30^th Session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities – 22 to 24 March 2016

Observation of local elections in Ukraine (25 October 2015)

Speaking Notes by Jos WIENEN, (Netherlands/EPP-CCE)

Dear colleagues,

It is my pleasure to inform you today of major findings and recommendations further to the observation of the local elections held in Ukraine on 25 October 2015. As you are aware, the Congress deployed for this purpose its largest delegation ever:

The delegation comprised 56 observers from 25 countries including 11 members of the Parliamentary Assembly and 4 colleagues from the EU Committee of the Regions. Arnoldas ABRAMAVICIUS, Spokesperson of the Committee of the Regions during the mission and Gudrun MOSLER-TÖRNSTRÖM, Head of mission, will both make a statement in a few minutes. Last but not least Emanuelis ZINGERIS reported on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Before I talk about our findings, I should like to contextualise the political situation in which the elections took place. Generally speaking, the 2015 local elections in Ukraine were considered as an indicator of the Government’s will and capacity to pursue the reform course undertaken in 2014. It was in particular the constitutional reform on decentralisation which played a major role in this respect.  At the same time, these elections were viewed as a mood barometer for the pro-Western orientation of the country.

Looking at the election results, we must conclude that there is no alternative to reform and active support of Europe for Ukraine. The “Petro Poroshenko Bloc – Solidarity” particularly scored in large urban centres; in rural areas, the “Fatherland party” of the former Prime Minister Julia Tymochenko was more successful. However, the political landscape remains fragmented and the endurance test for the pro-Western forces is still to come.

Regarding the vote itself, it is clear that it took place in a challenging social, economic, humanitarian and security environment. As we all know, this situation stemmed, in particular, from the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation and the temporary control of parts of the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts by illegal armed troops. Due to security reasons, people could not vote in 132 localities situated in the buffer-zone with the self-proclaimed so-called People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. In March 2015, these areas had been declared as “temporarily occupied” by the Ukrainian Parliament.

On the whole, the electoral campaign was competitive and mostly showing respect for the democratic process. However, the entire process – involving some 350.000 candidates and a plethora of parties – took place against a backdrop of growing disillusionment of the population with the political establishment. On Election Day, we met people who considered this vote as the “last chance” for the politicians currently in power. In fact, there is growing dissatisfaction due to the ongoing economic crisis and the slow implementation of anti-corruption policies. The influence of powerful economic groups, in particular on the media, is seen by many people as a blatant attempt to divide the country amongst them.

In general, we can say that the vote took place in a calm and orderly manner in most of the country. The voting process was assessed positively, overall, by the international observers, despite some procedural problems. The tabulation process was complex and dragging on. According to OSCE/ODIHR, this caused also shortcomings in the second round held on 15 November (which was not observed by the Congress).

Let me now highlight problematic areas and key recommendations that arise from our meetings with various interlocutors in Ukraine and the observation of Election Day in some 240 polling stations throughout the country.

-       Firstly, the legal framework: A new Law on Local Elections was adopted on 14 July 2015, less than four months before Election Day and without effective consultation, in contradiction with the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The main concern is related to the complexity to the use of different electoral systems in different territorial units.

Furthermore, the Law was inconsistently implemented by electoral commissions and courts, in particular related to candidates’ registration. Independent candidates could not register for all elections and some rejections were allegedly decided upon political motivation.

Consequently, from Congress’ perspective, there is urgent need for a revision of the legal framework for local elections. Particular attention should be paid to the correlation between the voters’ will and the election results.

In the context of the continuing conflict in eastern Ukraine, the issue of Internally Displaced People has to be solved as well, in analogy with previous recommendations of the Congress. IDPs were not allowed to vote this time. 

-       Secondly, electoral fraud and corruption: The 2015 local elections were marked by a large number of allegations of vote-buying – in particular using food packages – and cases of bribery of members of election commissions. Also misuse of administrative resources was flagged by some Congress’ interlocutors.

Campaign and party financing have been recently further regulated but the implementation of the respective legislation remains weak. Financial reports were not published by the candidates and there were no sanctions on violations. Therefore, the fight against corruption needs to be pursued at all levels and measures to increase transparency are crucial at this stage.

-        Thirdly, the media: The dominance of powerful economic groups and the politicisation of media outlets created distortions in the coverage of the election campaign. There was a lack of level playing field for independent candidates and small parties who could not compete for media coverage with the most powerful candidates. One of the major problems in this respect was the overwhelming presence of paid-for content in media. Moreover, a huge number of newspapers are under the control of local authorities and were used as political propaganda. Therefore, independent media coverage should be strengthened and regulation on paid-for content needs to be fully implemented.

-       Lastly, decentralisation and territorial reform: Since the adoption of the respective constitutional amendment by the Parliament, at first reading in August 2015, the situation has become more and more difficult.

-      

From the outset, this reform was meant to bring along modernisation, removal of out-dated structures and a significant enhancement of local government’s competences. However, during pre-electoral briefings in Kyiv, the Congress’ delegation was made aware of some weaknesses of the reform, in particular regarding the definition of new territorial units and the establishment of the institution of “Prefect”.

Apart from these technical questions, there is a deep divide of the political class in Ukraine concerning the consequences of the constitutional amendments on decentralisation. Parts of the Government coalition argue that this would end up in the secession of the eastern regions. Therefore, it is now unlikely that the Government gathers the qualified majority of 300 votes in Parliament to adopt the bill.

As you may know, the 2015 local elections were the first held in some 160 territorial units that had already voluntarily merged. The Congress will closely follow these developments and is involved in many activities to support the Ukrainian authorities in their efforts to pursue the reform course.

Thank you for your attention!