, 133 deputies from 225 received less than 30% of votes from all electors who participated in elections. Some deputies, anti-record holders, got a desired mandate having received only 10-15 thousand of votes in 170-thousand election district. In 2002 consequences of majority component were similar – 106 deputies (from 225) received not less than 30% of votes. And again, there were deputies which were supported by nearly 15 thousand of voters.
Can the deputy worry about common problems of millions of Ukrainian voters, if a formal support of 15 thousand people is enough to be chosen? The question is rhetorical… However, initiators of returning to the mixed (parallel) election system remain stubbornly silent about it, appealing to the fact that voters now will know their representative. Nevertheless, this argument is not going to secure full representation of citizen interests even within one electoral district, if the deputy is chosen by the minority. This gives reason to be confident in only one: we will not have the government we deserve until we obtain a fair electoral system. It is only about justice, not about transparency or legitimacy the election process. Even if we will hope that 2012 Parliamentary elections in Ukraine can be fair and transparent – they can never be just in the eyes of citizens in case mixed (parallel) electoral system is used. Moreover, taking into consideration that any elect ion system, especially majoritarian, doesn't prevent falsifications and manipulations, hoping for a happy end means to be very short-sighted.
Still, where there's a will there's a way. This way out is to allow Ukrainian voters to choose both representative and responsible parliament. The parallel use of different election systems will not give such result. As a basis we should take a proportional election system, which at low electoral threshold will allow election of a parliament that adequately reflects the will of voters. Instead, the personal (before the voters) and political (before parties) responsibility of deputies may be stimulated by means of voting for the certain candidates in regional party list. Quite practical model of such parliamentary electoral system is proposed in the draft Election Code (introduced by Yu.Kliuchkovskyi and others), which from 2010 is gathering dust in offices of the Verkhovna Rada. It would be logical to use in the law which regulates conduction of 2012 parliamentary elections the method of voting provided by the Election Code, but not to develop a new one. This way the duration and sequence of reforming Ukrainian electoral legislation would be preserved. In fact, there only would be made some improvements and corrected some drawbacks of the existing proportional system with closed lists. Actually, establishment of the parallel system in 1998 was considered as a temporary step in order to switch from the majoritarian to the proportional election system. Today, initiators of returning absolutely abnormal parallel election system openly destabilize already weak political institutions of Ukraine. They are obviously in a desperate situation.
1. Watch the results of national monitoring surveys which are yearly conducted by the Institute of Sociology of NAS of Ukraine and the Fund "Democratic Initiatives"(“ The Ukrainian Society: 1992-2010. Sociological monitoring”) starting from 1994. The most actual information for today about the level of social trust represented in sociological poll “Trust to the government. Attitude to the Electoral Reform” conducted specially for the Agency for Legislative Initiatives by the company TNS in Ukraine.
2. Results of the sociological poll “Trust to the government. Attitude to the Electoral Reform”.
3. Sometimes it results in not really correct comparison of the parallel electoral system which was used in Ukraine with the system of mixed proportional voting which is functioning in German since 1950ies.