Kyiv is a challenge

Oppositionists and public figures actively urge Kyiv dwellers to come to the Verkhovna Rada on April 2 and make the MPs set a date for the local elections. It looks somewhat paradoxical, since it is our legislators’ direct duty. What is the problem, then?

The opposition failed to adequately assess the situation in 2008 and lost power in the capital. The dispersion of votes among a number of oppositionist candidates let Chernovetsky occupy the mayor’s post once again, even though he got only about 30 percent of votes. Today, the opposition faces a similar problem. Will it be able to propose a single candidate?

The opposition wants to compensate the absence of their majority in the parliament by people’s pressure near the Verkhovna Rada building. The next week’s Tuesday is the deadline for setting the elections date on June 2. Let us remind that the resolution about choosing a date for the elections was passed in the first reading only, then the Party of Regions appealed to the Constitutional Court with a request to clarify when the elections should take place.

The government has problems with support. Many think Popov to be a good administrator, but it will be hard for him to win, considering the overall attitude towards the Party of Regions. Even though recently the head of Kyiv City State Administration expressed his confidence in winning the mayoral elections, this is only possible if the opposition makes some bad mistakes or some radical changes take place in the capital (which does not sound very realistic after the “snow collapse”).

And another important moment. While discussing the election date, people often forget the main thing: the rules, according to which the elections must be held, and the future mayor’s authorities. These details are much more important than the election date and the list of possible candidates.

COMMENTARY

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD ELECTIONS ON JUNE 2

Volodymyr OLIINYK, MP, Party of Regions:

“Today, there are some problems of interpretation through the Constitutional Court. The Constitution says that the election must take place on the last Sunday of the corresponding council’s convocation. And the opposition says, let’s set a date, and then deal with amendments to the law on elections. It should be understood that a specific situation has emerged in Kyiv: there are no district councils. How should commissions be formed? What principles should be considered there?

“Obviously, the law on elections must be amended, in particular, the part about the two-round elections of the mayor. Ok, let’s move on. Who are we electing? If this is a city head with the currently existing powers, these powers are rather formal. The chosen mayor will be presiding over the session and have representative functions. But perhaps, Kyivites are waiting for powers that Omelchenko used to have once (he combined representative powers of the local community and powers of the head of the state administration). In this sense, we need to think over the changes and the necessity of amending the law on elections of the capital’s mayor. The opposition is trying to put the cart before the horse. There has never been anything like that.

“That is why I think that the opposition itself does not need these elections. Moreover, they cannot come up with a single candidate. We have no problems in this respect, Oleksandr Popov is our candidate, and they do have problems. Also, the opposition bears no responsibility for the legitimacy of the elections. We know that if problems appear during an election, observers criticize the government, and not the opposition. That is why the government is not interested in just holding elections. It must be a legitimate, transparent election.

“Concerning Popov’s popularity in Kyiv, I want to quote Tiahnybok’s words here. He said that if Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and Svoboda came up with any single candidate, he would be elected by all means. Yulia Tymoshenko thought the same way in 2008 about ‘any candidate’ and proposed Turchynov. As a result, the latter lost. That is why if I were Tiahnybok, I would not be so confident, because it may all end up in another fiasco.

“The voters are going to analyze things. Today, they can boast of some achievements in the capital’s infrastructure: bridges, interchanges, the subway. We are going to convince voters to give their votes to a person who is familiar with municipal economy and the life of local communities. Moreover, we do not know what it all will end up in. There have been threats to other candidates from the opposition, saying that those who run independently will be expelled from the party. Obviously, Klitschko will not run for the mayor, and neither will Yatseniuk, because he understands that Kyiv will ‘bury’ him, Tiahnybok will not do it either. So, it means that they need to look for somebody else. But a question arises here, why wasn’t Katerynchuk proposed as a candidate? This is the evidence that many oppositionist candidates may participate in the elections.

“The elections in the capital must be held only when we take care of all the preliminary legal collisions, including this Constitutional Court’s verdict. We have appealed to the Court, and now we are not going to pass a decision before we have got a ruling. The opposition did its best to slow down the process of setting the election date. The resolution on holding the election was registered in December. Why did the opposition block the podium and not let us pass a decision? It could all have been settled by now.

“If we talk about elections formats, I, as a former Cherkasy mayor, was chosen in two ways: in one-round and two-round elections. Both have their pros and cons. On the one hand, it is pleasant that two candidates pass to the second round and you enjoy the support of a great number of voters. But on the other, you must make a compromise, which hurts the local community. For example, those who lost, say: we are going to support you, but only if… In this situation, we need to listen to people, to analysts, and only then make a decision about the election date. Such things are not done in a rush. It is impossible to hold the election on June 2. They had known our terms: that we wanted the Constitutional Court’s verdict before voting for this resolution. The opposition just played along. But when they voted for our version, they saw that we were not making it. We have a legal stand, and they have a technological one.”

By Ivan KAPSAMUN, The Day