The situation with the vote count at the Ukrainian parliamentary elections, which were held on October 28, is becoming more and more complicated, the Novye Izvestia daily reported. The election results cannot be summed up over the lack of data from several election constituencies. On Wednesday, the opposition, which announced an indefinite rally in front of the building of the Ukrainian Central Elections Commission (CEC) and several district election committees, found new grounds to accuse the state authorities of deliberate dragging of the vote count, seeking to rig the election results.
The Ukrainian CEC accepted the election protocols from the 197th constituency, where candidate from the ruling party Bogdan Gubsky allegedly won. Although, the oppositionists claimed that, according to the copies of the election protocols with wet stamps, his rival from the opposition won a victory with a margin of 4,000 votes.
In view of the current situation Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov named the statements of international observers over a slow vote count groundless and premature, because under the law the CEC has 15 days for this procedure. Yet, the prime minister did not state what to do, if the CEC fails to meet the deadline that will expire on November 12.
The Ukrainian opposition has finally formulated clear-cut demands, the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily noted. The CEC should assume responsibility for summing up the election results in those 13 constituencies, where the opposition candidates won a victory, but representatives of the ruling party were named as winners. Otherwise, the united opposition party, the UDAR Party and Svoboda demand new parliamentary elections.
The Ukrainian CEC has earlier stated that the election results at least in five constituencies cannot be summed up. The CEC offered to the Verkhovna Rada to announce rerun elections in these constituencies. But the legislation does not permit the deputies to take this decision, therefore, on Tuesday the parliament voted for the Ukrainian CEC to take a decision on the rerun elections.
Meanwhile, the CEC members stated that they also do not have the right for such decisions: the law envisages rerun elections only, if the elections are not found valid. It turned out that the law does not envisage such situation. Deputy Chairman of the Ukrainian CEC Andrei Magera explained that the only solution to the situation is that the incumbent parliament should approve right now a new law or should just make amendments in that document, under which the parliamentary elections were held.
For the first time leader of the UDAR Party Vitaly Klitschko has formulated clear-cut demands of the opposition, “We can state about new elections in all the country, but already not under this shameful law, which gave a loophole for manipulations in the majority constituencies. So, the election results can be challenged endlessly in the courts...We should hold elections under a new law – on open party lists.”
Yulia Timoshenko has actually made such demand. She stated about total falsifications right upon the end of the voting and went on a hunger strike that lasts for the tenth day.
Head of the Centre of Applied Political Studies Vladimir Fesenko, who is cited by the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily, believes that in its voting the Ukrainians showed their discontent with the policy of the state authorities and delegated the right to protect their interests to those parties, which seemed most hawkish to the voters. “But they are not ready to go out in the streets, participate in revolutionary scenarios. Moreover, the opposition is not ready for joint and coordinated actions, but there was no scenario how to act, for instance, in case of falsifications. They do not have an answer to the question: what to do next?” the expert explained the political apathy of the Ukrainians.
The state authorities noted that radical appeals of the leaders of UDAR and Svoboda for new elections in all Ukrainian regions will be not put in practice. The president should take a willed decision for new elections, but it would be very difficult for the latter to take such a step in the framework of the legal field. Viktor Yanukovich does not show the readiness to decisive actions, but, on the contrary, refrains from any comments on the conflicts, which had emerged at the stage of vote count.