Over the past four weeks, I had the honor of serving as an international election observer as part of the NDI delegation to Ukraine. The first round of the presidential election took place on Sunday, March 31, with an extraordinary 39 candidates on the ballot. After arriving in Kyiv, our delegation spent four intensive days reviewing observer protocols and procedures, meeting with journalists, and engaging with prominent Ukrainian leaders who provided deep insight into the country’s political landscape, party dynamics, and candidate profiles.
Following our briefing period in Kyiv, I was assigned to Odesa, a major port city on the Black Sea and a region shaped by its proximity to Crimea following the annexation. Our preparation in Kyiv offered a strong foundation: we were briefed on key candidates, their support structures, known disruptors, and potential security risks we might encounter in the field. When I arrived in Odesa, I immediately observed that the southern region, and Odesa in particular, is predominantly Russian-speaking, with architecture that still bears the imprint of the Soviet era. We arrived on Friday, March 29, which gave us the necessary time to familiarize ourselves with the polling stations we would observe and meet local election officials ahead of election day.
On Saturday, we surveyed the city center to assess whether the mandatory campaign blackout period was being respected and whether there were any visible signs of potential disruption or paramilitary intimidation of voters. Election day itself was rigorous. Polls in Ukraine open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m., and we arrived at our first station at 7:15 a.m. to observe the opening procedures. While the steps are detailed and highly procedural, I can say confidently that the station we observed executed them with flawless precision, full transparency, and a palpable spirit of cooperation.
Once voting began, our role was straightforward but demanding: observe, document, and monitor procedural integrity. For the next 12 hours, our team traveled across Odesa, visiting nine polling stations before returning to our initial location at 7:45 p.m.—just in time to witness the final voter cast their ballot and the closing procedures commence. I should note that Ukrainian ballots are physical paper ballots listing all 39 candidates and measuring nearly the length of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Voting booths look like something from the 1950s, complete with curtains that voters draw closed behind them. The ballot boxes themselves are completely transparent, fully visible to everyone inside the polling station.
The real intensity begins once the polls close and counting starts. At our station, with approximately 2,200 registered voters and turnout above 70%, the process was meticulous. Ballots were poured onto a large central table; each was picked up individually, and the chosen candidate’s name was read aloud. Ballots were then placed into designated areas for each candidate. If any ballot was unclear or deliberately voided, it was examined collectively by the election officials. Only if the entire group reached a unanimous agreement was it counted or discarded as invalid.
Shortly after midnight, the tally was completed, the closing protocols were finalized, and the results were transported to the central district office. We arrived back at the hotel around 2:00 a.m.—just in time for a short rest before departing for the airport at 5:00 a.m. to return to Kyiv for a full-delegation debrief. “Tired” would be an understatement.
Our first-round observations revealed no attempts by malign actors to manipulate the outcome. In fact, what we witnessed was a sincere commitment to transparency and a genuine effort to advance democratic practice. At the post-runoff press conference on April 21, U.S. Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) even remarked that he would support returning to paper ballots and transparent ballot boxes in U.S. elections—a point on which I rarely agree with him. The clarity of Ukraine’s process leaves remarkably little room for fraud. Which raises the question: if Congressman Shimkus is such a champion of election transparency, why did he vote against H.R. 1, the House’s comprehensive anti-corruption and voting rights bill?
The second round on April 21 mirrored the first, with one major difference: I was dispatched to Lviv, an exceptionally beautiful city in western Ukraine often likened to a “mini-Paris” for its architecture and vibrant, youthful energy. The dominant language there is Ukrainian, and while the procedures were nearly identical to those in Odesa, the cultural and political atmosphere felt distinctly different. The outcomes, however, were consistent.
Ukraine has now chosen a new leader: a television actor with no prior experience in government. Across both regions, the sentiment was clear—the incumbent, President Poroshenko, had failed to deliver on key promises, particularly regarding corruption and the aspirations of the 2014 revolution. Zelensky’s campaign capitalized on this frustration, promising to revive the revolution’s energy. When Poroshenko vowed in 2017 to “cut off the hands of those who steal in the army,” Zelensky responded sharply: “Why do your people all have both their hands?”
For Ukraine’s sake—and the future of its democracy—let us hope that President Zelensky can keep both of his.
No comments:
Post a Comment