четвер, 29 травня 2014 р.

Виборчі спостереження УККА з Харкова

Report from Kharkiv

The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America Election Observing Mission in Kharkivska oblast consisted of 14 observers, 12 of whom served within the City of Kharkiv and 2 in the Oblast outside Kharkiv. In addition the UCCA Mission chair coordinated the activities of the Ukrainian World Congress EOM in Kharkiv which included 11 observers. As a result the joint mission was comprised of 25 observers divided into 13 groups that visited more than 150 precincts in the following districts: 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 179. Inasmuch as 12 of these groups were in Kharkiv proper where the number of precincts was 607, the joint UCCA-UWC mission observed in some 25% of the precincts of Kharkiv.

While 25% still leaves plenty of room for ambiguity, nevertheless, it was a snapshot of the way
things went down in Kharkiv on May 25, 2014. The election was conducted by the Precinct Election Commissions (PEC) generally in a responsible, punctual and scrupulous manner. The PEC members themselves in most instances were very serious about their functions and intent on carrying out their duties to the best of their ability. As with all PEC’s as per the election law and Central Elections Commission's directives, the PEC members in Kharkiv ranging from 9-14 in number were chosen singularly from individual candidates (no two DEC members were from one candidate) with only few exceptions where the District Election Commission (DEC) added one or two persons who were not designated by a candidate.

Candidate representation on the PEC is a very loose term since very often the representative had little or no connection with the candidate other than the designation. The representative was not necessarily even a member of the candidate's party. Still the varied representation on the commission was meant to and did result in disparate interests and thus a system of checks and balances.The more major candidates fielded their own election observers as volunteers or hired guns at most if not all the precincts. While their loyalties were not necessarily beyond reproach or even steadfast, they did have a duty to report to candidate’s headquarters with the final protocol which ensured a modicum of responsibility.

Only minor procedural violations were noted by our observers, such as the lack of properly visible
posting of the precinct designation at the entrance to the building, a parent and child together in
the voting booth without prior advisement to the DEC chair, minor mechanical malfunction of the
equipment (the ballot box, voting cabinet or seals), etc.

An important factor in facilitating the work of our EOM was the cooperation and courtesy received from the DEC leadership in all instances. Questions posed by us were answered without hesitation and to the point. There was no stalling or attempts to hide anything inordinate. The DEC leadership tried to be as helpful as reasonably possible to assist not only us but the electorate. In at least several instances where home voting was unsuccessful initially because the incapacitated voter was not attended at the time and could not provide access to DEC mobile units, the DEC even returned to the home at the request of a relative of the home bound voter.

What may be considered a negative is that the turnout in many of the observed precincts was
somewhat lesser than in past years, measuring only some 50%. This deficiency was explained by some of the leaders of the DEC as a result of death and/ or lack of interest by some of the elderly voters whom did not feel very strongly about any particular candidate since ideological differences between the candidates were not as distinct as in years past. Apparently, voter apathy is becoming as normal in

Ukraine as it is in the West.

There was a further occurrence in Kharkiv on May 25, 2014. Pro-Russia and separatist groups convened a mass rally at the site of the still standing Lenin monument. But only some 500 people showed up in a city of 1.5 million.

May 25, 2014 was a good day for democracy in Kharkiv and that made it even a better day for all of Ukraine. Kharkiv represents Ukraine's 20th it was at the center of the Holodomor and the focal point of repressions waged against the Ukrainian intellectual elite by Stalin.

Candidate Petro Poroshenko had a good day in Kharkiv as well.

May 29, 2014 Askold S. Lozynskyj, UCCA EOM Kharkiv chair

 century tragic history. It was the capital of the Ukrainian SSR,

Немає коментарів:

Дописати коментар