Election in the occupied Donbas is nothing more than a
slogan used at the Minsk negotiations. There are no real tools available today
to make it happen
Talks about election in the areas of
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts seized by illegal armed groups resumed after the
visit to Kyiv of the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in late
April.
Following the meeting, Samopomich MP Viktoria Voytsitska reported that
the US Department of State insists on amending the Ukrainian Constitution to
include the 'special status' for the occupied territories and on holding
election there as early as mid-summer. Nuland later stated that she had not
mentioned any specific dates for the election. However, the bad taste lingers.
It's no longer a secret that the
West, especially Europe, wants to settle peacefully the 'Ukrainian issue' as
soon as possible. Europeans are interested in lifting sanctions against Russia,
which make them lose money. Of course, Ukraine would have made many in the West
happy if it made concessions and fulfilled its obligations under the Minsk
agreements unilaterally, without demanding anything from the Moscow-controlled
puppet quasi-republics existing at the point of the Russian bayonets. However,
if you look at things realistically, it becomes clear that holding anything at
least slightly resembling the expression of free will today in Donbas is
impossible. And it is unlikely to become possible in the near future.
The main problem is that the
militants categorically oppose an election held under Ukrainian laws, with the
participation of Ukrainian political forces. This has been repeatedly stated by
the self-proclaimed leader of the “Donetsk People’s Republic”, Oleksandr
Zakharchenko. “Closed” and “independent” election is certainly an option.
However, it remains unclear why Ukraine would need it or why it should deal
with it. Besides, it is not clear why wasting time to imitate the election
process, since such 'elections' in the DPR and the LPR have already been held
in 2014 to legitimize Zakharchenko and Plotnytsky.
There is hardly a politician in the
world today who would believe that fair elections could at all be possible in
the puppet republics. Even in DPR and LPR, people openly say that there was no
real voting in 2014, and Zakharchenko and Plotnytsky were simply agreed in
Moscow and appointed by their curators. The disgraced Donetsk warlord Oleksandr
Khodakovsky was one of those who made such statements. The former head of the
“DPR Central Election Commission” Roman Lyagin still sits in the basement after
threatening to tell how the “election” of the DPR honcho was held in reality.
If we assume that the election is to
be held in Donetsk this summer, that is, in a few months, what would be the
choice? Is it between Zakharchenko and Khodakovsky? Or between Zakharchenko and
Gubarev? In Luhansk, however, there is no intrigue left to expect. All of
Plotnytsky's potential competitors were exterminated before the previous
election. Russia could still appoint some new people as its gauleiters in
Donetsk and Luhansk, such as the representatives of the former Party of
Regions. But in this case, it would become clear that the republics do not
actually exist, but are merely another puppet show controlled from the Kremlin.
Talking about a full-fledged
electoral process in the occupied territories today is impossible. There are
too many factors preventing the normal expression of the citizens' will in
these areas. There is still no answer to the question of how the rights and
interests of those Donbas residents who never wanted any DPR or LPR would be
accounted for. Will they be able to nominate their own candidates, or will they
be forced to choose between the candidates agreed with the Russian occupation
administration? Will they be given a chance to vote for Ukrainian parties, or
will they be treated as non-citizens in the territory of their own country and
discriminated in their choice?
It is also unclear whether the
former residents of the areas today controlled by the militants, who became
refugees and were forced to leave after the beginning of hostilities, would be
able to vote. If we look at the experience of other countries, the example of
Croatia proves how important it is for the state to ensure the votes of the
loyal population of the disputed territories. When Eastern Slavonia seized by
the Serbs was integrated, all Croats who became refugees after the outbreak of
the war had the right to elect local authorities there. They were able to vote
regardless of their place of residence, and special voting stations were opened
for them throughout the country.
Would a similar scenario be possible
during the upcoming election in the occupied areas of Donetsk and Luhansk
oblasts? It is very unlikely. The pro-Russian bands will hardly compromise on
this point. So, once again, what we get is not a solution to the problem, but
rather an imitation thereof: appeasing one side at the expense of the other.
Accepting the terms of the Russian side in this case would mean agreeing to the
results of the purges that actually took place in the area in 2014, when
citizens loyal to Ukraine were forced to escape to save their lives. Such
lopsided election would only legalize these purges, thus giving a new impetus
to the conflict.
There is still no answer to the main
technical issue: who and how would count the votes? In the current situation,
the work of Ukrainian election commissions and observers on the occupied
territory is impossible. In the areas controlled by militias, where the rule of
law has been replaced with the rule of Kalashnikovs and tanks, organizing
full-fledged voting is out of question.
However, if we try to ignore the
reality and turn a blind eye to the upcoming election, this would not only be
frankly stupid and detrimental to Ukraine, but would also deal a serious blow
to democracy and the values nurtured for centuries by the
Western society. And the West is perfectly well aware of this.
It has to be recognized that
ignoring the interests of the Ukrainian side and meeting the demands of only
one side (in this case, the Russian one) would not reduce the contradictions;
to the contrary, it would create a new hotbed of tensions and delay the problem
rather than solving it.
After adopting the rules of the game
imposed on Ukraine by Kremlin at the Minsk negotiations, the West would have to
admit that it is sacrificing its basic principles and values. Holding election
in the occupied territories according to Putin's scenario would provide a
rather bitter precedent, which in turn would mean a throwback to the realities
of the 1930s. Such compliance could result in a serious crisis of Western
democracies and the actual victory of the neo-fascist expansionist ideology.
So far, no one seems to have an idea
on what the election in the occupied territory should be like and how to
organize it in practice. It's like dividing by zero in mathematics: it is an
impossible and forbidden operation resulting in system failure. The tangle of
concerns is inextricable, and no one has a clear plan. This means that we are
unlikely to see any significant progress in finding a political solution to the
Donbas conflict this summer. It seems that sooner or later, both sides will
come to the conclusion that the best way to stop violence in this case would be
the Transnistrian or Abkhazian scenario. This means that most likely we will
simply get another frozen conflict and another black hole in the world map in
the place of a once successful Ukrainian region.
No comments:
Post a Comment