|
 U.S.-Ukraine Business Council Congratulates Ukraine on 19 Years of Independence !!
Now is the time for passing major economic, business and legal reforms to get Ukraine fully open for business.
U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC)
Wash, D.C., Tue, Aug 24, 2010, Seven Articles
INDEPENDENCE DAY, TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2010
U.S.-Ukraine Business Council Congratulates Ukraine on 19 Years of Independence !!
Now is the time for passing major economic, business and legal reforms to get Ukraine fully open for business.
INDEX OF SEVEN ARTICLES ------
Clicking on the title of any article takes you directly to the article.
Return to Index by clicking on Return to Index at the end of each article
1. SECRETARY CLINTON CONGRATULATES UKRAINE ON INDEPENDENCE DAY
Public Affairs Section, U.S. Embassy, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
2. UKRAINE MARKS 19 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE
Lawmakers in then-Soviet Ukraine adopted an independence act on August 24, 1991.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Prague, Check Republic, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
3. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SAYS HE WANTS MORE POWERS
Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Tue Aug 24, 2010
4. UKRAINE MARKS INDEPENDENCE DAY ON TUESDAY
Itar-Tass, Moscow, Russia, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
5. SCHOLAR SAYS UKRAINE'S GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT 'SURVIVAL'
Interview with Andrew Wilson, RFE/RL, Prague, Czech Republic, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
6. UKRAINE LOCAL ELECTION LAW ANALYSIS
International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI)
Washington, D.C., Monday, August 16, 2010
7. UKRAINE IS FAILING THE DEMOCRACY TEST
A new election law that protects the ruling elite is undemocratic
and raises fresh doubts about Ukraine's suitability to join the EU
Analysis & Commentary: By Viktor Tkachuk
Chief Executive Officer, People First Foundation, Kyiv
Guardian newspaper, London, UK, Sunday 22 August 2010
=============================================================
1. SECRETARY CLINTON CONGRATULATES UKRAINE ON INDEPENDENCE DAY
Public Affairs Section, U.S. Embassy, Kyiv, Ukraine, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has recorded a video congratulating the Ukrainian people on the occasion of Ukraine’s Independence Day. The video of the Secretary’s address can be viewed on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine at: http://ukraine.usembassy.gov. The video file is also available for downloading. The text of the message follows:
Congratulations, and happy Independence Day to all Ukrainians. This August 24th, you celebrate 19 years of independence for Ukraine and you honor the democratic values that not only Ukrainians but also Americans share.
I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine in July. I met with your President, Foreign Minister, university students, so many others eager to share their ideas and talents with your country. It is a testament to the determination, persistence, and spirit of the Ukrainian people that your country has made such remarkable progress in a short time. The United States is proud to be your partner.
We know you will continue working with the same energy and diligence to protect and strengthen your democratic institutions, advance civil society, and promote transparent markets to lay the basis for a future of stability and prosperity.
In the coming year, our Strategic Partnership will enhance cooperation between our countries across a broad range of issues where we are already working --- trade, investment, economic growth; energy cooperation; political dialogue, the rule of law; regional security and territorial integrity. We will also explore ways to expand our people-to-people exchanges.
The United States has stood by Ukraine and the people of Ukraine since Independence, and we will continue to support you as you work to achieve the full benefits of democracy and all of the blessings that go with it.
-----------------------------------
The following is the same text in Ukrainian (KOI8-u encoding)
-----------------------------------
24 серпня 2010 року
ПРИВІТАННЯ ДЕРЖАВНОГО СЕКРЕТАРЯ США ГІЛЛАРІ КЛІНТОН ІЗ ДНЕМ НЕЗАЛЕЖНОСТІ УКРАЇНИ
Державний секретар США Гілларі Родем Клінтон звернулася до українського народу із привітанням з Днем незалежності. Відео привітання можна побачити на вебсайті Посольства США в Україні: http://ukraine.usembassy.gov. Також, відео-файл можна завантажити. Текст привітання такий:
Вітаю усіх українців із Днем незалежності і бажаю гарного свята. 24 серпня у цьому році ви відзначаєте 19-річчя незалежності України і віддаєте шану цінностям, які поділяють не тільки українці, але й американці.
Я мала честь відвідати Україну в липні. Я зустрілася із вашим Президентом, міністром закордонних справ, студентами вишів, багатьма іншими, хто готовий ділитися своїми ідеями і талантами із своєю країною. Значний поступ, якого досягла ваша країна за невеликий проміжок часу, свідчить про рішучість, наполегливість і силу духу українського народу. Сполучені Штати пишаються тим, що є вашим партнером. Ми знаємо, що ви продовжуватимете із тим же завзяттям і сумлінністю працювати над захистом і зміцненням ваших демократичних інституцій, розвитком громадянського суспільства, поширенням прозорих ринків, що закладе фундамент стабільного й заможного майбутнього.
Протягом наступного року наше стратегічне партнерство дозволить поглибити співробітництво між нашими країнами у широкому спектрі галузей, де ми вже працюємо – торгівля, інвестиції, економічне зростання; енергетична співпраця; політичний діалог, верховенство права; регіональна безпека і територіальна цілісність. Ми також шукатимемо шляхи розширення контактів і обмінів між нашими людьми.
Сполучені Штати завжди підтримували Україну і народ України із часу здобуття незалежності, і ми продовжимо підтримувати вас у вашій праці із досягнення усіх преваг демократії та тих благ, що вона несе.
-----------------------------------
LINK: http://kyiv.usembassy.gov/infocentral_eng.html, Public Affairs Section, United States Embassy Kyiv, Hlybochytska St., Kyiv 04050 Ukraine
(380 44) 490-4026, 490-4090, Fax (380 44) 490-4050; http://kyiv.usembassy.gov/;
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), www.usubc.org]
========================================================
2. UKRAINE MARKS 19 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE
Lawmakers in then-Soviet Ukraine adopted an independence act on August 24, 1991.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Prague, Czech Republic, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
KYIV - Ukraine is marking the 19th anniversary of its independence from the Soviet Union.
Lawmakers in Ukraine adopted an independence act on August 24, 1991, declaring Ukraine an independent and democratic state, in the aftermath of the coup attempt earlier that month by hard-line communists against then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
An independence referendum in December of 1991 was overwhelmingly approved by Ukrainian voters.
In a statement aired on August 24 on Ukrainian television, President Viktor Yanukovych said his government was doing all it can to help the country be economically independent. "My reform program is aimed at building an economically independent Ukrainian state," Yanukovych said.
Many in Ukraine believe Russia is using its energy resources to put pressure on its neighbor.
Relations between the two countries deteriorated under the 2005-2010 presidency of pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko, which was also marked by a bitter personal rivalry between the president and his former ally Yulia Tymoshenko.
The feud between the leaders of the 2004 Orange Revolution helped opened the door for their pro-Russian rival Yanukovych, who won the presidential election in February.
Relations with Moscow have since improved. Yanukovych has realigned his country with Russia through sweeping changes, including a 25-year extension of Moscow's lease for a Black Sea naval base. In return, Kyiv secured a hefty discount on Russian natural gas.
But while such moves are popular in Ukraine's largely-Russian speaking east, the opposition says Yanukovych is putting Kyiv firmly under Moscow's sphere of influence.
According to a new survey carried out by the Kyiv-based Razumkov Center, 45 percent of Ukrainians doubt whether their country is truly independent.
There's also growing concern at what critics are calling a deteriorating climate for press freedom in the country.
The Washington-based organization Freedom House, which measures the degree of liberty in countries around the world, says Ukraine is setting an example for its region in the progress it is making in democratization. But in a July interview with RFE/RL, the organization's director of studies, Christopher Walker, warned that there have been some “growing pressures” on civil society and news media.
'MORE DEVELOPED STATE"
In his address on August 24, Yanukovych pledged support for judicial reform, the defense of human rights, and a free press: "I support and always will support the development of strong and free media because that is the foundation of democracy. I will not allow the country to turn off the democratic path of reforms for the sake of the selfish interests of any irresponsible politicians."
Andrew Wilson, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, tells RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service that the biggest achievement in Ukraine since 1991 is "survival."
"But I remember [former President] Leonid Kravchuk citing that in 1994. So one would have hoped for something more than mere survival by now. Maintaining relative internal accord, given predictions that the state would break up or the Crimean succession might turn serious," Wilson says.
When compared to other countries of the former Soviet Union, Wilson says that Ukraine is a more developed state. "Ukraine has certainly avoided the extreme problems of Georgia or even Moldova. So there is still a lot to do. Ukraine should have done more. Given that, on any definition of adulthood, it should have achieved a lot more by now," Wilson says.
In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a video message congratulating Ukraine, saying that Ukrainians and Americans share democratic values. "The United States has stood by Ukraine and the people of Ukraine since independence, and we will continue to support you as you work to achieve the full benefits of democracy and all of the blessings that go with it."
Clinton pledged that the United States will continue to work with Ukraine to protect and strengthen Ukrainian democratic institutions, advance civil society, and promote transparent markets to lay the basis for a future of stability and prosperity.
NOTE: written by Antoine Blua, with reporting from RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service
LINK: http://www.rferl.org/content/Ukraine_Marks_19_Years_Of_Independence/2135776.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), www.usubc.org]
========================================================
U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC): http://www.usubc.org
From 22 to over 100 Members in Two Years, Join Today
========================================================
3. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SAYS HE WANTS MORE POWERS
Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, Tue Aug 24, 2010
KIEV - Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich called on Tuesday for constitutional reform that would strengthen his powers and enable him to push through tough economic reform.
Yanukovich said the former Soviet republic needed a new, stable political system led by a "strong president" to guide it through potentially painful structural reforms.
"In order to achieve this we need to reform the constitution thoroughly," he said in a televised speech on Ukraine's Independence Day.
Ukraine curbed presidential powers in favour of parliament through constitutional amendments introduced in 2004 when pro-Western politician Viktor
Yushchenko came to power after the "Orange Revolution" street demonstrations.
The curbs, promoted by Yanukovich's supporters at the time, limited Yushchenko's effectiveness as president and set up confrontation with parliament and prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The dispute ultimately contributed to his downfall in an election earlier this year.
Yanukovich supporters now say his hand should be strengthened so he can push through unpopular reforms such as raising household gas prices and slimming down the bloated pension system.
Many of the reforms have been undertaken at the behest of the International Monetary Fund which has extended a new $15 billion stand-by arrangement to Ukraine to help stabilise its economy.
(Writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Richard Balmforth and Mark Heinrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), www.usubc.org]
========================================================
4. UKRAINE MARKS INDEPENDENCE DAY ON TUESDAY
Itar-Tass, Moscow, Russia, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
KIEV - Ukraine marks the 19th anniversary of the gaining of independence on Tuesday. In an address to the people of Ukraine on the occasion of the Day of Independence, President Viktor Yanukovich pointed out, "Nineteen years ago with great hope and belief we responded to the challenge of fate by embarking upon the road of creation and development of an independent state of our own".
The President believes that "the peculiarity of the present day, when we are entering a 20th year of independence, is that the authorities do everything to ensure that Ukraine gains an economic independence as well". "Because a real independence is based precisely on that foundation. My programme of reforms is a programme for building an economically independent Ukrainian state," Yanukovich stated.
"I shall not allow the country to swerve off the democratic road of reforms to satisfy the selfish interests of some irresponsible politicians," the Head of State added. "I understand that the road that we have chosen is very complex and hard. However, there is no other road to a genuine freedom and real independence. There is no other road to an independent Ukraine, in which I would like our children to live".
On August 24, 1991, the Ukrainian parliament adopted an "Act of Proclamation of the Independence of Ukraine". "A republican referendum must be held on December 1, 1991, to reaffirm the Act of the Proclamation of Independence," said the resolution of the Verkhovna Rada.
The outcome of the historic referendum marked the beginning of a final break-up of the Soviet Union. Presently, on December 8, 1991, the leaders of independent Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Byelorussian SSR signed a Belovezhye Accord on the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Accord was ratified by the parliaments of those countries and supported by a majority of the republics of the USSR. Shortly after that the state independence of Ukraine was recognized in the whole world.
Notwithstanding the fact that during the December 1 referendum in 1991 more than 90 percent of Ukrainians supported the independence of Ukraine, thereby factually legalizing the country's withdrawal from the Soviet Union, many present-day Ukrainians pine for Soviet times.
Over 45 percent of Ukrainians participating in a survey carried out by the Razumkov Center are confident that the economic situation has deteriorated and the population's living standards have declined in the independent Ukraine, as compared with those in the Ukrainian SSR.
The present authorities promise to rectify the situation in the country through effecting large-scale reforms. However, in order to do that, Yanukovich associates believe, it is essential to broaden the powers of the Head of State.
According to Sergei Levochkin, head of the presidential administration, Yanukovich with his powers has enough clout in the state but that his activity, in
effecting reforms, in particular, could have been more effective if those powers were extended. Levochkin declared in favour of reverting to the Constitution of the1996 pattern.
Yanukovich himself also states that he wants to enhance the presidential powers. With this end in view he considers it advisable to rewrite the Constitution.
"The Constitution in the present-day dynamic historical conditions requires some amendments. Some of its norms, such as, specifically, those hastily adopted at the end of 2004, have become the cause of imbalance and a serious crisis of power and, it means, the target for well-founded criticism inside the country and on the part of the international community," Yanukovich said earlier.
According to sources, in a speech on Tuesday, Yanukovich is expected to state the need to cancel the constitutional reform of 2004, which will enhance his powers.
It is true, as Mikhail Chehetov, deputy head of the parliamentary faction of the Party of Regions, said, "No one knows now what the President will say exactly". In so doing the Member of Parliament recognized the need to enhance presidential power. "We all are in need of order and, it means, a strong vertically integrated system of power with clear-cut powers. And we shall ensure that," Chechetov emphasized.
On Monday, Yanukovich stated that he so far intends to refer to the Verkhovna Rada only proposals about amending the law on local elections. "On August 25, immediately after the Independence Day, I shall sign amendments to the electoral law and I shall insist on the convocation of an extraordinary meeting of the Verkhovna Rada so that we could amend the law and political forces would get an opportunity under the provisions of the new law to take part in the elections", he said. The President did not specify what amendments exactly he intends to initiate, pleading an extensive list of amendments.
LINK: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15427688&PageNum=0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), www.usubc.org]
========================================================
U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC): http://www.usubc.org
Promoting U.S.-Ukraine business relations & investment since 1995.
========================================================
5. SCHOLAR SAYS UKRAINE'S GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT SURVIVAL'
Interview with Andrew Wilson, RFE/RL, Prague, Czech Republic, Tue, Aug 24, 2010
KYIV - As Ukraine marks its Independence Day on August 24, one analyst says Kyiv's greatest accomplishment since independence has been "survival." But he adds that survival is not good enough.
Andrew Wilson, the author of books like "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation" and "Ukraine's Orange Revolution" and a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, talks to RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service correspondent Maryana Drach about the high and low points of the country's 19 years of statehood.
RFE/RL: According to the latest opinion surveys, 45 percent of Ukrainians have doubts about whether Ukraine is truly an independent state. What is your view?
Andrew Wilson: In some ways, I might be one of them. I might agree that Ukraine has had a very mixed record both on state- and nation-building over the last 19 years. Its economy has actually been in trouble recently, and with so many sectors falling under Russian influence, there is a question mark about how economically independent Ukraine really is.
Though, on the other hand, it's interesting that Ukraine -- like a lot of countries in the region -- has developed a kind of neo-Titoist [eds: nonaligned] line in foreign policy. Ukraine doesn't act like the EU states of Central Europe who became member states in 2004-07. It's too independent-minded. It doesn't really fulfill the Copenhagen criteria as it should. And Russia also talks of states like Ukraine being difficult to influence or control.
So in some ways, Ukraine is too independent. In some ways, it's not independent enough.
RFE/RL: What is the biggest achievement by Ukraine during the last 19 years?
Wilson: Survival. But I remember [former President] Leonid Kravchuk citing that in 1994. So one would have hoped for something more than mere survival by now. [It is an accomplishment that Ukraine has been] maintaining relative internal accord, given predictions that the state would break up or the Crimean succession might turn serious. Ukraine has certainly avoided the extreme problems of Georgia or even Moldova.
[But] there is still a lot to do. Ukraine should have done more. Given that, on any definition of adulthood, it should have achieved a lot more by now.
A Putin/Beijing Model
RFE/RL: In which direction do you think Ukraine is being taking by the new president, Viktor Yanukovych?
Wilson: In terms of how people assess the Yanukovych presidency, two things are notable or worrying. One is political trends. Clearly, Yanukovych would like to establish some kind of Putin-like soft authoritarianism. The other is the kind of spread of the Beijing consensus. At the moment, regime officials talk about European choice, but also talk about order and learning from the Chinese model.
So there are some signals that that means soft authoritarianism could become a growing trend in the future. But in both cases, this will be a test of the long-standing academic theory that Ukraine is not Russia. We all remember the title of President [Leonid] Kuchma's famous book ["Ukraine Is Not Russia"].
But that has long been expanded into a kind of theory that Ukraine is culturally different, [that] it's more naturally pluralistic than Russia: regionally, economically, in terms of their linguistic identity, religion even. And for that and other reasons, it is therefore much more difficult to consolidate power in Ukraine. Over the next few years, we will see.
EU/Orange Failure
RFE/RL: You said that Ukraine could have achieved much more during the last 19 years. What is the European Union's responsibility for the fact that Ukraine hasn't done more?
Wilson: At some specific historical periods, the EU could have done more. Most obviously, in the kind of short window of opportunity between the Orange Revolution and the defeat of the European constitution in the referendums in Holland and France in 2005, the EU could certainly have reacted more to the signals of change given by the Orange Revolution -- the hope for further change.
But the EU measures things by results. Ukraine's progress was extraordinarily bad under the Orange years most of that time, with some improvement toward the end under the second Tymoshenko premiership.
RFE/RL: How has the lack of progress on reforms after the Orange Revolution affected the way the European Union deals with Ukraine today?
Wilson: What I would say is that because things were so bad under most of the Orange period, a lot of people in Europe seem prepared to accept Yanukovych's promise -- little more -- of order and stability above all. They are therefore rather too willing to accept his cutting of many corners and breaking of many democratic principles thought well-established by the Orange Revolution. So in that respect, the EU has a bit too blind an eye at the moment.
LINK: http://www.rferl.org/content/Interview_Scholar_Says_Ukraines_Greatest_Achievement_Survial/2136252.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), www.usubc.org]
========================================================
6. UKRAINE LOCAL ELECTION LAW ANALYSIS
International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI)
Washington, D.C., Monday, August 16, 2010
Dear Colleagues:
We would like to share with you the attached analysis of the practical implications of the new Ukrainian Law on Local Elections. The Ukrainian parliament adopted the Law in late July. This analysis was produced by the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute in order to highlight the Law’s impact on the quality and fairness of the Ukrainian local elections that will be held on October 31, 2010.
Based on an analysis of the Law on Local Elections in relation to international standards, the institutes are concerned about several issues related to the substance of the law and the process by which it was passed. The new law was drafted and adopted in a non-transparent manner that involved virtually no public debate. It does include a new provision for domestic monitors, although with insufficient detail and clarity.
The Law places restrictions on newer parties and independent candidates and prohibits electoral blocs at the local level. In these and other respects, the Law appears to contradict principles established by the Ukrainian Constitution, as well as international obligations and commitments undertaken by Ukraine. We welcome your interest and would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Sincerely,
/s/ /s/
Laura Jewett Stephen B. Nix
Eurasia Regional Director, NDI Eurasia Regional Director, IRI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UKRAINE LOCAL ELECTION LAW ANALYSIS
The Ukrainian parliament recently approved a new law pertaining to local elections scheduled for October 31, 2010. The law "On Elections of Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Local Councils and Village, Settlement and City Mayors" (“the local election law”) has raised concerns among domestic and international experts as well as some members of the Central Election Commission and opposition parties. At least one party has filed a petition with the Constitutional Court seeking an order from the Court declaring certain provisions of the Law to be unconstitutional.
The Law includes numerous technical errors and confusing procedures. It limits the electoral potential for a number of newly established parties, including some that are now represented in the parliament, while creating apparent advantages for incumbent parties. Restrictions on new parties and independent candidates appear to be unreasonable in light of principles established by the Ukrainian constitution, as well as international obligations and commitments that Ukraine has undertaken.
The Law makes key changes to Ukraine’s election law within 100 days of the election, contrary to principles set forth by the European Commission’s Venice Commission[i] that discourage changing election-related legislation within a year prior to an election. It is important to note that the Law was drafted and adopted in a non-transparent manner and involved virtually no public debate.
The draft was registered in the Rada (parliament) by the Party of Region’s leadership on June 29 and was approved on July 10. Very few of the 1355 amendments reached the full Rada for consideration prior to the final vote. President Yanukovych signed the Law on July 27, 2010.
The following analysis highlights the most significant changes that will likely have the most direct impact on the quality and fairness of local elections in Ukraine. The following document does not purport to be an extensive analysis of the new Law.
Change in Party Registration Requirements
Under the new Law, only regional and local party branches that were registered more than one year before the election date are qualified to participate in the local election In addition, the Law prohibits political parties from running as blocs. Only individual parties are eligible to run.
Practical implications
Rather than merely eliminating frivolous attempts to contest elections, the one year registration requirement will have a substantive and disproportionate effect on parties that are newer but have established popular bases.
This includes Strong Ukraine (led by Serhiy Tyhypko who came in third in the first round of the January 2010 presidential election) and Front of Change (led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who came in fourth, earning seven percent of the vote), as well as Udar (“Kick”), (led by professional boxer Vitaliy Klytchko). Many of these parties’ regional and local branches were registered in late 2009 and in 2010, which, under the new Law, disqualifies them from participating in the October elections.
This allows the governing Party of Regions (PoR) and other so-called “mature” parties (including the major opposition party, Batkivshchyna) to avoid competition with new and popular political organizations. These changes deprive citizens of political choices that have recently emerged, which subvert genuine election processes. They are in apparent conflict with Article 36 of the Ukrainian Constitution, which provides for equal rights for all organizations of citizens.
In the long term, banning blocs could been seen as a positive change that may encourage consolidation of the political landscape. In the short term, the effect will be to weaken the strongest opposition party, and to do so for the first election since the new government took office. The largest and most successful party bloc in Ukraine’s recent history, the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT), is also the largest oppositional grouping. It has a wide popular following and, if blocs were allowed to compete, would be well positioned in many of Ukraine’s localities.
These developments could be characterized as changing the legal framework to create restrictions on political competition and, thus, as a form of discrimination based on political opinion and as unreasonable denial of citizens’ rights to legitimate choices in the local elections.
The table below illustrates the disparate impact of the new changes on various political competitors.
Party Name Percentage change in number of local offices for which the party would be eligible to compete
Party Name Number of local offices for Number of local offices for Percentage change in number of
which the party would be elgible which the party would be elgible local offices for which the party
to compete under the old law to compete under the new law would elgible to compete
TRADITIONAL PARTIES
Party of Regions 1,045 1,045 100%
Batkivschyna Around 800 Around 800 Almost 100%
People’s movement of Ukraine (RUKH) 770 681 88%
Reforms and Order Around 1000 Around 1 000 Almost 100%
Svoboda (Tiahnybok) 471 407 86.41% (13.59)
NEWER PARTIES
Strong Ukraina (Tyhypko) 1212 427 35.23% (64.77)
Front of Change (Yatsenyuk) 650 19 23.6% (76.4)
For Ukraine! (V.Kyrylenko) 408 199 48.77% (51.23)
Civil Position (Hrytsenko) 172 106 61.62% (38.38)
Change in Election Commissions - Territorial Commissions
Members of the Territorial Election Commissions (TECs) will be nominated by local branches of parties who are represented in parliament. In the past, TEC members could be nominated by any local party regardless of its national parliamentary presence. Precinct Election Commission members must be nominated by candidates and parties that are contesting the elections.
Practical implications
With the change in TEC composition, parties that are not necessarily represented at the local level will have the power to manage local elections. This could mean national political conflicts are projected inappropriately into disputes at the TECs. It could at a minimum lead to loss of confidence in the TECs by local participants in the electoral process.
Change in Central Election Commission’s (CEC’s) Authority
The CEC was given additional powers under the new Law, although the ability to exercise such powers may be limited due to the organizational ability and finances of the CEC.
Compared to the previous local election law, the CEC will have a greater role in ensuring adherence to and equal execution of the local election law. Decisions of the CEC are now binding on all subjects of the electoral process, including local governments, local councils and their officials, and associations of citizens, enterprises and institutions as well as territorial and precinct election commissions.
The CEC may also void the TECs’ rulings and issue its own decisions, as well as certify local election results, should any TEC fail to act or make an illegal decision. In the previous Law the CEC had no role in certifying local election results.
Practical implications
These increased powers make it all the more important that the CEC’s composition ensures its impartiality, as well as effectiveness, and that its work be transparent. In considering whether to void TEC decisions, some CEC members may be pressured or tempted to take political sides and make decisions in favor of one party over another. It is also possible that a politicized TEC would deliberately fail to act, turning certification of results or other decisions over to the CEC.
There is no quorum requirement for TECs to function, making it easier for them to be ‘hijacked’ by one political party. CEC decertification of rulings by “hijacked“ TECs could cause post-election integrity problems, while politically motivated CEC actions that overturn otherwise valid TEC rulings could raise questions about the legitimacy of some councils and mayors and even undermine trust in the overall election process.
Furthermore, with greater involvement in more than 24,000 elections, the CEC may postpone decisions or be more likely to make inadvertent errors given the high volume of activity it is now empowered to oversee.
Increasing Political Partisanship in Mayoral Offices
The Law would require mayoral candidates to be nominated by city branches of political parties. Self-nomination, previously allowed, is now impossible. Despite the strong recommendations of domestic political and civic leaders and international organizations, the Law calls for a majority voting system for mayors, meaning the candidate with a plurality wins, even if his percentage of the overall vote is small. A run-off system requiring 50 percent plus one vote support for one candidate was not introduced.
Practical implications
Self-nomination (independent candidatures) is called for in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Copenhagen Document (paragraph 7.5). The abolition of self-nomination by mayoral candidates represents a major departure from past practice in Ukraine. It undermines the local political bases of numerous successful, independently elected mayors, forcing them instead to ally with parties.
In general this change will likely increase dependence of local elites on traditional political parties, including the national ruling party. The effect will be to restrict the choices of voters and the right of individual citizens to seek to be elected to public office.
Shortened Electoral Timelines
The Law decreases from 90 to 50 days the official electoral period, which encompasses candidate nomination, registration and campaigning. The period in which actual campaigning may occur is reduced to three weeks. In addition, the Law shortens the timeframe for submission and consideration of election related complaints by election commissions and courts.
Practical implications
A three week campaign period favors incumbents and the national ruling party, which would have unlimited access to local and national media and other resources. Other parties and their candidates will have difficulties delivering their messages to voters in this short period and in light of constraints in the media environment.
The nature of the campaign will likely be more heated, given the compressed campaign season and is likely to be based less on issues and ideas and more on sound bytes and candidates’ personalities. Furthermore, the shorter period for submission of complaints and consideration of them by commissions and courts may leave many legitimate concerns unconsidered. This could impact election results and leave fraud unpunished.
Reducing Information to Voters
The Law abolishes the requirement that candidates submit their programs or platforms and pictures to the election commission as a part of registration process.
Practical implications
This change reduces opportunities for voters to receive information needed to make informed electoral choices. This presents a particular difficulty because voters will be asked to evaluate candidates in a large number of races. (Every voter will receive 6-7 ballots). The lack of information on candidates combined with the effects of a shortened campaign period will exacerbate the absence of political debate in Ukraine and risks yielding a campaign devoid of substance.
Domestic Observation
The new Law allows domestic non-partisan observers, which is a positive change from the previous local election Law. Currently, domestic observers are present only in the Law on Election of People’s Deputies of Ukraine (parliamentary election law). The Law, however, is vague, thus creating possibilities for arbitrary actions by officials and for imposition of unreasonable restrictions.
Practical implications
Compared to the parliamentary election law, the new local election law limits the rights of observers. Observers’ rights have been described vaguely, which invites election commissioners’ to interpret the Law freely and could lead to abuse. In addition, some important observer rights are not spelled out, making it easier for election commission members to exercise discretion to deny them. These include the right to receive the official protocols concerning the vote count and ballot transfer, as well as the right to observe mobile voting.
Furthermore, only nation-wide domestic organizations are permitted to observe. This excludes many groups that are regionally or locally based and that may be more knowledgeable about local conditions, which is particularly important for local elections. In practice, there are few nationwide non-partisan election monitoring groups in Ukraine. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice must certify each national group’s charter before it can seek accreditation at the CEC. This could create more delays and make timely observation difficult, particularly observation of the campaign period.
The Law also fails to prescribe in any detail procedures for the CEC to accredit domestic observers, which raises possibilities for delay, confusion and abuse. In addition, the CEC is required to register each individual domestic and international election monitor; logistically this will be very difficult to do.
Furthermore, the requirement undermines freedom of association, because it creates a direct relationship between each individual monitor and the CEC, rather than between the monitoring organization and the CEC. Citizen organizations should be accredited by the CEC, and the organizations should take responsibility for the proper conduct of their monitors. Requiring each individual to apply for accreditation can have a chilling effect on citizen participation.
[i] The Commission, otherwise known as the European Commission for Democracy through Law, is the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters. Since its creation, the Venice Commission has been active in the electoral field, in particular, through the adoption of opinions on draft electoral legislation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), www.usubc.org]
========================================================
7. UKRAINE IS FAILING THE DEMOCRACY TEST
A new election law that protects the ruling elite is undemocratic
and raises fresh doubts about Ukraine's suitability to join the EU
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Viktor Tkachuk
Chief Executive Officer, People First Foundation, Kyiv
Guardian newspaper, London, UK, Sunday 22 August 2010
Ukraine is losing the right to call itself a democratic nation and is drawing into question any hope it has for EU membership any time soon. For even before campaigning starts ahead of local elections on 31 October there is speculation that the result is being manipulated. This is because a recent law prevents parties formed less than a year ago, and individuals standing independently, from participating.
On 27 July, President Viktor Yanukovych enacted a law that prohibits candidates from standing who are not from a party registered, even locally, at least one year before the election. There is little logic to the new law apart from that it shuts the door on any newly formed parties and bars those of successful politicians Sergei Tigipko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who came third and fourth respectively in the presidential election held last January.
The new law also stops political blocs – umbrella organisations of affiliated parties – from putting up candidates as in previous elections. Only individual parties may compete. This weakens the opposition, which hitherto has competed in blocs. But it has little effect on the president's Party of Regions, which has a powerbase in the predominantly Russian-speaking east and south of the country.
The new law also prevents independent candidates from running. Mayoral candidates can only be nominated by the local organisations of political parties, therefore denying unaffiliated citizens the right to stand. The law appears designed to propagate the ruling elite, where those in power nominate the candidates rather than selection by the people.
All this does little to shore up Ukraine's fledgling democracy. Since the fraudulent presidential election of 2004 and subsequent orange revolution, Ukraine's political scene has been characterised by political infighting between president, government and parliament.
In February this year, Yanukovych – the defeated candidate in the 2004 presidential election – made a spectacular comeback, narrowly beating then prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the presidency. Soon after, his forces ousted the Tymoshenko government and today enjoy a virtual monopoly on power, controlling parliament, the cabinet of ministers and the presidency.
The new electoral changes do little to build the credibility of his administration. Since coming to power, Yanukovych's administration stands accused of some decidedly undemocratic actions. These include bending constitutional procedures in order to form a government, railroading the budget through parliament without proper due process and curbing fundamental rights, such as the right to assembly and media freedom.
Also of concern is an apparent disregard for Ukraine's constitution. This was highlighted by the signing into law of a 25-year extension to the lease of the Russian Black Sea fleet's naval base in Sevastopol in contravention of the constitution, which bans any foreign bases on Ukrainian territory.
To be fair, Yanukovich has managed to instil a degree of stability, agree a $15.5bn financial injection from the IMF and begun work on resolving the rights and status of some 300,000 dispossessed Crimean Tatars deported during the Soviet era, which is commendable.
But if Ukraine still harbours aspirations to join Europe's top table, it must demonstrate that it is worthy. A potential springboard to EU membership will be the conclusion of an association agreement with the EU, which includes a free-trade agreement and the possibility of visa-free travel with the 27-member nation bloc. Yet the new election law can only be described as an affront to European norms of democracy and represents the sort of electoral meddling that is inconsistent with a country aspiring to EU membership.
The international community needs to find its voice. The west already has sufficient reason to care. Ukraine is a country of 46 million people; a nation that controls the flow of gas to millions of EU households. It remains one of the world's largest exporters of grain – the leading barley exporter and sixth largest of wheat – at a time when the global market is in turmoil. A stable, democratic Ukraine is in everyone's best interests.
NOTE: Viktor Tkachuk is a former deputy secretary of the national security and defence council of Ukraine, an advisor to three Ukrainian presidents and a former member of Ukrainian parliament and serves as CEO of the People First Foundation.
LINK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/22/ukraine-failing-eu-democracy-test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
