Mykhailo RIABETS: “The election will be a litmus test for Ukraine”
“Preparations for the next election begin the day after the last one” is one of Central Election Committee Chairman My khailo Riabets pet phrases. This is quite true with regard to the CEC. Now that the date officially starting the parliamentary election campaign is almost here, the process is entering its most active phase. Contacts between the CEC and the media are becoming more active. The Day was among the first to interview Mr. Riabets after he signed out of the hospital and after he met with US Ambassador Carlos Pascual. Naturally, the first question was about the meeting.
Riabets: We concentrated on how the campaign process would be organized. The ambassador wanted to know whether Ukrainian law provides for the transparency, fairness, and justice of the coming election as well as whether the central election committee is in a position to secure observance of the principles laid down in the parliamentary elections law. We further discussed the guidelines of cooperation under the US-Ukrainian program for the duration of the election campaign, in accordance with an agreement signed by our countries several years ago, and a memorandum signed this January. The program envisages a number of training sessions, seminars, conferences, and so on.
The Day: What do you think of the trip made by the leader of the Our Ukraine bloc to the United States, the sole purpose of which, in his own words, was to ask the Americans to help promote democratic elections in Ukraine? Is this an example worth being followed?
Riabets: I think we should secure transparent elections inside and not outside Ukraine. We must find the levers to pull to have the coming campaign conducted according to precisely such principles and see that one and all abide by the elections law, including central executive and local self-government authorities, political parties, candidates, their campaign headquarters, and so on. Believe me, no one will do this for us.
The Day: What does the CEC consider the biggest problem of the campaign?
Riabets: CEC personnel will be under a lot of strain at all stages. For example, the law gives us just five days to check the registration papers of the candidates put forward by deputies, political parties, and blocs. Say, 30 parties submit several documents for each of 225 names on the rosters. Can you picture that mountain of paper? Then we’ll have to cast lots 225 times (every district election committee will). Everything points to the CEC having to work two or three shifts without days off. Well, we are used to operating under an emergency schedule and extreme pressure from all sides. We are prepared to do so this time, just so we can strengthen and further build the Ukrainian state, and formulate a decent political system.
The Day: The CEC has proposed cash collateral instead of lists of voters’ signatures collected by parties and candidates.
Riabets: Yes, and I think this is an absolutely positive thing. The law has spelled out that such cash collateral is refunded only to those political parties and blocs that pass the 4% barrier. The rest of it is to go to the state budget, and part will be spent to cover budget disbursements and finance election arrangements. The same applies to the money transferred by the candidates to the accounts of the district election committees in the territorial districts. During the previous election, some 4,000 candidates registered in the majoritarian districts, and this with just 225 seats in parliament. Simple arithmetic will suffice to show how much the state budget will receive from this innovation. Anyway, there is now a certain barrier for those wishing to run in the election; apart from 225,000 hryvnias cash collateral, the parties and blocs will need a lot of money to raise their election funds, and their size could reach UAH 2,550,000. I don’t think there are many political parties that can afford this without being sure of victory.
The Day: How about the administrative resource, which is supposed to be used during the elections and which can be bought, meaning that the cash collateral can be paid for so many small-time political parties said to want to run in the elections, and thus get most members of the district election committees under their control?
Riabets: Those who think up and spread these schemes are taking an utterly unprofessional approach. The district election committees must be composed of representatives of absolutely all participants in the electoral process, so even if they turn out to have people from five or six such parties, I just can’t imagine how they will go about tampering with the returns. Besides, the law envisages the participation of official observers representing all interested parties in the arrangement of the elections and counting of votes. Considering all this, I can’t understand all this talk about rigging. Another thing is that parties, blocs, and candidates from majoritarian constituencies will have to figure out who to delegate to the election committees at all levels. If they bungle it, there is nothing the Central Election Committee will be able to do.
The Day: That’s true, but why is there all this noise about the administrative resource? Do all those people discussing the possibility of its redistribution realize that they are actually talking about the allocation of responsibilities for possible breaches of the elections law?
Riabets: Suppose we recommend all those talking about the crucial role of the administrative resource in winning the March elections that they first carefully read the elections law (for many obviously don’t know even its basic clauses) and then decide if it’s worth carrying on such useless discussions. Unlike all the previous ones, the current election law makes it perfectly clear that actions or inactivity by executive and self-government authorities, their officials, and so on, aimed at transgressing the elections law can be referred to a local court of law. If the court sees that the law has actually been broken, the guilty party will be punished severely. This means that those shouting about the administrative resource at every corner would do best to concentrate on measures to detect and record any such transgressions and timely protest them to a court of law. We must be ready to decisively block such actions instead of just complain. If we are, we won’t have any problems, although it’s true that a professional discussion of possible complications should be held.
The Day: We can see that other countries are paying more and more attention to the coming parliamentary elections in March. This is especially true of the United States. A lot of foreign observers are likely to arrive. Doesn’t it seem to you that March 31, 2001, will become a sort of turning point in Ukrainian history? That the Ukrainian image will either noticeably improve or suffer irreparable damage?
Riabets: I think the coming election will be a litmus test; the international community will pass judgment on Ukraine’s progress and democratic reform. We must, however, realize that our prestige depends not on the number of foreign observers, but on the Ukrainian state, its institutions in general, and every citizen in particular. Therefore, we must see that Ukraine’s prestige is enhanced, not just because this election campaign is in the limelight with the world community of nations. The need to have transparent elections must flow from the inner desire of each and everyone involved in or with this process. And we are practically all involved in this.
