Smile, you are being recorded

Кristina Wilfore

Web cameras on every polling station must guarantee transparency of the election, but for now they only raise suspicions On October 28, most Ukrainian citizens will cast their ballots under the gaze of video cameras for the first time. Some voters will be reassured by their presence. Others will not. Nonpartisan election observer groups report that some Ukrainians, primarily in rural areas, have been led to believe that the cameras will reveal how they voted.According to recent polls, a full one-third of voters think the cameras will record their choices. This will likely chill citizens’ willingness to vote their consciences, contrary to their internationally recognized right to cast ballots without fear of intimidation or coercion. Unfortunately, the decision making surrounding the use of web cameras to broadcast live the voting process so far has worsened, not allayed concerns. Legislation authorizing the 70,000 cameras was passed quickly without taking into account concerns raised by political parties and civic groups .The cameras are being purchased through an opaque procurement process, with a no-bid contract being awarded to the company that supplied and installed the cameras. Still, the main question remains: why do the cameras have to be turned off immediately after the voting ends? If the goal is to increase transparency, it would be appropriate to do the exact opposite: the members of the electoral commission should conduct the vote count in such a way that the cameras could record their every move as they handle and count the ballots. Then Ukrainians could, if they desire, conduct their own parallel vote count and be confident in the fate of their votes. To ensure transparency, everyone – voters, election commissions, parties, candidates and observers representing parties, candidates and accredited civic groups – should have access to the live broadcast and recorded footage. Access should be granted without restrictions, long delays or limitations. Ideally, there should be free access through the Central Election Commission’s website. If that is not possible for technical reasons, there should be simple, easy procedures for obtaining footage from any polling station. The CEC has the responsibility to develop procedures for access to records and their use as evidence for electoral complaints before October 28. A week before the election, there has been no progress on this front. The Russian experience is not the best example of open access to camera footage. During the parliamentary elections, access of Russian citizens to official records was limited. If you were not able to watch violations live and record them to your computer, it was as if they had not happened. Often, only personal videos

posted on YouTube by ordinary Russian citizens served as a proof of the worst abuses, as recordings by surveillance cameras have remained closed. After the vote, OSCE observers received reports that citizens were being refused access or, if provided, the recorded length was not more than 30 minutes. In the last week before the election, concerted efforts will be needed to increase trust in the way cameras are used. The responsibility is on election authorities, political parties, civic organizations and the media. People must understand what cameras will and will not film, and how the footage will and will not be used. It should be made clear that there will be serious consequences for misusing cameras for electoral gain, including through intimidation of voters, observers or election commission members. It should be understood that, if cameras are used on election day, they need to complement, not substitute for systematic citizen observation. It should be recognized that video observation, no matter how well it is used, is not a panacea; it is only one element in improving the electoral environment. In my years working in politics, I have come to realize that there is not one single thing that makes an election fair. However, there is one thing that has consistently made elections better: the will of all the actors to build a more even system and contest the elections fairly. In the past, Ukrainians have shown that they can run fair and transparent elections. It is my sincere hope that they can summon the political will to address issues that have made citizens mistrust the system, including concerns raised by the plans to use video cameras in polling places. Only then can voters go to the polls without fear and concentrate on what matters most: electing the representatives who will reflect their interests during the next five years. Kristina Wilfore is the Resident Director in Ukraine of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. The work of the National Democratic Institute in Ukraine is made possible in part by funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The views expressed in this op-ed do not necessarily coincide with the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the United States Government.