QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
2014 ukrainian revolution, petro poroshenko, president of ukraine, yulia tymoshenko, central election commission, run-off, batkivshchyna, abuse of power

2014 Ukrainian Presidential Election

“The 2014 Ukrainian presidential election was a rather dramatic affair, wasn't it? A snap election, no less, held on the 25th of May, 2014. It was a direct...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

The 2014 Ukrainian presidential election was a rather dramatic affair, wasn’t it? A snap election, no less, held on the 25th of May, 2014. It was a direct consequence of the whirlwind that was the 2014 Ukrainian revolution , a period that saw quite a bit of upheaval. The original plan was to hold it in March of 2015, but things moved considerably faster, which, if you ask me, is usually a sign of either great efficiency or utter chaos. In this case, I suspect a healthy dose of both.

The outcome was swift and decisive: Petro Poroshenko was elected President of Ukraine in the first round. He managed to snag a rather comfortable 55% of the vote. His closest rival, Yulia Tymoshenko , trailed significantly with only 13%. The Central Election Commission reported a turnout of nearly 60%, though this figure, like many things in life, comes with a rather substantial asterisk. It excluded the regions that were, shall we say, not under government control at the time. A full 59.88% of eligible voters apparently participated, a slight dip of 8.93 percentage points from some previous metric, though what that previous metric was, the document doesn’t quite clarify. It’s like trying to read tea leaves without the tea.

The fact that Poroshenko secured an absolute majority meant that the planned run-off second ballot, which would have been held on June 15, 2014, became entirely redundant. One and done. Efficient, I suppose, if you ignore the rather significant parts of the country where the election didn’t really happen at all.

Background

Before we dive into the messy details of the actual election, it’s worth remembering the context. The initial schedule, as mentioned, was for March 29, 2015. But, as is often the case, history had other plans.

Prior to the Rescheduling of the Election

The seeds of this early election were sown in the political machinations of the preceding years. Yulia Tymoshenko , a figure who seems to have a rather persistent presence in Ukrainian politics, was nominated by her party, Batkivshchyna , as far back as December 7, 2012, for the original presidential election date. Her party congress rubber-stamped this decision in June 2013. However, Tymoshenko had a rather inconvenient legal entanglement. In October 2011, she was convicted of abuse of power and handed a seven-year sentence, which, rather inconveniently for her political ambitions, also banned her from holding elected office. Naturally, this meant she was unable to participate in the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election , with Arseniy Yatsenyuk stepping in to lead the party’s list. She remained incarcerated until February 22, 2014, when parliament, in a rather decisive move, voted to release her and expunge her record, clearing the path for her political comeback.

Interestingly, in May 2013, Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna party formed an alliance with UDAR and Svoboda . They made a pact to coordinate their efforts and back the candidate who made it to the runoff. If, by some miracle, a single candidate could emerge victorious in the first round, they vowed to agree on a unified front.

Then there was Vitali Klitschko , the leader of UDAR and a rather formidable boxer, who announced his intention to run in October 2013. There were some legal murmurs about his eligibility, though. Ukrainian law requires candidates to have resided in the country for the past ten years. Klitschko, having spent considerable time in Germany, where he held a residence permit, raised a few eyebrows. He confirmed his participation in February 2014, but then, rather abruptly, withdrew on March 29, throwing his support behind Petro Poroshenko .

And let’s not forget Viktor Yanukovych , the former president. Before his rather ignominious departure and flight to Russia, he was widely expected to seek a second term. However, by December 2013, he was hedging his bets, vaguely alluding to not participating if his popularity waned. A master of political ambiguity, perhaps.

Early 2014 Elections

The real catalyst for the snap election was the Euromaidan protests, also known as the Revolution of Dignity . It all kicked off on November 21, 2013, when the Second Azarov Government abruptly halted preparations to sign an association agreement with the European Union . This decision, as one might expect, ignited widespread protests across Ukraine. The situation escalated rapidly, culminating in the removal of President Yanukovych and his government by the parliament in February. Yanukovych himself fled the country, seeking refuge in Russia. On February 22, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada voted overwhelmingly to dismiss him, and Oleksandr Turchynov stepped in as acting president.

Yanukovych, from his new Russian abode in Rostov-on-Don , declared the upcoming elections unlawful and stated he wouldn’t participate. Meanwhile, his former party, the Party of Regions , seemed to be in disarray. Serhiy Tihipko was initially rumored to be their candidate, but the nomination ultimately went to Mykhailo Dobkin . Tihipko, for his part, ran as an independent. Dobkin, it’s worth noting, was among those wanted by the new Yatsenyuk Government for potential trial at the International Criminal Court .

The 2014 Crimean crisis and the subsequent Russian military intervention added another layer of complication. Ukraine lost control of Crimea , which Russia promptly annexed in March 2014. Consequently, elections weren’t held in Crimea. However, Ukrainians residing there who retained their Ukrainian citizenship were permitted to vote elsewhere.

Escalation of Pro-Russian Unrest

The situation in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine deteriorated rapidly. By early April 2014, pro-Russian protests had morphed into an armed separatist insurgency . Masked gunmen seized control of government buildings and entire towns. This presented a significant challenge to the integrity of the election.

On April 15, 2014, the General Prosecutor of Ukraine initiated criminal proceedings against Oleg Tsaryov , a candidate at the time, for allegedly aiding separatists. Tsarov, predictably, withdrew his candidacy shortly thereafter, on April 29.

Serhiy Taruta , the governor of Donetsk, proposed a referendum to be held on June 15, the same day as a potential second round of the presidential election. The referendum was intended to address decentralization of power, giving regions more autonomy, including control over taxes and the potential for Russian to become a second official language.

Crucially, on May 16, 2014, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled that the winner of the election would serve a full five-year term. This decision, while legally sound, was made against a backdrop of escalating conflict and uncertainty.

The Central Election Commission of Ukraine (CEC) faced immense difficulties in organizing the election in the Donbas. By May 17, they announced that due to “illegal actions of unknown people,” they couldn’t arrange elections in six constituencies in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts . Election commission members reported receiving threats, and the CEC warned that up to two million voters in these regions might be disenfranchised. By May 22, the situation had worsened, with representatives of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic halting the work of numerous election commissions. The Committee of Voters of Ukraine predicted that as much as 10% of the electorate might be unable to vote. The leader of the Luhansk People’s Republic even advised citizens to stay away from the polls, citing fears of “provocative ’explosions’” orchestrated by the Ukrainian military.

Simultaneous Mayoral Elections

It’s also worth noting that on the same day, May 25, 2014, 27 mayoral elections were held across Ukraine, including in major cities like Odesa and Kyiv .

Russian Reaction

Initially, Russia was quite vocal in its opposition to the rescheduled election, viewing the ousting of Yanukovych as illegitimate and the interim government as a “junta.” However, by early May, Russian president Vladimir Putin seemed to shift his stance, calling the election a step “in the right direction” but emphasizing the need to protect the rights of all citizens. By May 23, at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum , Putin appeared to soften further, stating that Russia would respect the election’s outcome and was prepared to work with the winner.

Meanwhile, the US and the European Union issued a stern warning to Russia: disrupt the election, and face further sanctions . These sanctions, which were already in place following the annexation of Crimea , threatened to target entire sectors of the Russian economy. The West openly accused Russia of destabilizing Ukraine by fueling the unrest in the east, a charge Russia consistently denied.

Electoral System

The presidential term in Ukraine is set at five years. As previously noted, if no candidate secured an absolute majority in the first round, a second round was scheduled for June 15, 2014.

Information Technology Framework for Electoral Monitoring – Elections 2014

Arsen Avakov , then Minister of Internal Affairs, championed a new IT system for election monitoring, dubbed “Elections 2014.” The aim was to provide real-time tracking of the election process, thereby enhancing transparency and hopefully avoiding the post-election controversies that had plagued Ukraine in the past. However, the system wasn’t without its vulnerabilities. Just three days before the election, the hacker group CyberBerkut claimed to have compromised the CEC’s servers and stolen passwords. The Security Service of Ukraine later confirmed the discovery of malware designed to destroy election results. On election day itself, authorities apprehended a group of hackers in Kyiv who were allegedly attempting to manipulate the results. It seems even technology couldn’t escape the political turmoil.

Candidates

A considerable number of candidates, 21 in total, vied for the presidency. Of these, seven were nominated by political parties , and a whopping 15 were self-nominated. This was a notable increase from the 18 candidates in the 2010 .

The Party of Regions , Yanukovych’s former party, had initially fielded four candidates, but by April 7, 2014, Serhiy Tihipko , Oleh Tsarov , and Yuriy Boiko were expelled from the party. The party’s official nomination went to Mykhailo Dobkin .

The nomination window for candidates was open from February 25 to March 30, 2014, with the final registration deadline set for April 4. Candidates were required to submit a comprehensive document package and a deposit of ₴2.5 million.

Registered Candidates

The list of registered candidates was rather extensive:

Withdrawn Candidates

A few candidates withdrew their bids. Natalia Korolevska stepped back on May 1, and Oleh Tsarov followed on April 29. After the deadline, Zoryan Shkiryak withdrew on May 10, Petro Symonenko on May 16, Oleksandr Klymenko on May 18 (to support Poroshenko, no less), and Vasyl Tsushko on May 22. The CEC, unfortunately, couldn’t remove the names of those who withdrew after the May 1 deadline from the ballot. An administrative headache, to be sure.

Rejected Candidates

The CEC also rejected several applications early on. Among those denied registration were O. Burnashova, V. Marynych, A. Makhlai, A. Kucheryavenko, V. Chopei, L. Rozhnova, L. Maksymenko, D. Myroshnychenko, P. Rekal, T. Onopriyuk, and Z. Abbasov. In a rather peculiar turn of events, on April 3, the CEC also rejected a candidate named Darth Vader , along with Evhen Terekhov and Yuriy Ivanitsky. Apparently, even intergalactic overlords aren’t eligible for the Ukrainian presidency.

On March 29, Vitali Klitschko made his endorsement of Petro Poroshenko official and announced his intention to run for Mayor of Kyiv in the concurrent local elections.

Opinion Polls

A dedicated article on Opinion polling for the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election exists, detailing the various predictions and trends leading up to the vote. Unsurprisingly, Petro Poroshenko consistently led in these polls, often with his slogan “Live in the New Way” prominently displayed.

International Observers

The CEC registered a substantial number of international observers. By May 2, there were 543, and by May 23, this number had swelled to 3,607. Observers came from organizations like the OSCE ’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights , the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly , the Ukrainian World Congress , and the United States. The OSCE alone deployed 100 long-term and 900 short-term observers. Russia, quite predictably, did not send observers, nor did most other Commonwealth of Independent States members, as Ukraine hadn’t extended an invitation to the CIS Election Monitoring Organisation .

Results

The final tally confirmed what the polls had largely predicted. Petro Poroshenko secured victory with 55.46% of the vote, a clear mandate. Yulia Tymoshenko came in second with 13.00%, followed by Oleh Liashko at 8.44%.

The voter turnout was officially reported at 59.88%, though the CEC acknowledged that this figure didn’t account for regions not under government control. In the Donbas region, the election was severely hampered. Only about 20% of the planned ballot stations managed to open, with just 426 out of 2,430 functioning due to the ongoing unrest and threats from pro-Russia separatists .

Exit polls corroborated the official results, predicting Poroshenko’s win with over 55.9% of the votes.

Here’s a breakdown of the popular vote:

Total valid votes cast were 17,774,845, with a turnout of 59.88% from 30,095,028 registered voters.

Reactions

Despite the preceding tensions, Russian president Vladimir Putin acknowledged the election results and recognized Poroshenko as the legitimate president. This was a significant diplomatic move, given Russia’s earlier stance.

The leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic , however, declared that the regions had already made their choice in their own highly disputed referendums held on May 11.

On the international front, US president Barack Obama congratulated Poroshenko via telephone two days after the election. Similar congratulations poured in from leaders of the European Union , including President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso , European Parliament President Martin Schulz , German chancellor Angela Merkel , and French president François Hollande . It was a clear signal of international endorsement for the new leadership in Ukraine.

Notes

  • The territorial status of Crimea and Sevastopol remained a point of contention. Ukraine and most of the international community recognized it as Ukrainian territory, while Russia asserted its federal subject status.
  • The Ukrainian Constitution allows for a maximum of two five-year presidential terms. However, a 2003 ruling by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine had previously permitted a third term for Leonid Kuchma , though he ultimately declined to run.
  • Yanukovych had suspended his membership in the Party of Regions after the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election .
  • The voter distribution in the Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast represented a significant portion of the total electorate. The absence of voting in Crimea due to its annexation further impacted the overall figures.
  • The turnout in the second round of the 2010 presidential election was notably higher, with 25.5 million Ukrainians participating.
  • In some western parts of Donetsk Oblast, where paramilitary groups managed to suppress separatist activity, the election proceeded more normally.
  • Reports from the Committee of Voters of Ukraine painted a grim picture of election committees operating “underground” amidst kidnappings and threats in the Donbas.