Andriy Parubiy/Facebook
Verkhovna Rada Chairman Andriy Parubiy and First Vice-Chair Iryna Gerashchenko celebrate the adoption on July 11 of Ukraine’s new Election Code.
KYIV –Ukraine’s eighth Parliament since independence convened its final plenary session on July 11 with a long-awaited political breakthrough – the adoption of a new Election Code designed to improve and democratize the country’s election system.
It followed weeks of recriminations after the calling of snap parliamentary elections by newly elected President Volodymyr Zelenskyy between his team and the outgoing administration of President Petro Poroshenko and his allies in the Verkhovna Rada. It took a ruling by the Constitutional Court on June 20 to remove doubts about the legality of Mr. Zelenskyy’s action.
But the adoption of the reform remained problematic right until the very end. On the day of the vote, it took no less than 18 attempts to pass it, with 230 deputies – just four votes more than the required minimum – eventually giving in to Verkhovna Rada Chairman Andriy Parubiy’s persistence. Congratulating the deputies, the exhilarated official declared it a “victory.”
It came too late to be applicable to the pre-term parliamentary elections on July 21, though it will apply to the next local elections scheduled for 2020. There was a further catch: the changes will not be applicable to the Verkhovna Rada until December 1, 2023. Yet, according to the law, parliamentary elections should be held “on the last Sunday in the fifth year of the term of the office of the Verkhovna Rada,” that is October 2023.
The main change is the shift from a mixed proportional-majoritarian system in which 50 percent of deputies were elected on the basis of votes for political parties and 50 percent in single-mandate constituencies, to a purely proportional one – with the critical difference that it will be with open party lists. Voters will also be able to vote not only for a party, but for specific candidates proposed by a party. The threshold for political parties to get into Parliament will remain at 5 percent.
Apart from tackling corruption, another argument for changing the Election Code was the need to simplify and standardize procedures in all elections. The comprehensive document combines five current laws and is divided into three components on the principles and procedures for holding presidential, parliamentary and local elections.
Election reform aimed at curbing corruption has for years been a key demand from representatives of civil society and Ukraine’s Western partners. It was enshrined in the Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement ratified in 2014. Later that year, the need for a new Election Code was stipulated in the coalition agreements in the post-Maidan Parliament, and stressed by both the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Venice Commission.
The Parliament, however, and the country’s new political leadership, did not make this issue a priority and procrastinated. Although a draft law was prepared in 2015, the first reading of the bill did not take place until November 2017 and after there was no apparent enthusiasm to complete the process. This led to accusations that political will at the top was lacking and that the national deputies themselves were interested in maintaining the status quo rather than opening up the system.
Under the old mixed election system the majoritarian component permitted gross violations by affluent candidates who were able to bribe the more vulnerable categories of the population, the classic way being “buying votes with buckwheat.” Furthermore, the proportional system with closed lists allowed political parties to sell places to the wealthy, including those seeking parliamentary immunity in order to evade criminal proceedings or even potential imprisonment.
In short, the system that is being phased out suited the oligarchs, the politicians and many of the national deputies. While it was abhorred by those committed to genuine reform, it also was tacitly accepted by impoverished and effectively disenfranchised people –Ukraine is currently considered to be Europe’s poorest country – who otherwise see no benefits in voting and becoming involved in the political process.
As Euromaidan journalist Olena Makarenko noted back at the end of 2014, “The people who sell their votes are usually criticized for being irresponsible and corrupt. However, this is the reality which Ukraine inherited. Lectures about voters’ responsibility are useless when people can’t feed themselves or their family.”
Electoral reform resurfaced again as a hot issue with the approach of the presidential elections scheduled for spring of this year. Given the implicit reluctance of the political leadership and national deputies to budge, it became a weapon in the hands of those campaigning to replace President Poroshenko and his allies.
After his landslide victory in the second round of the election on April 21, Mr. Zelenskyy announced he was dissolving the Verkhovna Rada and, in preparation for the new parliamentary elections, made electoral reform the subject of the first bill he introduced. Initially, he appeared to have obtained the agreement of the various parliamentary factions on a compromise wherein a proportional system would be adopted, but with closed party lists. He declared that he was in favor of open lists, but had been forced to concede on this.
The implicit deal evaporated overnight, and on May 22 Mr. Zelenskyyy’s bill was rejected by an emphatic margin of 226-92. This further strained the political atmosphere. Although it was clear the election system could not be changed in time for the parliamentary elections scheduled for July 21, the president and his team nevertheless kept the pressure on the Parliament to deliver.
It finally did so, at the very last moment, after one and a half months and after 4,568 amendments had been considered. But given the timeframe the Parliament linked to the code’s implementation, it was more an act of defiance than a parting conciliatory gesture.
Not surprisingly, President Zelenskyy is far from pleased with this result, and it is unclear whether he will sign the law. His representative in the Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk, has already said the Election Code was adopted with procedural violations and will require close scrutiny.
There is certainly room for improvement. The chairperson of the board of the Civic Network OPORA, Olha Aivazovska, stresses that “Without appropriate punishment for violations during the election process, we cannot talk about fair elections.” The origins of party funding and the use of political advertising are still not still addressed, leaving the door open to the influence of the oligarchs and their clients. And facilitating the participation of Ukrainians outside the country is overlooked.
Observers say the new Election Code is an important step in the right direction. Its adoption has finally injected impetus into the long-stalled process of electoral reform. It remains to be seen, after the parliamentary results are known and the reconfiguration of political forces is completed, to what extent the political will to return to this important challenge will exist.