Elections and Democracy

Remarks by Ambassador John E. Herbst
to students and faculty of the
Ukrainian-American Liberal Arts Institute
”Wisconsin International University – Ukraine”

Kyiv, November 12, 2004

I’m very pleased to be here this afternoon to meet with students and professors of Wisconsin International University Ukraine. Your university is a notable example of the changes that have taken place in higher education in Ukraine since your country regained its independence in 1991. You have created a new and dynamic institution that gives young people the opportunity to learn the skills they need to be successful in Ukraine’s new, market-based economy and, indeed, in the global economy. You stress competence in foreign languages, in management of personnel and resources, and help your students achieve confidence in their professional preparation and in their ability to continue to learn and change to meet the needs of a changing economy, a changing society, and an ever-changing world. You also stress critical thinking, personal responsibility and the importance of personal and professional ethics. We are pleased that the evolution of your university can be traced, at least in part, to your work over the years with American partners. Your standards are high and your graduates are in demand by many leading companies. You are making an important contribution to the future of your country.

You invited me to speak to you today about democracy and elections. That is a very compelling subject for me, and I hope, for you, as well. Both of our countries have just gone through very tough, very hard-fought Presidential election campaigns; in Ukraine, the election process continues, with the second and deciding round on November 21. In the United States, the outcome was clear. The American people decided that President Bush should have a second term. Although Senator Kerry won the votes of more than 55 million American voters, the majority, more than 59 million, voted for President Bush. We accept the legitimacy of that outcome. Although there are those who disagree with the President on many policy issues, they do not dispute the results of the election. The focus of political activity will now move to the Congress, as the President seeks to move his legislative agenda forward and the opposition party will try to have an impact on the process through parliamentary tactics, appealing to public opinion, offering what they see as better ideas, and trying to elect more Democrats to Congress in 2006. These are time-tested tactics in representative democracies. And four years from now, there will be another Presidential election and the two major parties will nominate candidates to articulate their vision of America. And again, the American people will choose. Like Ukraine, where there is a Constitutional two-term limit, we too shall witness the handover of power to a new President.

Elections are an essential part of the democratic process. Our Declaration of Independence refers to the principle of “governments…. deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In any democratic structure outside the very smallest, where policies and leaders can be decided upon by consensus, face to face, there must be an independent and credible mechanism to determine who shall govern and to bestow legitimacy on the decisions they make. Although electoral systems may take different forms—proportional representation vs. single-member districts and winner-take-all, 2-round vs. 1-round, to name a few—in order to contribute to democracy and legitimacy, elections need to be free and fair and need to be seen as fair and free. Those who study democratic political systems cite several factors that contribute to the legitimacy of the electoral process: the right to vote is extended to virtually all citizens, and voting is made accessible on an equal basis to all who have the right to vote; election outcomes are determined by rules established in advance; and there should be a minimum of cheating and fraud in the casting and counting of votes. Those who do cheat should be held accountable by an independent judicial system for those acts. And voters should have access to a full range of information about the candidates and the issues and should not be pressured by the government or employers to vote in favor of or against any given candidate. The role of the state authorities should be to organize the electoral process and assure that it functions according to law; in other words, to provide a level playing field that allows citizens to chose their leaders freely and not to try to help or hinder any of the players through the use of government powers or resources.

Let’s take a look at the U.S. Presidential election held November 2. It is already being analyzed from many different viewpoints: in terms of strategy and tactics of the candidates and their views and messages, in terms of the electorate’s priorities, of the role of religious beliefs, the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the economy, and to some degree in terms of the electoral system and the voting process. While American elections have continuously evolved since the early days of our country toward expanding the right to vote and minimizing the opportunities for cheating and fraud, our elections are not perfect. Few elections are. All of you have heard or read about the problems of the Presidential election of 2000, when the outcome of the election seemed to hinge on whether punch-card ballots in some Florida localities should be counted as properly punched, or thrown out, since some contended that the intention of the voter could not be clearly seen. Problems of accuracy of registration lists, of proper functioning of voting machines, and of the burden on voters of long waits at polling places also made the news that year. Congress tried to remedy many of these problems by passing the Help America Vote Act in 2002. One important fact to keep in mind in looking at elections in the United States is that all elections—even for President—are organized at the state and local level, by elected or appointed officials. They are not organized by the Federal government, but must meet many standards set forth in federal law, such as the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 that overcame many of the ways that some states or localities had used to limit access to voting by African-Americans.

The Help America Vote Act addressed many of the problems identified in the 2000 election, and set a deadline of 2 January 2006 for implementation of the Act. However, there was an effort to do as much as possible before the 2004 Presidential election, in such areas as introduction of new electronic voting equipment, giving provisional ballots to voters who claim to be registered but whose names do not appear on the list (the votes are counted if the registration can be verified later), requiring voters to show identification at the polling places, and ensuring access for voters with disabilities. The goal of the HAVA is to make voting as accessible as possible for all citizens, while limiting opportunities for fraud and error in the voting process. About 60% of the voting age population took part in the 2004 Presidential election, not as impressive as the greater than 70% turn-out here on October 31 -- for which I congratulate the Ukrainian people for its dedication to participate in the democratic process -- but for us 60% is the highest turn-out percentage since 1968.

Was the American Presidential election of 2004 free and fair? The Elections Observation Mission of the OSCE/ODIHR made a full-scale observation of the electoral process, sending both long-term and short-term observers to the United States. Despite identifying some problems in administration of the elections and making recommendations for improvements, the OSCE EOM concluded that the elections on November 2 “mostly met the commitments agreed to by the 55 OSCE participating states in the Copenhagen Document of 1990.”

While the U.S. has a long democratic tradition, we do not claim that our governmental and electoral systems are perfect. But we continually try to perfect it. And we discuss our problems openly and try to find solutions. The U.S. Government at all levels works to improve the democratic process, not to impede it or set it back. The participation of all citizens in the process is key because the government is accountable to its citizens, not the other way around. Independent media, citizens groups, and the legal system play key roles in ensuring transparency, accountability, and integrity of the process; when problems arise, they are dealt with openly and fairly. And we welcome the views of groups like the OSCE election observation mission because these groups also contribute to transparency and integrity of the process.

Over the coming months, the U.S. Presidential election will be studied and scrutinized. Complaints and perhaps court cases may arise about the conduct of the electoral process in one locality or another. Interested citizens and groups will put forward their recommendations for improvement, from insuring greater reliability of electronic voting machines to more uniform registration and residency requirements across the states, to such profound changes as abolishing the Electoral College. This is the hard, necessary work of democracy; while it does not usually get the headlines, it helps assure that democratic principles are not merely rhetoric, to be brought out for campaign speeches, but vibrant and relevant guidelines to assuring that as many citizens as possible have a real voice in choosing their leaders and giving legitimacy to the policy choices of these leaders.

The American people, like Ukrainians, want democracy and the opportunity to choose their president freely. They thus remain committed to continually trying to improve the electoral system, the fundamental part of our country's democratic process.