Helsinki Commission issues report on parliamentary elections in Ukraine (05/17/98)

Helsinki Commission issues report on parliamentary elections in Ukraine

by Orest Deychakiwsky

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) has issued a report on the March 29 elections in Ukraine. Three commission staffers traveled to Ukraine to observe the parliamentary elections, the second democratic election of representatives to the Verkhovna Rada since the restoration of Ukrainian independence in 1991. The commission was part of the delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the 54-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE PA). CSCE staffers observed the election process and visited polling stations in central-western Ukraine (Zhytomyr, Berdychev, Vinnytsia, Uman, Bila Tserkva,) Donetsk, and Crimea (Symferopol, Sevastopol, Bakhchysearai, Yalta).

The CSCE report concurs with the general findings of the OSCE that the elections were conducted within a generally adequate legal and administrative framework, but that the late passage of laws and regulations relating to the election led to uncertainty about the electoral process.

While there were violations, transgressions and irregularities, both during the campaign and the voting, Ukrainian voters were able to express their political will freely, and, as a general rule, the results of the elections do reflect the will of the electorate. While the campaign was peaceful in most of the country, it was marred by some tension, including incidents of violence, especially in Odesa and Crimea. The failure to allow non-citizen Crimean Tatar returnees the opportunity to vote, in contrast to arrangements that had permitted them to vote in the 1994 elections, also tarnished the elections.

The state apparatus did not display neutrality in the elections, and there were instances of harassment and pressure against non-state media, including the closure of several newspapers. Despite the occasional heavy-handedness of the government to limit opponents' influence, the pro-presidential parties were not notably successful in attracting voters.

Socio-economic issues dominated the campaigning, especially the state of the economy and poor living standards, including wage and pension arrears, as well as the issue of corruption. Issues such as foreign policy, minority rights and the use of the Russian language were less prominent than in the 1994 parliamentary elections.

The elections were held under a new election law that replaced the majoritarian system, introducing a mixed electoral system in which 225 of the 450 deputies are elected from single-mandate districts and 225 from national party lists. Oblast (region), raion (county) and local elections were held at the same time.

Considering its complexity, the balloting itself was reasonably well managed, and voting was generally calm and orderly, as 70 percent of Ukraine's electorate turned out to vote. On voting day, CSCE staff witnessed occasionally cramped and crowded conditions at polling stations and some irregularities, including so-called family voting, where more than one person was present in the voting booth, and voting outside the voting booths ("community" voting). Those voting outside the booths did so without any apparent concern (i.e., intimidation was not a factor). In Crimea, CSCE staffers received several reports from domestic activists of young recruits being instructed to vote for the Communist Party by officers in their military units.

On the positive side, staffers observed greater numbers of domestic observers at polling stations representing various parties and candidates than in previous elections, which helped ensure greater control over the voting process and count, and diminished the likelihood of cheating by unscrupulous election officials.

According to the CSCE report, the election resulted in a Verkhovna Rada similar in terms of composition to the old Parliament, albeit with a more Communist tilt, partly reflecting frustration with living standards, especially among elderly voters. Nevertheless, the new Parliament will include many new faces - only 90 deputies from the old Verkhovna Rada (of more than 300 who ran) were re-elected. Representatives of various parties the left will constitute about 40 percent of Parliament's membership, with the remainder largely a mix of centrists, independents and national democrats. With other strongly anti-presidential forces such as former Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko's Hromada Party, the left may approach, or even exceed, a majority in forming a hard opposition to the president and government on some key issues. On the other hand, the number of centrists, independents and national democrats who may be more amenable to cooperating with the executive branch may exceed 200 deputies, creating - at least with respect to some issues - a formidable force of their own.

Given its composition, it is doubtful that the new Verkhovna Rada will be a force for radical reform. At the same time, the likelihood of significant backsliding is also small. Conflict between the executive branch and the legislature probably will continue, especially in the run-up to the fall 1999 presidential elections. Unless President Leonid Kuchma is willing and able to engage the majority of the Verkhovna Rada to work with him in the larger interests of the country in order to reverse the dismal economic situation, we are likely to see a continuing "muddling through" and erratic pace of reforms.

The CSCE report concludes with the following: "What do the new elections mean for the critical U.S.-Ukraine relationship, which has taken on the dimensions of a 'strategic partnership'? The lack of progress on reform has resulted in growing frustration in the West, including the United States. The election results - and election process for that matter - in and of themselves have not yet produced a major impact on U.S.-Ukrainian relations. The United States would have preferred to see a more progressive Parliament, but there were low expectations beforehand that the elections would produce a Parliament dedicated to the pursuit of aggressive reforms.

"Despite the possibility of continued lackluster efforts at structural reform, the United States and, to a lesser extent, other Western countries, will remain engaged with Ukraine. Ukraine is simply too important from a geo-strategic perspective. Furthermore, Ukraine has and continues to undertake positive strides, especially in foreign policy, including the decision to get rid of nuclear weapons and to cease cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. Ukraine's successful efforts to forge constructive relationships with its neighbors, and its efforts to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic community, have also been favorably received in the West.

"The United States has a compelling interest in a strong, independent and democratic Ukraine. However, if structural reforms continue to stall, if the foreign investment climate does not improve and if corruption remains a pervasive problem, the caliber of U.S. commitment, including the level of assistance, may diminish. Ukraine's president and Rada must work together, recognizing that accelerated reforms are, first and foremost, in Ukraine's own interests, to help ensure continued U.S. and Western support - including the support of international lending institutions. Most importantly, such reforms will advance Ukraine's potential as a genuinely independent, stable and democratic country."

* * *

Copies of the Ukraine Parliamentary Election Report are available by writing to: Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 234 Ford Building, Washington, DC 20515. This report, as well as earlier commission reports on Ukrainian elections in 1991 and 1994, are available on the CSCE's Internet website: http://www.house.gov/csce.

Orest Deychakiwsky is a staff advisor with the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a U.S. government agency charged with monitoring and encouraging progress with the Helsinki Accords and other documents of the 54-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).