2002 Elections: Start or False Start?
We all know that this week will be dominated by events stemming from the elections bill. The Central Election Committee has taken the first step. “The transparency and fairness of the next parliamentary elections can be secured only by legally regulating all problems encountered during the previous parliamentary elections, as well by enacting the bill developed by the CEC,” committee chairman Mykhailo Riabets declared on August 29.
Instead of two articles of the administrative code, envisaging responsibility for transgressions during elections, the CEC proposes twenty-two. “We propose to call to account all those abusing their office, unlawfully interfering with the mass media, and campaigning,” Mr. Riabets continued, adding that “certain politicians have completely ignored CEC criticism concerning the next elections.” He stressed that “no one has actually done anything about bringing the Ukrainian election laws into conformity with European standards.” The CEC chairman says that the very start of the election campaign has been recognized as unconstitutional, so the date for launching the campaign is totally incomprehensible, and that the same applies to the registration of candidate deputies.
Mr. Riabets believes that the issue of financing the parties’ and blocs’ campaign remains unregulated, meaning that political forces “leave this matter to their own discretion... Thus huge sums will be spent, originating from God knows what sources, to buy electronic airtime; the whole process will be uncontrollable.” He further points out that election campaigns should financed only by citizens, and that the maximum amount of every such election fund must be determined by law. Any effort to make the fund- raising process transparent should be commended, but it is anyone’s guess whether such restrictions will work, considering that people have actual incomes that are often dozens and hundreds of times higher than stated in the tax returns. Maybe it is a coincidence, but such individuals prove most active in the political domain. Yet even double entry procedures can benefit Ukrainian politics, for during the previous elections a lot of election campaign headquarters kept no books or records whatever.
“The law does not have accreditation procedures or status of the official observers,” notes Mr. Riabets and assures that “the Central Election Committee will do its best to have the greatest possible number of observers monitor the elections on behalf of volunteer and international organizations.” He regards such official observers as “my assistants” and has no intention to impose any accreditation restrictions: “if they want to, they’re welcome!” Mr. Riabets reminded listeners that today only “subjects of the electoral process” are eligible as observers; in his opinion, the status should be extended to “other organizations conducting fair elections.” This caused sarcastic grins in the journalistic audience, for notions such as “independent organization” or “organizations conducting fair elections” sound as though quoted from a science fiction novel (or just crafty). The course events are taking shows that the “administrative resource” in the next elections may well be crowded out by the “party” or “organizational resource.” None of the political analysts can as yet take seriously the domestic “societal resource.” Where can they find it? This “resource” can become available only when the man in the street finds himself in a position to actually influence the executive.
“The law does not pay any attention to the media,” declares Mr. Riabets. “Perhaps this situation is favored by some people, but the mechanism of responsibility must be present at all levels.” He notes that the issue of free media is not within CEC competence, “but fair elections cannot be carried out without certain restrictions.” On the one hand, unfair canvassing and campaigning should be prohibited. On the other hand, most media and journalists are barely above the poverty line, so imposing restrictions will primarily affect those voicing views other than the official ones. There are “independent experts” recommending that the media stay in the “positive” vein. Why not work out such “positive” operating procedures for the media? So they can focus not on what cannot be accomplished, but on what should be done. So far, apart from a thousand taboos, the Ukrainian media have received just one positive recommendation: illustrate different views. Also, there should be an independent editorial (individual journalist) stand, yet no supporting mechanisms are provided.
For this reason it will be quite some time before these questions are answered, while it would be naive to expect all the answers in the hustle and bustle of the election campaign. Still, the question of the campaign process has been raised, which is a positive sign.
