ELECTIONS OF CHERNIGIV CITY MAYOR

1.

The local authorities of Chernihiv have coped with all the challenges that have stood in the way of establishing the principles of free and democratic elections with dignity. The elections confirmed the positive democratic developments that have been taking place in our country in recent years. Our monitors have never recorded any facts of administrative influence on the course of the election campaign by the authorities during the entire campaign period.

2.

We also note the positive fact that local media mostly covered the course of the election campaign evenly. And this coverage took place within the framework of current legislation, editorial policy and election funds of candidates for the position of mayor.

3.

The election campaign provided equal chances to all candidates for the mayoral seat, although about half of these candidates did not even open their election funds. This may indicate that this part of the candidates for the position of mayor did not even intend to fight for victory. Their mass self-nomination became only an element of the election technologies of the favorites of the election race.

4.

We also note the positive fact that the electoral disputes between the main favorites of the election campaign were resolved (and, perhaps, will continue to be resolved) not in the form of criminal showdowns, but in courtrooms. The elections once again proved that without a professional team of lawyers, it is almost impossible for candidates to count on victory.

5.

A feature of the Chernihiv elections was also the fact that throughout the campaign, voters witnessed a propaganda war of provocative intentions, rather than specific actions aimed at disrupting the elections. This could not but cause some nervousness and distrust in the electoral institution among a large part of voters. The latter, in the opinion of our experts, was one of the main reasons for the low voter turnout at the polling station on election day.

6.

The weak link in the elections was the Territorial Election Commission, whose professional level could have been better. If it were not for the constructive role of the Central Election Commission, which was manifested in the provision of professional consultations and in the constant implementation of monitoring measures to study the level of readiness of election commissions for the elections, the TEC would hardly have coped with the responsibilities assigned to it by law.

7.

It is becoming obvious that there is an urgent need to change those provisions of the electoral legislation that regulate the procedure for forming polling stations. The Central Election Commission should be allowed to staff polling stations and make changes to their composition if necessary.

8.

The elections for the mayor of Chernihiv were the object of close attention of a large number of representatives of public organizations, candidates’ proxies, media representatives and official international observers. This fact indicates that everything was done at the polling stations by the public to prevent possible mass facts of election fraud.

9.

Once again, the procedure for forming and the quality of the formed voter lists are of concern. According to our experts, their quality was almost no different from the quality of the lists of the March 2006 sample. If it were not for the low voter turnout at the polling station on voting day (slightly more than 30%), this problem could have been one of the important factors in recognizing the elections of the Chernihiv mayor as illegitimate.

10.

We predict that a number of candidates for the position of Chernihiv mayor will try to challenge the results of yesterday’s elections in the courts. However, preliminary data on the very large gap between the number of votes cast for candidate Oleksandr Sokolov and other candidates (almost 25 percent) indicate that there was no pressure on voters and no grounds for

non-recognition

the election results.

Press Service, Public Initiative “Clean Elections – 2006”