In the early years of independence, Ukrainians had high hopes for the future. Indeed, in 1990, Ukraine and Poland were at a similar starting point. The standard of living in both countries was almost identical. Ukraine even had an advantage in the form of a more developed industry.
However, the situation unfolded according to different scenarios. Delaying market reforms did not allow Ukraine to realize its industrial potential. The financial system collapsed. In 1993-1994, the country broke the world record for hyperinflation. Part of the population, facing unemployment and a decline in living standards, began to look for work in Central and Western European countries. By 1995, the situation in the economy began to stabilize, but citizens’ dissatisfaction remained high.
Mass protests by Donbas miners, who for several months in 1993 were not paid their salaries, led to the snap presidential elections in 1994, which replaced the moderate but indecisive Leonid Kravchuk with the “red director” Leonid Kuchma. The first five-year term of this president was remembered for the monetary reform (the hryvnia finally appeared in circulation instead of the devalued coupon), the stabilization of the financial system, and the start of the privatization of large enterprises. However, it later turned out that several metallurgical plants were almost given away to Kuchma’s son-in-law — the future oligarch and owner of several TV channels, Viktor Pinchuk.
In the 90s, one form of citizens’ dissatisfaction was the emergence of the protest electorate. It was thanks to these voters that Kuchma was able to defeat the incumbent president Kravchuk. However, political technologists were concerned by the fact that a significant portion of the citizens participating in the elections marked the “Against All” option. Thus, their votes were not counted in favor of any candidate.
Political technologists of the Green Party of Ukraine managed to deceive the dissatisfied. The success of this political project showed that thanks to promises and manipulations, it is possible to make even those who believe they are outside of politics vote. But the share of those who continued to vote against all remained quite significant.
For example, in the second round of the 1999 presidential elections, when the head of state was chosen between Leonid Kuchma and the leader of the communists Petro Symonenko, almost a million voters (970 thousand) did not support any candidate. In 2004, in the epic battle between Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych, the “Against All” option was marked by 2.34% of voters or almost 700 thousand people. In the repeat voting in the 2010 presidential election, when Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yanukovych made it to the second round, more than 1.1 million voters, or 4.36%, did not support any candidate. A similar result was observed in the parliamentary elections.
The situation, in which precious votes for each candidate were wasted, greatly concerned politicians. Ideally, the protest electorate should be distributed among situational projects, where each voter should choose their “green party.” However, except for 1998, it turned out to be very difficult to implement such a scenario. This was proven by the failure of political projects “Women for the Future” and “Winter Generation Committee.”
In 2011, the entourage of President Yanukovych decided to remove the “Against All” option from the electoral ballots. The 2012 parliamentary elections were considered very important for the Party of Regions, and experts likely found that the abolition of this option would more likely benefit the ruling party rather than the opposition. Either way, the decision to remove the option to vote “Against All” from the ballot had significant consequences not only in 2012 but also in the upcoming victory of Volodymyr Zelensky.
The option “I do not support any candidate” was chosen not only by protest voters but also by those who preferred non-systemic politicians − showmen and populists, such as Volodymyr Zelensky. If this option had remained in the 2019 elections, Zelensky would, of course, still have won. But his victory would not have been so overwhelming, with 73% support. Because the absolute majority of those who once voted “Against All” found their candidate − a person who mocked politicians and their parties from the stage.