REFLECTIONS OF ELECTION OBSERVERS

In Chernihiv Oblast: voters savor the process

by Nadia and Askold Haywas

Sunday December 26, 2004, Kovpyta Chernihiv raion, Chernihiv Oblast; 15 kilometers to Belarus; 48 kilometers east of Chornobyl:

It's approaching midnight. Tension is extreme. The temperature, as it was all day - freezing. The ballots are to be counted.

Our group of observers, several from the U.S. and several from Australia, arrived in Chernihiv on December 25. After discussions, we decided to approach the job of observation in two different ways. We would split into two-person groups. One group remaining in Chernihiv would visit several polling stations during the day, all others would spread out throughout the oblast and dedicate themselves to one primary location for the whole day.

We were given the village of Kovpyta, 1,222 registered voters, a Yanukovych stronghold, where the candidate received over 65 percent of the count during the second round.

It was still dark when we arrived at the village Culture Hall that morning. The hall where the polling station was established was unheated and remained refrigerator-like throughout the day. All poll workers wore everything they had. Cheeks were red, noses were running. Food and drink was what you brought with you. Toilets were a block away - outside; they were rustic, unmaintained outhouses.

Our arrival was welcomed by a Yushchenko observer. The Yanukovych ones were standoffish. The appearance of our cameras and video equipment had a distinct impact on them.

The first voters arrived at 8 a.m. It became obvious as the day wore on that the poorest voted earlier, the more well-to-do (and fewer in numbers) voted later in the day. By midday most had voted. There was eagerness in their behavior - all wanted to vote, all were serious. There was something in the way many held their filled-in ballot, partly in and partly out of the ballot box, as if to extend their moment within the voting process. It seemed that they were savoring the moment and wanted to prolong it to the max.

The visual appearance of the majority of villagers was dismal. Hunched, haggard, wearing a variety of clothes, layer upon layer. Many held crooked sticks as canes. Many needed glasses. Quite a few asked for help in marking their ballot. They were told by the poll workers that this "can no longer be done" (an indication of what kind of help had been provided in the past).

Intimidation also was evident. The head of the Village Council (a Yanukovych supporter) was present from before the opening of the polls until well past. She stood outside the door of the building, making her presence known to all voters. She entered the polling place repeatedly - once to vote herself, plus a dozen times for other purposes and illegally.

She talked to the poll workers, she asked several to step outside with her. We recommended that a complaint be filed. This was done.

More intimidation came from the continued presence of Viktor Yanukovych's trusted party member, the former head of the collective farm (kolhosp). His presence was overpowering. His image was still Soviet, comfortable, well-cared-for, in harsh contrast to that of the villagers.

During the day, we visited a small neighboring village, Chervone. As we approached it became obvious that this was Yushchenko territory. The trees were festooned with orange streamers. The polling place was an old wooden building in need of a coat of paint. In contrast to the cavelike, stone, freezing cold cultural center in Kovpyta, this one was warm and cozy. I wondered whether the difference had any meaning.

Now was the moment of truth. We had endured 12 plus hours of bitter cold and the cold shoulder of the Yanukovych supporters. The count began.

Systematically, the clear voting boxes were again checked for breaks in the seals - security was confirmed, the seals were broken, the contents emptied out onto a table. The overall count was held. Correct. Then came the count by candidate. Ballot by ballot - each time the name was read aloud by the head of the election commission. Each ballot was stacked in its place.

The results were announced aloud by the head of the commission. Yushchenko, 516; Yanukovych, 324; invalidated, 32; abstained, 16.

Was our presence necessary?

Absolutely.

Falsifications occurred and collectively could have changed the vote. We found it odd that of the invalidated ballots a majority was signed by a certain poll worker. The votes were all for Viktor Yushchenko, yet they were invalidated because the poll worker's initials were missing on the ballot. Was this done purposefully? Did she know the intentions of the voters and, therefore, conveniently forgot to sign?

When talking with the people, no matter the location, the age, their preferred language, all were thankful for our observer participation. They did not question our veracity, but were only amazed at our presence, that we had paid our own way, taken the time, made the effort, subjected ourselves to the hardships. They asked whether we were afraid to have come. They expressed their thanks in many ways: by words, handshakes, hot tea and a cloak over our shoulders.

What an incredible experience in Ukrainian history! We are honored to have been a part of it.

Askold Haywas is a high school teacher of history/civics in Oceanside, Calif. His wife, Nadia, is a middle school special education specialist/teacher in Oceanside. They traveled to Ukraine as election observers of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, January 23, 2005, No. 4, Vol. LXXIII

| Home Page |