The elections have the chance to be competitive, if the abuse of administrative resource and vote buying have legal implications for the violators and all the candidates are equal before the law. On August 1 this statement was made by the representatives of Civil Network OPORA during their presentation of the results of the 4th monitoring report on the results of nationwide observation of the Parliamentary elections.
According to the statement of Olha Aivasovska, Coordinator of electoral programs of the Civil Network OPORA, during the last month two important events, which can have systemic influence on the election campaign, took place in Ukraine. First, on July 6, in hurry and without full-fledged technical argumentation, the Parliament passed the Law of Ukraine On peculiarities of ensuring openness, transparency and democracy of elections of People’s Deputies on October 28, 2012 # 10681. As a result, 993 million UAH was additionally allotted to implement such innovations as total video surveillance of the polling stations. On July 16, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (Resolution # 633) initiated a special interdepartmental working group to “facilitate the coordinated performance of the bodies of executive power in providing of publicity and openness during the election process”. Aivasovska mentioned: “The group has disproportionately wide powers in comparison with its declared aims and status of “the temporary consultative body of the CMU.” It is not clear what kind of additional information (except of that received from the Central Election Commission) the Government expects to receive from the local authorities and government administrations, enterprises, institutions and organizations. And to what end and how will the representatives of these institutions be attracted to the cooperation with this Group?” As far as there are no clearly stated tasks and powers of the Working Group, there is a threat of hidden administrative intrusion into the election process on behalf of the central government bodies. CN OPORA emphasizes the obvious discrepancy between the official powers of certain members of the Working Group and the formal tasks which they are to fulfill.
According to Olha Aivasovska, the passed Law of Ukraine On peculiarities of ensuring openness, transparency and democracy of elections of People’s Deputies on October 28, 2012 # 10681and the implementation of video surveillance in the polling stations are the unsuccessful attempts to copy the international experience in providing transparency and openness of the election process. The model of video surveillance suggested in the law will not become a serious obstacle for the violations and will not be able to prevent falsifications during the parliamentary elections. These conclusions are based on the vagueness of law, which was mentioned before, and on the technical characteristics of the offered system (OPORA report on the installation of video cameras - http://oporaua.org/news/1566-opora-ocinyly-zakonodavchi-novaciji-lpro-veb-kameryr-na-dilnycjah).
Another threat to democratic elections is vote buying practiced by certain candidates or parties. According to the data of sociological research of Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, 10 % of Ukrainian citizens are ready to sell their right to vote for the price ranging from 50 to 500 UAH. 17,6 % of the respondents believe that this is a legal and widespread agitation method. The observers from OPORA underline that vote buying and charitable activity of the candidates have already become a trend of the election campaign. OPORA maintains that the vote buying is a form of election results falsification, which will be reflected in the election results if this negative practice continues.
10 % of Ukrainian citizens are ready to sell their right to vote for the price ranging from 50 to 500 UAH
The most widespread method of vote buying recorded by OPORA activists is the distribution of presents among the health care institutions. This method is frequently used by the potential candidates in single-member districts. For example, 41 bicycles were given as a present to the departments of obstetrics in Radomyshl rayon by Vitalii Zhuravskyi (constituency # 66, Zhytomyr oblast). Ihor Rybakov (voting district # 207, Chernihiv oblast) gave the bicycles for the postmen and departments of obstetrics as well. People’s deputy Viktor Korzh (district # 197, Cherkasy oblast) provided the health care institutions with financial support in the amount of 200 000 UAH. The presents for schools and religious communities are also very popular among the candidates.
Building of the children’s playgrounds is a key trend of the election charitable actions in July. Thus, Volodymyr Hrabovetskyi (voting district # 86, Ivano-Frankivst oblast) financed the building of two children’s playgrounds in Dolyna and Rozhniativ rayon centers. In Luhansk oblast a number of potential majoritarian candidates from the Party of Regions opened the childrens’n playgounds. Namely, Oleksandr Kunchenko opened a playground in Sieverodonetsk (district # 106); Serhii Horokhov opened two in Zhovtnevyi rayon (district # 105); Yurii Ternikov in Perevalske rayon (district #108).
In Kyiv the potential candidates continue to distribute the grocery kits. However, currently the candidates have changed their tactics – they distribute the kits by going from door to door. The lists of the people who will get the aid are made by the street cleaners or the employees of housing services. This distribution is hard to track and to record because the cars which are used to deliver the kits have no symbols of any candidate.
During the last four months, because of the gaps in the election laws, the political parties were conducting active election campaign using the unlimited shadow campaign funds. The information about the amounts of money, spent before the official registration and before the acquisition of the status of subject of election process, is not properly published. Moreover, these expenses are exempt from public reporting. The non-transparency of election expenses is one of the main problems of the election campaign this year.
On the eve of the official start of election campaign, only 6 political powers have already started the full-fledged campaign. They are the Party of Regions, All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland, the Communist Party of Ukraine, the UDAR party, Ukraine– Ahead! party, and All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda. Other parties have not started their nationwide activity yet. According to the statement of Mykhailo Shelep, analyst of CN OPORA Observation Campaign, the process of nomination of the potential candidates for the People’s Deputies of Ukraine was not opened to the public. Only Vitaliy Klychko’s UDAR party announced the complete list of candidates in the statewide and single-mandate districts in advance. All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland, the CPU, and All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda did not organize the preliminary announcement and discussion of the candidate lists. Part of the candidates in single-member districts were nominated by the Party of Regions during the local conferences. However, the actual discussion of the candidates was not provided.Ukraine – Ahead! party continued the actions “People’s List” in all regions but the final list of the candidates was not announced till the very party congress.
The use of “black PR” is spreading and he majoritarian candidates became the leaders in its use. The highest level of “jeansa” material is noticed in local municipal and state print. Most frequently the activity of the Party of Regions,Ukraine– Ahead! party, UDAR party, All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland is presented in this way.
The election campaign in single-seat electoral districts is concentrated around the economic problems of the local communities and the social needs of particular groups of voters. None of the majoritarian candidates has yet announced his plans in the law-making. During the campaign a significant role of the local authorities is noticed in the districts. It can be explained by the effect the activities of the local authorities have on the initiatives of the majoritarian candidates. In general, they increase their effectiveness.
The return to the majoritarian component of election system opened a wide range of possibilities for the potential candidates to use the material incentives in their work with voters. The actual vote buying, in particular form of financial aid, is consciously presented as charitable activity and is mainly conducted on behalf of the newly created charity funds. In order to avoid the responsibility for the obvious violations, to conduct their charity actions the potential candidates at most use the period before the election campaign. During this period they are not yet the “subjects of the election process”. However, the absence of strict sanctions in the election law and the limited applicability of the norms of criminal legislation for the vote buying do not create sufficient preventive measures against massive use of the given practice during the official campaign.