Crimea : capital Simferopol

Politics

Next Crimean parliamentary elections: March 2010 - Last elections: March 26, 2006
The Crimean Parliament "Verkhovna Rada of Crimea" has 100 members.
On April 6, 2004 the election law was changed. Rural Councils will be elected by majoritarian system. The Local Councils and the Crimean Rada will be elected by a completely proportional party-list with a 3 percent threshold for representation.
Party Affiliation 2005 : People's Union - Stability 38 Our Ukraine People's Union 15 Union - Soyuz 11 Russian Block 5 SDPUo 3 Crimean Tatars 5 indep. 20. 2 more Crimean Tatar have been elected in different blocks. The forces around prime minister Kunitsin got stronger in the 2002 elections, the chauvinist and pro-imperialist communists around Leonid Grach got weaker. Block "For Yanukovich" 43, Union 11, Crimea 10 (Sergey Kunitsin), Prozvetanie and Unity 10 (Yuliya Timoshenko), unaligned 26, Crimean Tatars (members of Rukh party) 6
The Crimean Tatars as indigenious people of Crimea have only out of 100 seats. These are: Aziz Abdullaev, Remzi Ilyasov, Sevket Kaybullaev, Raet Settarov, Abmajit Suleymanov, Smail Temindarov
The 100 constituencies have 13.500 to 16.500 voters each. Simferopol city has 18, Kerch 9, Yalta & Simferopol rayon 7, Yevpatoriya and Feodossiya 5 have constituencies.

Rada Speaker Anatoliy Grizenko

Election results 1998/2002 in some districts
March 27, 1994 elections - 98 deputies : 55 Rossija List - 15 Sozidariye - 14 KTMM (Crimean Tatar) - 3 CCP - 7 indep. - one each Greek, Armenian, German und Bulgarian
Crimean Tatar deputies 1994-1998 : Mustafa Kirimoglu , Nadir Bekirov , Lilya Budzhurova , Refat Chubarov, Sevket Ramazan. 

The election law of 18.09.1993 foresaw no representation for the Tatars. After demonstrations, in 14.10.93 it was agreed on 14 deputies for the Crimean Tatar. In 1994 elections the Crimean Tatars elected their own deputies. Meclis got all 14 mandates with 89% of the votes (participation 75,8%). NKDT only gets 5.5% of the Tatar votes. In 1998 the quote was not prolongued with the consequence that the Crimean Tatars lost their representation. In 1991 Nikolai Bagrov proposed 7 mandates for the CT. Meclis refused then.



Crimean Government

current Prime Minister Viktor Plakida since June 02, 2006

The post of Crimean Prime Minister is changing very frequently as the political forces are very much divided and all but stable.

email

Vice-Premier Edip Gafarov

Minister for Communcation, Industry and Transport Aziz Abdullaev

Vice-Minister for Culture Ismet Zaat

Head of Ukrainian Presidential Administration Yevgeny Kushnarev

Crimean Tatar Politicians

Osman Kurtseitoglu Adamanov - Head of State Committee for Deported Nations - created 1993

Prof. Dr. Lenur Arifov - deputy prime minister after 4.6.97 - meclis member

Edem Ennanov - former Minister of Social Affairs, from 13.10.1994

Enver Umerov - former Minister of Education

Dr. Ilmi Umerov - former deputy prime minister from 13.10.1994 until 4.6.97 - president of the Turkish World Congress

One deputy minister, one executive of minister, one deputy in Crimean Branch of Ukrainian Interior Ministry and four deputies of heads of district administrations are Crimean Tatars.

In November 1993 the State Crimean Committee of Nationalities was created.
Crimean Parties & Politicians
Political Organizations of Crimea

Adalet Party (Justice) founded 1995

Agrarian, Leader Ivan Dezhemeryv

CP, Leader Leonid Hrach - The Crimean branch of Ukraine's Communist Party, which Hrach has led for nine years, has 8,600 members.

DP, Leader Anatoliy Filatov

Economic Renewal, Leader Vladimir Sheviov

Green Party, Leader Yuriy Komov

Labor Ukraine, Volodymyr Tuterov and Volodymyr Polischuk

Milli Firka (National Party) founded summer 1993, their leader is Ilmi Umerov

National Demokratic Party, Leader Sergiy Kunizin

Organization of the Crimean Tatar National Movement, Leader Mustafa Cemiloglu

Republican Party, Leader Serhiy Tsekov

Social Guarantees, Leader Yukhym Fiks

Socialist Party, Leader Yevhen Melnik, 1607 members

Union for the Support of the Republic of Crimea, Leader Yakob Apter

Crimean Tatar National Movement, Leader Vashtiy Adburayimov

Muslim Party of Ukraine: Leader Farid Akchurin - Crimean Branch: Leader Mars Shafikov



Last municipal elections : March 31, 2002
Mayor of Alushta : Aleksey Nechaev ; Armjansk : Viktor Bogazkiy

Bakhchisaray : Valeriy Kurbatov, re-elected with 2600 votes against Rustem Chiygoz (+1000 votes) and Nuri Suleymanov (250 votes)

Dzankoy : Valentin Sinizkiy

Feodosia : Vladimir Shayderov, re-elected

Kerch : Oleh Osadchiy, re-elected ; Krasnoperekopsk : Sergey Kunizin ; Saki : Vladimir Shvezov (CPU)

Sevastopol : Sergiy Ivanov (appointed)

Simferopol : Valery Yermak (2002: 45.000, 1998: 68.716), re-elected ; Stary Krym : Dmitri Chebishev ; Sudak : Anatoliy Klavkin

Yalta : Sergey Braiko follows N. Diskin

Yevpatoria Andrey Danilenko, re-elected
11.777 Crimeans were candidates for the 6.663 local council posts and 955 candidats for the 296 posts of head of county and village.
The number of Crimean Tatar elected in the 1998 municipal elections is much higher [579] compared to the 1994 elections (20).

In Bakchisaray four Crimean Tatar were nominated as head of County Council and ten as head of County Council but no one was elected. 

Bakhchisaray Town Council, 6 of 39 are Crimean Tatars

Bakhchisaray District Council, 8 of 52 are Crimean Tatars

Simferopol City Council: Djafar Bekirov (14) and Ernes Abljakimov (33) out of 50. 22 CPU

Simferopol Kyiv District Council: Kemal Mukuk (28) and Elvis Abibulaev (44) out of 44
4 out of 51 Bakhchisarai city deputies are Crimean Tatars in 2002.

In 2002 CPU 33%, 13 For United Ukraine, 6% Russian Block and SDPUo. 37 indep. 15 CPU 8 NDP 4 Regions 3 Industrians and Bus. Men 2 Agrarian 1 DemUnion 1 LU 1 Union 1 Yabluko. 54 out of 75 Sevastopol city deputies were members of the Communist party in 1998.



There are ten Crimean constituencies for Ukrainian parliament Verkhovna Rada.

Party affiliation 2006: 

party affiliation 2002: indep. 3 CPU 2 PDP 2 SDPUo 1 LU 1 Zayedu 1

party affiliation 1998: indep. 3 CPU 3 PDP 2 Greens 1 LU 1
In 2006 Mustafa Abdulcemil Kirimoglu (place 28) and Refat Chubarov (place 61) were elected as NU deputies. Four more Tatars are Rada members from the party of regions Ahmet Rinatov and Ravil Safiullin, Yuliya Timoshenko blok Oleksandr Rafkat Abdullin and Our Ukraine Eduard Djangir Zeynalov.
In 2002 the Our Ukraine joint list of reformists lead by former head of the National Bank and Prime Minister Viktor Yushenko offered three positions on its list for Crimean Tatar candidates, namely Mustafa Abdulcemil Kirimoglu (place 28), Refat Chubarov (place 61) and Eskender Beriev, leader of Crimean Tatar Youth organization, (place 194).

In 1998 the Ukrainian Rukh Party offered two positions on its list for Crimean Tatar candidates, namely Mustafa Abdulcemil Kirimoglu  and Nadir Bekirov, for the March 29 parliamentary elections. Mustafa Abdulcemil Kirimoglu (place 9) was elected and Nadir Bekirov (place 45) missed with only a few votes.

constituency
#1 Central Simferopol - elected Volodymyr Voyush SDPUo 18,99% - Leniye Chakala was candidate in 1998, elected in 1998 Yevhen Leshan (1975) CPU (votes 21.670 23,89% 160.000)
#2 Kyiv Simferopol - re-elected Lev Myrymskyi (1960) Labor Ukraine 32,76%/33,28% in 1998, Server Izidinov NU missed with 22401 votes - Nadir Bekirov got 4.206 votes 4,78% in 1998 - Lev Myrymskyi, head of the "Imperia" corporation and one of the most powerful people in Crimea, controls two television corporations, two radio companies and four or five newspapers with a total circulation of about 300,000.
#3 Dzhankoi - re-elected Serhiy Ivanov (1952) Greens 21,24%/30,99% in 1998 - Edem Ennanov NU 8,17%/11,27% lost votes to Farid Akchurin 3,96%
#4 Yevpatoriia - re-elected Anatoliy Rakhanskyi (1939) indep. 28,37%/33,29% in 1998 - Zenur Yaqubov was candidate in 1998 - deputy since 1994
#5 Kerch - re-elected Viktor Myronenko (1975) CPU 24,89%/30,44% in 1998 - Rashit Seutov was candidate in 1998
#6 Feodosiia - re-elected Valeriy Horbatov, Agriculture Mogul (1955) PDP  53,84/29,55% in 1988 - Ayder Mustafayev NU was candidate in 2002 (lost with 43.560) and Refat Kencaliyev was candidate in 1998- deputy since 1994
#7 Alushta, Yalta - re-elected Ihor Franchuk (1968) PDP 40,03%/42,83% in 1998 - Zaur Smirnov was candidate in 1998
#8 Belogorsk - elected Volodimyr Shklyar indep. 24.92%-  Server Saliev NU lost with 6360 votes. Refat Chubarov was elected in 1998 as an independant with 18.499 votes 17,85% of 157.200 - 2.883 votes more than Serhiy Topalov, former CPU deputy and two more Crimean Tatar candidates
#9 Krasnoperekopsk - elected Valeriy Yevdokymov SDPUo 25% - Reshat Kyenzha NU lost with 15935 votes - Shevket Qaybulaev was candidate in 1998 with 3.964 votes 3,81% - elected in 1998 Valeriy Khoroshkovskiy (1969) PDP (votes 55.636 53,57% 156.900)
#10 Bakhchisarai and Simferopol raion - re-elected Anatoliy Franchuk (1935) indep.  27,57%/34,90% in 1998 - Ilmi Umerov (10.313 10,01%) and Leonid Pylunskiy (520 0,5%)
#224 Haharinskyi Sevastopol - elected Stanislav Halchinskyi CPU 15,79% - Serhiy Kondratevskyi indep.
#225 Nakhimovskyi Sevastopol - elected Viktor Zaichko Zayedu 30,48% - Vadym Zachosov CPU

results in Crimea/Sevastopol: CPU 34,03%/32,74% SDPUo 12,50%/3,68% Our Ukraine 9,88%/3,01% Zayedu 5,85%/13,29% Block Rus 4,71%/8,86% Yulia Tymoshenko 1,44%/2,27% SPU 0,76%/1,43%

Liberal Party Ukraine Liberal Youth Ukraine
Mikoly Zhulinskiy, Volodimir Sherban, Petro Ziganko, Igor Bugayov, Valeriy Fedoreyko, Nataliya Moskovska, Yuriy Senyuk and Gennadiy Dorochshenko are Liberal Party candidates on the Our Ukraine-list

Referendum on Crimeas Autonomy: 20.01.1991. 1.441.019 casts, 1.343.855 pro Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
February 12, 1991 The Upper Soviet of Ukraine accepts the Autonomy of the Crimea
Crimea gets a new constitution on 25.02.1992.
Before the adoption of a new constitution and parliamentary elections the Soviet of the Crimean Oblast elected a Crimean Upper Presidium. Head of the communist party Nikolai Bagrov became President of Crimea.
A new Crimean constitution has been accepted by the Ukrainian Parliament. December 15, the first draft had been rejected. The passage of the constitution evoked immediate protest from Crimean Tatar activists, who argue that the new constitution does not adequately protect the rights of minorities and of formerly deported peoples. 23.12.1998

First and last Crimean presidential elections: 15.01.1994 - Juriy Meshkov (Russian Block)

31.10.1999 Ukrainian Presidential Elections

26.12.2004 Ukrainian Presidential Elections

Electoral behaviour of Crimean Tatars (1994-1998)

Why don't you give me something hard to do?
Crimean Tatars Homecoming and political participation
   
1. " Returning to a native Land."

First of March, 1988 - the Communist Party of Ukraine has accepted the
decree, " regarding reception of families from among Crimean Tatars", and
14 and November 28, 1989 the supreme Body USSR has accepted the
declaration, "About an admission of illegal repression of the acts... " And
decreed "... On a problem Soviet Germans and Crimean-tatar people." These
decisions were fortunate for Crimean Tatars, who have received a real
opportunity to return to Crimea, having state authority support and broad
material support.
  
Between the years, 1989-1990, about 100 thousand arrived on the peninsula.
From 1991 to 1994, about another 100 thousand. After disintegration of the
USSR in 1991, the numbers steadily reduced: in 1992; 30 thousand, in
1993; 19 thousand, in 1994; 12 thousand. In 1993 have
appeared also first leaving Crimea — 1,5 thousand people. (In 1994;
already 5 thousand). Though in 1995, on a peninsula some more
Crimean Tatars arrived - about 9 thousand, the general gain of the
population of Crimea, for the first time in many years, has become a
negative value. 
If at the end of the 1980’s, returning Crimean Tatars to Crimea was
still a spontaneous process. From the beginning of the 1990 years, it
became increasingly organized. Governing of the process was undertaken by
Mejlis, elected for the first time by the Kurultay of the Crimean-Tatar
people in 1991. Interested in the greatest possible number of their own
compatriots to return to the peninsula, it applied many efforts that
Crimean Tatars continue to come here after the USSR dissolved. In addition,
the purpose — resettling a minimum of two hundred thousand Crimean
Tatars on their historical native land — was achieved. Now more than
250 thousand Crimean Tatars live on the peninsula, that number has hardly
increased at the expense of high birth rate per the first years after
returning. They form about 10% of the population of the region.
Predominantly these people are extremely dissatisfied with their modern
economic situation and social status. It is intolerable to not be
considered with their political concerns (officially expressed by Mejlis). 
  
2. Geography of moving.

The disintegration USSR has not allowed to the full to embody in life the
program of moving Crimean Tatars. However, as those preferred to settle
indiscreetly, the territorial arguments, incorporated in 1989-1991 years,
of moving in many respects have determined its state of the art (its modern
condition.) 
There were three serious projects of accommodation of the Crimean-Tatar
population: the Moscow centre of an independent expert appraisal, Ukrainian
Academy of sciences and a project which has been drawn up on the offers
Crimean occupants of the territory. The Moscow program envisioned moving
320 thousand individuals, Kyiv — 350 thousand, Crimean — 200
thousand individuals. Moscow analysts offered active movement of Crimean
Tatars to cities on the peninsula, whereas experts from the Academy of
Sciences would arrange the basic population in rural terrain. The Crimean
program was closer to the Ukrainian project, which was elected as a
practical management for an organized return movement. 
As a result, the number of voting Crimean Tatars living in cities was
insignificant - from less than 1 thousand individuals in Krasnoperekolske,
Sakakh, Yalta, Kerch up to 9 thousand in Simferopol (based on data
27.03.94). The share of Crimean Tatars in the electoral body of cities
practically everywhere (except a few at Sudakskogo) formed less than 5%.
Moreover, accordingly, the opportunities of Crimean-Tatar electorates to
influence results of choices in cities were extremely small. Incomparably
more, they were in administrative regions of the peninsula, where the share
of Crimean-Tatar electorate everywhere exceeds 10%. Including in
Pervomajskom, Dzhankojskom, Soviet, and Bakhchisarai regions, it varies at
a level between 15 to 20% - in Belogorskom and Kirovskiy, 20 - 25%. In
total, 81% of the Crimean-Tatar voters lived at administrative areas, and
just here, they could render substantial influence on results of choices.
  
3. General characteristic of choices in 1994.

Actually by ignoring multiple elections and referendums between 1990-1991,
Crimean-Tatar Electoral voted for the first time only in 1994. 1994 was
time of peak period of political activity in Crimea, (beginnings in
1990-1991) and was bounded to the formation of the independent Ukrainian
State. Between the years 1991-1993, the Crimean management in rigid strife
with the Crimean Assembly authorities managed to create a legislative base,
giving Crimea a significant economic and political independence in
realization of reforms. 
However, the economic crisis of 1993 bated at many voters a faith in
prospects of regional development. At this time large popularity has began
to use the idea "of return in Russia," which one "decided" problems of
region principal and immediately. Moreover, the victory on choices was
gained by the leader of the selective block "Russia," instead of party
authorities. The celebration of the "Russian" idea on presidential choices
has determined electorate performance of the Crimean voters during all
choices, which have followed further in 1994. So, in the course of choices
of the Supreme Soviet of Crimea, the voters again have backed up the
candidates of the block "Russia," which occupied an absolute majority of
places in parliament. 
When, in 1993, there was a discussion of the Crimean law about choices of
the new Supreme Body of republic, Crimean Tatars conducted a number of
political actions with a requirement to take into account their concerns in 
this law. The open shares of disobedience have compelled local management
to accept adendas to the document, stipulating a separation of 14 places in
the legislative organ of Crimea for Crimean Tatars. The greater role in
acceptance of these additions was played by N. Bagrov. Consequently the
deputy elected on the Crimean-Tatar national multi-mandate district,
represented concerns of only 9,598 people. The deputy elected on a
territorial one-mandate district — On the average 28,342 people.
However, the deputy elected on multi-mandate "national assembly" to a
district, — represents 123,430 people. The local voters have
responded to elections of the President of Ukraine rather languidly;
evident insignificantly increased in comparison with elapsed parliamentary
choices. 
As the "Russian" idea by then was even popular among the population (though
the local administration already has urged many to be disillusioned in
itself), the favorite in the region was L. Kuchma, who was acting for close
economic federating with Russia. Nowhere in the Ukraine was this candidate
so popular as in Crimea (in Donetsk field for him gave back votes 53.6 % of
the voters, but in Crimea — 83,2 %). Victory in the first round of
choices of the working president L. Kravchuk, instead of ex-premiere L.
Kuchma, resulted in electoral growth activity in Crimea — was
augmented evidence of the voters and the increased number of supporters of
the candidate. 
  
The elections of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine in some districts proceeded
also in 1995. Here candidates of pro-Russian and pro-Russia organizations
were practically absent, but several places have received co-partners. In
1994, as a whole, in Crimea 12 different rounds of voting have passed.
Politically, these elections were successive — within a year, Crimea
successively defended its "germinating" position. In similar form, choices
to choices of political conditions voted also Crimean-Tatars electorate. On
choices of the Supreme Soviet of Crimea, it voted autonomous, but on
choices of the Presidents of Crimea and Ukraine, it voted more as a large
electoral body. By 1994, a powerful mix of the Crimean-Tatar people was
already formed. In the course of the year, precisely decided, practical
problems faced it on her way to the authorities of the peninsula. The
elections of 1994 were its main examination, after which went "Or
greatness, Or oblivion."
  
4. Motives of the Electoral - Behaviour --1994 Elections.

Crimean-Tatar electorate conduct is organized. The majority of voters
obediently were on site and voted for the specified, managed candidates: N.
Bagrov, L. Kravchuk, list Kurultay; in one-mandate districts; for
their own Crimean-Tatar candidates. Motives of the electorate as a
performance or Crimean Tatars were defined by two ideas, dominant in the
national self-consciousness: "exclusiveness" and "underdog." The roots of
these ideas lay in 1944, but they became prevailing only during returning
Crimean Tatars to the peninsula. So, the idea of uniqueness has acquired
"weight" after declaration of the program of returning deportees of the
peoples as one of the most important in USSR. 
The program has received large financing (moving only of one-person cost 25
thousand roubles). In Crimea, Crimean Tatars returned with the unambiguous
desire to relocate here that is why all decided questions of residence
rather aggressively. If in 1944, authorities were not considered with
concerns of deported Crimean Tatars, then in the end of the 80’s and
90’s, Crimean Tatars did not consider it necessary to take into
account concerns of the local, existing population. In 1991 when the USSR
dissolved, concerns of the Ukrainian authorities to the program of
returning and repatriating Crimean Tatars was insignificant - financing
volumes were sharply reduced. In addition, in 1991, reconstruction occurred
of the Crimean autonomies, but the base was prescribed territorial, instead
of a national principle. Because of "historical interception," the hope for
creation of an autonomous Crimea within national contents practically
disappeared. In 1991, the idea of "underdog" becomes one of dominant
national self-consciousness for Crimean Tatar. Consequently, in 1994, the
Crimean-Tatar constituents preferred to vote for those already in
authority. On behalf of whom they found support and protection, instead of
for new people, whose attitude to the program of their returning was more
indifferent or openly hostile. The coverage on choices of the promoted
candidates has only boosted significance dominance in national
self-consciousness of Crimean Tatar ideas of "exclusiveness" and "underdog." 
  
5. Elections of the Supreme Soviet of Crimea (March 27 and April 10, 1994). 

Elections of the Supreme Soviet of 1994 entered Crimean Tatars into the
authority — 14 deputies were elected on the Crimean-Tatar national
multi-mandatory district by the rules of proportional system of
representation. Crimean-Tatar voters had the right to vote or on proverbial
to the party lists, or on national. However, almost all preferred to select
on "assimilation." 
Four political associations have taken part in choices: Kurultay of the
Crimean-Tatar people, National movement Crimean Tatar (NDKT), Crimean
republican Fund of Republic of Crimea, Crimean-Tatar fund of Republic of
Crimea. The main contenders emerged - Kurultay and NDKT. The first acted
for formation of the national state Crimean Tatars (what it was before
1778). The second — for construction of analogue KrASSR - between the
years 1921-1944, Crimean Tatars used the limited autonomies, and never was
an ethnic Crimean-Tatar republic. Victory on choices has gained Kurultay
(semi-official, party authority), by collecting 89% of votes that enabled
all quota-elects of a place in parliament. NDKT has received support only
5,5 % of the voters. The share of votes of Kurultay was little bit above in
areas, NDKT — in cities. The least support for Kurultay and greatest
NDKT was rendered by the voters of Yalta, Dzhankoya, to Evpatoria, Soviet,
and Black Sea areas. Yalta — is a unique city, where the share of
votes NDKT exceeded 20%, and Kurultay fell below 70% - but evident here was
a minimum voted (59%), and the number of the voters is insignificant (605
people). At the same time Kurultay has collected more than 80% of votes
nearly in all administrative regions, where more than 75 % of voted, and
the number Crimean Tatar varied from three up to fifteen thousand people in
unit ATD. 
Crimean-Tatar candidates were put to the vote in one-mandate regions
— 35 people, predominantly leaders of local organizations Mejilis.
The majority from them went in village areas, where they could expect broad
support of the ethnic voters. In cities of the peninsula, Crimean-Tatar
candidates were put forward only in Simferopol, Evpatoria, Yalta and
Sudake. In capital of Crimea the elections passed for them extremely
unsuccessfully — at 9 thousand voters for the Crimean-Tatar
candidates, less than 700 votes were given away. Mobilization of the
electorate in Evpatoria managed much better and Sudake; majorities
of the voters were on elections and have backed up candidates. Moreover, in
Yalta for them were given away not only vote ..., but also Slavic
population; About 40% voted have supported the Crimean-Tatar
candidates. 
However, such event in history is the only one in the most current
elections. In the majority of administrative regions Crimean Tatars
actively have taken part in choices on one-mandate districts and have
supported the "adopted" candidates. In Dzhankoj, Krasnoperekop, Pervonaj,
Sakskoy, Kirov and Soviet areas shares of votes assembled by candidates,
compounded more than 70% from the number of the voters in these units: ATD
- in Simferopol, Bakhchsarai, Razdolnen annd Nizhegorskoy areas — from
50% up to 70%. However, in Leninskom and Belogorskon areas, there are less
than half of the votes. Since the Crimean Tatars were in minority in all
electoral counties of Crimea, any their standing was not elected by the
deputy, though in sum they have collected in the first round — 78,860
votes, and in second — 54,538 votes. The ten candidates left in the
second round went on to electoral counties in Bakhchsarai, Belogorskogo,
Dzhankojskogo, Kirov, Pervomajskogo, Krasnog-vardejskogo and Sakskogo.
Eight of them uniquely already lost on March 27, and only in districts
Belogorskogo region a breakup of the leading candidates was minimum by
1-4%. However, on April 10 here again difference in quantity of votes has
increased up to several thousand.) You see in the first round on territory
Belogorskogo region for "adopted" candidates voted less than 30% of the
Crimean Tatar voters. Nevertheless, it signifies reserves for the growing
support in the second round of voting.) 
  
However already fact of an output itself in the second round of the
Crimean-Tatar candidates testifies to what can be achieved politically with
an organized electorate.
  
6. Elections of the president of Ukraine (June 26 and July 10, 1994).

The participation in choices of the president of Ukraine Crimean Tatars
under doubt did not put any more. Moreover, in the first round whenever
possible widely have backed up L. Kravchuk. The high correlation factors
testify to it: 0.75; Crimean Tatars and L. Kravchuk, and (-0.59);
Crimean Tatars and L. Kuchma. However, support of the latter in
Crimea was so general, that the majority Crimean Tatars, by realizing
futility of their efforts, have preferred to ignore the second round of
voting. Significant positive correlation with L. Kravchuk is absent (as
well as with a gain of votes of the candidate in the second round), and the
correlation factor with L. Kuchma has grown to (-0.70). Such electoral
performance was peculiar first of all to rural population compounding a
matrix material Crimean-Tatar electorate, in cities the support L. Kravchuk
in the second round of choices has remained high (0,78).
  
7. Elections Kurultay in 1996.

In 1996 the next elections Kurultay of the Crimean-Tatar people have
passed. Its results were obviously forged: as differently could be
received, that practically in each city, region the number of the voted
voters was aliquot to one thousand. 
Truly, the declared slogan is truthful, that one deputy of Kurultay
represents one thousand Crimean Tatars. Such frank adjustment of results of
voting testifies that, Kurultay (and Mejlis picked by it) in 1996 were for
the Ukrainian authorities the single plenipotentiary representative of the
Crimean-Tatar people, and consequently were unpunished. The elapsed
"national" elections precisely have recorded that fact, that the
influencing Mejlis among the Crimean Tatar population is moderated.
Therefore, evident on elections has formed only 55%, were exhibited several
of the contradictions between regional branches Mejlis and Centre. In
particular, in "opposition" of Evpatoria in voting 21% only of the voters
have taken part, and one deputy represented at all one thousand (as under
the distribution list), but only 608 people. 
  
The reason of falling popularity of "authorities" is the abrupt social
gravitational segregation of the people on the very rich and very poor
people. Modern Crimean Tatar elite intentionally do not decide, for
example, the housing problems of the people (economic opportunities for
their gradual decision are.) Because the very heavy economic state of the
majority Crimean Tatar allows to insist on constant ... of their
existence on the part of the state. It enables a management by the district
attorney "arriving" money in "offices" and even to spend them at all as
required. Also, to monitor a significant part of the Crimean Tatar
population, using for this purpose financial whip and financial
gingerbread. But so much for leads to the reinforcement of discontent by
their own unofficial leaders not only "other" part of the population, but
also separate regional branches of the Mejlis itself.
  
8. Elections of the Supreme Soviet of Crimea and Ukraine in 1998.

In 1994 the Crimean-Tatar representatives have appeared on the top of a
political pyramid of the region. With 1994 over, for 1998 they actively
conducted policies of penetration "of the people" in all government bodies.
Therefore, results of choices of 1998 have for the Crimean-Tatar management
principal significance: necessary to save its sphere of influence. 
As is well known, the introduction of the quotas in the Crimean parliament
for deported peoples was temporary and was distributed only to voting per
1994. The decision on it was accepted on session of the Supreme Soviet of
Crimea, and mass organized political shares Crimean Tatars (in Crimea there
lived about 150 thousand people) in many respects have defined it. By 1998
before the Crimean-Tatar management there was a problem to achieve the
record-keeping of the concerns in the new law on choices. But, despite of
all diligence by Mejlis, in the new law on choices any privileges to a
national attribute are not provided and election of the deputies of the
Supreme Soviet of Crimea will go on only by the rules of majority system of
representation. The decision on it, what will be the accepted law, pleased
sovereign Ukraine. Therefore, actual liquidation of an Autonomous Crimea
(deprivation of a peninsula of all substantial opportunities
"self-reacting" existence) has resulted in defying the interests of the
whole population of the region, not exclusive of Crimean Tatars. 
  
For a long time, Crimean Tatars struggled for reinforcing of their own
positions in Kyiv. For a long time, they achieved acceptance of the law
about choices that take into account their direct interests. Their activity
in an inter-elective period seemed successful. But the pre-election
arrangement of strengths was added up at all in their advantage (benefit).
And when all possible arguments, were settled, how at one time in 1993, the
threats of boycott of choices, realization of the mass shares of the
protest have sounded. 
But soon " internal disassembly " in the Crimean Tatar management sent on
to the general public, and it has become clear, that Mejlis has lost its
united stand. Moreover, awesome pleas have not seemed convincing to Kyiv.
Crimean Tatars have been left out "from the game" during an extremely
relevant pre-election period. And though on elapsed in December, 1997
extraordinary Kurultay there was a visible recovery of unity, the
Crimean-tatar management has appeared actually "dislodged" from their own
old political positions. 
Fact of originating of such situation testifies that of Kyiv does not
patronize any longer Crimean Tatars. This is confirmed also by the newest
political events. Today, active political activity of Mejlis it is not
simple "mired" in indifference of the officers. The state organs are ready
for operating an any minute (so, any more of time during demonstrations
Crimean Tatar in city center armed special forces "internal right" the
Ukraine were arranged in neighboring court yard). 
Now for Crimean Tatars, there are only two opportunities to get in
representative government bodies of Crimea, Ukraine. One of them is a sale
of their own votes. Such "bargaining" was held between Mejlis of the
Crimean-Tatar people and Ukrainian nationalistic organization Rukh. During
conclusion of "bargaining", when it was supposed the elections will go on
the mixed selective system, it was very successful. On choices of the
deputies of the Supreme Ukraine Rukh, small-popular in the south and east
of Ukraine are pleased, will receive plenty of votes in Crimea (where its
support in general is minimum.) But Crimean Tatar "roof" on elections to
the Crimean parliament on a multi-mandate region. In addition, two Crimean
Tatars were included in the selective list of the Rukh and for the first
time will become deputies in the Supreme Ukraine (pleased the leader of the
Mejlis M. Dzhenilev) in the list the ninth place, and its nearest
fellow-champion N. Bekirov — 49). However, stipulating electoral
policy, neither Rukh, nor Mejlis did not take into account "moods on
places." A conceived plan to include in the list Rukh a greater number of
Crimean Tatars has met fierce resistance both inside Mejlis itself, and in
the Crimean organization Rukh. In a counterbalance to Centre the areal
branches Mejlis in Sevastopol and Alushte, have accepted the decision to
back up a Muslim party on forthcoming choices. Among adherents of Rukh in
Sevastopol, there was a present opposition of the fathers and children -
the senior generation accustomed to party discipline. They stood for
realization of, "lines from above." However, the youth refused to obey, and
raised an objection to include candidates of Mejlis in the lists of Rukh. 
Opposition was prescribed only then, when it became clear, that the
elections will not go on to the mixed system. The anchoring of majority
system has made impossible to get in the Crimean parliament under the
selective lists. Because of the tenders Mejlis has won one-two places in
the Ukrainian parliament, received lobby (on behalf of Rukh) concerns in
Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, and healed growing popularity in Crimea. The
unsuccessful pre-election operations on a background of financial and
political scandals bounded to a name M. Dzheyileva, severely bated the
electoral base of the Mejlis. It was changed not only quantitatively
(narrowing in the party), but also qualitatively. Among the supporters of
the organization becomes ever less than "conscientious" voters and ever
more "temporarily organized." 
The second path of arrival of the Crimean-Tatar candidates to an authority
is an election in one-mandatory districts, where they will go on the same
level with all other challengers. On all probability, with the purpose of
pacification restrained in the rights of Crimean Tatars, on choices of the
Supreme Soviet of Crimea for them will be cut from "his" districts. The
only question in that is how many will be of these districts. In any case,
the representation Crimean Tatar hereafter of an autonomous parliament will
decrease sharply. 
In the "their own" districts Crimean-Tatars can apply for support of the
voters to three political strengths: Mejlis of the Crimean-Tatar people,
Consignment Muslims of Ukraine and National Movement of Crimean Tatars.
Mejlis is strongest by the organizing opportunities the Crimean-Tatar
structure. Apparently a maximum quantity of votes, which one Mejlis can
ensure in the support, is about 50 thousand. Such quantity of signatures
promised the Crimean-Tatar management to collect in support of Rukh (and
you see them to collect easier, than vote on choices). What "weight" will
have this electorate, hardly depends on what will be number of the
Crimean-Tatar voters? Most likely, to vote for the deputies in Sovereign
Radu of Ukraine in 1998 there will be only Crimean Tatars having Ukrainian
citizenship. Acting recently before Crimean-Tatars, speaker Supreme is
pleased A. Moroz once again has pointed out firmness of an authority in
this question. 
Thus, Ukrainian Parliament in 1998 will elect only 90-100 thousand, instead
of 160 thousand (in 1994; 140 thousand). Taking into account, that
Crimean-Tatar political electorate is not uniform, and its indifference and
disappointment in the leaders are comparable with "slavic" (we shall
recollect, that 55 % of the potential voters) have taken part only in
choices of the delegates third Kurultay, it is not necessary to speak about
severe influencing voting Crimean-Tatar on results of these choices. The
truth, acting before demonstrators, A. Moroz nevertheless has promised
Crimean Tatars to raise March 24 (it besides, that the elections 29th) on
meeting Supreme are pleased a question on participation) all Crimean Tatars
in choices of the Supreme Soviet of autonomies. If in Supreme Radu, where
at Crimean Tatar now is guaranteed lobby (Rukh), the satisfactory
conclusion will be accepted, the popularity of Mejlis will powerfully
increase. That will allow it to mobilize all "its" electorate and
forthcoming elections it can again win. 
However, if the decision will be negative, the small number of the
Crimean-Tatar voters can turn back their coverage even in "their own"
one-mandate districts, and the epoch political hegemony of Mejlis will
approach toward termination. We see the apparent rates made by the
Crimean-Tatar management in the game for power today is higher than in
1994. Mejlis of the Crimean-Tatar people having rich experience of
pre-election struggles, and today defines "rules of national game." During
pre-election campaigns, the circulation goes toward all those motives of
exclusiveness and underdogs. 
One of pre-election trumps is the question on citizenship. It is much more
favourable to be dwelling in Crimea Crimean Tatars economically by citizens
of Uzbekistan, and Mejlis is conscientious "does not promote" receiving
Crimean Tatar citizenship of Ukraine. After all this, the undecided problem
enables defeat for the rights of the person in a pre-election period
thereby achieving growth of the popularity to the detriment of its
opponents. Moreover, most important is an opportunity to gain a substantial
political victory, which promotes mobilization of all strengths, which does
not oblige anything after choices are made. Today at Mejlis one purpose of
strife at an authority there are only its proteges: only Mejlis should
represent concerns of Crimean Tatars in all government bodies, and will let
fewer deputies (Crimean Tatars) but all from Mejlis. How here to not
recollect 1994, when M. Dzhenilev spoke, that if NDKT will conduct in the
Crimean parliament though one candidate (on fourteen quota seats!) there
will be a loss Kurultay-Mejlis. Nevertheless, in realization of this
pre-election program it is prevented by other political strengths.
  
The Muslim Party of Ukraine, which has been created in the southeast of
Ukraine, certainly cannot avoid the attention of Crimea - the majority of
Muslims of Ukraine lives here. It is logical, that the leaders of Mejlis
call her not differently as "as a Muslim Party enemies of Ukraine," as she
creates alternative new, obscure before, choice for Crimean Tatars. Even
more so, the Party is dangerous, regarding aggregate political strengths
previously connected with the Mejlis. This and some "opposition" from the
number of former members of Presidium and members of a number of regional
organizations. In its electoral list out of 19 persons, four Crimean Tatars
(among them the chairman Sevastopol Mejlis, acting member Milli-Mejlis).
Apparently, in the Ukrainian parliament the Party nevertheless will not get
- in one of known societies and does not oovercome the 4%- barrier. 
The exception compounds at Crimea, where at the given stage, this Party is
engaged in strife with Mejlis for votes of the voters, stimulating thereby
political discord in the Crimean Tatar environment. The statement of V.
Chernovila testifies to the substantial danger of such actions that DMU
delays votes of the voters - Muslims, who could vote for Rudkh. Attempts
somehow to divide sphere of influences in Crimea between Moslem
organizations also were unsuccessful before — N. Bekirov has returned
empty-handed after negotiations in Donetsk, but already his trip there
testifies to the severe concern of the Mejlis.
It is difficult to tell what strengths face for DMU, who is this young,
strong and aggressive predator, ready to fight for acquisition of new
territories, or pre-election formation constructed and sustained? For a
weakening of the Mejlis role and splitting Crimean Tatars. 
It is very complex, perhaps, to speak about the popularity and magnitude of
influencing a National movement of Crimean Tatars. It is bounded by
methods, where this organization conducts a very old struggle, converging
further congresses, and local regional authorities. Private conversations
and other, it is exclusively insider inwardly ethnic contacts - therefore
their activity is implicit and very difficult to evaluate its efficiency.
Only elections can determine it. 
On the one hand, on choices of the acting Supreme Soviet of Crimea in NDKT
has received only 6% of votes of the electorate in 1994. This in terms of
an opposition with Mejlis, that is to say, organizing all opposition of
power to it. Now they should divide these strengths with present
"opposition fragments". Moreover, the popular Communist Party, in the
informal pre-election block who probably suits NDKT, among Crimean Tatars
(by virtue of historical circumstances) is very insignificant. 
But on the other hand, for four years a lot of water has flowed away, and
it is possible, that many voters "leaving" from Mejlis, "came" to its main
and old opponent; NDKT. Its leader V. Abdurainov thinks, that if the
constituencies will be cut with provision for seats of indiscreet moving
Crimean Tatars, in many from them will win the candidates of Mejlis the
representatives of National movement. Today NDKT works at that popularity.
And that it exactly "has untwisted" a history of plunder of means selected
on condition of Crimean Tatars (and the role of the leader of the Mejlis in
it is very unattractive).
  
The national movement forms an opposition of Mejlis in one-mandate
districts on choices of the Supreme Soviet of Crimea, but the Muslim Party;
in multi-mandate districts are pleased on selection of the Supreme
Ukraine. 
In the pre election campaign, these organizations settled the problem of
propaganda of their own changes from Mejlis. The ensuring maximum high
showing of the voters — necessary to obtain opposition of the
supporters of Mejlis and its opponents directly inside Crimean-Tatar
environment. However, this substantial scenario can be realized only on
future choices. Today, even under adverse conditions, Mejlis will remain
"leader" of the Crimean-Tatar people. Nevertheless, if it will gain an
absolute victory, will be those still long. However, if it ... absolute
victory, will it last long.

(c) 1998- All Righs reserved, Turkistan-Newsletter

Home