Election Day throughout Ukraine and for Ukrainian citizens around the world. While the world is focused on elections, violence continues in Eastern Ukraine, including the death of an Italian journalist.
Preliminary Conclusions from the OSCE observer mission to Ukraine:
The 25 May early presidential election in Ukraine was characterized by high voter turnout and the
clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international
commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms in the vast majority of the country. This
was despite the hostile security environment in two eastern regions and the increasing attempts to
derail the process by armed groups in these parts of the country. The Central and other election
commissions operated impartially and collegially on the whole, although a number of transparency
issues arose just prior to election day and decisions taken may have been beyond their authority.
The voting and counting process were transparent and largely in line with procedures, despite large
queues of voters at polling stations in some parts of the country. The early stages of the tabulation
process were evaluated less positively by International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
observers mostly due to technical problems.
The election took place in a challenging political, economic and in particular security environment.
Genuine efforts were made by the electoral authorities to conduct voting throughout the country,
despite continued unrest and violence in the east of Ukraine, where anti-government forces control
some areas, and the acting government is conducting counter-insurgency operations. This seriously
impacted the election environment and affected the general human-rights situation there, also
obstructing meaningful observation. The election did not take place on the Crimean peninsula, as it is not under the control of the Ukrainian authorities, and citizens residing there faced serious
difficulties to participate in the election.
The legislative framework is adequate for the conduct of democratic elections. Numerous
substantive changes were introduced to the legal framework during the election period, partly in an
effort to address the rapidly changing political-security environment and ensure voting for those
from the affected regions, and partly as a further step in the electoral reform process. While the
changes resulted in a significantly different legal framework than the one in place when the election
was called, most of the recent amendments were seen as necessary by election stakeholders.
...
Most national minority communities reported no substantial obstacles to their participation in the
election process, with the notable exception of Crimean Tatars and Roma. There were incidents of
violence and vandalism, unrelated to the election, against some communities. The debate about
language policy was characterized by more flexible positions than in previous elections, although
most of the candidates clearly disagreed on the issue of Russian as a second state language. Large
parts of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking community were affected by systematic disruption of the work
of the election administration in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Preliminary Conclusions from the OSCE observer mission to Ukraine:
The 25 May early presidential election in Ukraine was characterized by high voter turnout and the
clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international
commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms in the vast majority of the country. This
was despite the hostile security environment in two eastern regions and the increasing attempts to
derail the process by armed groups in these parts of the country. The Central and other election
commissions operated impartially and collegially on the whole, although a number of transparency
issues arose just prior to election day and decisions taken may have been beyond their authority.
The voting and counting process were transparent and largely in line with procedures, despite large
queues of voters at polling stations in some parts of the country. The early stages of the tabulation
process were evaluated less positively by International Election Observation Mission (IEOM)
observers mostly due to technical problems.
The election took place in a challenging political, economic and in particular security environment.
Genuine efforts were made by the electoral authorities to conduct voting throughout the country,
despite continued unrest and violence in the east of Ukraine, where anti-government forces control
some areas, and the acting government is conducting counter-insurgency operations. This seriously
impacted the election environment and affected the general human-rights situation there, also
obstructing meaningful observation. The election did not take place on the Crimean peninsula, as it is not under the control of the Ukrainian authorities, and citizens residing there faced serious
difficulties to participate in the election.
The legislative framework is adequate for the conduct of democratic elections. Numerous
substantive changes were introduced to the legal framework during the election period, partly in an
effort to address the rapidly changing political-security environment and ensure voting for those
from the affected regions, and partly as a further step in the electoral reform process. While the
changes resulted in a significantly different legal framework than the one in place when the election
was called, most of the recent amendments were seen as necessary by election stakeholders.
...
Most national minority communities reported no substantial obstacles to their participation in the
election process, with the notable exception of Crimean Tatars and Roma. There were incidents of
violence and vandalism, unrelated to the election, against some communities. The debate about
language policy was characterized by more flexible positions than in previous elections, although
most of the candidates clearly disagreed on the issue of Russian as a second state language. Large
parts of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking community were affected by systematic disruption of the work
of the election administration in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Comments
Post a Comment