Victor Yushenko, the pro-western candidate.
If I were an Ukrainian, I'd sooner vote for Freddie Kruger...
Posted on 11/22/2004 7:28:59 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The choice facing Ukrainian voters on Sunday, in the second round of their presidential election, was about as clear as choices get: East or West. In the shorthand of the race, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich was pro-Russian, and his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko, the head of the opposition and a former prime minister, was pro-Western. President Vladimir Putin of Russia openly threw his support to Mr. Yanukovich, and the West not quite so openly threw its weight behind Mr. Yushchenko. But the outcome of the election seemed less important than how fairly it was conducted. If a nation as sharply divided and as strategically important as Ukraine showed it could handle a hard choice, wouldn't democracy throughout the former Soviet empire benefit?
It was not to be. Ukraine last night was in a state of upheaval, after preliminary vote counts indicated that Mr. Yanukovich won the race narrowly. But international observers described widespread voting abuses, and Mr. Yushchenko refused to accept official results. Mr. Yushchenko's supporters turned out by the thousands in Independence Square in Kiev claiming that the election was rigged and vowing to demonstrate until results were released reflecting the will of the people.
Mr. Yushchenko's supporters had plenty of backup from international observers. In a joint statement, officials from NATO, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe criticized the fairness of the election. Separately, Senator Richard Lugar, visiting Ukraine to observe the elections, called the polling a "concerted and forceful program of election day fraud and abuse."
The campaign was passionate. Mr. Yanukovich was openly supported by the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, whose 10-year tenure has been marked by extensive corruption and scandal. Mr. Yushchenko's followers accused the government of exploiting its control of the media, and, after Mr. Yushchenko fell violently ill, they even accused the government of poisoning him.
Mr. Yanukovich, for his part, was aided by an upturn in the economy and garnered strong support in eastern Ukraine with promises to make Russian a second official language. In the West, commentaries depicted the contest as a fateful clash between Western democracy and Putinesque authoritarianism; in Russia, it was depicted as a rebuff to Western encroachment.
In fact, neither candidate would likely be so absolute. Ukraine's relations with Russia are determined by hard realities. Mr. Yushchenko has no alternative to Russian energy; Mr. Yanukovich, like his mentor Mr. Kuchma, would likely continue to seek the good will and investment of the West.
Mr. Putin would do well to prod his Ukrainian friends to heed Senator Lugar's call for a review of the poll results. It is a pity that the Bush administration has apparently decided it won't push Mr. Putin any further. This election should not lead to an even greater divide within Ukraine. What Ukrainians need now is to shape their institutions and democratic habits to get to civil reform peacefully.
The Democrats are undermining democracy throughout the entire world by making it popular to cry "fraud" when you lose an election.
"...the Bush administration has apparently decided it won't push Mr. Putin any further."
Damn it, I just knew President Bush was to blame for this, too.
The huge protest in the Ukraine has given the DUmmies an idea to start a website to start their own huge march. They are screwing themselves BIG TIME again!
what is wrong with you? ukraine is trying for reforms to get rid of russian influenced communists. yushchenko is the conservative candidate. the other is a russian communist stooge. if you dont know what you are talking about first ask instead of spouting off.
i really hope bush decides to help ukraine out with this. he takes a stand on most foreign issues as pro democracy. i hope he doesnt waffle on this one.
Huh? What does that have to do with what I said? The vote is the vote. Just because you and the NYT don't like the result doesn't make it fraud.
If you cry fraud every time the election doesn't come out as you like it, then you are basically claiming that democracy doesn't work. So why have it? Your viewpoint is self-defeating.
Unfortunately, the ends justifies the means does not work when your goal is to establish democracy. You can't say, "well, our candidate lost in this election, but he's the most democratic candidate, and the vote wasn't fair, so we should throw out the results."
If you really want to get from A to B, then you do your best to make sure the vote is fair before it happens, and then you back the result, no matter what it is. There is no other alternative at that point. Declaring the vote a fraud is itself conceding defeat.
Of course, if it really was a fraud, then you've been defeated anyway, but there is no way to undo it until the next election.
when the russians get in and fraud the election it is a fraud. whether you like it or not. if both the EU, the US, nato and everyone else on the planet says there were huge amounts of fraud. you cant get from A to B if there is fraud.
you are right, that fraud should be prevented beforehand. but when most say there was fraud i will side with them. not with you and putin and the communist politicians.
Just because the good guys did not win in our opinion does not automatically mean it's fraud, no matter who says it. The NYT is the last source I'd trust anyway.
What are you going to do, invalidate the election? What's the point in having an election then?
you raise good points, however, when you are dealing with ukraine..a country that russia NEEDS to keep it's grip on to survive, and to grow, you have to be watch very carefully. (is that enough of a run-on sentence for you? :)
they will do anything to gain control. which is why you have 100s of thousands of people demonstrating all over the globe. we know what russia, especially the old soviets, is about. and we know how they operate, and how badly they need to win.
also...your point about the times is well taken, but others that are on yushchenkos side are EU, US, president Bush, NATO, and everyone in between. the fraud allegations are not made up. even dick morris...i'm not sure if thats better then the NYT, but i'll stick it in here for good measure.
regards, koz.
The point of having an election, as I see it, is to permit the will of the people to be expressed and reflected in the policies of their government.
Here, you have a Soviet-style "election" with pre-determined results favoring Moscow's stooge. The "results" should without question be invalidated.
This may be the only way true democracy survives in the Ukraine.
I agree that fixed elections are no good. However, the only evidence I've seen that it was fixed is that the guy you want lost. It seems that every time the wrong guy wins these days, a fraud is declared. The notion that every unsatisfactory result must be a fraud is destroying the whole concept of democracy--it's undermining confidence, and ultimately, democracy is based on confidence in the fairness of the election. I don't think that it helps the cause to simply declare every election we don't like to be a fraud. Where's the proof?
Invalidating a fixed election doesn't really solve the problem anyway. You've got to find a way to have a fair election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.