Analisys of subnational elections in Ukraine made by Fund for Good Politics

2. I. Administrative Background
II. Election Process
III. Voters’ Expectations
IV. 2010 Local Elections Results
V. Conclusions

4. • According to the Constitution Ukraine is an
unitary state with a republican form of
government.
• Administrative-territorial structure consists
of:
–24 oblasts plus Autonomous Republic of
Crimea (ARC) – regional level;
–Kyiv and Sevastopol have a special legal status;
–177 cities «of oblast significance»;
–488 rayons – regions are divided into districts
(«rayons»);
–over 12 000 towns and villages.

5. •The administrative division in Ukraine was
directly inherited from the republican administration
system of former Soviet Union – «matryoshka».Administrativesignificance
Territorial division
Region (Oblast)
City
District (Rayon)
Town
Village

6. Region/District Level City/Town/Village Level

7. • Article 118 of the Constitution states that «executive power in oblasts, rayons and the cities of
Kiev and Sevastopol is carried out by local state administrations».
• In practice it means that Local Government bodies delegate (transfer) their executive power
to Local State Administrations.
• Local State Administrations main functions are:
–to ensure adherence to the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine as well as presidential decrees;
–to ensure the implementation of national and regional programs for social, economic and cultural
development, environmental protection and others;
–to draft and implement oblast and rayon budgets;
–to provide implementation reports on local budgets and programs;
–to coordinate with local self-governments.

8. De Jure De Facto
Executive power
transfer
Domination through
budgeting
Executive power
Executive power

9. • Two-fold structure of Local Government: executive power is separated
from representative local bodies.
• On region and district levels local councils delegate their executive power
to centralized executive bodies – Local State Administrations, which are
controlled by President and Cabinet of Ministers.
• On municipal level Local State Administrations dominate on local
executive committees through control of budgeting process.
• De facto violation of subsidiarity principle as well as European Charter of
Local Self-Government.

11. 1st year - 2004 Constitution Term
2nd year - 2004 Constitution Term
3rd year - 2004 Constitution Term
4th year - 2004 Constitution Term
5th year - 2004 Constitution Term
Return to 1996 Constitution

12. • Dates of elections are not in line with the Constitution.
• On average, the Law on Local Elections is amended 2-3 times right before
the date of ordinary or extraordinary election.
• Most amendments concern:
–Voting system (proportional, mixed, majoritarian);
–Formation of Territorial Election Commissions (TECs), which ascertain the final results
of election;
–Subordination of election commissions (on local, district and region levels);
–Registration of candidates and parties.

13. Rayon Council
50% of seats
50% of seats
Oblast Council
50% of seats
50% of seats
District Level
Region Level
party-list proportional system
«winner-takes-all» system
Parties
Registered for
Elections
Parties
Registered for
Elections
party-list proportional system
«winner-takes-all» system

14. Local Level
Mayor
Town/City Council
50% of seats
50% of seats
Mayor
Village Council
100% of seats
Parties
Registered for
Elections
Parties
Registered for
Elections
party-list proportional system
«winner-takes-all» system
«winner-takes-all» system
«winner-takes-all» system
«winner-takes-all» system

15. Brovary – small town near Kyiv.
On 31st of October a voter faces tough choice, having
received 7 ballot papers…

16. Local Level
Mayor
Brovary Town Council
50% - proportional
representation
50% - majoritarian
representation
Brovary Rayon Council
50% - proportional
representation
50% - majoritarian
representation
Kyiv Oblast Council
50% - proportional
representation
50% - majoritarian
representation
District Level
Region Level

18. •Central Voting Commission has established 670 TECs,
including 49 TECs – on region and city level.
•These 49 TECs are responsible for control of election
process in 25 regions (including ARC), 24 cities (excluding
Kyiv).

19. Source: «Ukrainian Week»

20. • Balance of party representatives in TECs is shifted in favor of
pro-Yanukovich parties.
• Opposition is discriminated.
• Non-parliament parties
are also discriminated.

21. • Similar cases of «unfair play» were
registered throughout Ukraine:
– Kyiv,
– Cherkasy,
– Kharkiv,
– Sumy,
– Ternopil,
– Ivano-Frankivsk,
– Odesa,
– ARC.

23. Source: UCEPS

24. Source: UCEPS

25. Source: UCEPS

26. Source: UCEPS
Are you ready to take part in protests if the results of Local
Elections will be falsified?

28. Source: UCEPS

29. Source: Segodnya
Oblast councils, where PR will have
majority of seats
Oblast councils, where PR will form
coalition with allies
Oblast councils, where PR will
form coalition with allies
Oblast councils, where PR will
form coalition with allies
Oblast councils, where PR will be
minor partner in coalition
Oblast councils, where opposition
will have majority of seats

30. •Party of Regions has won 2010 Local Elections despite the
decline of its public support on nation-wide scale.
• ¾ of Oblast Councils (eldest «matryoshka» level) will be
under control of Party of Regions and only ¼ under
control of opposition:
 Svoboda (Ternopil, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts);
 BYuT (only Rivne oblast).
•Was the result boosted by falsifications and unfair play?
Yes, but this is only one part of the truth. Another part is
that the majority of voters consider it as a fair result.

32. • Infringed system of local government, de facto violation of
subsidiarity principle and the European Charter of Local Self-
Government.
• Complicated voting system, simultaneous elections to different
levels (local, district, region).
• Frequent amendments to the Law on Local Elections.
• Unfair formation of TECs – balance of members is shifted in favor of
pro-Yanukovich parties.
• Administrative barriers, «party cloning», unauthorized extra printing
of ballot papers and other manipulation techniques.

33. •Falsification does not mean infringement of democracy.
•High negative expectations about transparency of election
process along with low willingness to take part in protests.
•Thus, democracy as well as election process is understood as
«free ride» competition of elites.
•Democracy is associated with «disorder», while «order» is
more important than democracy.

34. •On the whole, the first steps, which are needed to be done
towards better and more European outlook of local government,
are clear:
 Decentralization and deregulation of local government;
 Budgetary and financial self-sufficiency;
 Reform of Local State Administrations system;
 Recovery of executive power within local government bodies.

35. •Will it be for good? The question remains open due to such
factors:
 Understanding of democracy as «free ride» competition of elites;
 High level of tolerance to corruption (134th place in 2010, «Corruption
Perception Index», Transparency International).
•Deregulation and decentralization of local government can
bolster corruption on local level. Thus it should be done
step-by-step along with «democracy promotion» programs
and anti-corruption fight.

36. Thank you for your attention!