Let us deal with the presidential hopefuls’ favorability ratings now. Here, it is not only the sociological companies themselves, but also peculiarities of the meanings of the results obtained, in particular the activities of one or another contender for the “throne,” that raise serious questions.
So, let us look into the Razumkov Center’s data first. Were the presidential election to happen now, those enjoying the largest electoral support in the first round of the vote would include Petro Poroshenko (14.0 percent among those who intend to take part in the election), Yulia Tymoshenko (8.4 percent), Anatolii Hrytsenko (7.2 percent), Yurii Boiko (6.8 percent), Sviatoslav Vakarchuk (6.6 percent), and Oleh Liashko (6.3 percent). Vadym Rabinovych can count on 5.9 percent of the participants of the election casting their vote for him, while 4.1 percent support Volodymyr Hroisman, 4.0 percent – Andrii Sadovy, 3.0 percent – Oleh Tiahnybok, 2.0 percent – Vitali Klitschko, 1.4 percent – Arsenii Yatseniuk, 1.4 percent – Petro Symonenko, 1.1 percent – Dmytro Yarosh, and 0.8 percent – Nadia Savchenko.
Now to the Sofia Social Research Center’s data. They asked, “If the presidential election were held today, and the candidates on ballot were as follows, for whom would you vote?” Tymoshenko got 12.9 percent of support (among those who “will definitely vote” or “will likely vote”), Poroshenko – 9.9 percent, Boiko – 9.5 percent, Hrytsenko – 6.3 percent, Liashko – 5.3 percent, Rabinovych – 5.2 percent, Sadovy – 4.9 percent, Vakarchuk – 2.7 percent, Tiahnybok – 2.4 percent, Yarosh – 1.7 percent, Hroisman – 1.6 percent, Mikheil Saakashvili – 1.4 percent, Klitschko – 1.0 percent, Symonenko – 0.7 percent, Yatseniuk – 0.6 percent, and Savchenko – 0.6 percent.
We see that the indicators are completely different on some positions. Therefore, first of all, it raises questions regarding the quality of sociological services and their activities in Ukraine. “All of it is because one company is close to the government, and the other to the Opposition Bloc,” member of the 4th-8th convocations of Verkhovna Rada Mykola Tomenko commented for The Day. “Accordingly, the former company shows Poroshenko in the first place, Tymoshenko in the second, and Hrytsenko in the third, while the latter one demonstrates that Tymoshenko is in the first place, with Poroshenko in the second and Boiko in the third. To put it mildly, I doubted the objectivity of both surveys. In fact, this is very unfortunate when the data provided by sociological companies (I do not want to blame anyone) feature an element of opportunistic behavior. Two serious companies that have been operating on the market for a long time and seemingly treasure their reputation just cannot have their data differing by 4 or 5 percent. Maybe 1 or 1.5 percent, but not by so much.”
The question arises: who pays the piper and how is it used? “Our customers are exclusively politicians, only political parties, they are determining their favorability ratings in this way,” said Valerii Honcharuk, head of the election technology department of the Situation Modeling Agency, in an interview with the Holos Stolytsi broadcaster. “I will say more: in fact, all these ratings may be objective, but what we are seeing released or covered in the press, it all is made one way or another to suit the customer’s desire. That is, those who buy these ratings can get to the real truth, especially if they buy them from different survey makers. But there is no guarantee that this true data will really be made public given that it will still be adjusted and made to highlight the figures that are beneficial to customers. The Presidential Administration and leaders of political parties alike do have the opportunity to get all the real sociological data. But if this data turns out disadvantageous to the customer, they simply will not release it, or make it public in the form that is advantageous to them.”
“Of course, this is a political technology,” the expert continued. “Ratings can act as a motivator of sorts. For example, when a certain political force needs to clear the 5 percent threshold, and the rating has it at 4.9 percent, this motivates the voter quite strongly, because they understand that their voice can thus be decisive in this way. This is especially true if the candidate lacks a few percent. When we discuss, for example, the technology used in 2014, during the first round, it actually involved playing up the idea that Poroshenko was literally a few percent short of support he needed to win in the first round. And it motivated many. It is clear that the voters similarly look toward political projects that have a shot at succeeding. What is the point of voting for a party which has 0.1 percent of the vote? Still, they look toward those five to seven parties that are likely to clear the 5 percent threshold and include politicians who are more popular today, and this motivation is especially valid for voters who are either poorly informed about politics, come to the polls not determined how to vote, or determine it at the last moment. For those who are quite clearly focused on voting in a particular way and have their own sympathies, of course, the ratings will not affect them and they will vote for who they were going to vote for anyway.”
Let us pay attention to two more important nuances. The first has to do with the third place in the published data. After all, the first two positions are held by Poroshenko and Tymoshenko in every poll. Their ratings fluctuate by a few percent depending on the sociological company or certain events in the country, putting one of them in the lead, and the other in the second place, and vice versa. Meanwhile, there is a struggle for the third place, and, as we see, the manipulation of sociological data is used as its tool. In essence, it is a political technology.
“In fact, no company declares who orders their surveys,” Honcharuk said. “And besides, it is no secret that different firms have different leaders and different sympathies. Because the Razumkov Foundation was headed by Hrytsenko, it will always give high ratings to the Civic Position and Hrytsenko himself. Meanwhile, Sofia was close to Andrii Yermolaiev who effectively collaborated with the Opposition Bloc. Therefore, this motivation may also be present there. I do not think that we should ascribe the difference to an honest error in these polls.”
The second point concerns Vakarchuk. The media have repeatedly stated that Vakarchuk is advancing, or is being promoted into the highest league of politics. He has not only begun to appear on the list of presidential candidates, but also engages in other activities which look like preparation for the presidential campaign. In particular, he lectures on political topics in Ukraine and periodically travels to the US for leadership trainings. Vakarchuk won a Yale World Fellow 2015 scholarship, which allowed him to study at Yale University for four months. From time to time, the frontman of the Okean Elzy band appears at the events sponsored by Viktor Pinchuk as well, for example, the Zavtra.UA program.
“It may be a technology, but I am still of the opinion that people should not be elected presidents only because they are good singers or athletes,” Tomenko stressed. “I also oppose supporting parties because they have beautiful women on the list or defend a particular industry. The mission of the party should be ideological. If business structures have a desire to support the pro-Western vector of Ukraine’s development, they need to invest in ideology, program, party teams, not musicians or athletes. Even if they have more credibility than politicians, this does not mean that it can be converted into election results. We have to leave the messianic aspirations in the past, and visiting foreigners have also overstayed their welcome, so Ukrainians need to become more rational.”
Ukrainians demonstrated their rationality, in particular, with respect to the public opinion polls. During the Kiselyov. Results show that was broadcast on the Priamy TV Channel on October 23, the presenter asked the viewers: “Do you believe in the results of the favorability survey of politicians and political parties?” A total of 93 percent of Ukrainians said “No,” and 7 percent – “Yes.” This is a verdict of sorts, condemning both sociological surveys, which cannot help but discredit sociology as a science, and politicians and political parties.
“It is very telling that all presidential candidates have extremely low favorability ratings,” Tomenko stressed. “This means that there is a paradoxical situation when an absolute majority of the population does not trust the authorities, but it also does not trust the opposition. This is a dangerous symptom of the ochlocratic regime with some elements of anarchism that has now been formed in Ukraine. In normal civilized countries, when a politician has a low favorability rating, they resign. The Ukrainian president, despite his great financial and media resources, has a low rating, but is not going to resign. Being in the first place in some polls is not a reason to be proud, because these indicators are still low. It is the same with the opposition. I think the struggle for the presidency is still entirely ahead of us, because the public demonstrates that it has not yet determined where it stands. For the opposition, this is a big problem, because they need to think not about themselves, but about the country. This requires, as I have already said, an ideology and a team. Otherwise, there is a risk of repeating the 1999 presidential election scenario, when Leonid Kuchma used political technologies and outright rigging to get a second term.”
