Iryna ROZHKOVA, Head of the Political Sociology Department, the European Institute for Integration and Development:
“I believe first of all we should touch on the issue of the election criteria in terms of the voters’ rational or irrational motives with corrections for age categories. For instance, the dominant motives of those who traditionally vote for the Left are nostalgia for the past, stability, and certain guarantees. For the young it is often a situational choice. Simultaneously, their choice is more rational (since they are better adapted to the current situation), and it is usually based on whether something is in their interest or not.
“It is supposed that the ordinary voter casts his ballot for a certain political force. In this case, it would be only logical if the criterion for his choice was what the given political force, party, or faction has done for this voter in its four years in parliament. But what do we see in Ukraine? Our electors quite often are guided by the personality of the leader, the party’s top person. A question arises concerning whether the latter, if he did not prove him/herself as a decent leader of a fraction consisting of the minimum 14 persons, how will he/she be able to claim leadership of the whole country? In this connection I believe that the safest criterion for evaluating a leader is how his/her faction acts in the parliament.”
Iryna BEKESHKINA, senior research fellow, Sociology Institute, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and scientific director, Democratic Initiatives Foundation:
“I wouldn’t say that Ukrainians have learned how to vote very well. We have had only two parliamentary elections and two presidential. But they are learning. If we take the last elections, evidence of this is the fact that projects designed to manipulate public consciousness and that media effects have failed. Further evidence is the fact that the level of political forces’ representation in the mass media does not correlate with the results of the elections. To put it bluntly, you cannot fool our people anymore by being on television all the time. The winners were those who worked with people in the regions. One could say that people’s approach to electing a candidate is quite rational. Another question is why this rationality isn’t implemented in practice. However, this question is rather for those political forces whom the people entrusted with power. Another negative moment is that the latest campaign concentrated mostly on leaders, not programs.”
Mykola HORDICHENKO, docent, Ukrainian Institute of Chemistry and Technology (Donetsk):
“Ukrainians are capable of electing their officials no worse than other European nations do: our mentality is roughly the same. However, unfortunately, it has happened historically that since Soviet times it is not the people who elects the authorities but the party of power, which not long ago was dubbed the nomenklatura. Today one can’t become, say, a deputy without the approval of the party of power, not to mention running for president. The former nomenklatura, now known as the party of power, will continue to rule so long as those in power retain influence on the formation of election committees. Even in the last elections when, according to the law, electoral committees were to be formed by political parties, officials successfully manipulated the nomination of committee members, blocked those they didn’t like, using, for instance, what we call telephone law, that is, pressure through the administration of the enterprises where the nominees work and even on private employers. In some cases it even came down to base bribery. As a result, the election committees were headed by the “approved” people, many of whom worked at the election centers back in Soviet times, when it was so easy to tell the necessary percent of votes. Our problem is that ordinary people don’t know how to organize themselves. And the reason for this is, in my view, not as much the fact that Ukrainians practice the principle that it’s none of my business, as in the fact that the Soviet authorities have been systematically eliminating “uneasy” people, activists, and leaders able to unite people and lead them. Such a selection process could not help but reflect on the whole people’s gene pool, and most probably its effects continue. Just try to voice your opinion at work if it doesn’t coincide with the administration’s ideas and you’ll understand whether or not we have any democracy here.”
Yury KHRYPUNKOV, head of the regional electoral committee, district 42, Donetsk oblast:
“The latest parliamentary elections demonstrated the voters’ growing activity and their multidimensional hopes and expectations. Still, despite this, I believe that our compatriots don’t yet know how to choose whom to elect, though there are some changes for the better. The reason for this inability is to a large extent the special features of our Ukrainian situation. For instance, during the latest elections the voters simply got lost in all the media clamor, by programs very similar to each other, speeches, exposes, and the great amount of information. In short, many are completely illiterate in terms of politics, many dream of a heavenly tomorrow but do nothing to achieve must it. Anyway, dreaming about some utopia is absurd.
“I believe that years must pass before everybody in Ukraine masters the basics of politics. What is most important in the elections now is cultivating the right approach in the people, the real and best choice, which is an index of the nation’s maturity.”
Serhiy KUNITSYN, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea:
“From the point of view of the public, learning how to vote would mean learning how to calculate the best scenarios for the future. However, it almost never happens this way. Even countries having a background of many centuries of democratic traditions sometimes go to extremes, giving their preference to ultra radicals, let alone us where civil society in only making its first timid steps. Since choice is connected with the emotional side of human activities, I don’t think one can learn how to do it once and for all, like, say, learning to walk.
“However, in the last decade — and we can speak about real choice only for this period — the Crimeans have learned some important lessons. I think it is safe to assume that there will be no sharp alternative in the next elections: chose democracy or go back to communism. Maybe these will be the first elections where the major candidates will all belong to the democratic camp.”
Shandor RADA, entrepreneur, Uzhhorod:
“Ukrainians go to the elections (“If we don’t go, they might punish us”), but they don’t understand their meaning and don’t even think that their life for the next decades depends on their choice. This is like fertilizer for a farmer. If you do it thoroughly you’ll get good crops for decades. Our Ukrainian “farmers” have to renew the neglected soil constantly and try to grow good crops. Ukrainians can leave a person to serve a third term and mess up beautiful land: let him stay so that they’ll have somebody to yell at! The problem is that our people go to the elections but not to elect. They should do both. If no candidate is good enough, simply cross them all out! We shouldn’t give the minority a chance to control our common fate.”
