STUDIA VOL. 36 POLITOLOGICZNE STUDIA I ANALIZY Olena Yatsunska The impact of changes in electoral systems: a comparative analysis of the local election in Ukraine in 2006 and 2010 KEY WORDS: local government, local elections, proportional electoral system, majoritarian electoral system, mixed majoritarian-proportional electoral system, Ukraine STUDIA I ANALIZY Having gained independence in 1991 Ukraine, like most Central and East- ern European countries, faced the need for radical Constitutional reforms, with reorganization of local government figuring high in the agenda. Like other post-soviet countries, Ukraine had to decide on the starting point and like in the neighboring countries, democratic euphoria of the early 1990s got the upper hand: local authorities were elected on March 18, 1990, while the Law On Local People’s Deputies of Ukrainian SSR and Local Self-government was adopted by Verkhovna Rada of Ukrainian SSR on December 7, 1990. Ukrain- ian Researchers in the field of local government and its reforms concur with the opinion that the present dissatisfactory state of that institution was con- ditioned by the first steps made by Ukrainian Politicians at the beginning of the ‘transition’ period. Without clear perspective of reform, during more than 20 years of Independence, Ukrainian local government has abided dozens of laws, sometimes rather contradictory and has survived more than 10 stages of restructuring. Evolution of election legislation in Ukraine is demonstrated by Table 1. The table shows that since 1994 three electoral systems have been tested in Ukraine: 1, Majoritarian, 2, Proportional except elections to village and settlement councils and 3, ‘Mixed’ system (50% Majoritarian+50% Proportional). Majoritarian Electoral System, being a Soviet legacy and a cumbersome, expensive system that hampered the formation of an effective local party system, 204 SP Vol. 36/ SP Vol. Table 1. Evolution of the Local Election Law in Ukraine The impactofchangesinelectoralsystems:acomparativeanalysisthelocalelection… 1994 1998, 2002 2006 2010 (law # 3 996-XII, (law # 14/98-R, STUDIA (law # 1667-IV, (law # 2487-VІ, authorized 07/10/2010; authorized authorized authorized 04/06/2004) # 2491-VI, authorized 08/30/2010) 02/24/1994) 01/14/1998) I ANALIZY Electoral – Majoritarian system Village and settlement councils, and heads Majoritarian-proportional system System of village, settlement, and city councils – half of the deputies (overall seats) of the are elected based on majoritarian system respective council are elected by list of Deputies of district, district in cities, candidates of local and political party city and oblast councils, and Deputies of organizations in multiseat electoral con- the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous stituency; Republic of Crimea are elected on the – half of the deputies (overall seats) of the basis of proportional system respective council are elected by winner- take-all system in single-seat electoral constituency Term of service for Heads and 4 years 5 years 5 years Members of Councils Passive One person can- A candidate can run A candidate can simultaneously run for A candidate for the Member seat in multiseat electoral rights not simultaneously only for one Council Member seats in different Councils and electoral constituency can run simultaneously restrictions run for the Head of Member seat or for for the Head of the Council for Member seat in the respective Council in the Council and for the Head of Village, single-seat electoral constituency or for the a Council Member Settlement or City Head of Village, Settlement or City Council seat Council A candidate for Member seat in single-seat majoritarian electoral constituency, for Head of Village, Settlement or City Council cannot run simultaneously for Member seat in other 205 single-seat electoral constituencies or single- seat majoritarian electoral constituencies 206 1994 1998, 2002 2006 2010 (law # 3 996-XII, (law # 14/98-R, (law # 1667-IV, (law # 2487-VІ, authorized 07/10/2010; authorized authorized authorized 04/06/2004) # 2491-VI, authorized 08/30/2010) 02/24/1994) 01/14/1998) A candidate can run for Member seat, Head of Village, Settlement or City Council from only one local political party organization Number Seats depend on City Councils seats Seats depend on a number of voters Seats depend on a number of voters of Council a number of voters are based on a number Constituencies with more than 2 million Constituencies with more than 2 million Member seats of voters people may have up to 150 members in people may have from 76 to 150 members Oblast Councils seats a respective Council in a respective Council are equally divided Oblast Councils seats are equally divided YATSUNSKA OLENA among the districts among the districts regardless of the number of the voters in the respective constituency Overall member seats of the respective council must be even-numbered Right to – Voter gatherings; – Voter gatherings by – Local party organizations/blocks, regis- – Local party organizations; nominate – Political parties, place of residence, tered at least one year prior to the elec- – Self-nomination (for Village and Settle- belongs to: movements and work, or education; tions (which can nominate independent ment Councils and their Heads) electoral blocks; – Local organiza- candidates as well); STUDIA – Public organiza- tions, political par- – Self-nomination (must file a petition to ties, electoral blocks appropriate territorial electoral commis- tions I ANALIZY (which can nomi- sion supported by a certain number of – Labor unions. nate independent signatures). candidates as well); / SP Vol. 36 /SPVol. – Public organizations, registered under Ukrainian law; SP Vol. 36/ SP Vol. – Self-nomination The impactofchangesinelectoralsystems:acomparativeanalysisthelocalelection… (must file a peti- tion to appropriate STUDIA territorial commis- sion and submit I a certain number ANALIZY of signatures). Financial All candidates must – No monetary fee No monetary fee requirements deposit a refundable for registration monetary fee if they receive more than Total abolition of limits for electoral funds 5% of votes of parties and candidates Defining the Elected candidate for Elected candidate for Elected candidate in a single-seat electoral Elected candidate in a single-seat electoral winners both Council Mem- both Council Member constituency or as the Head of village, constituency or as the Head of village, set- ber seat and the Head seat and the Head of settlement or city councils, is a candidate tlement or city councils, is a candidate who of the Council is the the Council is the who received a majority of votes received a majority of votes; one who received the one who received the Elected candidate in a multiseat elec- Elected candidate in a multiseat electoral majority of votes by majority of votes toral constituency is a candidate who is constituency is a candidate who is included no less than 10% of included in the electoral list of local party in the electoral list of local party organiza- votes organization/block, which received more tion/block, which received more than 3% Elected candidate than 3% of votes. of votes for the Head of Council Member seats are proportion- the Council cannot ally divided between the electoral lists of receive less than 25% local organized parties/blocks based on of votes the number of votes received by elected candidates, including in the electoral lists 207 OLENA YATSUNSKA was in practice in Ukraine throughout three electoral cycles. Apparently, when adopting Law on Elections in 2006, Ukrainian deputies pinned their hopes on the Proportional system as a miracle cure for local government. It was sup- posed to bring the Ukrainian system closer to the European standards of local government. Almost all of the countries in Western and Eastern Europe now practise the Proportional electoral system on the local level. This system can reduce the number of political parties, while promoting their growth and main- taining the role of the remaining ones in politicizing and structuring of soci- ety. The Proportional system was expected to ensure better representation of main political preferences of Ukrainian citizens on the local level and place more responsibilities on political parties for their local activities; to implement the model of local government based on “strong mayor – strong council” sys- tem (as opposed to “strong mayor – weak council” system); to enable creation of steady seat majorities in local councils controlling respective local func- tions, and weaken the influence of administrative bureaucracies on elections’ results. However, adoption of Proportional system for local elections in Ukraine proved to have negative rather than positive consequences. As it turned out, the ‘Achilles heel’ of the new system were closed lists revealing to voters informa- tion only about the top five members of each party. This made it possible for almost all Ukrainian political parties to enroll so-called ‘fat cats’ who, accord- ing to different reports, paid from $100,000 to $800,000 for ‘sure-to-get-in seats’1 [1], with City Council seats being more popular than Regional Councils. The reason for such popularity was rather mercenary. All the profitable issues like land distribution, privatization, etc. remained under the authority of the City Council. It should be also stressed that according to the Law “On the Status of Deputies of Local Councils”2, deputies do not get salary for their deputy services (art. 6). One could wonder