Think OSCE observers who pointed out numerous violations in the election campaign

As is known, the course of Ukrainian presidential election and its compliance with Ukrainian and international laws was closely watched by the Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Bureau (DIHRB) functioning under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). After both the first and second rounds of the elections, OSCE observers made public their highly critical reports. Ukraine tried to wink at such reports in the euphoria of post-election hoopla. However, these reports raised serious concerns in European political circles so much that OSCE might even raise the issue of Ukraine’s expulsion early next year.

The Day’s correspondent met the head of the OSCE observer mission Simon Osborn and the media- monitoring group chief Rostyslav Kuzhel.

“The OSCE Ukrainian election watch mission has made public its tentative report. It severely criticized the extent to which the past elections were democratic. Could you, as the DIHRB observers group leader, tell us in more detail about your observations and conclusions?”

“The watch mission recorded countless violations. There were violations of not only Ukrainian laws but also international obligations Ukraine had undertaken. To be more precise, it was no accident that all state officials were involved in the election campaign, supporting only one candidate. We think this was a systematic, well-orchestrated, and long-term action in contravention of the Ukrainian election law, as well as international regulations and obligations assumed by Ukraine.

“Representatives of the executive branch, i.e., those who must first of all observe the laws of their country, violated them systematically. Policemen would doorstep and campaign for one candidate, thus pressuring voters. Medical personnel also forced their patients to vote one way and not another. Schoolteachers would gather their pupils’ parents to persuade them to vote for one of the candidates. University and college students were forced to take a written pledge and vote under the supervision of their professors. This is only what we recorded. But there also are military units, prisons, and high-security organizations: we have undocumented evidence of violations there as well. In addition, all the violators know they will never be taken to court or be punished if they are, for the Ukrainian law on elections simply does not work or is not applied the way it should.

“We have information about a precinct with a turnout of over 100%. The observers were shocked by this and compared the voters’ lists of the first and second rounds. They did not coincide completely. Voters’ signatures were also compared: in some cases different signatures were placed beside the same names in the first and second rounds. We also came across similar situations at other polling stations. But we should bear in mind that these were exceptional cases, with more than 33,000 precincts.”

“What can you say about the extent to which coverage of the election campaign in the Ukrainian media was democratic and unbiased?”

“They did not even try, both in the center and in the regions, to abide by the election law and the regulations on media coverage of the elections adopted by the Central Election Commission.”

Rostyslav KUZHEL: “Here is, for example, a bar chart on the number of instances when presidential candidates appeared in UT-1 television news programs. We agree with many of those who told us that such programs as Valery Lapikura’s “Accent,” “Dossier,” and “Question of the Day” are not showpieces of democracy, but still, to make our comparisons more vivid, we did not take into account either those programs, politically-motivated films, or the numerous advertisements. The channel is run by the state, so, under both the Ukrainian and European laws, all candidates should be granted approximately equal time. But there was not even a hint of this here. One candidate is only praised; others are only criticized if mentioned at all. This attitude of, let me stress, state-run television means that the state failed to ensure one of the most fundamental human rights, the right of free access to information. This cannot happen in a democratic election (see chart 1).

“We have also compiled similar charts for other national television companies, such as 1+1, Inter, and STB, where one candidate also dominated programming. And although these are private television companies, the journalists working there and above all their management also broke the fundamental principle of journalism: they failed to furnish the viewers true-to-life and varied information on all the candidates.

“Chart 2 shows that in the period before the runoff all central channels also lavished praise on one candidate only, without offering at least some neutral information on the other. This testifies to the extremely low level of democratic development in Ukraine.

“We also obtained similar data from monitoring about twenty regional television companies. But if among the latter there were some media which tried to observe the law, i.e., to grant equal opportunities to other candidates, at least to some extent, these media outlets are known to have been subjected to repression.

“We have also monitored some most popular and influential newspapers. The picture here is more diversified. While, for example, Uriadovy kurier , Fakty , and Segodnia wrote positively mostly about Leonid Kuchma (up to 80% of their politics coverage), Holos Ukrayiny wrote more about Oleksandr Tkachenko (25%) and Moroz (13%), and The Day about Yevhen Marchuk (25%). Before the second round, Uriadovy kurier, Fakty, and Segodnia solicited votes for Mr. Kuchma without giving the slightest chance to his opponent, while Holos Ukrayiny was doing the opposite. The Day made negative references to both candidates. This can also be called a stand. But at the last moment before the election, when a choice had to be made, The Day decided to support Mr. Kuchma.

“Our monitoring shows that the overall situation with the freedom of expression and access to information in Ukraine is difficult, which will be a subject discussed at the OSCE summit.”

“Do you think the violations we found could have had a basic impact on the outcome of elections?”

Simon OSBORN: “It is very difficult to identify the number of people who did or did not succumb to this pressure, as well the influence this had on the result. There were also violations by some other candidates. But when representatives of other candidates broke the law, they were immediately arrested or incapacitated in some other way, while the violations on the part of Mr. Kuchma’s representatives were allowed to occur on a much wider scale without any counteractions taken. We should also point out the very wide gap between the winner and loser. So I cannot answer the question if all the violations we recorded played a decisive role in the election results.”

“Did your comments lead to some improvements or to the correction of some violations”

“We visited many high officials, telling them what we thought and making proposals. As for the reaction of the government and President himself to our statements, there was none. Moreover, one news agency totally misquoted our viewpoint on the systemic nature of violations.

“We are now looking into complaints filed by us with the Central Election Commission. There are several volumes of them. We are watching if at least some measures have been taken by executive and judicial bodies about those complaints.”

“And?..”

“Basically none. At best, territorial election commissions forwarded the complaints to the Central Election Commission, whence they went to police and public prosecutors’ offices. When reaching the executive bodies, the complaints would simply disappear. It is very difficult to keep track of them.

“In December, I will finally prepare a comprehensive report on the Ukrainian elections and submit it to other OSCE member-states. Then it will be up to them how to react. The United States has said it fully supports both our first and second statements on the elections in Ukraine. It fully accepts our conclusions.”

“Could some sanctions of, say, a financial or political nature be applied to Ukraine?”

“This is, rather, a question of the degree of trust in Ukraine as a partner and of its image on the international stage. The states which sent the observers could change their policy toward this country. The most extreme option is to expel a country from the world or European community or to boycott it.

“You know, it is not very positive when you meet the country’s leaders and point out, several times at that, specific violations, but they turn a deaf ear and continue to do the same. There is a possibility of Ukraine being expelled from PACE. One should also remember that this decision could be taken not only on the basis of the past elections. I will write down a series of recommendations on further work in Ukraine in my final report. I hope Western governments, after reading them, will come to Ukraine and ask, ‘How can we help you?’”