COMMITTEE OF VOTERS OF UKRAINE

REPORT

ON RESULTS OF LONG-TERM MONITORING ON PREPARATIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN

UKRAINE IN MAY 2012

June 2012

CONTENT

SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

INTRODUCTION

1. Activities of Central Election Commission

2. Formation of single-mandate districts

3. Campaigning

4. Preparations for candidates' nomination

5. Campaigning combined with providing citizens with free of

charge material values

SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As a whole, the Law on the Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine (hereafter — the Law), upon condition

that its provisions are kept and some details specified in subordinate legislation, can provide conduction of

elections in correspondence with international standards of democratic, transparent and fair elections.

However, a decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (which proclaimed unconstitutional some of the

Law provisions — regarding possibility of candidates' simultaneous nomination in all-Ukrainian and single-

mandate election district, as well as referring out-of-country election precinct as single-mandate districts,

formed in Kyiv city) has created gaps which require the Law's cohesion with this decision of the

Constitutional Court. Besides, the Law has a number of technical inaccuracies, i.e. no requirement on

printing the surnames of candidates in single-mandate districts in ballot papers, etc.

In order to eliminate part of the Law's drawbacks, the Central Election Commission has prepared

propositions for amendments. These propositions were fully integrated in the draft law № 10533, introduced

by people's deputies of Ukraine. The committee of voters of Ukraine believes that this draft law should have

been passed in the first reading as whole and as a law, preventing revision of other provisions of the current

Law on the stage of the draft preparation for the second reading. Unfortunately, the draft law № 10533 was

recalled by its initiators.

According to the results of long-term monitoring to the preparations for October 28 2012

parliamentary elections in Ukraine, started in May 2012, the Committee of voters of Ukraine note the

following:

1. Single-mandate election districts in 27 regions of Ukraine have been formed in full correspondence

with the Law.

2. The main problems connected with the formation of single-mandate election districts, were caused

with three main factors:

- peculiarities of the Law provisions (according to the Law, a deviation in the number of voters in a

single-mandate election district shall not exceed twelve percent from the approximate average

number of voters in single-mandate election districts), causing referring of some cities' districts to

districts formed from the nearby rayons;

- lack of Law provisions to consolidate principles of election districts continuity of boundaries,

districts' compactness, provide for consideration of national minorities areas of compact settlement in

districs formation, eliminate possibility of dividing villages among several districts, etc.;

- insufficient level of election districts formation process transparency: draft CEC regulation on the

election districts formation was not published and not discussed with parties, independent experts

and other interested participants, resulting suspicions in political influence on the districts formation.

3. CVU believes that the main problems, connected with the formation of the election districs, are as

follows:

- unreasoned violation of the election districts continuity of boundaries principle and greater number

of election districs which lost their territories for artificial enclaves. CVU registered largest number

of problematic districts in Donetsk, Luhansk and Cherkassy oblasts;

- distribution of villages/village councils' territories among several single-mandate election districts;

- no consideration for national minorities areas of compact settlement in election districts formation;

- inclusion of some cities' districts to districts formed from the nearby rayons, including country

rayons;

- complication of election logistics because of: а) large territories of some districts; b) large distance

between many district centers and their boundaries; c) formation of artificial enclaves, separated

from the main district territories; d) insufficient level of road and transport infrastructure in some

regions.

4. Though it is impossible to prove or disprove political influences on election districts formation,

“configuration” of some districts happened to be rather useful for certain politicians, while chances

for other politicians who had active communication with local voters were considerably reduced with

the changes in election districs boundaries.

5. Despite the fact that the election process should officially start in June 2012, parties and potential

candidates have already started campaigning. Such activities are in fact beyond legal regulation, as

the provision of the Law on the Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine concerning pre-election

campaign covers only the election process participants.

6. The most wide-spread form of campaigning in May were as following: placement of outdoor

advertising; conduction of mass events, meetings with voters, publication of “image” materials in

printed mass media (considerable number of such publications may be evaluated as hidden political

propaganda or so called “advertorial”), campaigning combined with social initiatives, charity,

provision of free of charge material values.

7. Regional CVU branches registered certain episodes of “black PR” dissemination, obstacles to

campaigning (refuses to provide premises for conduction of meetings with voters, other propaganda

campaigns etc.), involvement of state officials in campaigning, influence on mass media editorial

policy. All these episodes raise concerns, though are sporadic.

8. Parties of parliamentary majority have selected their candidates for most of single-mandate districts.

Opposition has not yet selected candidacies for nomination in the districts. As a whole, the process of

candidates' nomination lacks transparency — selection of candidates for nomination in all-Ukrainian

and single-mandate districts is done without broad public discussion.

9. In May 2012 episodes of public support for potential candidates from well-known representatives of

certain regions, as well as state officials, remained sporadic.

10. Activities of local party organizations on regional level depend on a party and the region.

Preparations for candidates nomination in single-mandate constituencies in some regions is

accompanied with inter-party or inner-party conflicts.

11. Certain potential candidates try to be aside from connections with any parties and position

themselves as “independent” candidates.

12. Campaigning combined with free of charge provision of voters, institutions and organizations with

material values became widely spread. Such form of agitation was used in May by both main parties

and potential candidates. The main occasions for propaganda with some features of indirect vote-

buying in May were celebration of Victory Day and end of studying at educational institutions.

Among main valuables which were distributed by parties and candidates among voters — food

packages, services (most often — medical), money (in certain occasions). In some regions, charitable

foundations connected with certain politicians are active in material “motivation” of voters.

The Committee of Voters of Ukraine believes that in order to regulate the abovementioned

problems it is necessary to:

- immediately after conduction of the 2012 parliamentary elections in Ukraine:

further improve the election legislation, inter alia in the sphere of its codification;

introduce more requirements for election districts formation, to guarantee principles of

election districts continuity of boundaries, consideration of national minorities areas of

compact settlement in districs formation by the law;

provide compulsory consultations among CEC and local authorities, political parties,

experts regarding determination and modification of districs boundaries, set reasons and

procedures for modification of districts boundaries formed in 2012;

regulate the procedures of campaigning in the period between elections (before

candidates are registered and earn the status of electoral process subjects), discuss an option

to set certain limitations for such activities (limitations of campaigning methods, scope of

financing of such agitation events etc.), and also foresee mechanisms to provide transparency

in financing of such activities;

introduce in current legislation certain provisions that would prevent campaigning

combined with indirect vote-buying, including for the period between elections;

- before conduction of the parliamentary elections in Ukraine:

consider a possibility for parties — future electoral subjects — to sign a memorandum

(agreement or similar document) on fair elections, stating, particularly a refuse from using the

so called “black PR”, indirect vote-buying, dissemination of hidden political propaganda etc.;

for central and local authorities, law enforcement bodies, non-governmental

organizations — to make arrangements for prevention of campaigning by state officials,

influence on mass media editorial policy, pressure on enterprises, organizations and

institutions, connected with one or another potential candidates in people's deputies,

involvement of public servants in agitation activities.

INTRODUCTION

The regular 2012 elections of people's deputies of Ukraine will be held on the basis of mixed election

system according to procedures which will differ considerably from those used during previous election

campaign. It should be noted that proper judicial defense of rights' infringements is not enough provided by

the law. Besides, certain activities, connected with preparations and conduction of parliamentary elections

are put beyond the electoral process, in particular — formation of election precincts and election districts on

regular basis. This factor became one of the reasons for main political parties and potential candidates to

start campaigning long before the election process beginning.

With due consideration of all the above mentioned factors, independent civic monitoring on the preparations

for and conduction of elections should be held on early stages of the election campaign — before the start of

election process.

Committee of Voters of Ukraine is an all-Ukrainian non-governmental organization which has been

conducting comprehensive monitoring of election campaigns in Ukraine since 1994 on election process

participants' compliance with Ukrainian legislation and international standards of democratic

elections.

With this report the Committee of Voters of Ukraine starts a series of reports on long-term

observation on 2012 elections, to be published in June-November 2012 and compiled on the basis of

information, provided by CVU regional branches.

The present report provides analysis of preparations for the election campaign on May 2012 parliamentary

elections. The monitoring was held by the CVU oblast branches in all regions of Ukraine.

The report is mainly concentrated on five main issues: 1) CEC activities on preparations to regular 2012

elections; 2) procedure of single-mandate election districts formation (the districts were formed by CEC on

April 28, 2012); 3) features of potential candidates' campaigning activities; 4) features of preparations to

candidates nomination in national and single-mandate election districts; 5) campaigning combined with

providing voters with material values.

1. Activities of Central Election Commission

In April-May 2012 the Central Election Commission issued a number of important subordinate legal acts,

aimed at specification and fulfillment of the Law on the Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine provisions,

in particular:

Procedure of distribution of administrative positions in district election commissions among

subjects of candidates in election commission members nomination on regular 28 October 2012

parliamentary elections (CEC Resolution № 63 of 5.04.2012). A mechanism of quota calculation

for administrative positions in DEC for subjects of candidates in election commission members

nomination determined, as well as a mechanism on distribution of these positions within these

quotas;

Resolution № 65 of 9.04.2012. “On number of single-mandate election districts in Autonomous

Republic of Crimea, Kyiv and Sevastopol cities”. Number of single-mandate election districts in

each of 27 regions was determined as proportional to number of voters in corresponding regions;

Resolution № 66 of 12.04.2012. “On formation of regular and special election precincts on

permanent basis”. The Resolution has determined permanent regular and special election precincts,

to be a basis for organization and conduction of not only 2012 elections, but also all future national

and local elections. A drawback of the resolution is a lack of provisions for permanent election

precincts at pretrial detention centers. If there will be no temporary election precincts at pretrial

detention centers a lot of voters will not have an opportunity to exercise their right on 2012

parliamentary elections;

Resolution № 67 of 12.04.2012. “On formation of out-of-country election precincts on

permanent basis”. The resolution provides for formation of 114 out-of-country election precincts

(one more precinct was formed by the CEC Regulation № 71 of 19.04.2012) at foreign diplomatic

institutions of Ukraine and at military units (commands) deployed outside Ukraine. A drawback of

the resolution (caused by a drawback of the Law itself) is that out-of-country election precincts will

be formed permanently with premises for voting inside the foreign diplomatic institutions,

considerably constrains the possibility to form additional election precincts in countries with large

number of Ukrainian citizens who have a right to vote;

Procedure for the conduct of loting by Central Election Commission on inclusion of candidates

to the district election commissions on regular 28 October 2012 parliamentary elections (CEC

Resolution № 69 of 19.04.2012). The main drawback of the Resolution is that loting will be done not

for every DEC, but for all DECs simultaneously, in party perspective. So, the lots of the parties

which will be picked up later, will have far less opportunities to be represented in DEC comparing

with the parties which will be picked up among the first;

Resolution № 76 of 23.04.2012 “On Central Election Commission clarification regarding

prohibition to provide voters, institutions, organizations and also election commissions and

their members (except for goods that have visual party name, symbolic, flag, if the cost of such

an item does not exceed 3 per cent of minimal salary) with services, works, security papers,

credits, lottery tickets and other material valuables (indirect vote-buying) for the period of

parliamentary elections conduction”. The Resolution explains the concept of indirect vote-buying

based on the Law on the Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine provisions;

Resolution № 82 of 28.04.2012 “On Formation of single-mandate election districts on

permanent basis in Autonomous Republic of Crimea, oblast, Kyiv and Sevastopol cities”. The

Resolution determines the boundaries and centers of single-mandate election districts, established in

each of 27 regions of Ukraine. Its content is analyzed in more details in section 2 of the Report.

Procedure for passing ballot papers for parliamentary elections (CEC Resolution № 85 of 17

May, 2012). The procedure specifies the provisions of the Law on the Election of People's Deputies

of Ukraine regarding regulation of an order for ballot paper production and delivery to CEC by a

producing enterprise, as well as passing of ballot papers from CEC to DEC and correspondingly –

from DEC to PEC;

Procedure for the conduct of financial reporting by DECs on receipt and expenditure of funds

from the State budget of Ukraine provided for preparation and conduction of parliamentary

elections in Ukraine (CEC Resolution № 87 of 17 May 2012). The procedure determined the

frequency and types of financial reporting documents that should be submitted by DEC to CEC and

institutions of State Treasury;

Procedure for the conduct of loting on inclusion of candidates to the precinct election

commissions on regular 28 October 2012 parliamentary elections (CEC Regulation № 88 of 17

May, 2012). The most positive thing about the project is that hat loting will be done for every

precinct election commission, providing parties and candidates in single-mandate districts with equal

opportunities for representation in PEC;

Procedure of distribution of administrative positions in precinct election commissions among

subjects of candidates in election commission members nomination (CEC Resolution № 89 of 5

May, 2012). A mechanism of quota calculation for administrative positions in DEC for subjects of

candidates in election commission members nomination determined, as well as a mechanism on

distribution of these positions within these quotas;

The following features may complicate further work of CEC on election process organization for the

parliamentary elections: drawbacks of the current Law; rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

№№ 7-рп/2012 of 4.04.2012 and 8-рп/2012 of 5.04.2012, which declared unconstitutional the Law

provisions on possibility of simultaneous nomination in national and single-mandate constituencies as well

as referring out-of-country election precinct as single-mandate districts, formed in Kyiv city.

Implementation of these Court rulings required adoption of corresponding amendments to the Law on the

Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine provisions, in particular to the Law provisions determining the

reasons for denial in a candidate registration, procedure for vote tabulation on out-of0country election

precincts, procedures for tabulation of the results in single-mandate districts.

In order to eliminate some drawbacks of the Law, the CEC approved Propositions of amendments to the

Law on the Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine (CEC Resolution № 83 of 8.05.2012). The

propositions provided for: possibility to form special election precincts on the territory of military units

(commands), deployed on considerable distance from settlements (as an exception); registration of

candidates’ authorized persons by DEC, not CEC; obliging DEC to exercise control over use of funds of the

electoral funds; obligation to provide reports on receipt and use of the funds of the electoral funds both in

paper and electronic forms; limit in scope of the candidates’ autobiographies and party and candidates in

deputies’ programs; requirement to publish in ballot papers the candidates’ surnames, not only names and

patronymics (as provided by the current Law); specification of the vote counting and tabulation of the results

of the voting and elections with consideration of the latest rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The CEC propositions became a basis for draft law № 10533 of 24.05.2012, introduced by deputies

O.Kasanyuk, V.Demhyshyn and others.

Committee of Voters of Ukraine believes that this draft law should have been passed in the first

reading as whole and as a law, preventing revision of other provisions of the current Law on the stage

of the draft preparation for the second reading. Unfortunately, because there is no trust among

majority and opposition factions (because of high risk of revision of its other provisions in the process

of ‘technical amendments’) the draft law № 10533 was recalled by its initiators.

2. Formation of single-mandate election districts

The Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” provides only general features of the election

districts formation mechanism. In particular, it is provided that election districts should be formed by CEC

180 days before elections (subparagraph 3 paragraph 6 of Final and Transitional Provisions of the Law),

districts exist on permanent basis; district boundaries should not violate boundaries of oblasts, Kyiv and

Sevastopol cities, Autonomous Republic of Crimea; a deviation in the number of voters in a single-mandate

election district shall not exceed twelve percent from the approximate average number of voters in single-

mandate election districts, set by CEC on the basis of data of the State Voter Register (enactment 18 of the

Law).

Some important principles of the districts’ formation are not guaranteed by the Law. In particular, election

districts continuity of boundaries, districts' compactness, and consideration of national minorities’ areas of

compact settlement in districs formation are not provided. In districts formation, the CEC is not obliged to

consider the existing administrative-territorial arrangement of Ukraine (except for regional division) or to

consult with potentially interested participants of the districts formation process (i.e. parties). Serious gaps

of the Law on the Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine regarding regulation of election districts

formation are one of the main reasons that election districts system and the procedure of their

formation may not be deemed perfect.

The CEC determined number of single-mandate districts in every region by Resolution № 65 of 9 April.

2012. This number was as a whole proportional to number of voters included in the State Voter Register on

the date of the CEC Resolution. Boundaries and centers of the districts were determined by the CEC

Resolution № 82 of 28 April, 2012. Though the CEC has strictly followed the Law provision when

forming single-mandate districts, determination of election districts’ bounders had certain features:

2.1. Violation of the principle of the election districts continuity of boundaries

The CEC formed districts with continued boundaries in many regions, among them – Volyn, Zhytomyr,

Zaporizzhya, and Ivano-Frankivsk, Kirovohrad oblast, Mykolaiv, Poltava, Rivne, Sumy, Ternopil,

Khmelnytsk and Chernivtsi oblasts. At the same time, this principle was violated in the rest of the oblasts, as

well as in Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Kyiv and Sevastopol cities, causing formation of natural and

artificial enclaves on their territories. If to compare with year 2002, in 2012 there are much more regions

with districts formed with violation of continuity principle. For example, in 2002 none of Vinnitsa,

Odessa, Kharkiv, Cherkassy, Chernihiv oblast and Kyiv city districts was divided in several parts by

territories of other districts. In 2012 the principle of continuity of boundaries was not observed in formation

of these districts.

Table 1. Compliance with a principle of district boundaries contingency in 2002 and 2012

Region 2002 2012 2002 2012

Autonomous Republic of Crimea - - Odessa oblast + -

Vinnitsa oblast + - Poltava oblast + +

Volyn oblast + + Rivne oblast - +

Dnipropetrovsk oblast - - Sumy oblast + +

Donetsk oblast - - Ternopil oblast + +

Zhytomyr oblast + + Kharkiv oblast + -

Zakarpatska oblast - - Kherson oblast - -

Zaporizzhya oblast + + Khmelnytsk oblast + +

Ivano-Frankivsk oblast + + Cherkassy oblast + -

Kyiv oblast - - Chernivtsi oblast - +

Kirovohrad oblast + + Chernihiv oblast + -

Luhansk oblast - - Kyiv city + -

L'viv oblast - - Sevastopol city - -

Mykolaiv oblast + +

Remarks: „+” - the principle of district boundaries contingency is observed, „-” - the principle is not observed. Grey color indicates changes in a region. _______________________________

Comparing with year 2002 number of districts divided in several parts artificially without any

reasoning has risen (from 8 to 23):

Territory of election district № 12 formed in Vinnitsa oblast, was divided in 4 parts, separated from

each other by territory of election district № 11. This division is artificial. All election districts,

formed in the oblast in 2001 had continuous boundaries.

None of the districts formed in Dnipropetrovsk oblast for 2002 was artificially divided in several

parts – all the enclaves existing in oblast districts had natural origin, caused by features of

administrative-territorial oblast arrangement. For the 2012 election the CEC artificially divided 3

oblast districts into several parts – districts №№ 27, 34, 36;

In 2001 only one district № 50 of Donetsk oblast was artificially divided into several parts, while

other district boundaries were continuous caused by features of administrative-territorial oblast

arrangement. In 2012 number of districts artificially divided into several parts in this oblast reached 5

(districts №№ 50, 52, 53, 55, 56);

In 2001 integrity of two districts only - №№ 71 and 72 - was violated in Zakarpatska oblast. In

2012 number of such districts reached 3 (districts №№ 69, 72, 73);

In 2002 no Kyiv oblast district was artificially divided into several parts. However in 2012 with no

good reason districts №№ 91 and 93 became artificially divided into several parts;

in 2002 only one Luhansk oblast district was artificially divided into several parts (district № 110),

while in 2012 number of such districts reached 5 (districts №№ 107, 108, 110, 111, 112);

There was no artificial enclave on the territory of Odessa oblast districts formed for 2002

parliamentary elections. However, such an enclave was formed in on the territory of the election

district № 138 – Yuzhne town was artificially separated from the main part of election district №

139;

In 2002 were no artificial enclaves on the territory of Kharkiv oblast election districts. In 2012

such an enclave has appeared as a result of separation of several precincts from the main part of

election district № 172 (corresponding precincts happened to be on the territory of election district №

170);

Cherkassy oblast district № 195 was artificially divided into several parts for 2012 elections. At the

time of 2002 elections boundaries of all oblast election districts were continuous;

Territory of election district № 210 (Chernihiv oblast) formed in 2012 included 2 parts, separated

from each other by the territory of Nosiv rayon, included into election district № 209. Such

separation is artificial. In 2002 boundaries of all oblast districts were continuous;

District № 221 formed in Kyiv city in 2012 was artificially divided into two parts by election district

№ 211. Back in 2001 no Kyiv district was divided into several parts.

Establishment of artificial enclaves on election districts territory receives negative assessment because of

two main reasons: 1) existence of such enclaves may complicate the election logistics; 2) formation of

districts with violation of their boundaries continuity principle without proper reasoning raises suspicions in

political influence on districts formation. Solution of the artificial enclaves’ problem requires provision

of districts boundaries continuity principle directly in the Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies

of Ukraine” with simultaneous determination of a complete list of situations providing exclusions of

this principle.

However, division of certain election districts into several parts is caused by natural reasons as well, first of

all – features of administrative-territorial arrangement of some regions. These features caused creation of

natural enclaves on the territory of some regions. Such enclaves existed in 2002 as well. For example, in

2001 because of administrative-territorial arrangement a number of election districts were divided into

several parts – №№ 1 (Autonomous Republic of Crimea), 27, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37 (Dnipropetrovsk oblast), 48,

49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 60 (Donetsk oblast), 95, 96 (Kyiv oblast), 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 115 (Luhansk

oblast), 117 (Lviv oblast), 184 (Kherson oblast), 203 (Chernivtsi oblast), 225 (Sevastopol city).

In 2012 features of the administrative-territorial arrangement caused violation of election districts

boundaries – districts №№ 1, 2 (Autonomous Republic of Crimea ), 26, 30, 31, 33, 40 (Dnipropetrovsk

oblast), 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 60 (Donetsk oblast), 95, 96 (Kyiv oblast), 104, 105, 107, 110, 112

(Luhansk oblast), 116 (Lviv oblast), 183 (Kherson oblast), 195 (Cherkassy oblast), 225 (Sevastopol city).

Solution of the problem with artificial enclaves on the territory of election districts requires reform of

an administrative-territorial arrangement.

2.2. Insufficient consideration of rayon and cities of oblast sub ordinance boundaries in districts’

formation

Possibility not to consider rayon and cities of oblast sub ordinance boundaries in districts’ formation was

provided not only by the current Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine”, but also by the law

on parliamentary elections, followed during 2002 elections conduction. It is not a marvel as not only

boundaries of administrative-territorial units should be considered in districts formation, but also other

factors – i.e. geographical, logistic (state of road and transport infrastructure, etc.), approximately even

number of voters in the districts etc.

Comparison of election districts’ boundaries formed for 2002 and 2012 elections shows that number of

rayons and cities divided between districts has risen if to compare with 2002. Such situation may be

partially caused by the fact that the current Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” excludes

the possibility to exceed the number of voters in single-mandate election districts (while for the 2002

elections it was possible to form districts with more voters then the maximum deviation from the

approximate average number of voters). It is also possible that political factors have influenced the

configuration of the district’s boundaries.

Some cities were divided between districts in such a way that no districts were formed of city territory

only. For example, Vinnitsa city – in 2002 part of the city formed a separate district, while for the 2012

elections Vinnitsa was divided between two districts, which also included parts Vinnitsa rayon. In 2002 big

cities’ boundaries were usually considered in districts formation, in other words – parts of these cities

were not included to districts, formed of the nearby rayons’ territories. Dnipropetrovsk, Ivano-Frankivsk,

Ternopil, Chernivtsi are some of the examples. In 2012 parts of these cities were united districts, formed of

the nearby rayons. For example, part of Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovsk rayon of Dnipropetrovsk city was united

with district № 29, formed mainly of Petrykivsky and Dnipropetrovsk rayons; considerable territory of

Ivano-Frankivsk – included in district № 84, formed of Galytsky, Tlumatsky and Tysmenytsky rayons;

western part of Ternopil was included in district № 165, formed of territories of 5 Ternopil oblast rayons;

part of Chernivtsi – included in district № 203. One of the important reasons of such oblast centers divisions

is that the Law does not provide for a deviation in the number of voters in a single-mandate election district

exceeding twelve percent from the approximate average number of voters in single-mandate election

districts. In such a way, the parliament should consider a possibility to determine by law a full list of

situations when a number of voters in a district may exceed the deviation limit. Such an approach

would provide contingency of big cities’ boundaries, promote consideration of all district categories of

electorate, and also simplify election campaigning for candidates and parties.

2.3. Division of village and settlement councils’ territories between several districts

In 2002 village and settlements’ boundaries (village and settlement councils’) were considered in formation

of election districts for parliamentary elections, so, village and settlement councils were not divided between

several districts. In 2012 this principle was not observed:

Territory of Il’kiv village council (Vinnitsa rayon of Vinnitsa oblast) was divided between two

districts – precinct № 050149 was united with district № 11, and precincts №№ 050150 and 050151

– with district № 12;

Territory of Ksaveriv village council (Vinnitsa rayon of Vinnitsa oblast) was divided between

districts №№ 11 and 12, each district included one precinct of those formed on the council territory;

Territory of Batradiv village council (Beregiv rayon of Zakarpattya oblast) was divided between

election districts №№ 69 and 73 (precincts, correspondingly – №№ 210003 and 210005);

Territory of Velykorakovets village council (Irshava rayon of Zakarpattya oblast) was divided

between districts №№ 71 and 73 (precincts, correspondingly – №№ 210189-210190 and 210191);

Territory of Puzhnyakovets village council (Mukachevo rayon of Zakarpattya oblast) was divided

between election districts №№ 69 (4 precincts) and 71 (1 precinct);

Village Ruda (Skvyr rayon of Kyiv oblast) was divided between districts №№ 91 and 92, each

district included one precinct of those formed on the village territory.

According to the CVU experts’ opinion, such an approach to determination of district boundaries

complicates organization of the election process as a whole, does not contribute to effective campaigning of

candidates in single-mandate districts and brings some other drawbacks. That is why the Law “On the

Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” or a future Law on territorial organization of elections should

clearly provide that violation of territorial community borders in election districts formation is not

accepted.

2.4. No consideration for national minorities’ areas of compact settlement in election districs

formation

In certain regions of Ukraine, in particular – in Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Zakarpattya and

Chernivtsi oblasts there is a considerable number of national minorities representatives among voters.

Besides, the minorities reside densely, making it possible to take into account areas of compact settlement in

election districs formation. However, according to information from CVU regional branches, interests of

national minorities were not fully answered by single-mandate formation:

in Chernivtsi oblast part of Sagora rayon of Chernivtsi city (which used to belong to a single

election district № 202 with a center in Chernivtsi), in particular - election precincts № 730481 –

730486 – was moved to a single-mandate election district № 203 (with a center in Novoselytsya

town), causing affiliation of about 9 000 Ukrainian speakers to a district, in which Romanian

speaking population prevails. Besides, part of Storozhynets rayon villages (Velyky Kucheriv,

Kamyana, Mykhalcha, Snyachiv, Glybochok, and Tysovets) with mainly Ukrainian-speaking

population were also affiliated with a single-mandate district № 203. On the other side, a number of

Storozhynets rayon Romanian-speaking villages which used to belong to former district № 204,

became affiliated with election district № 202, causing affiliation of about 10 000 Romanian-

speaking voters with a district, in which Ukrainian speaking population prevails. In such a way,

interests of Romanian-speaking voters were not answered by districts formation in Chernivtsi

oblast;

Back in 2002, the CEC had taken into account areas of Hungarian national minority compact

settlement in single-mandate districts formation in Zakarpattya oblast. As a result, an election

district № 72 was formed, including parts of Uzhhorod, Beregiv, Vynohradiv, Hust and Tyachiv

rayons. However, in 2012 areas of Hungarian national minority compact settlement were divided

among 5 districts (68, 69, 71, 72, 73), which may cause considerable decrease of national minorities

opportunities for representation in parliament In such a way, interests of Hungarian minority

voters were not answered by districts formation in Zakarpattya oblast;

National minorities’ interests were not by districts formation in Autonomous Republic of

Crimea as well. In particular, according to R.Chubarov’s opinion, number of Crimean Tatars does

not exceed 25-30%. Per cent of Crimean Tatars is comparatively high in election district № 8 –

according to Crimea CVU branch information, B.Deich plans to stand as a candidate and has high

chances to be elected.

Non-consideration of national minorities’ areas of compact settlement in single-mandate election districs

formation does not correspond with international standards and best practices and reduces chances for

corresponding minorities to be represented in parliament. In such a way, the parliament should consider a

possibility to guarantee by law provisions for consideration of national minorities’ areas of compact

settlement in election districs formation.

2.5. Complication of election logistics

Election logistics may be complicated by a number of factors – existence of enclaves, distant from the main

territory of a district, geographical features of the territory, state of road and transport infrastructure,

considerable distance from district center to their boundaries. According to information from Committee of

voters of Ukraine regional branches, the election logistics may be considerably complicated in a number of

election districts (Please, see a section below).

Examples of complicated election logistics in particular regions and districts

Vinnitsa oblast. Election logistics may be complicated in election district № 16 with a length of 170 km. State of roads in a district is unsatisfactory and may negatively influence on timeliness of election documentation transporting. Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Election districts №№ 34 and 40 are logistically complicate. Problems with ballot papers transporting to DEC from correspondingly Zhovty Vody and Pyatykhatky (district № 34) and Marganets (district № 40). Donetsk oblast. The election district № 60 with a center in Volnovakha has united five village rayons of Donetsk oblast (Volodarsk, Volnovakha, Telmaniv, Novoazovsk, and Pershotravnevy). These decisions are rather disputable, as gross space of the district

equals 6246 square kilometers of village territory (while gross territory of Donetsk oblast equals 26,5 thousands of square kilometers). On the previous elections only three rayons were united in one district and this district was one of the most problematic ones in election, not least because of bad condition of village roads condition. Dokuchaevsk and Snizhne town located 130 kilometers one from each other are united in one election district № 61. However, it is possible to get from Snizhne to the district center in Starobeshevo via Donetsk, making 130 kilometers. Zakarpattya oblast. Logistical problems may appear in election district № 70. Its center is distant from its Northern boundaries (Velykobereznyansky rayon), while the state of road transport infrastructure on the way from Svalyava to Velykobereznyansky precincts in unsatisfactory. Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. Election logistics may be rather complicated in election district № 86, as there are no proper transport connection between its center (Dolyna town) and Bogordchansky rayon precincts. It is possible to get from the Bogordchansky rayon to Dolyna via so called “small” and “big” circles: via “small” circle – through Black forest (Pidgirya – Rosilna – Krasne – Rozhnyativ) with rather bad road pavement and zones of no cell phone coverage; “big” circle – through Ivano-Frankivsk, Kalush and Broshniv. Transporting of documentation via “small” circle may be dangerous for transport, people and ballot papers. Kyiv oblast. Centers of districts №№ 91, 92, 96, 98 are distant from some of their boundaries. Bad road condition in election districts №№ 91 and 93 may also have negative influence on election logistics. Luhansk oblast. Election districts №№ 113 and 114 are among the most logistically problematic. Each of their territories equals almost one third of Luhansk oblast territory, and average distance from the district center to precincts is almost 60-70 kilometers. Election district № 112 is also logistically complicated – three fourth of its precincts are 50-100 kilometers distant from the district center. Quality of pavement on an Ivanivka-Perevalsk road is extremely unsatisfactory. This road will be used for election documentation transfer from Perevalsk to Krasny Luch (which are located 50 kilometers one from each other) and transport of ballot papers and other documentation from Anthracite rayon to Alchevsk. Poltava oblast. Centers of some oblast districts were determined without proper reasoning. For example, it would be more useful to relocate a center of district № 149 from Karlivka town to Novi Sanzhary or Mashivka. Lybny town is a center of district № 148, though it is located on the boundary with district № 151, and it would be more appropriate to relocate the district center to Khorly town. State of oblast road and infrastructure may also have negative effect on election logistics. Komsomolsk town is a center of district № 150, while being located on the boundary of rayon and oblast as a whole. Komsomolsk is distant from Globyn rayon precincts, and members of corresponding PECs have one road only to DEC. Kharkiv oblast. Election logistics may be complicated in election district № 176, as distance between the most remote precincts and the district center is more than 100 kilometers, while the quality of the roads connecting these precincts with the district center is rather bad. Election districts №№ 178 and 180 are also problematic. In particular, members of PECs formed in Novovodolazsky rayon will have to pass a considerable distance to district № 180 DEC by side roads with very bad pavement. Kherson oblast. Election logistics may be complicated in 3 of 5 districts, formed in the oblast. In particular distance from certain precincts to election district № 184 center is more than 100 kilometers; in election district № 185 distance from district center to its most remote precincts is about 120 kilometers. Cherkassy oblast. Centers of certain election districts are distant from some of their boundaries - in particular, in districts №№ 195, 196, 197, 199. Election logistics is complicated with unsatisfactory sate of many national and local roads, lack of roadway lightning, limited variants of Dnipro river crossing. Chernivtsi oblast. Transport connection between Sadgirsky rayon of Chernivtsi precincts and № 203 district center with center in Novoselytsi will be more complicated than in 2002, when the Sadgirsky rayon was part of district № 202 with a center in Chernivtsi. Source: information from the Committee of voters of Ukraine regional branches

For election districts formation at the next parliamentary elections, the CEC should take into account

principles of election districts compactness, as well as state of road connection between district centers

and those precincts located closer to the districts’ boundaries.

2.6. Influence of political factors on election districts boundaries determination

Though it is impossible to prove or disprove political influences on election districts formation,

“configuration” of some districts happened to be rather useful for certain politicians, while chances for other

politicians who had active communication with local voters were considerably reduced with the changes in

election districts boundaries. If the CEC had determined the districts’ boundaries in a transparent way with

prior consultations with main political parties on possible districts’ “configuration”, there would be no

doubts in the CEC impartiality in districts formation. Examples of district boundaries determination which

may influence the prospects of election or non-election of certain potential candidates are listed below, as

according to the regional Committee of voters of Ukraine branches’ information.

District boundaries influence on potential candidates’ election to parliament

Dnipropetrovsk oblast. In district № 28 with a center in Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovsk a local council deputy E.Morozenko has considerable chances to be elected. Boundaries of district № 40 territorially coincide with territory of MP O.Tsarev activities. Donetsk oblast. Boundaries of current district № 46 do not differ much from the same district boundaries in 2002 – it may be positive for S.Kluev who is traditionally active in the district. A new “configuration” of election district № 49 is positive for MP D.Omelyanovych who had limited his election campaigning to the current district territory. Besides, agricultural holding “APK-Invest” is active in Krasnoarmiysk and Konstantinivsk rayons and facilities of LLC “Kyiv-Konti” are located in Konstantinivka. D.Omelyanovych is an honorary president of the “APK-Invest” and is among leadership of “Kyiv-Konti”. District №52 (Dzerzhynsk

city) had experienced serious changes - Dzerzhynsk city (district center) and Debaltseve were united with Kalyninsky rayon of Gorlivka; and parts of the district do nor border with each other. Such a district “configuration” may be positive with I.Shkyrya. It is interesting to note that in March image publications of I.Shkyrya a specific district he plans to be nominated was named (district number, list of communities etc.), though at that time the decision on election districts boundaries was not yet reached. Election district №54 (Shakhtarsk town) had also experience serious changes. Before the district formation a Party of Regions MP V.Lukyanov had actively campaigned in Khartsyzsk, Shakhtarsk, Shakhtarsk rayon, which were later united into a new district. Kyiv oblast. MP P.Melnyk has high chances to be elected in district № 95: Irpin town with National University of State Customs is a district centre; there are also enterprises controlled by Melnyk’s relatives on the district territories. In district № 96 the first deputy head of Kyiv oblast state administration Ya.Moskalenko, who used to work at the Vyshgorod rayon territory has chances to be elected. From the other side, serious change in boundaries of former election districts №№ 91-93 considerably decreases chances for E.Suslov, whose family owns a number of enterprises in former election district № 92. Luhansk oblast. “Configuration” of election districts №№ 106 and 112 is favourable for Olexiy Kunchenko and Yuliy Ioffe, who can be nominated in different districts and not compete with each other. For Yu.Ioffe is important not to ne nominated in Stakhanov city, as according to some sources, he does not have high enough rate there. For Kunchenko village precincts of Popasnyansk rayon are favourable as it is possible to use administrative resource there. Former election district № 115 was devided between 3 districts, considerable decreasing S.Shakhov chances to be elected in parliament. It is quite possible that election district № 110 was established with the same purpose. Some potential party of regions candidates were ctive in election districts №№ 104, 105, 108, 111, 114 long before their establishment – one may suppose possible political influence of these districts’ “configuration”. Mykolaiv oblast. Formation of district № 128 from mainly village rayons (with more possibilities to use an administrative resource) may be favourable to election of local official M.Zhuk, who plans to be nominated and is actively campaigning among local residents. Connection of Yuzhnoukrainsk rayon of Mykolaiv oblast to district № 131 in which a Party of Regions has considerable influence, may be unfavourable for ex-mayor of Yuzhnoukrainsk, member of “Batkivschyna” A.Stulin. Odessa oblast. “Configuration” of election district № 137 is favourable Party of Regions MP L.Klimov who will be nominated from this district not for the first time and works with its voters for 10 years already. “Configuration” of election district № 139 is favourable for O.Peresman - Party of Regions deputy in oblast council. Peresman is actively reconstructing roads, schools, hospitals participates in “selebrations” on this district territory. Election district № 141 ia a territory of influence and activity of another MP – Vitaly Barvinenko, who has strong positions (agricultural business) in Bilhorod-Dnistrovsky rayon of the district as well as in Kiliya rayon (possibilities to use administrative resource). V.Barvinenko is actively working with district electorate for a long time. Configuration of election district № 143 may be favourabble for Yury Kruk, who considers voters of Reni and Ismail as his basic electorate and actively communicates with it. Distribution of Izmail and Kiliya among different election districts may be unfavourable for potential BYuT-Batkivschyna candidate O.Dubovy who is popular both in Izmail and Kiliya. Poltava oblast. Boundaries of districts №№ 144 and 145 as determined by CEC include territories on which potential candidates of civic organization “Our Home - Poltava” V.Makar and O.Zaluzhny were especially active. Potential candidates affiliated with civic organization “My Poltavschyna” Volodymyr Pylyenko (MP, elected as BYuT member, leader of “My Poltavschyna”) and Oleg Kulynych (deputy of Poltava oblast council, ex-head of Zinkiv party organization “Batkivschyna”) have been holding activities on the territory of current election districts №№ 147 and 148 from the end of 2001. Ternopil oblast. Serious changes in boundaries of election districts №№ 165, 166 and 167 is unfavorable for V.Nalyvaychenko, who had actively worked with voters of former district № 166. Kherson oblast. After change in affiliation of parts of Dnipro and Suvorov rayons of Kherson city from election district № 182 to election district № 183 representative of “UDAR” party and Antonov village head Igor Semanchev had lost almost all chances to be elected as MP – as five Dnipro and Suvorov rayons settlements’ territories were redistribution (with about 20 000 residents) tо election district № 183. Some years ago I.Semenchev had established a public union “Peredmistya”, comprised of these particular five settlements representatives. After long-time and systematic activities he had managed to come second on Kherson city mayor elections and bring to Kherson city council representatives of “Vitchyzna” party he used to represent at that time, holding activities in Dnipro and Suvorov rayons of Kherson city. Division of Semanchev’s “electoral field” between districts has compassed him to give up ambitions to participate in elections and even left the “UDAR” party. Cherkassy oblast. Rayons with enterprises of local businessman G.Bobov were united in a district № 196. Division of Talne rayon between several districts may be unfavorable for potential candidate – member of “People’s party” S.Tereschuk who take care of the rayon. Chernihiv oblast. Territory of district № 207 coincide with campaigning activities coverage of MP I.Rybakov. Source: information from the Committee of voters of Ukraine regional branches

In this context CVU should note that the Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” does not

provide reasons and order of election districts’ boundaries revision. If the next (after 2012) elections of the

people’s deputies of Ukraine will be held in accordance with a mixed system, there is a high risk that those

districts that were formed in 2012 will be subject to considerable changes shortly before beginning of the

corresponding election process, and winners of 2012 campaign who will actively communicate with voters

of “their” districts will happen to be in an unfavorable position because of new redistribution of

administrative-territorial units among districts. That is why a list of reasons, the procedure and deadlines for

election districts boundaries’ revision should be clearly stated in the Law, and obligatory CEC

consultations with interested parties (first of all, political parties) on district boundaries should be

provided.

3. Campaigning

According to article 70 of the Law “On the Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine” a party that has

registered MP candidates in the nationwide election district, as well as MP candidates, may start their

election campaigning on the day following the day when the election commission adopts a decision on the

registration of the MP candidates. Violation of the restrictions related to election campaigning by a party or

an MP candidate leads to publication of a warning to the corresponding election process participant

(paragraph 2 of article 61 of the Law). However, the above mentioned restrictions apply to election

process subjects only, while parties and candidates receive a status of an to election process subject

only after candidates’ registration by CEC. In such a way, campaigning before the election process

beginning or even before candidates’ registration may not be regarded as violation of an election

legislation.

That is why certain parties and persons – potential candidates on 2012 elections have started campaigning

before election districts’ formation. In May 2012 campaigning had a number of features, listed below:

1) there is more campaigning activity in all regions; however, it is the most active in Kyiv, Zakarpattya,

Luhansk, Kharkiv, Poltava oblast, in certain districts of Kyiv city. At the same time, in some regions

campaigning is very active (i.e. in Sumy oblast);

2) potential candidates in majoritarian districts are campaigning more actively then parties – future

subjects of the election process;

3) of all parties, Party of Regions and “Ukraina Vpered!” are the most active. “UDAR”, “Front Zmin”

and “Batkivschyna” are less active, but still campaign in most regions of Ukraine. CPU focuses its

campaigning on the South and East of Ukraine, while “Svoboda” concentrates on Western regions and partly

on central oblasts. Viktor Medvedchuk is also campaigning rather actively. His public initiative “Ukrainian

choice” is actively promoted in most regions. It is being promoted even more actively then some leading

political parties;

4) the main forms of campaigning used by potential subjects of the election process in May 2012 was

placement of outdoor advertising; campaigning on TV and mass media, meetings with voters,

conduction of mass events, as well as

campaigning combined with provision of

material values (as a rule - free of charge) to

voters, institutions and organizations;

5) Party of Regions and “Ukraina Vpered!”

became leaders in placement of outdoor

advertising. I.e., in Autonomous Republic of

Crimea the Party of Regions placed considerable

number of outdoor advertisements on big-boards,

appealing to patriotic feelings of the Autonomous

Republic population. The outdoor ads used

images of A.Pushkin, writers L.Tolstoy and A.Chehov, and also Stierlitz, V.Vernadsky and other famous

persons who have visited Crimea.

Future candidates in single-mandate election districts have also used big-boards actively, mainly to

greet their potential voters with May holidays. Natalia Korolevska (as “Ukraina Vpered!” party leader) and

some of her activists’ in oblasts big-boards were especially noticeable. Outdoor advertisements of

B.Maksymchuk – teacher of Vinnitsa Pedagogical University (who had run as a candidate for local council

in 2010) were actively placed in Vinnitsa oblast election district № 12. In Kyiv election district № 211 there

were a lot of big-boards with Party of Regions MP I.Lysov’s advertisements; while in district № 222 – with

outdoor advertisements of Party of Regions MP M.Lutsky. Outdoor advertisements were actively published

in Luhansk oblast by 2012 potential candidates А.Gatsko, V.Goncharov (Artemivsk, Kamyanobrodsk

rayons), S.Gorohov (Zhovtnevy rayon), S.Dunaev (Lysychansk), О.Koval (Sverdlovsk), О.Kunchenko

(Severodonetsk), V.Landyk, V. Moshensky and Yu.Ternikov (Krasny Luch, Perevalsk rayon), І.Radchenko

(Rubizhne), V.Shamanov (Alchevsk), S.Shakhov (Stahanov, Pervomaysk, Alchevsk, Bryankа, Lysychansk),

and V.Kryvobokov, V.Struk, I.Lyska, S.Kilinkarov, V.Medyanyk and others. However, outdoor

advertisements of candidates who position themselves as oppositionists were also actively published

Luhansk oblast. In particular, advertisements of O.Lyashko, leader of Radical party were published. In

Dnipropetrovsk election district № 40 outdoor political advertisements were actively published by Party of

regions MP O.Tsarev.

Outdoor advertisement of O.Tsarev, potential

candidate in MP, Dnipropetrovsk city Outdoor advertisement of O.Lyashko, potential

candidate in MP, Luhansk city

6) organization and funding of mass events

(festivals, concerts etc.) remains to be one of the

popular forms of potential election process subjects

and electorate. In particular, P.Melnyk has organized

celebration of Kyiv-Svyatoshyn rayon anniversary in

Kyiv oblast (election district № 95), and T.Zasukha

participated in Vasylkiv graduates celebrations,

distributing cash bonuses. Honorary president of Public

Liability Company “Azot” Valentyna Zhukovska was

especially active in Cherkassy oblast. In particular, she

had organized celebration of Cherkassy city day

(election district № 194). In Luhansk, CPU MP

S.Kilinkarov has participated in May 1 meeting. In

Kharkiv oblast Party of Regions MP V.Grytsak has

participated in Victory Day celebrations, while leader

of Kharkiv “Svoboda” organization I.Shvaika was

present at an ecological action and tried to use it for campaigning. In Ternopil oblast V.Klymenko has

financed conduction of “Bratyna” festival, held in Shum rayon, belonging to election district № 164 – most

probably he will stand as a candidate in this district. Potential candidate in MP O.Kaletnyk (in particular – a

fund headed by O.Kaletnyk) has organized an event for children on the Children’s Day on the territory of

election district № 16 (Vinnitsa oblast). In the course of the event photos were taken and voters’ personal

V.Grytsak at Victory Day celebrations in Izum city

information collection for photographs distribution (though possibility of personal data use for election

campaigning in this case may not be eliminated).

Potential Party of Regions candidate in election district № 183 – director of Kherson shipbuilding factory

Vasyl Fedin has financed an international theatre festival “Tavria Melpomene” for the first time in 14 years

of festival conduction. Co-owner of “Continuum” group of companies Igor Eremeev provided sponsor

support to all-Ukrainian festival of spiritual music “Volyn Blagovist” in Volyn oblast. In Lviv oblast future

candidate T.Kozak (election district № 122) has organized concert of “Dzidzio” band.

Organization of mass events was actively used for PR not only by candidates but also by parties, especially

by Party of Regions and “Ukraina Vpered!” For example, N.Korolevska has arrived to Zaporizzhya city on

May 6, 2012, to hold a meeting with voters – after that, a concert of Russian singer O.Gazmanov in support

was held. It is interesting that Gazmanov held similar event in Makiivka, patroned by Party of Regions. A

festive concert dedicated to Victory Day was also held in May in Mariupol city with participation of the

“Ukraina Vpered!” leader. Party of Regions has organized concerts in Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk and

Zaporizzhya oblasts, using them a means of agitation for 2012 elections;

7) certain episodes of so called “black PR” registered by CVU regional branches in some oblasts give

rise to concerns. For example, on May 30 in Izmail (Odessa oblast) leaflets against O.Dubovy, Yulia

Tymoshenko Block MP and potential candidate on future parliamentary elections were disseminated during

a meeting against a new law on sea ports. In the leaflets, there was a false appeal of O.Dubovy to voters with

a request to vote for him together with defamatory information about the potential candidate;

8) in certain districts instances of prevention from campaigning activities were registered. Though, such

cases are still sporadic.

In particular, in Vinnitsa region city mayor of Ladyzhyn has refused to provide potential candidate in MP in

17th district, acting deputy of oblast council Grigory Zabolotny with premises for reception of voters. The

deputy has appealed to the Ladyzhyna mayor Valery Kolomeytsev with a request to provide premises for

reception of voters, but received an answer that he has no right to refer to the Law “On Status of Local

Council Deputies” as he is not a deputy from Ladyzhyn, thus violating this law.

On May 24, 2012 the leader of “Front Zmin” party

Arseny Yatsenuk has informed journalists about

the refusal of all communal and private

institutions of Donetsk city to provide premises for

his meetings with voters. According to the

information, published by opposition, communal

and private institutions gave preliminary consent

on rent of premises, but refused to provide them

after finding out the purpose of rent and the

surname of opposition politician. Leader of

“United Left” party S.Nikolaenko had experienced

a similar situation - according to him,

businessmen refused to provide him premises in

rayon centers of Kherson oblast under some

format pretenses and referred to an instruction

from rayon administrations representatives.

Skadovsk was named as one of such rayon centers

– according to S.Nikolaenko, his meeting with representatives of public was actually sabotaged by personal

instruction of rayon administration head Egor Ustinov. On May 17, 2012 a meeting of Cherkassy oblast

council deputies A.Bondarenko of “Batkivschyna” with oblast voters was sabotaged – the deputy was

preventing from entering the premises where the meeting was planned.

„Подарунок” голови Житомирської ОДА спортивній школі

Accusation of chief editor of rayon newspaper “Radyanska Tavria” Natalia Vorobyova in political bias by

head of Chaplinka rayon administration V.Beryslavsky may also be referred to indirect prevention from

campaigning and influence on mass media editorial policy. In the official’s opinion, there were too many

materials from CPU faction deputies in the newspaper and not enough – from deputies of other factions.

According to information provided by Vinnitsa oblast CVU branch, election district № 15 local mass media

outlets which have rayon state administrations as their founders refuse to publish materials on potential

candidate in MP V.Vovk, explaining that the editorial boards of the newspapers decided that the information

will not be “interesting” to the readers;

9) in certain cases CVU regional branches registered direct or indirect involvement of government

agencies, budget institutions, their officials and employees in campaigning activities. I.e., according to

Cherkasy CVU regional branch information lists for the meetings with potential candidate V.Nechyporenko

on his own stud farm in Zhashkiv which last for several months already (election district №199), are

prepared in Zhashkiv, Lysyansk, Mankiv, Zvenyhorod rayon state administrations.

In Mykolaiv a case with involvement of local universities’ students to a meeting with N.Korolevska by the

administration of corresponding universities was registered;

10) in certain districts campaigning activities are integrally combined

with realization of social initiatives and charity. In particular, according

to Odessa oblast CVU branch information a program “People’s Budget”

is actively introduced in Odessa oblast. Publication of information about

this program (which will include various social programs, construction

of social infrastructure objects on some districts territories) is combined

with indirect campaigning for certain potential candidates in oblast

districts. G.Trukhanov, L.Klimov, I.Fursin, O.Presman, V.Barvinenko.

I.Plokhoy, A.Kise, Yu.Karuk are among such candidates. Mass events

are regularly conducted in the framework of the program promotion,

meetings with residents etc., providing potential Party of Regions

candidates – “curators” of the “People’s Budget” have an opportunity to

campaign.

In some other regions surnames of certain candidates are “tied” with

social-economic projects, connected with reconstruction or construction

of social infrastructure objects.

In particular, in Zhytomyr oblast head of oblast state administration has

“presented” a bus, purchased by state budget funds, to a starts school.

Though the head of oblast state administration will hardly stand as

candidate on elections, such an example is one more illustration to the

practice of promoting one or another person among voters in the context

of social advertising;

11) Publication of “image” materials with features of hidden

political propaganda but with no corresponding indication remain

traditionally popular. In particular, printed edition “Nashe Misto”

disseminated in Kyiv oblast informs positively on activities of potential

candidate P.Melnyk.

From 3 to 5 “advertorials” on activities of potential candidate in MP

O.Chervonuk were published every week in May issues of Rivne oblast

newspapers. Though the main attention was paid to O.Chervonuk

activities as a head of Rivne linen factory, his activities were positively

„Іміджева” стаття про П.Мельника в

газеті „Наше місто”

„Іміджева” стаття потенційного

кандидата у депутати О.Калетник в газеті „Краяни”

covered and may indirectly motivate voters to vote for him if nominated for MP. O.Chervonuk visit to

Ostrog Academy was also positively covered in mass media. The corresponding materials were not reprinted

from the same article, but the content makes it possible to rate them as “advertorials” or hidden propaganda.

As for the other regions, “advertorials” are traditionally disseminated as reprints of the same (or very similar

in content) article (articles). I.e., almost identical “image” articles of potential candidate O.Kaletnyk printed

in Vinnitsa oblast newspapers “Krayany” and “Slovo Podillya”.

In Donetsk oblast a number of articles with indicative titles were published in April-May in different media:

“Home-brew opposition: no recognition, no trust…”, “Decline in Party of Regions popularity in Donetsk

oblast – truth or one more myth by opposition?”, “On the way to social justice”. One may assumpt that in

this case advertorials were disseminated centrally, miming authors’ point of view. Some potential

candidates disseminate editions fully devoted to positive coverage of their activities. In particular, a

newspaper of a potential Party of Regions candidate S.Kaltsev is disseminated in election district № 75

(Zaporizzhya city). The monthly circulation of the newspaper is about 80 000 copies.

Campaigning ahead election process subjects’ registration does not contribute to equal opportunities

for parties and candidates, considerably raises expenses on agitation and makes risks of political

corruption higher. Besides, such campaigning activities are in fact beyond legal regulation and its

financing is not overseen.

According to the CVU experts’ opinion there is a need to adopt a separate law (or introduction of

amendments to current normative act of Ukraine, in particular, law “On Advertising”, “On Political

parties in Ukraine”), which would regulate placement of political advertisements in a period before

candidates’ registration by corresponding election commissions, determine limits on wordage and

sources of funding, provide publication of information on main party donors, as well as private

persons benefiting from advertisement and sums of their payments.

In order to prevent dissemination of the so called “black PR” potential election race participants

should consider a possibility to sign an agreement (memorandum, protocol or similar document on

intentions), obliging to campaign in accordance with commonly recognized standards, moral and

ethical norms.

4. Preparations for candidates' nomination

Though according to the Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” nomination of candidates

by parties should start on June 30, 2012 and finish on August 9 (self-nominated candidates should submit

documents to CEC for registration no later than August 13), active preparations for candidates nomination is

on the way in all regions of Ukraine. These preparations have certain features:

1) while a Committee against dictatorship is still discussing the list of candidates in national district and

candidates for nomination in single-mandate districts, some leading parties have already selected

candidates for nomination in single-mandate districts, agreed with each other. Such agreements may be

understood from the analysis of election districts’ configurations – some of their boundaries have been

determined in favor of certain potential candidates.

2) instances of public support (agitation) for potential candidates by well-known persons (clergy

figures, representatives of show-business etc.) and officials are still occasional. In particular, O.Stupka

expressed support to O.Dovgy, who will probably be nominated in Kyiv city. Kharkiv mayor G.Kernes has

joint presentation with potential candidate V.Pysarenko in one of Kharkiv city districts. In Ivano-Frankivsk

oblast, where almost all candidates try to receive support from the church, according to some sources of

information a private blessing for “election struggle” from Ivano-Frankivsk Ukrainian Greek Catholic

Church metropolitan archbishop V.Viytyshyn was granted to Mykola Zelinsky (who would most probably

stand as independent candidate in election district № 84), as a person who contributed to Ivano-Frankivsk

metropolitan development when being an oblast council member. Famous artist T.Petrinenko has also

expressed support to M.Zelinsky;

3) activity of local party organizations depends on parties and regions. On the regional level, Party of

Regions branches are the most active, however, in Western Ukraine their activities is considerably lower

than in the East. In particular, Ivano-Frankivsk oblast Party of Regions organization is mainly busy with

development of a youth wing of the party. “Batkivschyna” and “Front Zmin” concentrate on structural

development in the East and South. I.e., after a uniting forum they have actively started to develop united

headquarters in Оdessa region. In Kherson oblast they have also created united headquarters, headed by

V.Mykolaenko, deputy of Kherson city council. «UDAR» is actively developing its structure in

Autonomous Republic of Crimea – the party is busy with opening its offices and forming party active in

Crimea rayons. CPU branches are active in Zaporizzhya, Donetsk and Kherson oblasts, “Svoboda” branches

– in Western oblasts. “Ukraina Vpered!” also tries to develop local organizations. “Edyny Tsentr” is rather

active in Zakarpattya oblast;

4) preparation to candidates’ nomination in single-mandate districts in some districts is followed by

interparty and inner party conflicts. Interparty conflict mainly appear between opposition parties. For

examples, candidacy of P.Zhebrivsky who may stand in election district № 63 (Zhytomyr oblast) was not

accepted by “Front Zmin”. “Front Zmin” representatives declared that the candidacy of Zhebrivsky was not

agreed with them. In Ternopil R.Zastavny (now – from “Front Zmin”) and O.Kayda (head of oblast council,

“Svoboda”) did not find common language. Opposition forces has also not reached agreement on oblast

council deputy elections in Teophipol election district of Khmelnytsky oblast (held on May 6th) – they did

not manage to nominate a single candidate, finally resulting in a victory of Party of Regions candidate.

A conflict in Kherson oblast “UDAR” organization may also be counted as interparty conflict. Head of

Antoniv village council I.Semenchev was forced to leave the party because of several reasons, among them

– loss of part of electorate because of districts formation, ascension of well-known businessman A.Putilov to

“UDAR” party – according to some information sources, there was a personal conflict with him, as well as

defamation campaign against I.Semenchev, caused by conflict situation with plans to construct of new

transport port-terminal on the territory of Antoniv village;

5) certain potential candidates try distance themselves from affiliation with any political parties and

to position themselves as “independent” candidates. Such practice is especially wide-spread in regions

where the party rate is low and decreasing, while the candidate’s personal rate has a tendency to increase. In

particular, in Odessa oblast E.Gurvits, associated with “Front Zmin” will have more chances to be elected is

self-nominated. In Rivne oblast О.Chervonuk had been nominated for Rivne oblast council from the “Sylna

Ukraina” party. However, there is no reference of his present or former affiliation in public materials.

Potential candidate V.Yanitsky used to be a “Viche party” deputy of Solomyansk rayon council of Kyiv city

however, party rating ballast may decrease his chances to be elected to parliament. In Ternopil oblast a

number of politicians close to Party of Regions try not to “show off” their connections with this party and

position themselves as independent candidates. V.Klymenko, I.Chaikivsky, V.Bedrykivsky are among such

candidates.

5. Campaigning combined with providing citizens with free of charge material values

Article 61 of the Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” clearly prohibits money handouts

or distribution for free or on preferential terms of commodities, works, services, securities, loans, lottery

tickets, or other material benefits to the voters, establishments, institutions, organizations, or members of

election commissions by an organization whose founder, owner, or administrative body member is an MP

candidate, a party that has nominated MP candidates, or an official of that party.

Provisions of this article are specified in paragraph 13 of article 71 of the Law, prohibiting also agitation

(including indication of party title of candidate’s name) combined with distribution of material values.

However, only election process subject may be made accountable for indirect bribery of voters. In fact, such

accountability in fact means only declaration of a warning to the election process subject – Criminal Code of

Ukraine (article 157) provides for accountability for direct vote-buying only (in particular, for prevention of

election right realization by bribery), while the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations (articles 212-

10) provide for administrative responsibility for

violation of pre-election campaigning limitations

only (and only campaigning by election process

subject may be regarded as pre-election). In fact

such situation makes it impossible to bring to

justice parties and potential candidates who

execute actions which are in fact (but not legally)

indirect vote-buying. Lack of possibility to bring

them to justice have lead on regional level to

mass spread of activities which has actual

features of indirect bribery, but is not indirect

bribery according to the Law on the Election of

People's Deputies of Ukraine:

1) material values are distributed among

voters in all regions; potential candidates are

Частина „продуктово-грошового” набору, поширеного від імені потенційного кандидата у депутати С.Буряка

more active then parties in activities that have certain features of indirect vote-buying (hereafter –

“indirect bribery”). The main category of distributed goods are food packages. In May they were mainly

distributed on the occasion of Victory Day and graduation from educational institutions. Though parties

were not as active as potential candidates in practicing indirect bribery in May, they became more active in

material “stimulation” of electorate on Victory Day occasion. In particular, food packages were distributed

among veterans by Lviv city organization of the Party of Regions.

Besides from the traditional food packages, some potential candidates distributed untypical presents. In

particular, according to Chernihiv CVU branch information, packages with poison against Colorado beetle

were distributed on oblast territory on behalf of ex-head of Chernihiv oblast state administration 24.05.2012;

On behalf of I.Goryna certificates on cosmetics were distributed in Kharkiv oblast in the beginning of May;

In Cherkassy oblast 12.05.2012 B.Gubsky distributed flash-drives to graduates; while on the same day

S.Tereschuk distributed packages with aster and corn seeds. In Ternopil oblast representatives of one of

possible candidates in MP V.Chubak distributed warm winter socks in villages of Borschiv rayon (election

district № 167).

In Zhovkiv rayon of Lviv region (election district № 122) local deputy, ex-custom and tax agent T.Kozak

distributed among parishioners and students a prayer book "Prayer Book for students and schoolchildren".

On one cover of the book there was a picture on religious thematic, on the other – a photo of T.Kozak.

On May 17 a representative of united opposition in Cherkassy oblast – А.Bondarenko distributed DVD-

players in state institutions. On May 25 a deputy of Zakarpattya oblast council from Party of Regions

S.Derkach distributed greeting cards with top-up cards for mobile phones in educational institutions.

Even cash was distributed on behalf of some potential candidates. In particular, veterans and members of

veteran union in Shepetivka and Polonsky rayons of Khmelnitsky oblast received gift packages on the

occasion of victory Day on behalf of potential candidate in MP S.Buryak (election district № 190) – box of

chocolates formed as eggs, 5 kilo package of sugar and 200 hryvnas. MP I.Rybakov has also experiences

considerable expenses on “communication” with voters. In particular, in 2011-2012 he had bought school

buses for Dmytrivsk school in Bahmach rayon, Spask school in Sosnytsky rayon and a school in a rayon

center of Korukivka (Chernihiv oblast), and also opened a bridge on Uday river in Varvynsk rayon of this

oblast. Such an activity may be explained with the fact that I.Rybakov plans to stand as a candidate in one of

single-mandate districts of Chernihiv oblast;

2) charitable funds affiliated with certain politicians became rather active subjects of voters’ material

“stimulation”. As a rule such funds provided some categories of voters with goods or services. For

example, Fund of A.Girshweld presented settlements of Krasnograd and rayons of Kharkiv oblast new

refrigerators. Presents of behalf of charitable foundations were also distributed in Luhansk oblast (in

particular, funds affiliated with V.Moshensky, V.Goncharov, S.Shahov and others). From mid-May a fund

of Party of Regions MP P.Lebedev financed free of charge medical examination for residents of Balaklava

rayon of Crimea, and also distributed necessary pills (election district № 224).

Mass spread of “indirect vote-buying” practice which has number of indirect bribery features

provided by the Law “On the Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine” but realized beyond election

process and making legal responsibility, proves that provisions should be ensured by legislation to

prevent its further dissemination. Such provisions would foresee i.e. obligatory inclusion of certain

categories of expenses made before the election process start to financial reports on receipts and use of

election funds; obligation of candidates, parties and affiliated persons (including charitable funds) to

publish information of total sum of expenses on political advertisements, including distribution of

material values, for a certain term before election day; introduction of a limit of certain categories of

expenses etc. Such provisions are present in many European countries’ legislation.