See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 13641
| 17 November 2014
Observation of the early parliamentary elections in Ukraine (26 October 2014)
1. Introduction
1. On 26 August 2014, Mr Petro Poroshenko, President
of Ukraine, dissolved the Verkhovna Rada and called for early parliamentary
elections on 26 October 2014. The Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Mr Oleksandr
Turchynov, invited the Parliamentary Assembly to observe these elections.
2. At its meeting on 2 September 2014, the Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly decided to observe the early parliamentary elections and
authorised a pre-electoral mission, to take place one month before
the election. On 29 September, the Bureau approved the composition
of the ad hoc committee, made up of 40 members plus the two co-rapporteurs
from the Monitoring Committee (see Appendix 1), took note of the declarations
of absence of conflict of interests of the candidates for the observer
mission and appointed Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EC) as
Chairperson.
3. On 4 October 2004, a co-operation agreement was signed by
the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission on Democracy
through Law (the “Venice Commission”). In pursuance of Article 15
of this Agreement, “[w]hen the Bureau of the Assembly decides to
observe an election in a country in which electoral legislation
was previously examined by the Venice Commission, one of the rapporteurs
of the Venice Commission on this issue may be invited to join the
Assembly's election observation mission as legal adviser”, the Bureau
invited an expert from the Venice Commission to join the ad hoc
committee as an adviser.
4. The ad hoc committee formed part of the International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM), which also comprised delegations from
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the European Parliament and the Parliamentary
Assembly of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well
as the Election Observation Mission conducted by OSCE’s Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR).
5. The ad hoc committee present in Kyiv from 24 to 27 October
2014 met, amongst others, with representatives of the parties standing
for election, the President of the Central Election Commission (CEC), the
Head of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission and her staff,
the Heads of the Council of Europe Office in Ukraine, of the OSCE
mission in Ukraine, of the European Union delegation and of the
NATO Office, and civil society and media representatives. The programme
of the ad hoc committee’s meetings appears in Appendix 2.
6. On election day, the ad hoc committee formed 21 teams to observe
the elections in the cities and the region of Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk,
Kharkiv, Lviv, Odessa and surrounding areas.
7. In order to assess the organisation of the election campaign
and the political climate, the Bureau had previously authorised
a pre-electoral mission to Ukraine from 6 to 9 October 2014. The
multiparty delegation was composed of Christopher Chope, Chairperson
(United Kingdom, EC), Arcadio Díaz Tejera (Spain, SOC), Tinatin
Bokuchava (Georgia, EPP/CD), Karl Garđasson (Iceland, ALDE), Andrej
Hunko (Germany, UEL), Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, co-rapporteur
of the Monitoring Committee (ex officio)
(Sweden) and Mailis Reps, co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee
(ex officio) (Estonia). The
statement issued by the pre-electoral delegation at the close of
its mission appears in Appendix 3.
8. The International Election Observation Mission concluded that
“[t]he 26 October early parliamentary elections marked an important
step in consolidating democratic elections in line with international commitments,
and were characterised by many positive aspects, including an impartial
and efficient Central Election Commission (CEC), competitive contests
that offered voters real choice, and general respect for fundamental
freedoms”. The Chairperson of the PACE ad hoc committee declared
that “[the Ukrainian people] have chosen a new Verkhovna Rada, which
will be very different in composition from its predecessor. By doing so,
the Ukrainians have shown their desire for action to address their
needs. The Verkhovna Rada must now accept this new mandate in the
same spirit and work quickly to implement reforms, many of which
are long overdue. The PACE and Venice Commission are ready to assist
in this urgent and important work”. The IEOM press release published
after the elections appears in Appendix 4.
9. The ad hoc committee would like to thank the OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission and the Council of Europe Office in Kyiv for
their co-operation and support.
2. Legal
framework and political context
10. The early parliamentary elections on 26 October 2014
were the twelfth parlementary or presidential elections since Ukraine
joined the Council of Europe in 1995. Since 1994, the Parliamentary
Assembly has observed every parliamentary and presidential election
held in Ukraine.
11. Despite strong demand by civil society, the outgoing parliament
did not pass a comprehensive electoral reform package before these
elections were called. One of the key demands of the Euromaidan
movement was the reform of the electoral system in order to eliminate
single-mandate constituencies, which have been disproportionately
vulnerable to fraud in Ukraine in the past. Representatives of non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) also advocated for “open” rather than “closed” party lists,
which would allow voters to express a preference regarding the order
in which candidates are elected, making the parties more accountable
to voters.
12. From 8 to 11 July 2014, during their last visit to Ukraine,
the two co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring committee of the Assembly
noted that “neither comprehensive electoral reform nor the adoption
of a Unified Election Code is planned by the authorities and the
Verkhovna Rada to be adopted. The Assembly urged that this system
be based on multiple regional constituencies (and thus candidate
lists) and not on one single national constituency. The latter could
lead to a composition of the Verkhovna Rada that is, or would be perceived
as, dominated by the central party structures in Kyiv, and not seen
as being genuinely representative of the interests of all Ukrainian
citizens in all parts of the country. This will be compounded by
the difficulties, in the current context, of organising elections
in the east of the country”.
13. In this regard, the ad hoc committee for the observation of
the early elections in Ukraine recalls in particular Assembly
Resolution 1988 (2014) which called on the Ukrainian authorities to adopt a
unified Election Code, on the basis of which new parliamentary elections
should be promptly organised when technically and politically feasible.
The 26 October early parliamentary elections took place before many
of the electoral reforms had been implemented. As a result, the
concerns regarding the legal framework that characterised the 2012
parliamentary elections remain valid in 2014.
14. The legal framework for these elections is established by:
the Constitution; the Law on the Election of the People’s Deputies,
adopted in 2011; the Law on the Central Election Commission; the
Law on the State Register of Voters; the Law on Political Parties;
the Code of Administrative Proceedings, and the regulations of the
Central Election Commission. The Law on the Election of the People’s
Deputies was modified in 2013 and in April 2014. However, although
the amendments introduced some improvements following previous Assembly
recommendations and Venice Commission opinions, a number of concerns
remained unaddressed:
- limitations
on candidacy rights for those with a criminal record;
- the five-year residency requirement;
- the lack of provisions allowing for party blocs;
- the lack of meaningful campaign finance regulations;
- the lack of pluralism in the election administration due
the existing formula for the composition of district election commissions
(DECs) and precinct election commissions (PECs).
15. Before the presidential election on 25 May 2014, the following
changes were introduced to parliamentary election legislation:
- election districts and precincts
to be the same as those established for the last parliamentary elections; this
is a positive change from the old framework, which provided for
temporary districts and precincts that changed with each election;
- the new law has improved the accuracy of the voter lists,
by prohibiting changes to the lists on election day;
- a quorum of the majority of members of the electoral commission
is now required in order to take decisions;
- procedures for printing ballot papers have been improved;
- decisions of the CEC and DECs are now to be published
on the CEC website in order to make the electoral process more transparent;
- arrangements regarding media coverage of elections have
been improved.
16. The Verkhovna Rada is elected for a five-year term. The new
Law on the Election of the People’s Deputies has brought back the
hybrid parallel system which was in place in 1998 and 2002. Half
of the 450 deputies are elected under a proportional system of fixed
party lists within a single constituency. The remaining 225 deputies
are elected in single-mandate constituencies under a single-ballot
system (the best-placed candidate obtains the seat). In order to
take part in the allocation of mandates under the proportional ballot,
political parties must obtain at least 5% of the votes cast, as
compared with 3% for previous elections.
17. According to representatives of civil society and independent
experts, the overall system gives disproportionate advantages to
established parties and incumbents, especially in the context of
the shortened time frame of early elections, making it difficult
for new entrants to translate electoral support into representation.
3. Administration
of the elections, registration of candidates and voters
18. The CEC is a permanent body comprising 15 members
appointed by the Verkhovna Rada for a 7-year term. The work carried
out by the CEC during the election period was independent and professional.
It held regular meetings which were open to party representatives,
candidates, the media and observers. However, according to OSCE/ODIHR
long-term observers, the CEC also held some meetings behind closed
doors, which decreased the transparency of its work.
19. The CEC President informed the PACE observation delegation
that 213 DECs and 29 977 PECs were established for the early parliamentary
elections. Concerning the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, no DECs were
established for the 10 election districts in Crimea or for the two
districts in the city of Sevastopol.
20. The 18 members of each DEC are appointed by the CEC on the
basis of party nominations. Parties with parliamentary groups have
guaranteed representation in the district commissions. The other
seats are filled by a single drawing of lots for all the constituencies
among the 29 political parties which stood in these elections and
the majority candidates registered in the single-seat constituencies.
The CEC also informed the PACE delegation that the necessary funds
had been allocated by the authorities for these elections
21. According to the CEC, in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk
there are around 5.2 million registered electors. While electoral
authorities made significant efforts to organise elections throughout
the country, the hostile security environment in parts of the Donetsk
and Luhansk oblasts negatively
affected electoral preparations in a relatively high number of electoral
districts there. Out of 32 DECs in these two regions, only 17 could
fully or partially operate on election day. According to the election
law, a DEC has the obligation to establish election results regardless
of the number of PECs declared invalid. In order to facilitate the participation
of the electors from those parts of Ukraine and assure the security
of the functioning of the election administration, several DECs
were moved to the government-controlled areas.
22. In this regard, the PACE pre-electoral delegation, during
its visit to Kyiv from 6 to 9 October, asked the authorities of
Ukraine “to take additional measures to ensure the security of the
electoral process, including the security of the election administration’s
members, the transfer of electoral material and the security of
polling stations”.
23. According to the preliminary report of the International Election
Observation Mission, “[s]ince 9 September, 2 207 of the 3 769 DEC
members (58.8%) have been replaced. Replacements occurred in all DECs
with 588 replacements in Donetsk and Luhansk
oblasts”.
The first wave of replacements of
members of election commissions started shortly after their formation
and continued up until election day, thereby affecting the work
of both the DECs and the PECs. In some cases, half or more than
half of the members of the commissions were replaced.
24. The PACE delegation was informed by the CEC and by some NGOs
that various electoral assistance programmes had been successfully
implemented by the Council of Europe in the context of the early parliamentary
elections in Ukraine: projects with the NGOs “Committee of Voters
of Ukraine” and “OPORA” on training approximately 1 500 domestic
observers on international standards and writing of election observation reports.
On 7 October, the Venice Commission, in co-operation with the High
Administrative Court of Ukraine, organised a workshop in Kyiv on
election disputes resolution for the judges of the High Administrative
Court and 15 judges from regional courts.
25. The Central Election Commission registered 29 party lists
and 3 556 candidates running in single-mandate districts (43 parties
registered candidates in single-mandate constituencies); among the
registered candidates around two thirds were members of the current
Verkhovna Rada. Women constituted around 25% of party list candidates
and around 13% of the single-mandate candidates.
26. The PACE delegation was informed about cases of rejection
of candidates and inconsistent application of rules on candidate
registration. The CEC informed the delegation that 640 candidates
had been rejected, in most cases because of missing data in autobiographies
or incompatibility statements, but no cases had been reported of
candidates being rejected for political reasons. Some CEC decisions
had been appealed against and, as a result, 49 candidates were registered
based on court decisions.
27. According to the CEC, 35 828 401 voters were registered to
vote, including 460 000 registered to vote in 112 polling stations
abroad. The ad hoc committee noted with satisfaction that its interlocutors
expressed confidence in the accuracy of the voters lists, which
had been a recurrent problem in previous parliamentary elections.
28. Concerning the voters from Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the CEC adopted a simplified
procedure to facilitate the participation of internally displaced
persons (IDPs). Voters from the Crimean peninsula had a similar
simplified procedure. As of the 20 October deadline, some 190 200
voters had requested to temporarily change their voting address,
including 3 600 voters from the Crimean peninsula, and some 32 800
voters from the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Some
25 000 Ukrainian military personnel located in the armed conflict
zone could vote only for the party lists.
4. Campaign environment
and campaign financing, and media coverage
29. The election campaign was conducted in very challenging
circumstances, due to the continuing war in the eastern part of
Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.
The election campaign was visible and competitive. The biggest political
issues centred on the security of the country, the peace plan negotiated
in Minsk in September, sovereignty, stability and national unity,
as well as issues of decentralisation. Other main issues of the
election campaign were the reform of the economy, the electoral system,
the fight against corruption, lustration law, and relations with
the European Union and the Russian Federation.
30. The PACE observation delegation was informed by different
interlocutors of numerous cases of irregularities during the election
campaign: intimidation and violence against candidates or their representatives
associated, in general, with the former government; as well as destruction
of campaign offices or tents. According to the Ministry of Internal
Affairs of Ukraine, 572 election-related complaints and incidents were
registered, including 141 cases of voter bribery which were under
investigation.
According to the OSCE/ODIHR interim report,
“some of these incidents have taken place in plain view of uniformed
police and in many cases video recordings have been uploaded on
the internet. Moreover, on several occasions the campaign rhetoric
has featured violent themes or strong verbal attacks on competitors,
further aggravating the already sensitive campaign environment”.
31. The PACE delegation noted with satisfaction that, unlike in
past elections, the misuse of administrative resources was not an
issue in this election campaign. Various interlocutors reported
that in some single- mandate constituencies there were so-called
“technical” candidates with the same or similar family names. Such
candidates allegedly played into the hands of the main candidates
by appointing representatives to the electoral commissions who often
had neither the intention nor the potential to be elected.
32. The Ukrainian electorate was divided into two main groups:
supporters of the pro-European movement and those supporting the
pro-Russian orientation. The pro-Russian electorate was represented
by the parties Strong Ukraine, the Civic Bloc and the Communist
Party. The Party of Regions did not take part in the elections with
a party list, but some of its members were running in single-mandate
districts or as self-nominated candidates.
33. The pro-European camp was composed of two different and divided
groups: a “peace party” group which was in favour of finding a compromise
solution to the conflict in the east of the country; and a “war
party” group opting for a military solution. The first group was
made up of the Poroshenko Bloc and the Union of Democratic Alliance
for Reform (UDAR); the second was composed of other pro-European
parties led by Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, the Head of the People’s
Front, advocating a military solution, possibly for tactical reasons,
in order to try to defeat Batkivshchyna, its main rival. During
the meeting with the pre-electoral delegation, the representatives
of the Poroshenko Bloc and the People’s Front did not exclude the
possibility of establishing a coalition in the newly elected parliament.
34. During its pre-electoral visit to Kyiv, the PACE delegation
met the leaders and representatives of six political parties: the
Petro Poroshenko Bloc, the All-Ukrainian Batkivshchyna, the People’s
Front, the Civic Position Political Party, the Communist Party of
Ukraine and the All-Ukrainian Svoboda. The delegation regrets that
the three other political parties invited to meet the PACE delegation
were not able to participate in the meetings, namely the Oleh Lashko
Radical Party, Strong Ukraine and the Opposition Bloc.
35. The Petro Poroshenko Bloc (PPB) was founded in 2001 as the
Solidarity Party, and has had its present name since August 2014.
It is formally led by Yuri Lutsenko, but effectively by Petro Poroshenko,
who created the party. The adoption of a common list of candidates
with the UDAR party enabled it to use that party’s large-scale structures,
which the Poroshenko Bloc itself lacks. The PPB electoral programme
is based on the following commitments: decentralisation of power;
Ukrainian language as the only State language with the development
of other “regional” languages; lustration and fight against corruption;
European Union membership. The PPB has declared itself to be in
favour of a peaceful solution to the conflict in the eastern regions
of Ukraine.
36. The Oleh Lyashko Radical Party was founded in 2010 as the
Ukrainian Radical-Democratic Party, and has had its present name
and leadership since 2011. During the 2014 early presidential election,
Lyashko came in third, with 8.32% of the vote. The party programme
is based on national unity and liberation, illegalisation of the
Communist party of Ukraine and the Party of Regions, lustration
and the fight against the oligarchy. It is considered as a typical
one-man party, centred on Oleh Lyashko, member of the Verkhovna Rada.
The party is in favour of the use of force to resolve the conflict
in the eastern regions of Ukraine.
37. The All-Ukrainian Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) Association was
founded in 1999, and has been led since the beginning by Yulia Tymoshenko.
Until September 2014, it was one of the principal political parties
of Ukraine, but since the split between Yulia Tymoshenko, Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and the Speaker of the Parliament Oleksandr
Turchynov, the electoral potential of Batkivshchyna has been undermined.
Its programme is based on the following commitments: strong professional
army and new military doctrine; independence of energy supplies
from the Russian Federation; decentralisation of power; lustration
and the fight against corruption. The party is in favour of the
use of force to resolve the conflict in the eastern regions of Ukraine.
38. The People’s Front was formed in March 2014, and since September
has been under the direction of the Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
and Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Turchynov. The party mainly
absorbed people and structures from Batkivshchyna. Its programme
is based on the following commitments: euro-Atlantic integration;
new military doctrine; lustration and the fight against corruption; decentralisation
of power; energy-field development. The People’s Front has declared
itself to be in favour of the use of force to resolve the conflict
in the eastern regions of Ukraine.
39. The party Samopomich (Self-Reliance) was registered in December
2012. The party’s list includes representatives of the volunteer
battalion “Donbas” and several activists from civil society. The
mayor of Lviv, Andriy Sadovyy, appeared in 50th position on the
list. The programme of Samopomich is based on the following ideas:
decentralisation; withdrawal of deputies’ immunity; lustration and
the fight against corruption; new military doctrine; and rejection
of neutrality.
40. The Civic Position (CP) was founded in 2010 by Anatoliy Hrytsenko,
former defence minister of Ukraine. During the 2012 parliamentary
elections CP joined Batkivshchyna, but later abandoned the bloc.
In the 2014 presidential election, Hrytsenko finished fourth with
5.48% of the vote. CP’s programme is based on the following commitments:
a strong army and well-organised defence; lustration and the fight
against corruption. The party has declared itself to be in favour
of the use of force to resolve the conflict in the eastern regions
of Ukraine.
41. The Communist Party of Ukraine was founded in 1993 (after
the lifting of the ban on the activities of communist parties).
It has been led since the beginning by Petro Symonenko. The party
programme is based on the fight against fascism and nationalism,
on the federalisation of Ukraine, the use of Russian as an official State
language and closer relations with the Russian Federation. During
the meeting with the pre-electoral delegation, Petro Symonenko declared
that his party was for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and
did not support the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine.
42. The Opposition Bloc was founded in September 2014 following
the merger of six small political groups (at the last minute, the
Party of Regions decided not to join). Its programme is based on
the following commitments: adoption of a new constitution; fiscal
autonomy for the regions; reconciliation with the Russian Federation,
Russian language as a second State language. The party is in favour
of a peaceful solution to the conflict in the eastern regions of
Ukraine.
43. The Serhiy Tihipko Strong Ukraine party was founded in 1999
under the name of the Labour Party of Ukraine. It has had its current
name and leader (Serhiy Tihipko) since 2009. Between 2012 and 2014
it disbanded (its leader became Vice-Prime Minister and the party’s
members entered the Party of Regions). The party was revived in
August 2014. Its programme is based on the ideas of peace and national
unity, local elections in Donbas, direct elections of governors
of regions, economic development and foreign investment. The party
is in favour of a peaceful solution to the conflict in the eastern
regions of Ukraine.
44. The All-Ukrainian Svoboda (Freedom) Association was founded
in 1991 as the Ukrainian Social-Nationalist Party, and has used
its present name since 2004. Its leader is Oleh Tiahnybok. Its programme
is right-wing, nationalist-conservative. The party is in favour
of the use of force to resolve the conflict in the eastern regions
of Ukraine.
45. As regards the financing of the election campaign, the law
stipulates that parties with candidate lists and majoritarian candidates
must establish electoral funds from which all campaign expenses
must be paid directly by bank transfer. The size of an electoral
fund for a party with a candidate list may not exceed 90 000 times the
minimum salary (some UAH 112.5 million or less than €7 million),
while for a majoritarian candidate it may not exceed 4 000 times
the minimum salary (some UAH 5 million or just over €300 000). The
source of funds is limited to the party’s or candidate’s own resources
and private donations. Interim financial reports on the receipt
and use of funds must be filed no later than 20 days before election
day, with the CEC by parties and with DECs by majoritarian candidates.
46. The Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption
(GRECO) has frequently stressed the need for more robust legal mechanisms
to regulate the financing of election campaigns in Ukraine, to reinforce
the transparency and accountability to voters, and to investigate
allegations of violations of the rules on political party financing.
The law remains vague on the information that has to be included
in the financial reports to be submitted to the CEC and the reports
do not have to be published. There are no sanctions for not submitting the
reports or sending incomplete or false information. The Venice Commission
has consistently stressed in its opinions the need to review the
legislation on campaign financing in a comprehensive manner.
Unfortunately, these
recommendations remain unaddressed and election campaign financing
enforcement mechanisms remain weak.
47. A broadcasting Law was adopted on 14 May 2014 and seems to
have taken up some of the recommendations made previously, namely
requiring State-controlled media to give way to public service broadcasting,
granting contestants free airtime and print space in State national
and regional media; making the CEC and DECs responsible for the
allocation of the free time and space, and authorising paid campaign materials
on both State and private media. The National Television and Radio
Broadcasting Council are responsible for overseeing compliance of
audiovisual media with the election law. The law prohibits the dissemination
of defamatory or deliberately false information on candidates, although
these two notions are not clearly defined. It also prohibits certain
kinds of speech, such as incitement to violence or inter-ethnic
hatred.
48. Ukraine has a wide range of pluralistic media outlets and
the conditions for free and equal access of political parties in
this election campaign have been significantly improved, particularly
on public television channels. In a positive initiative, the First
National Channel organised and broadcast “National Debates” between
political parties. However, the safety of the work of journalists
in the conflict zone of Ukraine remains a matter of serious concern;
they received constant threats, and some have been abducted and
killed.
49. According to the ODIHR media monitoring report, President
Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk took unfair advantage of
their positions with televised appeals to voters to elect a pro-reform
parliament on the eve of the election during the campaign silence
period.
50. The PACE delegation was informed about the persistent problem
of the lack of transparency of media ownership concentrated in the
hands of wealthy individuals with close connections to political
parties. This situation limits the impartiality of the news and
the rights of voters to make informed electoral choices.
5. Election day
51. Election day was quiet and well organised. The ad
hoc committee noted the well-ordered running of the election. The
voting and vote-counting operations were generally conducted in
a professional and calm manner. The members of the polling stations
co-operated fully with observers.
52. The ad hoc committee identified a number of technical shortcomings
in the polling stations visited:
- cases
were noted of unintentional non-compliance with vote-counting procedures
in some polling stations;
- cases were noted of unintentional non-compliance with
procedures of establishment of protocols;
- some polling station premises were overcrowded, particularly
during vote-counting;
- in many polling stations, there were very few observers
from civil society;
- on the whole, the polling stations were inaccessible or
difficult to access for persons with disabilities.
53. According to the official results announced by the CEC on
10 November, under the proportional system, the People’s Front obtained
22.14% of the votes cast (64 seats), the Petro Poroshenko Bloc –
21.81% (63 seats); the Somopomich Union – 10.97% (32 seats); the
Opposition bloc – 9.43% (27 seats); the Radical Party of Oleg Liashko
– 7.44% (22 seats); and Batkivshchyna – 5.68% (17 seats). The number
of seats obtained by parties, including the results of the single-mandate
constituencies (see paragraph 16 above): Petro Poroshenko Bloc –
132 seats; People’s Front – 82 seats; Somopomich Union – 33 seats;
Opposition bloc – 29 seats; Radical Party of Oleg Liashko – 22 seats;
Batkivshchyna – 19 seats; Svoboda – 6 seats; Strong Ukraine – 1
seat; Volia party – 1 seat; Zastup – 1 seat; and Right sector –
1 seat. According to the results, 94 independents candidates are
elected. The other 23 parties standing in the elections failed to
reach the 5% threshold for a parliamentary seat. The turnout was
52.42%; the highest turnout was in the Lviv region, 7%, and the
lowest in the Donetsk region, 32.40%.
6. Conclusions
and recommendations
54. The PACE ad hoc committee concluded that the 26 October
2014 early parliamentary elections in Ukraine marked an important
step in consolidating democratic elections in line with international
commitments, and were characterised by many positive aspects, including
an impartial and efficient Central Election Commission, competitive
contests that offered voters a real choice, and general respect
for fundamental freedoms.
55. Election day was quiet and well organised. The ad hoc committee
noted the well-ordered running of the election. The voting and vote-counting
operations were generally conducted in a professional and calm manner.
The members of the polling stations co-operated fully with observers.
56. With regard to the legal framework, the ad hoc committee pointed
out that, despite strong demand backed by civil society, the outgoing
Verkhovna Rada had failed to pass a comprehensive electoral reform package
before these elections were called. One of the key demands of the
Euromaidan movement was the reform of the electoral system in order
to eliminate single-mandate constituencies, which have been disproportionately
vulnerable to fraud in Ukraine in the past. In this regard, the
ad hoc committee recalls in particular Assembly
Resolution 1988 (2014) asking the Ukrainian authorities to adopt a unified
Election Code.
57. The election campaign was conducted in very challenging circumstances,
due to the continuing armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine
and the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.
The election campaign was nevertheless visible and competitive.
Unlike in past elections, the misuse of administrative resources
was not an issue during this election campaign The ad hoc committee
welcomes the significant efforts of the electoral authorities to
facilitate the participation of the electors from eastern parts
of Ukraine in the election and to assure the security of the electoral
process.
58. The PACE observation delegation was informed by different
interlocutors of numerous cases of irregularities during the election
campaign, including cases of intimidation and violence against candidates
or their representatives associated, in general, with the former
government, the destruction of campaign offices or tents, and allegations
of voter bribery, which are under investigation. Moreover, on several
occasions the campaign rhetoric featured violent themes or strong
verbal attacks on competitors, further aggravating the already sensitive
campaign environment.
59. Therefore, the PACE delegation strongly condemned any violence
and asked the relevant authorities of Ukraine to investigate all
cases thoroughly. The delegation also deplored the phenomenon of
so-called “technical” candidates present in a number of single-mandate
constituencies who allegedly played into the hands of the main candidates
by appointing representatives to the electoral commissions who often
had neither the intention nor the potential to be elected. This
decreases the electors’ confidence in the democratic election process.
60. With regard to party funding and the financing of the election
campaign, the ad hoc committee regrets that the recommendations
of the Venice Commission and of GRECO remain largely unaddressed.
For many interlocutors, the public perceptions of corruption are
pervasive and undermine confidence in the political process.
61. Concerning the media coverage of the election campaign, the
conditions for free and equal access of political parties have been
significantly improved, particularly on public television channels.
In a positive initiative, the First National Channel organised and
broadcast “National Debates” between political parties. The PACE
delegation was informed about the persistent problem of the lack
of transparency of media ownership concentrated in the hands of
wealthy individuals with close connections to political parties.
This situation limits the impartiality of the news and the ability
of voters to make informed electoral choices.
62. The ad hoc committee considers that the Parliamentary Assembly
should continue its close co-operation with the newly elected Ukrainian
Parliament, by means of its monitoring procedure, and with the Venice Commission,
in order to resolve the problems noted during the early parliamentary
elections on 26 October 2014 and further consolidate the whole electoral
process. Consequently, the ad hoc committee invites the Ukrainian
authorities to:
- adopt a unified
electoral code, as recommended by the Assembly in its Resolution 1988 (2014), as well as by the Venice Commission in its joint opinions
of 2013;
- reform the electoral system by improving regional representation
and increasing voters’ influence over their representatives in parliament,
by adopting a multi-constituency proportional representation system;
- fully implement the recommendations of the Assembly and
GRECO in order to reinforce the transparency of political party
and election campaign financing;
- conduct effective investigations into the irregularities
identified during the elections; establish the responsibilities
of those responsible for these irregularities and any others working
behind the scenes, and inform the Assembly of the outcome as soon
as possible;
- examine the means of simplifying the complex vote- and
ballot-counting procedures on the day of the election;
- organise further training courses for members of the polling
stations, particularly in rural areas, in order to improve their
command of procedures on the day of the election.
63. The PACE ad hoc committee considers that the Council of Europe
and its Parliamentary Assembly, through its different co-operation
programmes, should continue to assist Ukraine in implementing these important
reforms
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
(open)
Based on proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Christopher CHOPE* (United Kingdom,
EC), Chairperson of the ad hoc committee
- Socialist Group (SOC)
- Claude ADAM, Luxembourg
- Deniz BAYKAL, Turkey
- Philippe BLANCHART, Belgium
- Arcadio DIAZ TEJERA,* Spain
- Tadeusz IWIŃSKI, Poland
- Fatma PEHLIVAN, Belgium
- Frank SCHWABE, Germany
- Kostas TRIANTAFYLLOS, Greece
- Birute VESAITE, Lithuania
- Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Pedro
AGRAMUNT, Spain
- Mónika BARTOS, Hungary
- Tinatin BOKUCHAVA,* Georgia
- Lolita ČIGĀNE, Latvia
- Jim D’ARCY, Ireland
- Şaban DİŞLİ, Turkey
- Catherine NOONE, Ireland
- José Ignacio PALACIOS, Spain
- Andrej ŠIRCELJ, Slovenia
- Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Lithuania
- European Conservatives Group
(EC)
- Richard BALFE,
United Kingdom
- Christopher CHOPE,* United Kingdom
- Sir Roger GALE, United Kingdom
- Ingebjørg GODSKESEN, Norway
- Ömer SELVI, Turkey
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Marieluise
BECK, Germany
- Karl GARDARSSON,* Iceland
- Alfred HEER, Switzerland
- Judith OEHRI, Liechtenstein
- Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI, Georgia
- Jordi XUCLÀ, Spain
- Kristyna ZELIENKOVÀ, Czech Republic
- Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL)
- Andrej
HUNKO,* Germany
- Ögmundur JÓNASSON, Iceland
- Co-Rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee (ex officio)
- Marietta
de POURBAIX-LUNDIN,* Sweden
- Mailis REPS,* Estonia
- Venice Commission
- Paloma BIGLINO CAMPOS, Spain
- Secretariat
- Chemavon CHAHBAZIAN, Head of
Secretariat a.i., Interparliamentary Co-operation and Election Observation
Division
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Interparliamentary Co-operation
and Election Observation Division
- Véronique FREUND, Assistant
- Nathalie BARGELLINI, Press Officer
- Amaya UBEDA DE TORRES, Administrator, Venice Commission
- Tom VAN DIJCK, Secretary of the EC Group
* members of the pre-election delegation (6-9 October 2014)
Appendix 2 – Programme of
the election observation mission (24-27 October 2014)
(open)
Friday,
24 October 2014
09:00-09:50 Meeting of the ad hoc committee
- briefing on the pre-electoral
mission by Mr Christopher Chope, Head of the PACE Delegation
- briefing by members of the pre-electoral mission
- briefing by Mr Vladimir Ristovski, Representative of the
Secretary General in charge of the co‑ordination of co-operation
programmes, Head of the Council of Europe Office in Kyiv
- briefing on recent modifications of election legislation,
by Ms Paloma Biglino Campos from the Venice Commission
- practical and logistical arrangements, Secretariat
Joint parliamentary briefings
10:00-10:15 Opening by the Heads of Parliamentary Delegations:
- Mr Kent Härstedt, Special Co-ordinator
and Leader of the short-term OSCE observer mission
- Ms Doris Barnett, Head of Delegation, OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly
- Mr Christopher Chope, Head of Delegation, PACE
- Mr Andrej Plenković, Head of Delegation, European Parliament
- Ms Rasa Jukneviciene, Head of Delegation, NATO Parliamentary
Assembly
10:15-10:45 Introduction by local offices:
- Ambassador Vaidotas Verba, OSCE
Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine
- Ambassador Vladimir Ristovski, Head of the Council of
Europe Office in Ukraine
- Ambassador Jan Tombiński, Head of the Delegation of the
European Union to Ukraine
- Mr Marcin Koziel, Head of the NATO Liaison Office in Ukraine
10:45-12:15 Briefing by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission:
- Welcome and overview
of the EOM's work – Ms Tana de Zulueta, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR EOM
- Political overview, the candidates and the election campaign,
participation of women, participation of national minorities – Mr
Stefan Szwed, Political Analyst
- Media overview and media campaign– Mr Pietro Tesfamariam,
Media Analyst
- Electoral legal framework and legal aspects – Mr Armen
Mazmanyan, Legal Analyst
- Election administration, candidate registration and voter
registration – Mr Vladimir Misev and Mr Kakha Inaishvili, Election
Analysts
- Election day procedures and statistical analysis – Mr
Kakha Inaishvili, Election Analyst, and Mr Anders Uno Eriksson,
Statistical Analyst
- Security – Mr Davor Ćorluka, Security Expert
- Questions
13:45-14:30 Mr Mykhaylo Okhendovsky, Chairperson of the Central
Election Commission of Ukraine
14:30-17:30 Meetings with political party representatives:
- Ms Iryna Herashchenko, MP,
Bloc Poroshenko, Envoy to Peace Plan for Eastern Ukraine of the
2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine
- Mr Igor Popov, First Deputy Head of the Election Headquarters,
Oleh Lyashko’s Radical Party
- Mr Serhiy Vlasenko and Mr Borys Tarasyuk, MPs, Batkivshchyna
- Mr Leonid Emets, MP, People’s Front
- Mr Petro Symonenko, Chairperson of the Communist Party
of Ukraine
- Mr Mikola Garmash, Deputy Head of the Election Headquarters,
Svoboda
17:30-18:15 Panel with representatives of the mass media:
- Mr Andrii Saichuk, Journalist,
Hromadske TV
- Ms Olga Herasymyuk, First Deputy Chairman, National Television
and Radio Broadcasting Council
- Mr Taras Shevchenko, Director, Institute of Media Law
18:20-19:00 Meetings with political party representatives
(continued)
18:20-18:40 Mr Yuriy Boyko, Chairperson, and Ms Yulia Levochkina,
MP, Opposition Bloc
18:40-19:00 Mr Oleg Kanivets, Deputy Chairperson, Civic Position
Saturday, 25
October 2014
09:30-10:15 Panel with representatives of civil society:
- Mr Vitaliy Teslenko, Executive
Director of the NGO Committee of Voters of Ukraine
- Ms Olha Ayvazovska, Chairperson, Opora
- Mr Gavin Weise, Deputy Director for Europe and Asia, IFES
10:15-11:00 Area specific briefings by the OSCE/ODIHR Long-Term
Observers for Kyiv and the Kyiv Region
11:00 Meeting with interpreters and drivers
Sunday, 26 October
2014
07:00-20:00 Observation in polling stations
After 20:00 Observation of closing and counting
Monday, 27 October
2014
08:00-09:00 PACE ad hoc committee debriefing meeting for members
deployed in Kyiv and the regions
14:30 Press conference
Appendix 3 – Statement by
the pre-electoral delegation
(open)
Kyiv, 26.10.2014 – With regard to the legal
framework, the PACE pre-electoral delegation recalls the Assembly’s
resolutions, in particular Resolution
1988 (2014) asking the Ukrainian authorities to adopt a unified Election
Code, on which basis new parliamentary elections should be promptly
organised when technically and politically feasible. The early parliamentary
elections will take place before many of the electoral reforms have been
implemented. We regret that the existing Verkhovna Rada was unable
to agree on the necessary legislation. That makes it the all-important
to have early elections so that a newly-elected Verkhovna Rada can implement
electoral and other important reforms which are long overdue.
The election campaign is being conducted in very challenging
circumstances, due to the continuing war in the eastern part of
Ukraine and the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea. The delegation
understands the decision to hold early elections and is impressed
by the efforts being made to ensure that as many people as possible are
able to participate, including internally displaced persons. The
biggest political issues centre on the future security of the country
and the peace plan negotiated in Minsk in September.
The delegation notes that seats will be kept in the new Verkhovna
Rada for MPs from those parts of Donetsk and Louhansk regions where
it will not be possible for security reasons to hold elections.
Likewise seats will also be kept for those from Crimea whose territory
has been annexed.
The pre-electoral delegation was informed by certain interlocutors
about some cases of intimidation and physical violence towards candidates
and their representatives. The delegation strongly condemns any violence
and has been assured by the relevant authorities that they will
investigate all cases thoroughly.
Concerning the financing of the election campaign, the Council
of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) has frequently
stressed the need for more robust legal mechanisms to increase the
transparency of political financing of election campaigns. Unfortunately,
many recommendations still remain unaddressed and the delegation
hopes that the new Verkhovna Rada will be able to address these
issues as a top priority.
Ukraine has a wide range of pluralistic media outlets and,
according to different interlocutors, the conditions for free and
equal access of political parties in election campaigns have significantly
improved, particularly on public TV channels. The PACE delegation
was informed about the persistent problem of lack of transparency of
media ownership concentrated in the hands of wealthy individuals.
The delegation therefore welcomes the draft laws which are being
put forward in response.
The Central Election Commission (CEC) informed the delegation
that additional measures should be taken to ensure the security
of the electoral process, including the transfer of electoral material
and the security of polling stations. The delegation understands
that the CEC has drawn up draft legislation which the delegation hopes
will be approved by the Verkhovna Rada on 14th October.
The PACE delegation calls on all political stakeholders to
assume their heavy responsibility in the election campaign, dominated
at this stage by the military conflict. It encourages all Ukrainian
citizens to play an active part to ensure that the newly elected
Verkhovna Rada has the authority to take forward a programme of reforms.
The delegation notes that despite the armed conflict, the
general atmosphere in the election campaign is conducive to a democratic
election.
The Parliamentary Assembly will send a 42-member delegation
to observe the early parliamentary elections on 26 October 2014.
The delegation had meetings with Olexander Turchynov, Chairman
of the Verkhovna Rada, leaders and representatives of the main political
parties participating in the elections, Andrii Olefirov, Deputy
Minister of Foreign Affairs, representatives of the Ministry of
the Interior, the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, foreign
ambassadors and the head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation
mission in Ukraine. Meetings were also organised with representatives
of civil society and the media.
Members of the delegation: Christopher Chope, head of the
delegation (United Kingdom, EC); Arcadio Diaz Tejera (Spain, SOC);
Tinatin Bokuchava (Georgia, EPP/CD); Karl Gardasson (Iceland, ALDE);
Andrej Hunko (Germany, UEL); Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, co-rapporteur
of the Monitoring Committee (ex officio) (Sweden);
Mailis Reps, co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee (ex officio) (Estonia)
Appendix 4 – Press release
by the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
(open)
Kyiv, 27.10.2014 – The 26 October early parliamentary
elections marked an important step in consolidating democratic elections
in line with international commitments, and were characterised by
many positive aspects, including an impartial and efficient Central
Election Commission (CEC), competitive contests that offered voters
real choice, and general respect for fundamental freedoms, international
observers concluded in a preliminary statement released today. The
new parliament should ensure that key reforms are passed, and grievances
should be resolved with respect for the rule of law and through
democratic institutions, the observers said.
“At this crucial moment for the future of their country, Ukraine’s
institutions and voters responded to daunting challenges with an
election that largely upheld democratic commitments,” said Kent
Härstedt, the Special Co-ordinator and leader of the short-term
OSCE observer mission. “That response and, in particular, the authorities’
determination to enable voting in as many areas of the country as
possible, demonstrate a resilience that will help the country overcome
its national and international challenges.”
“The sombre mood of the Ukrainian people in these elections
reflects the gravity of the crisis facing the country. They have
chosen a new Verkhovna Rada, which will be very different in composition
from its predecessor. By doing so, the Ukrainians have shown their
desire for action to address their needs,” said Christopher Chope, Head
of the PACE delegation. “The Verkhovna Rada must now accept this
new mandate in the same spirit and work quickly to implement reforms,
many of which are long overdue. The PACE and Venice Commission are ready
to assist in this urgent and important work.”
In most of the country, election day proceeded calmly, with
few disturbances and only isolated security incidents reported.
The voting process was well-organized and orderly and was assessed
positively in 99% of the polling stations observed, although some
procedural irregularities were identified, including during the counting
and the early stages of the tabulation processes. Due to the efforts
of the election administration to ensure voting in as much of the
east as possible under extraordinary circumstances, including through simplified
procedures allowing voters to temporarily transfer their voting
address, voting took place in 12 out of 21 election districts in
the Donetsk region, and in 5 out of 11 in the Luhansk region.
“The nearly 30 seats that will be left empty in the new parliament
serve as a stark reminder that illegal armed groups prevented voters
in some parts of the country from being able to vote,” said Doris
Barnett, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. “These illegal actions
do not call into question the validity of the overall election.
We look forward to these seats being filled as soon as possible
so that representatives of those areas can join their colleagues
in an open dialogue to the benefit of all Ukrainians.”
Candidates were generally free to campaign in what was a competitive
and visible campaign environment. While largely peaceful, there
was a marked increase in violence in the last ten days of the campaign,
including cases of intimidation, threats and the targeted destruction
of campaign property. The observers noted that no intolerant speech
targeting national minorities was used during campaigning, despite
the prevalence of nationalistic campaign rhetoric.
“The elections clearly showed the resolve of the Ukrainian
society for change – the people have chosen Europe and peace,” said
Andrej Plenković, Head of the EP delegation. “The new Rada and the
future Government will have the responsibility to embark on the
ambitious European reform agenda and the reintegration of the entire Ukrainian
territory. The European Union and the European Parliament will support
Ukraine throughout this process.”
“We must not lose sight of the context in which these elections
took place. Ukraine is at war. Yet, despite the ongoing violence,
voting took place yesterday in a majority of districts in Donetsk
and Luhansk,” said Rasa Juknevičienė, Head of the NATO PA delegation.
“Despite that, the elections marked significant progress for Ukraine’s
democracy. The parliament that was elected yesterday will now have
the difficult but important responsibility to carry this work forward,
and address remaining issues.”
In a positive development, the misuse of State resources was
not named as an issue of major concern, although the president and
prime minister took unfair advantage of their positions on the eve
of the elections in televised appeals calling on voters to elect
a pro-reform parliament. A number of credible allegations of vote buying
were reported and are being investigated by the authorities.
The CEC administered the process in a largely professional
and efficient manner. However, the holding of closed-door meetings
before CEC sessions and unilateral decision-making undermined the
transparency of the process. In commissions at lower levels, the
replacement of commission members partly affected the stability
and efficiency of election administration. Candidate registration
was generally inclusive and offered voters a wide variety of choice
among 6,600 candidates. The rejection of more than 640 candidates
on the basis of technicalities restricted the choice of candidate
and runs counter to international standards, however.
“The impartial management of the process by the Central Election
Commission can further contribute to reinforcing public confidence
in democratic elections in Ukraine,” said Tana de Zulueta, Head
of the OSCE/ODIHR long-term election observation mission. “Our statement
also notes some persisting difficulties, so the positives in these
elections can be used as a basis for further improvements. Moving
forward, the OSCE ODIHR is ready to provide assistance and expertise
in this process.”
The media environment was dynamic and diverse and offered
voters a broad range of views. However, media autonomy and independent
reporting were in some cases inhibited by political or business
interests, and some private media outlets demonstrated bias in their
campaign coverage. The ongoing hostilities in the east jeopardized
journalists’ safety and prevented the transmission of Ukrainian
broadcasts, while steps taken to prevent certain channels from broadcasting
alleged propaganda remain in place. In a positive step, election debates
between political parties were held for the first time and broadcast
on national television.
The legal framework is generally adequate for the conduct
of democratic elections. Recent amendments addressed some previous
recommendations by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. A number
of concerns remain, however, including with regard to certain candidacy
requirements. Persistent issues with electoral district boundaries
meant that national minorities were under-represented, the statement
noted. Despite recent amendments to increase the transparency of
campaign finances, corruption continues to undermine confidence
in the electoral process.