Observation of the parliamentary elections in Ukraine (28 October 2012)
Election observation report
| Doc. 13070
| 29 November 2012
- Author(s):
- Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Andreas GROSS,
Switzerland, SOC
- Thesaurus
1 Introduction
1. At its meeting on 25 June 2012, following an invitation
from the President of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, the Bureau of
the Assembly decided to set up an ad hoc committee composed of 41
members and the two co-rapporteurs of the Committee on the Honouring
of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of
Europe (Monitoring Committee), ex officio, to
observe the parliamentary elections in Ukraine scheduled for 28
October 2012. Mr Andreas Gross was appointed Chairperson of the
ad hoc committee. At its meeting on 3 September 2012, the Bureau
took note of the declarations of absence of conflict of interests
of the candidates for the observer mission and approved the ad hoc
committee’s composition (see Appendix 1).
2. On 4 October 2004, a co-operation agreement was signed by
the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission on Democracy
through Law (the “Venice Commission”). In pursuance of Article 15
of this Agreement, “when the Bureau of the Assembly decides to observe
an election in a country in which electoral legislation was previously
examined by the Venice Commission, one of the rapporteurs of the
Venice Commission on this issue may be invited to join the Assembly's
election observation mission as legal adviser”, the Bureau of the
Assembly invited an expert from the Venice Commission to join the
ad hoc committee as an adviser.
3. The ad hoc committee observed the elections as part of the
International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), which also comprised
delegations from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE-PA), the European
Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation (NATO-PA), as well as the Election Observation
Mission conducted by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR).
4. The ad hoc committee met in Kiev from 26 to 29 October 2012
and met, amongst others, with a group representing the parties standing
for election, the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission
and her staff, the Representative of the Secretary General and Head
of the Council of Europe Office in Ukraine, representatives of the
OSCE mission in Ukraine, the European Union delegation, the NATO
Office, and civil society and media representatives. The ad hoc
committee regretted that neither the President of the Central Electoral
Commission (CEC) nor any members of the CEC had been able to attend
the meetings with the IEOM members, given that meetings with CEC
leaders had been scheduled but cancelled at the last minute. The
ad hoc committee did not receive any plausible explanations concerning
the unavailability of the CEC leaders. The programme of ad hoc committee
meetings is reproduced in Appendix 2.
5. On election day, the ad hoc committee split up into 21 teams
to observe the elections in the cities of Kiev, Kharkiv, Lviv, Odessa,
Sebastopol and the surrounding areas.
6. In order to assess the organisation of the election campaign
and the political climate during the latter, the Bureau sent a pre-electoral
mission to Ukraine from 20 to 22 September 2012. The pre-electoral delegation,
representing the Assembly’s five political groups, comprised Mr
Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC), Head of Delegation, Mr Andres
Herkel (Estonia, EPP/CD), Mr Andrea Rigoni (Italy, ALDE), Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoglu
(Turkey, EDG), Mr Andrej Hunko (Germany, UEL) and the co-rapporteurs
of the Monitoring Committee for Ukraine: Ms Mailis Reps (Estonia)
and Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden). The declaration issued
by the pre-electoral delegation at the close of its mission is reproduced
in Appendix 3.
7. The International Election Observation Mission concluded that
the 28 October 2012 parliamentary elections in Ukraine “were characterised
by a tilted playing field. This was the result, primarily, of the
abuse of administrative resources, as well as a lack of transparency
in campaign and party financing and of balanced media coverage.
Voters had a choice between distinct parties and candidate registration
was inclusive, with two notable exceptions, representing a wide
variety of political views”. The IEOM press release published after the
elections is reproduced in Appendix 4.
8. The ad hoc committee would like to thank the Verkhovna Rada,
the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission and the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe’s representative in Kiev for their co-operation
and support.
2 Legal
and political context
9. Ukraine has no unified electoral code. The 28 October
2012 parliamentary elections were governed by the Ukrainian Constitution,
the Law on Election of People’s Deputies, the Law on political parties
and the Law on the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), as well as
the provisions of other laws, including the Code of Administrative
Procedure and the Penal Code. The corpus of laws governing the elections
is too dense, unnecessarily complex and confused, which is why the
Parliamentary Assembly and the Venice Commission have long been
recommending that the Ukrainian authorities prepare and adopt a
unified and simplified electoral code.
10. The main legislative text applicable to the 28 October elections
was the Law on Election of People’s Deputies, adopted in November
2011 following widely disputed local elections. The ad hoc committee
notes that a number of amendments had been made to the Law in response
to several Venice Commission recommendations, including:
- the unrestricted media access
to all the events linked to the elections ;
- the elimination of the provisions authorising voters to
be added to the electoral rolls on election day;
- the fact that parties which have accepted candidates can
no longer remove them from their lists without valid reason;
- mandatory training for the presidents, vice-presidents
and secretaries of district commissions before they take office;
- the abolition of the discretionary right of parties to
dismiss members of the commissions without valid reason.
11. The parliament is elected for a five-year term. The new Law
on Election of People’s Deputies has brought back the hybrid parallel
system which was in place in 1998 and 2002. Half of the 450 deputies
are elected under a proportional system of fixed party lists within
the same national constituency. The remaining 225 deputies are elected
in single-seat constituencies under a pluralist single-ballot system
(the best-placed candidate obtains the seat). In order to take part
in apportioning mandates under the proportional ballot, political
parties must obtain at least 5% of the votes cast, as compared with
3% during the 2007 elections.
12. The ad hoc committee would like to stress that the electoral
system established in the Law is not that recommended by the Parliamentary
Assembly in its
Resolution 1862
(2012) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine,
and by the Venice Commission in its joint opinion of October 2011.
In its resolution, the Assembly regretted that its main previous
recommendations, including the adoption of a unified electoral code and
of a regional proportional election system, had not been implemented.
13. In its opinion on the draft Law on Election of People’s Deputies,
the Venice Commission regretted that the decisions to adopt a hybrid
system, the electoral threshold and the prohibition of coalitions
had been taken unilaterally by the majority without taking account
of the opinions of representatives of the other political parties or
civil society. Nevertheless, when the Verkhovna Rada adopted the
draft Law in November 2011, most of the opposition deputies voted
for these provisions.
14. The Venice Commission’s opinion highlighted the following
problems:
- the majority system
combined with proportional representation in a nationwide constituency
does not guarantee better representation of voters in parliament;
- the lack of clear criteria and deadlines for establishing
electoral constituency boundaries;
- the lack of clear arrangements for challenging election
results;
- the failure to fully disclose, before and after the elections,
the sources and amounts of financial contributions or the type and
amount of campaign expenditure, and the lack of independent supervision of
political party and electoral campaign financing. Nor does the Law
lay down any effective, gradual and dissuasive sanctions for breaches
of the provisions on financing;
- the abolition of the right of parties to form electoral
coalitions and the imposition of a 5% electoral threshold.
15. For these elections, under a decision taken a few months before
the elections, video cameras were installed in all polling stations,
and the images were broadcast live all the time the stations remained
open. However, the cameras partially recorded but did not broadcast
the vote counting and result finalisation procedures.
16. The new hybrid electoral system altered the dynamics of these
elections as compared with 2007, to the extent that party-nominated
and independent candidates confronted each other vigorously at the
local level. A number of independent candidates allegedly had links
with wealthy businessmen, some of whom had apparently also supported
the political parties financially.
17. The elections took place against the background of the cases
involving Ms Timoshenko and Mr Lutsenko, two major opposition figures
who are currently serving prison sentences. The Assembly considers
that the numerous shortcomings noted in the criminal procedures
may have curtailed the defendants’ chances of securing a fair trial
within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ETS No. 5).
18. During the last few weeks of campaigning, party representatives
reported increasing numbers of cases of harassment, threats, intimidation
and occasional violence against candidates and their campaign staff.
3 Administration
of the elections
19. Parliamentary elections are administered by a three-tier
system of electoral commissions: one central electoral commission
(CEC), 225 district electoral commissions (DECs) in 225 single-seat
constituencies, and 33 762 polling station commissions (PSCs). The
18 members of each district commission are appointed by the CEC
from party nominations. Parties with parliamentary groups have guaranteed
representation in the district commissions. The other seats are
filled by a single drawing of lots for all the constituencies among
the parties standing for election. Posts on the polling station
commissions are distributed by the district commissions among the
representatives of the 85 political parties which stood in these
elections and the majority candidates registered in the single-seat
constituencies.
20. The selection procedure for members of PSCs resulted in a
political imbalance within the latter, which is a recurrence of
the problem already noted by some national and international organisations
in connection with the formation of the electoral commissions. According
to the preliminary report of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission, some of the so-called “technical” parties putting up a
very small number of candidates in one or two constituencies won
seats on the DECs of several constituencies, including those where
these parties had no candidates at all. Other political parties
with candidates in a large number of constituencies had no seats
on the electoral commissions.
21. The members of the ad hoc committee were informed of the phenomenon
of so-called “technical” parties and candidates allegedly linked
to the main parties, primarily the Party of Regions, which had appointed representatives
to the electoral commissions who often had neither the possibility
nor the intention of being elected. This kind of political speculation
considerably reduces voter confidence in the electoral process.
22. A few days before election day, some small political parties
decided to replace over 60% of the DEC members whom they had originally
appointed, as well as some 50% of PSC members. From the legal angle, the
principle of proportional representation on electoral commissions
was respected, but this approach could well have affected the stability
of the functioning of the electoral administration.
23. The CEC is a permanent body comprising 15 members appointed
by parliament for a seven-year term. The work carried out by the
CEC during the election period was deemed generally satisfactory
as regards most administrative matters. The CEC held regular meetings
which were open to party representatives, candidates, the media
and observers. However, the CEC also held some meetings behind closed
doors, which did nothing to enhance the transparency of its operations.
The CEC failed to take timely steps, within its mandate, to tackle occasional
allegations of vote buying or breaches of the rules on media coverage
of the election campaign.
4 Registration of
candidates and voters
24. The CEC registered 21 political party lists with
2 554 candidates for the proportional strand of the elections, while
2 651 candidates were registered in the 225 majority constituencies,
1 500 of whom were nominated by the political parties and 1 151
were registered as independent candidates. Of the 85 political parties
which put up candidates in the majority constituencies, 26 nominated
single candidates.
25. A total of 439 candidatures were rejected by the CEC. According
to information from the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission,
such rejections were frequently explained by minor omissions from
the files submitted by the candidates. As required by current legislation,
the CEC also refused to register Ms Timoshenko’s and Mr Lutsenko’s
candidatures.
26. On 16 October, the day before the deadline for withdrawing
candidatures, the leaders of the opposition parties Batkivshchyna
and UDAR reached an agreement on mutual support for their candidatures
in a number of majority constituencies, withdrawing 28 and 40 candidates
respectively.
27. In accordance with the Law on the national electoral register,
the preliminary electoral lists were drawn up by the authorities
responsible for updating the register. The CEC was responsible for
the content and updating of the register. 36 588 697 voters were
included on the electoral lists for the parliamentary elections on
28 October, including 424 858 living abroad.
28. The ad hoc committee noted that, broadly speaking, the quality
of the electoral lists had improved as compared with previous elections.
The people it spoke to did not report any major problems in this
area during the election campaign. The Electoral Law provides safeguards
against multiple voting and other types of fraud regarding the electoral
lists, and its provisions helped improve list accuracy.
29. In pursuance of the recommendations set out in the Parliamentary
Assembly’s previous reports on election observation in Ukraine,
as well as those of the Venice Commission, the PSCs were prohibited
from amending the electoral lists on election day, except for correcting
technical errors. No change or adjustment of the electoral lists
could be made on the day of the election impacting on any voter’s
right to vote without a court order or notification of the body
responsible for updating the national electoral register. The ad
hoc committee considers the accuracy of the electoral lists as an
important factor in building voter confidence in the democratic process.
30. The Electoral Law did not allow for remote voting authorisations,
instead establishing a relatively simple procedure enabling voters
to apply for a temporary change of voting address without changing
their residential address, should they be unable to vote in their
usual polling station. This procedure also applied to voters who were
temporarily abroad on election day. All voters could submit such
an application for a temporary change of address up to five days
before the election, so that the change could be incorporated into
the national electoral register. The CEC took the positive decision
to allow this type of address change exclusively within the same
majority constituencies.
5 The election campaign
and the media environment
31. The election campaign was dynamic and visible. The
climate surrounding the campaign was fairly calm, except in some
majority constituencies where cases of intimidation and some non-violent
incidents were identified by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission. The police managed to guarantee security during the various
electoral events.
32. In the major towns and cities, the parties campaigned via
election hoardings, posters, leaflets and television adverts. In
rural areas and smaller towns, the candidates addressed the voters
via party newsletters, posters and door-to-door canvassing.
33. Members of the ad hoc committee were informed by various people
they spoke to of the presence of so-called “technical” candidates
or political parties which allegedly played into the hands of the
major parties and the main candidates by using up air time on the
State channels and appointing representatives to the electoral commissions,
but who often had neither the intention nor the possibility to be
elected. The campaign was between individuals rather than political
programmes or platforms with clear ideological differences.
34. Some of the opposition parties, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and media informed the members of the ad hoc committee of
cases of misuse of administrative resources, primarily by the party
in office and individual candidates. This mainly involved active
participation by regional and local government officials in candidates’
meetings, the use of government department newsletters and websites
to support candidates and the cancellation of opposition candidates’
meetings without valid reason.
35. This abuse of administrative resources showed that some people
exploited their official duties, thus blurring the distinction between
the State and the party in office. The parties also complained about
the distribution of fake newspapers containing erroneous or slanderous
information on candidates, and cases of distribution of material
goods to voters, mainly by individual candidates, which could be
seen as an indirect form of vote buying.
36. The ad hoc committee is convinced that the Ukrainian authorities
should conduct investigations into the cases noted, in order to
determine the possible responsibilities and inform the general public
and the Parliamentary Assembly. Such action by the Ukrainian authorities
would help to build citizen confidence in the electoral process
and to prevent these kinds of allegations during future elections.
37. In connection with the financing of the election campaign
and of political parties, representatives of the opposition parties,
NGOs and the media informed the members of the ad hoc committee
of the predominance of money and the role played by oligarchies
in political life in Ukraine in general and in the electoral process
in particular. The total income declared in 2011 by the first 100
candidates on the Party of Regions list was the equivalent of €230
million, the total being some €57 million in the case of the opposition
party Batkivshchyna.
38. It should be remembered here that during the 2010 presidential
election, the Assembly’s ad hoc committee for the observation of
elections voiced its concern about “the place of money and oligarchies
in politics in Ukraine in general and in the election process in
particular”. This reality apparently reached even more alarming
proportions during this election campaign. Many Ukrainian citizens
are seeing the political “combat” as a struggle between different
clans and their financials interests rather than between competing platforms
and ideas.
39. In its October 2011 evaluation report on Ukraine, the Council
of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) recommended
that the Ukrainian authorities:
- harmonise
the provisions on the financing of election campaigns set out in
the electoral legislation;
- prevent any possibility of getting round the rules on
transparency contained in the electoral legislation;
- require that during all elections full campaign accounts
be easily accessible to the public within the time-limits laid down
by law, and consider the possibility of sharing information on electoral
funding with the public before the day of the election (for example
via interim reports);
- introduce provisions requiring independent auditing for
political party and election campaign accounts;
- ensure that an independent mechanism is established to
guarantee properly co-ordinated supervision of the financing of
political parties and election campaigns;
- investigate allegations of violation of the rules on political
financing and, if necessary, impose sanctions;
- ensure that all breaches of present or future norms on
the financing of political parties and election campaigns are clearly
defined and are liable to effective, proportionate and dissuasive
sanctions.
40. Consequently, GRECO invited the Ukrainian authorities to submit,
by 30 April 2013, a report on the implementation of the recommendations
regarding, inter alia, the
financing of electoral campaigns and political parties.
41. The Law on Election of People’s Deputies guarantees voters’
access to diversified, objective and impartial information so that
they can make a considered, informed and free choice. Any electoral commissions,
media, governmental institutions and bodies and civil society associations
communicating information on the elections must do so in an objective,
impartial, balanced, reliable, complete and accurate manner.
42. The parliamentary elections were held in a media environment
in which the main private television channels were heavily influenced
by various powerful economic groups with their specific financial
interests. As regards the State channels, they depend on finance
from the State budget and defended the interests of the Party of
Regions rather than those of Ukrainian society. This situation considerably
limited political pluralism during the election campaign. The public
media provided the political parties and candidates standing in
the elections with free advertising space and air time, in accordance
with the law. The political parties spent colossal sums of money
on advertising during the 2012 election campaign. According to estimates
from media representatives, they spent some €200 million, which
represents about €5 per voter, whereas the figure is approximately
€1 in Germany per voter and 80 cents in Poland.
43. According to the media monitoring report of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission, the Party of Regions had more media
coverage on the State channel “Pershyi Nationalnyi” than did the
Batkivshchyna coalition. On this same channel, 97% of the media
coverage of the activities of the Party of Regions was positive,
whereas 18% of Batkivshchyna’s activities were presented in a negative
light. Furthermore, the channels Kanal 5, Inter and TVi devoted
more air time to Batkivshchyna than to the Party of Regions. Representatives
of the international organisations, the media and NGOs informed
the ad hoc committee of cases of “envelopes of money” being handed
to journalists in order to secure positive media coverage or merely
to have access to the media. Broadly speaking, a number of the people
that the ad hoc committee spoke to expressed doubts about the independence
and objectivity of the media.
6 Complaints and
appeals
44. By election day, the CEC had received 106 complaints
and taken 94 decisions on them. The great majority of these complaints
concerned rejection of candidatures, violations of legislation during
the election campaign, the participation of State officials in the
campaign and attempts to indirectly buy votes. The vast majority
of the complaints were rejected for lack of evidence. The CEC sent
79 complaints to the investigatory bodies for further action and
took 24 decisions on warnings to be sent to political parties and
candidates following court decisions on non-compliance with the
rules applicable to the election campaign. On the whole, the CEC
examined the complaints within the requisite time-limits.
45. By the beginning of the election campaign, the courts had
already considered over 900 complaints, making a genuine effort
to reach decisions within the time-limits laid down by law. According
to the preliminary report of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission, some one third of all court decisions concerned the organisational
procedure for deciding on the membership of electoral commissions
by drawing lots, and most of the complaints were rejected. Some
candidates reportedly used court appeals to advertise their own
election campaigns. The Ministry of the Interior received 4 845
complaints concerning alleged violations of campaigning rules, and
the Public Prosecutor’s Office received 73 complaints concerning
alleged violations of the Penal Code. At the time of the drafting
of the present report, two criminal investigations were under way.
7 Election day
46. Election day was quiet. The ad hoc committee noted
the well-ordered running of the election. The voting and vote-counting
operations were generally conducted in a professional and calm manner.
47. However, the ad hoc committee identified a number of technical
problems in the polling stations visited:
- the ballot- and vote-counting procedure was very long,
complex and somewhat confused;
- cases were noted of unintentional non-compliance with
vote-counting procedures in some polling stations, particularly
in rural areas;
- in some of the polling stations visited, to observe the
ballot- and vote-counting procedure, the presidents asked members
of the ad hoc committee either to leave the polling stations before
the beginning of the procedure or to remain until the counting had
been concluded and the protocols drawn up;
- in a polling station in Belaya Tserkov in the Kiev region,
members of the ad hoc committee were informed of an attempt to buy
votes which had taken place near the polling station, but which
had failed thanks to the intervention of political party observers;
- in a polling station near the Academy of Tax and Finance,
members of the ad hoc committee were informed of cases of pressure
on students to vote for the chancellor of this Academy, who was
standing for election;
- the presence of a considerable number of people was noted
in the polling stations. The very broad composition of the polling
stations had promoted the transparency and reliability of the vote
counting process. However, it also meant that the premises were
overcrowded, particularly during vote counting;
- the rural polling stations had very few observers;
- on the whole, the polling stations were inaccessible or
difficult to access for persons with disabilities; disabled people
could, however, vote from home (mobile polling stations).
48. According to the preliminary results announced by the CEC,
the Party of Regions obtained 30% of the votes cast, the Batkivshchyna
coalition 25.54%, the Udar Party 13.96%, the Ukrainian Communist
Party 13.18%, and the Svoboda Party 10.44%. The other 16 parties
standing in the elections failed to reach the 5% threshold for a
parliamentary seat. The CEC announced the final election results
on 11 November 2012: the Party of Regions obtained 185 seats (72
on the proportional list and 113 in the majority constituencies),
the Batkivshchyna coalition 101 seats (62 on the proportional list
and 39 in the majority constituencies), the Udar Party 40 seats
(34 on the proportional list and 6 in the majority constituencies),
the Svoboda Party 37 seats (25 on the proportional list and 12 in
the majority constituencies), the Ukrainian Communist Party 32 seats
(32 on the proportional list), independent candidates obtained 43
seats and candidates affiliated to the small political parties gained
7 seats.
49. Serious irregularities were noted during the calculation of
the election results in 13 majority constituencies. The delay in
publishing the results worsened the tense post-electoral situation.
Some political party observers and representatives were barred from
observing the electronic transfer of results to the CEC. On 5 November,
the leaders of the united Batkivshchina, Svoboda and Udar opposition
contacted the CEC to report cases of serious violations of the result
calculation procedure in majority constituencies Nos. 94, 132, 194,
197 and 223. In response to these complaints, the CEC unanimously
adopted a decision on “the impossibility of establishing credible
results in the said constituencies because the elections had not
been organised in conformity with the Constitution or the Electoral Law
in these constituencies”. The opposition parties wondered about
the legal basis of the CEC’s decision on repeat elections. The CEC
also invited the Verkhovna Rada to specify the legal basis for organising
repeat elections in the constituencies in question.
50. On 6 November, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a resolution on
the holding of repeat elections in constituencies Nos. 94, 132,
194, 197 and 223 because the CEC had been unable to establish credible
results in these constituencies.
8 Conclusions
and recommendations
51. The ad hoc committee concluded that the 28 October
2012 parliamentary elections in Ukraine were marred by a tilted
playing field which contributed to the dominance of the major economic
and financial groups, particularly because of the misuse of administrative
resources and a lack of transparency in the financing of the election
campaign and of the parties, but also owing to an imbalance in the
media coverage. The voters had a choice of different parties and
a large number of candidates who had been able to register, thus
catering for a wide variety of political views.
52. Election day was quiet. The members of the ad hoc committee
noted the well-ordered running of the election, finding that, on
the whole, the voting and vote-counting operations were conducted
in a professional and calm manner. The situation worsened during
the calculation of results in a considerable number of majority constituencies,
which led to long delays in the counting procedure. Serious irregularities
were noted in at least 13 majority constituencies, in five of which
the election results were cancelled. In this connection, the ad
hoc committee expresses its grave concern and considers that these
irregularities are liable to vitiate the whole electoral process.
53. The ad hoc committee notes with satisfaction that the Verkhovna
Rada adopted a number of amendments to the Electoral Law in November
2011 in response to several Venice Commission recommendations, including
the right of independents to stand for election, unrestricted media
access to all the events linked to the elections, the elimination
of the provisions authorising voters to be added to the electoral rolls
on election day, and the abolition of the parties’ discretionary
right to dismiss commission members without valid reason. The ad
hoc committee also noted the improved quality of the electoral lists
as compared with those used for previous elections.
54. Nevertheless, the ad hoc committee underlines the fact that
the electoral system set out in the Electoral Law was not the one
recommended by the Assembly in its
Resolution 1862 (2012), and by the Venice Commission in its joint opinion of
October 2011. In its resolution, the Assembly regretted that its
main previous recommendations, including the adoption of a unified
electoral code and of a proportional regional electoral system,
had not been implemented.
55. The ad hoc committee voices its concern about the serious
problems which are noted election after election: misuse of administrative
resources; active participation by regional and local government
officials in candidates’ meetings; the distribution of fake newspapers
containing erroneous or slanderous information about candidates;
cases of distribution of material goods to voters, mainly by individual
candidates, which could be seen as an indirect form of vote buying;
and the presence of so-called “technical” candidates and political parties.
The ad hoc committee is convinced that these phenomena are unhelpful
in terms of building voter confidence in the electoral process.
56. The ad hoc committee regrets that the elections took place
against the background of the cases involving Ms Timoshenko and
Mr Lutsenko, two major opposition figures who are currently serving
prison sentences.
57. In connection with party funding and the financing of the
election campaign, the ad hoc committee recalls that during the
2010 presidential election, it voiced its concern about “the place
of money and oligarchies in politics in Ukraine in general and in
the election process in particular”. This reality appears to have
reached even more alarming proportions during this election campaign.
Unfortunately, many Ukrainian citizens are seeing the political
“combat” as a struggle between different clans and their financials
interests rather than between competing platforms and ideas.
58. The ad hoc committee considers that on the whole the CEC operated
satisfactorily, holding regular meetings which were open to party
representatives, candidates, the media and observers. However, the
CEC also held some meetings behind closed doors, which did nothing
to increase the transparency of its operations. The CEC failed to
regularly take appropriate steps, within its mandate, to tackle
occasional allegations of vote buying or breaches of the rules on
media coverage of the election campaign.
59. The ad hoc committee considers that the Parliamentary Assembly
should continue its close co-operation with the Ukrainian Parliament
and institutions, by means of its monitoring procedure, and with
the Venice Commission, in order to resolve the problems noted during
the parliamentary elections on 28 October 2012 and to further consolidate
the whole electoral process. Consequently, the ad hoc committee
invites the Ukrainian authorities to:
- finally adopt a unified electoral code, preferably before
the next elections, as recommended by the Assembly in its Resolution 1862 (2012), as well as by the Venice Commission in its joint opinion
of October 2011;
- reform the electoral system in order to allow small parties
to enjoy some measure of electoral success, in particular by improving
regional representation and increasing voters’ influence over their representatives
in parliament, by adopting a multi-constituency proportional representation
system based on open party lists;
- fully implement the recommendations of the Assembly and
those of GRECO issued in October 2011, in order to reinforce the
transparency of political party and election campaign financing;
- conduct investigations into all allegations of misuse
of administrative resources and other electoral irregularities,
and publish the results of these investigations;
- conduct effective investigations into the irregularities
noted in the majority constituencies where the election results
had to be cancelled, as well as in other majority constituencies
where serious violations of legislation were noted; establish the
responsibilities of the authors of these irregularities and any others
working behind the scenes, and inform the Assembly of the outcome
as soon as possible;
- draw a clear distinction between the State administration
and the political parties in office;
- take the requisite steps to guarantee media pluralism
during electoral campaigns;
- examine the means of simplifying the long, complex vote-
and ballot-counting procedures on the day of the election;
- organise training courses for members of the polling stations,
particularly in rural areas, in order to improve their command of
procedures on election day.
60. The Assembly is prepared to assist Ukraine in implementing
these important electoral reforms.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
Based on proposals by the political groups
in the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
– Andreas GROSS, Head of the Delegation
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Pedro
AGRAMUNT, Spain
- Márton BRAUN, Hungary
- Deirdre CLUNE, Ireland
- Renato FARINA, Italy
- Valeriu GHILETCHI, Republic of Moldova
- Andres HERKEL,* Estonia
- Joe O’REILLY, Ireland
- Zahuri POSTANJYAN, Armenia
- Yves POZZO di BORGO, France
- François ROCHEBLOINE, France
- Rovshan RZAYEV, Azerbaijan
- Luca VOLONTÈ, Italy
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Paolo CORSINI, Italy
- Arcadio DIAZ-TEJERA, Spain
- Sabir HAJIYEV, Azerbaijan
- Tadeusz IWINSKI, Poland
- Stella JANTUAN, Republic of Moldova
- Pietro MARCENARO, Italy
- Aleksandrs SAKOVSKIS, Latvia
- Valery SUDARENKOV, Russian Federation
- Yanaki STOILOV, Bulgaria
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- André
BUGNON, Switzerland
- Roman JAKIĆ, Slovenia
- Hermine NAGHDALYAN, Armenia
- Andrea RIGONI,* Italy
- Jordi XUCLÁ, Spain
- European Democrat Group (EDG)
- Mevlüt CAVUŞOĞLU,* Turkey
- Sir Roger GALE, United Kingdom
- Nadejda GERASIMOVA, Russian Federation
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Andrej
HUNKO,* Germany
- Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Denmark
- Co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Mailis
REPS,* Estonia
- Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN,* Sweden
- Venice Commission
- Srdjan DARMANOVIC, Montenegro
- Secretariat
- Chemavon Chahbazian, Deputy
to the Head of the Secretariat, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Bastiaan Klein, Administrator, Monitoring Committee
- Daniele Gastl, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Anne Godfrey, Assistant, Parliamentary Assembly
- Angus Macdonald, Press officer, Parliamentary Assembly
- Serguei Kouznetsov, Administrator, Venice Commission
(*) pre-electoral mission (19-22 September 2012)
Appendix 2 – Programme of
the observation of the parliamentary elections in Ukraine (28 October
2012)
Friday
26 October 2012
8:30 – 9:30 Meeting of the ad hoc committee:
- Briefing on the pre-electoral
mission by Mr Andreas Gross, Head of the Delegation
- Briefing by Ms Ursula Koch-Laugwitz, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
Office in Ukraine
- Briefing by Ms Gabrielle Baumann, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
Office in Ukraine
- Briefing by Mr Vladimir Ristovski, Representative of the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Ukraine
- Recent developments in the field of election legislation,
Mr Kouznetsov, secretariat of the Venice Commission
- Practical and logistical arrangements, presented by the
Secretariat
Joint Programme for the members
of the delegations of the OSCE-PA, PACE, the EP and NATO-PA
Friday 26 October 2012
10:00 – 10:30 Opening by the heads of parliamentary delegations
- Ms Walburga Habsburg Douglas,
Special Co-ordinator of the OSCE, leader of the OSCE short-term
observers, Head of the Delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
- Mr Andreas Gross, Head of Delegation of PACE
- Mr Pawel Kowal, Head of Delegation of the European Parliament
- Mr Assen Agov, Head of Delegation of the NATO-PA
10:30 – 11:00 Political background
- Ambassador Madinba Jarbussynova, OSCE Project Co-ordinator
- Ambassador Jan Tombinsky, Head of the European Union Delegation
to Ukraine
- Mr Vladimir Ristovski, Representative of the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe in Ukraine
- Mr Marcin Koziel, Head of the NATO Liaison Office in Ukraine
11:00 – 13:00 OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Core
Team
Ms Audrey Glover, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission
and the team – political overview, campaign activities and media
landscape, legal framework, polling procedures
15:30 – 16:30 Round table with domestic observer organisations
- Mr Oleksandr Chernenko, Chairperson
of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine
- Ms Olha Ajvazovska, Head of the Civic Network “Opora”
- Ms Irina Bekeshkina, Director of the Democratic Initiative
Fund
16:30 – 17:30 Round table with NGO representatives
- National Democratic Institute
- National Republican Institute
- IFES
17:30 – 18:30 Round table with media representatives
- Mr Mykola Kniazhytskyi, Chief
Executive, TVi
- Mr Brian Bonner, Editor-in-Chief, Kyiv
Post
- Mr Andriy Yanytskyi, Economic Editor of the Internet portal
“Left Bank”
- Mr Taras Shevchenko, Director of the Media Law Institute
- Ms Victoria Siumar, Executive Director of the Institute
of Mass Media Information and Roman Holovenko, Head of Legal programmes
Saturday 27 October 2012
9:00 – 11:00 Meetings with representatives of political parties
and blocs
- Party of Regions:
Mr Leonid Kozhara, Deputy Chairperson of International Policy, and
Mr Vladislav Zabarsky, representative of the party in the CEC
- United opposition “Batkivshchyna”: Mr Arseniy Yatsenyuk,
Head of the Council
- Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR): Mr Valeriy
Karpuntsov, Party representative in the CEC
- All-Ukrainian Union “Svoboda”: Mr Oleg Tiagnybok, Head
11:30 – 13:30 Meetings with representatives of political parties
and blocs
- Our Ukraine Block–People
self-defense Faction: Mr Mykola Onischchuk, Deputy Head of the Party
- Ukraine-Forward: Mr Aleksiy Lohvynenko, Member of the
Party Council
- Green Party: Mr Denys Moskal, Head of the Party
- Communist Party of Ukraine: Mr Georgii Buiko, Deputy Head
of the Party
- Socialist Party of Ukraine: Ms Nataliya Bondar, Deputy
Head of the Party
- People’s Party: Mr Andriy Horovyi, Deputy Head of the
Party
13:15 Concluding remarks
13:20 Deployment, meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday 28 October 2012
8:00 – 20:00 Observation of the elections
Monday 29 October 2012
8:00 – 09.00 Ad hoc committee debriefing meeting
9:30 – 10:30 Meeting of the heads of parliamentary delegations
14:30 Press conference
Appendix 3 – Declaration
by the pre-electoral delegation
Forthcoming elections
'will be a litmus test of Ukraine’s commitment to democratic principles'
Strasbourg, 22.09.2012 – The forthcoming parliamentary elections
in Ukraine will be a litmus test of Ukraine’s commitment to democratic
principles as a step towards further European integration, a pre-electoral
delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE) said at the end of a two-day visit to Kyiv (20 and 21 September).
The seven-member delegation, which met representatives of
all the main parties running as well as election officials and civil
society groups, urged a number of steps aimed at ensuring Ukrainian
voters are able to make a free choice among genuine alternatives
on 28 October, in line with Ukraine’s commitments to the Council
of Europe.
The delegation called for greater media pluralism in the run-up
to election day, urging the authorities and both public and private
media outlets – particularly television – to ensure that parties
contesting the elections receive balanced, unbiased coverage of
their platforms and policies. It encouraged Ukraine’s journalists
to be bold and fair in their reporting, and resist any tendency
towards self-censorship, in order to serve the wider public interest.
In this context, it expressed its great concern about the draft
law on criminalisation of defamation and strongly urged the parliament
to take into account the opinion of Council of Europe experts on
the draft law before finally adopting it.
The delegation expressed its satisfaction that, for the first
time, domestic non-party observers will be able to follow the voting,
the count and tabulation. It welcomed their contribution, and encouraged
Ukraine’s civil society to play a full and active role in the election
process, including by making use of the opportunities offered by
social media and the internet. In this context, the delegation invites
the authorities to clarify the rules surrounding the use of web-cams
in polling stations in order to avoid confusion.
The pre-electoral period has been overshadowed by the imprisonment
of former government members and opposition leaders Yulia Tymoshenko
and Yuri Lutsenko, who are unable to stand. It shares the concerns expressed
by the Assembly about the trials and imprisonment of these persons,
and reaffirmed the Assembly’s call for them to be released, by all
legal means, before the elections take place. At the same time,
this issue should not be used to de-legitimize the elections before
they have taken place. The election should be judged on all elements
affecting the whole process.
The “oligarchization” of Ukraine’s politics, the merging of
political and economic interests, is a matter for serious concern.
The delegation called upon state actors and electoral contestants
to refrain from abusing administrative resources, as well as private
economic means, to manipulate the election process and distort the
will of the people. It urged politicians to try to engage on the
issues, and to put the public interest ahead of their own self-interest,
in order to counter an overwhelming lack of confidence in politics
and political institutions on the part of many voters.
Finally, the delegation called on the authorities and all
electoral participants to take all steps necessary to ensure that
these elections are conducted with full respect for democratic principles
and the country’s obligations to the Council of Europe. Only by
doing so can public faith in the electoral process, and therefore ultimately
in the outcome, be fully restored.
A full delegation of around 40 Assembly members will return
to the country to observe the voting, alongside other international
observers, before making a joint final assessment.
Appendix 4 – Press release
from the International Election Observation Mission
Ukrainian elections
marred by lack of level playing field, say international observers
Strasbourg, 29.10.2012 – Ukraine’s parliamentary elections
were characterized by a tilted playing field, the international
observers concluded in a statement released today. This was the
result, primarily, of the abuse of administrative resources, as
well as a lack of transparency in campaign and party financing and
of balanced media coverage.
Voters had a choice between distinct parties and candidate
registration was inclusive, with two notable exceptions, representing
a wide variety of political views. The political environment, however,
is dominated by powerful economic groups, to the detriment of the
electoral process, the statement said.
“Considering the abuse of power, and the excessive role of
money in this election, democratic progress appears to have reversed
in Ukraine,” said Walburga Habsburg Douglas, the Special Co-ordinator
who led the OSCE short-term election observation mission and the
Head of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation. “One should
not have to visit a prison to hear from leading political figures
in the country.”
“Ukrainians deserved better from these elections. The ‘oligarchization’
of the whole process meant that citizens lost their ownership of
the election, as well as their trust in it” said Andreas Gross,
the Head of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE) delegation. “Unfortunately, the great democratic potential
of Ukrainian society was not realized in yesterday's vote.”
Election day was calm and peaceful overall, and the voting
and counting was assessed mostly positively by the observers, but
tabulation was assessed negatively, as it lacked transparency.
The election administration managed the technical aspects
of the pre-election process adequately, but routinely held pre-session
meetings behind closed doors, and most open sessions lacked substance.
“Yesterday, we witnessed a strong turnout and a well-conducted
polling process. The positive engagement of the Ukrainian people
shows their steadfast desire for democracy, and this bodes well
for Ukraine’s future,” said Assen Agov, Head of the Delegation from
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly “We all hope that the disappointment
of our overall assessment will galvanize political stakeholders
into delivering the democratic progress which Ukrainians clearly
seek.”
“The lack of appropriate responses by the authorities to the
various electoral violations has led to a climate of impunity”,
said Audrey Glover, the Head of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) long-term election observation mission.
“This has cast a shadow over the election and the democratic progress
that, until recently, Ukraine had been making.”
