Polling station staff did commendable job on election day, but concerns regarding higher commissions and deficiencies in the law point to need for reform, OSCE/ODIHR observers say in Ukraine

KYIV, 16 November 2015 – The second round of Ukraine’s mayoral elections saw business interests influencing the process in most contests, and many candidates focusing their efforts on local coalition building more than on reaching out to voters, observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Elections and Human Rights (ODIHR) concluded in a statement issued today. There was little active campaigning. In a positive development, debates were organized between candidates in a number of regions, the observers said.

“As in the first round, dedicated and capable polling station staff did a commendable job in organizing the voting and the count. The arbitrary and, frequently, late changes to the composition of territorial commissions, however, raised serious concerns regarding their independence,” said Tana de Zulueta, Head of the ODIHR election observation mission. “A lack of confidence in the electoral administration and deficiencies in the legal framework were at the root of most problems encountered during these elections. An inclusive reform process will be needed in order to generate greater trust among voters.”

Candidates were able to campaign freely in a generally calm environment. Closer to election day, unpredictable multi-party coalitions were formed in a number of races, in support of different candidates based on a variety of local interests. Not all of the territorial election commissions verified or made public the financial reports submitted by candidates by the legal deadline, which weakened campaign finance oversight and limited voters’ access to information.

The protracted tabulation of results from the 25 October first round and the high turnover among precinct election commission members negatively affected preparations for the second round. The problems in the tabulation process fostered distrust among some stakeholders in the election administration, the observers said.

The results under the newly introduced proportional “open list” system revealed a distortion in the representation of local communities. In certain districts the most popular candidates were not elected, while candidates who came second or third obtained seats, raising concerns whether the electoral system accurately reflects the will of the voters, the observers said.

Abundant reporting on the arrest of political figures and their alleged involvement in unlawful activities initially dominated election coverage in the media, reducing the amount of information available to voters on candidates’ platforms. The National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council failed to establish a level playing field prior to the run-offs, denying voters access to balanced reporting at both the national and regional levels, the statement says. As in the 25 October elections, Bloc Poroshenko Solidarnist and Opposition Bloc candidates were granted most of the election-related airtime.

The observers assessed the opening of polling stations, voting and counting on election day positively, and tabulation slightly less so.