You might have heard former US President Donald Trump recently label Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator,” specifically in relation to the fact that Ukraine hasn’t held elections since the full-scale Russian invasion began in February 2022. This claim, while politically charged, touches on a very real and legally complex issue for Ukraine: the interplay between its democratic constitution, the imperative of national defence under martial law, and the practicalities of conducting free and fair elections during wartime. Essentially, Ukraine’s constitution explicitly prohibits elections during a state of martial law, a measure invoked immediately after the invasion. So, the situation isn’t a unilateral decision by Zelenskyy, but rather a constitutional mandate driven by the extraordinary circumstances of war. Let’s delve into what this all means.
Understanding Martial Law in Ukraine
When Russia launched its full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022, Ukraine immediately declared martial law across the entire country. This wasn’t a discretionary choice but a necessary legal and operational response to an existential threat. Martial law, as defined by Ukrainian law and international humanitarian law, is a temporary regime introduced in exceptional circumstances, usually related to war or grave internal unrest, to ensure national security and public order.
The Legal Basis for Martial Law
The key Ukrainian legislation governing this is the Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law.” This law outlines the conditions for its introduction, the powers granted to authorities, and the temporary restrictions on citizens’ rights and freedoms. Critically, it also specifies what cannot happen during martial law. The President of Ukraine, following a proposal from the National Security and Defence Council, issues a decree introducing martial law, which must then be approved by the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) within two days. This process was followed diligently in February 2022. The martial law decree has been extended repeatedly by the Verkhovna Rada, reflecting the ongoing nature of the conflict.
Key Restrictions Under Martial Law
The imposition of martial law grants the military and state authorities extensive powers to manage the war effort. This includes things like establishing curfews, restricting movement, censoring information, requisitioning property for defence needs, and mobilising citizens for military service. These measures are designed to consolidate resources, maintain order, and repel the aggressor. However, these powers are not absolute and are subject to oversight by the Verkhovna Rada and judicial review, albeit within the constraints of wartime.
Crucially for our discussion, Article 19 of the Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” explicitly states: “In conditions of martial law, it is forbidden to hold elections of the President of Ukraine, as well as elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government bodies, and all-Ukrainian and local referendums.” This is not a loophole or an ambiguous clause; it’s a clear and direct prohibition.
International Context and Precedent
Ukraine isn’t an anomaly in suspending elections during wartime. Many democracies have done so historically. During World War II, the United Kingdom postponed its general election, which would normally have been held in 1940, until 1945. The rationale is broadly consistent: fair and free elections require conditions that are simply unattainable during active large-scale conflict. The safety of voters and electoral officials, the integrity of ballots, the ability for candidates to campaign freely, and the absence of coercion are fundamental tenets of democracy that are severely compromised when bombs are falling, millions are displaced, and significant portions of the territory are occupied or under direct threat.
The Constitutional Impediment to Elections
The Ukrainian Constitution is very clear on the matter of elections during a state of martial law. It reinforces the provisions of the Law “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” creating an unequivocal legal barrier to holding elections.
Article 83 and Article 108 of the Constitution
Two articles of the Ukrainian Constitution are particularly relevant here. Article 83, which deals with the powers of the Verkhovna Rada, states that “in the event of the expiration of the term of office of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine during martial law or a state of emergency, its powers shall be extended until the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine elected after the cancellation of martial law or a state of emergency.” This directly addresses the parliamentary elections, ensuring continuity of legislative power.
Similarly, Article 108, which pertains to the President of Ukraine, implicitly covers the presidential term. While it doesn’t explicitly state that presidential elections are postponed, it implies that the President’s powers continue until a new President is elected and sworn in. The constitutional framework, read in conjunction with the martial law legislation, establishes a clear deferral mechanism for all elections until martial law is lifted.
The Rationale Behind the Prohibition
The prohibition on elections during martial law isn’t arbitrary; it’s rooted in practical and democratic principles.
Security Concerns
Holding elections requires ensuring the safety of millions of voters, election officials, and candidates. With missile strikes occurring daily across the country, air raid alerts frequently interrupting normal life, and active combat zones, guaranteeing security at polling stations is impossible. Electoral infrastructure, including ballot boxes, voting machines (if used), and registration databases, would be vulnerable to attack, sabotage, or destruction. Imagine trying to conduct voting in cities like Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, or even Kyiv, where the threat of bombardment is constant.
Displaced Persons and Refugee Crisis
Millions of Ukrainians have been internally displaced, fleeing from occupied territories or areas of intense fighting to safer regions within the country. Furthermore, an estimated 6.5 million Ukrainians are living as refugees abroad. How would these citizens exercise their right to vote? Establishing secure and accessible polling stations for millions of internally displaced people (IDPs) and refugees, verifying their identities, and ensuring their votes are counted transparently would be an administrative and logistical nightmare, if not an impossibility, during wartime. Their ability to access information, register, and physically vote would be severely hindered.
Fairness and Free Expression
Fair elections depend on open political debate, freedom of assembly, and access to diverse information for voters to make informed choices. During martial law, these conditions are inevitably curtailed. Public gatherings are restricted, media is subject to wartime regulations, and the focus of the nation is on survival and defence. Opposition candidates would struggle to campaign effectively, and voters might feel pressured or unable to express their true preferences in such an environment. The integrity of the electoral process, including campaigning, voter registration, and vote counting, would be heavily compromised, potentially leading to widespread accusations of illegitimacy and undermining faith in the democratic outcome.
Resource Allocation
Conducting national elections is an enormous logistical undertaking, requiring significant financial resources, personnel, and infrastructure. In wartime, these resources are almost entirely dedicated to the war effort – funding the military, providing humanitarian aid, repairing critical infrastructure, and maintaining essential services. Diverting resources to an election campaign would be seen as a colossal waste and a misprioritisation of national effort when the country is fighting for its very existence.
Zelenskyy’s Stance and International Support
President Zelenskyy has consistently maintained that elections cannot be held under martial law, citing the constitutional and practical reasons outlined above. His position aligns with Ukraine’s legal framework and has been widely understood and supported by most international partners.
Zelenskyy’s Public Statements
Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that elections would only be possible after the war ends and martial law is lifted. He has also indicated that should conditions allow, and should there be appropriate legal changes and international financial support, he would be open to the idea, but always with caveats about the legal and logistical impossibilities during active conflict. His primary focus, and indeed the nation’s primary focus, remains winning the war. To suggest otherwise would be to ignore the daily reality of the conflict.
Dialogue with International Partners
Ukraine has engaged in discussions with its international allies regarding the question of elections. While some Western countries, particularly the United States, have expressed a desire for Ukraine to return to normal democratic processes when possible, there is a general understanding and acceptance of Ukraine’s current legal and practical constraints. Key partners have not pressured Ukraine to hold elections immediately, recognising the immense challenges. They understand that premature elections could actually undermine Ukraine’s stability and its war effort, rather than bolster its democracy. Any discussions around future elections involve significant considerations for how to ensure security, participation of IDPs and refugees, and the integrity of the process once martial law is lifted.
The Problem of Occupied Territories
A massive practical hurdle, often overlooked, is the question of citizens in Russian-occupied territories. Millions of Ukrainians are living under Russian occupation in Crimea, parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions. It is inconceivable to hold a truly national election without the participation of these citizens. Not only would their votes be inaccessible, but their exclusion would also fundamentally undermine the legitimacy and inclusivity of any electoral outcome. Waiting until these territories are liberated is a prerequisite for a truly representative national election.
The “Dictator” Claim: A Political Attack
Donald Trump’s characterisation of Zelenskyy as a “dictator” due to the absence of elections is primarily a political statement, designed to serve a specific narrative rather than reflect the complex reality on the ground.
Deconstructing the Accusation
The accusation ignores the constitutional framework of Ukraine and the legal mechanisms of martial law. Zelenskyy is not arbitrarily refusing to hold elections; he is operating within the legal constraints imposed by his country’s constitution and legislation, which were activated by an act of aggression from a foreign power. To call him a “dictator” for adhering to his country’s laws during an existential war is to misrepresent the situation profoundly.
A dictator is typically someone who has seized power unconstitutionally, suppresses dissent, and operates without legal checks and balances. Zelenskyy was democratically elected in 2019, has consistently faced parliamentary and public scrutiny (even under martial law, albeit with wartime limitations), and his actions regarding elections are in line with Ukraine’s supreme law. The Verkhovna Rada remains active and legislates, and civil society, though strained, continues to function.
The Broader Political Context
Trump’s remarks should be viewed within the context of his broader political platform and his often-stated scepticism about foreign aid, particularly to Ukraine. Labeling Zelenskyy a “dictator” serves to undermine the moral legitimacy of Ukraine’s government, potentially weakening public support for continued aid among certain segments of the American electorate. It also plays into a narrative that seeks to cast doubt on Ukraine’s democratic credentials, perhaps to justify a more isolationist foreign policy or to facilitate a different approach to the conflict. It’s a rhetorical device often used to simplify complex geopolitical situations into easily digestible, albeit inaccurate, soundbites.
Implications for Democratic Norms
Such claims, while politically expedient for some, can have serious implications for democratic norms. They trivialise the concept of dictatorship and blur the lines between a democratically elected leader operating under extraordinary constitutional powers during a national emergency and a genuine authoritarian ruler. It undermines the global understanding of democratic resilience in the face of aggression and risks creating false equivalencies that can be exploited by adversaries.
When Can Elections Be Held?
| Metric | Details |
|---|---|
| Claim | Trump referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator” |
| Context | Discussion around Ukraine’s elections and imposition of martial law |
| Election Date | Scheduled for October 31, 2023 |
| Martial Law Imposed | Yes, declared in Ukraine on February 24, 2022 |
| Effect of Martial Law on Elections | Presidential elections postponed; parliamentary elections allowed under restrictions |
| Duration of Martial Law | Extended multiple times; ongoing as of mid-2024 |
| International Observations | Martial law seen as a security measure, not a tool for dictatorship |
| Zelenskyy’s Position | Democratically elected president, committed to holding elections despite war |
The short and simple answer is: after martial law is lifted. But the practicalities of transitioning from a wartime regime to a full democratic election will be incredibly complex.
The Lifting of Martial Law
Martial law can only be lifted by a decree of the President, approved by the Verkhovna Rada. This would logically occur once active large-scale hostilities have ceased and a degree of stability and security has been restored across the country. The criteria for lifting martial law are not just the absence of fighting but the ability of the state to resume normal functioning, including upholding the full range of democratic rights and freedoms necessary for fair elections.
Challenges Post-Martial Law
Even after martial law is lifted, Ukraine will face immense challenges in organising elections.
Security in De-occupied Territories
Regions that have been de-occupied will require extensive de-mining, reconstruction, and security stabilisation before any credible elections can take place. The psychological trauma of occupation and war will also need to be addressed. Ensuring the safety of voters and election officials in these areas will be paramount.
Return of Displaced Persons
A critical factor will be the return of internally displaced persons and refugees. For truly representative elections, as many citizens as possible should be able to return to their homes and participate in their communities. This will require massive reconstruction efforts, economic recovery, and guarantees of safety. The pace of return will be highly dependent on the security situation and economic opportunities.
Electoral Reform and Re-establishment of Infrastructure
Ukraine may also need to undertake electoral reforms to address issues arising from the war, such as how to handle electoral rolls that have been disrupted, how to manage voting in damaged areas, and how to ensure the integrity of the process. The physical infrastructure for elections – polling stations, administrative offices – will need to be rebuilt or restored in many areas.
Economic Recovery and International Support
The economic devastation wrought by the war means that Ukraine will heavily rely on international financial and technical assistance to rebuild its economy and support the democratic transition, including the cost of elections. The international community will likely play a crucial role in monitoring and supporting these future elections to ensure their fairness and legitimacy.
In conclusion, the question of elections in Ukraine is a multifaceted issue deeply rooted in its constitutional law and the brutal realities of war. The delay is not a sign of authoritarianism but a legal and practical necessity for a nation fighting for its very survival. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the complex truth and engage in political rhetoric that ultimately serves to undermine Ukraine’s democratic aspirations rather than support them.
FAQs
1. Can a country hold elections during martial law?
Yes, a country can hold elections during martial law. However, the conditions and procedures for conducting elections may be altered or restricted under martial law, depending on the specific laws and regulations in place.
2. What is martial law?
Martial law is the imposition of direct military control over normal civilian functions by a government. It is usually declared in times of emergency or civil unrest to maintain public order and safety.
3. Can a president be considered a dictator if martial law is declared?
Declaring martial law does not automatically make a president a dictator. While martial law grants the government increased authority, the extent to which this authority is used and the adherence to democratic principles determine whether a leader can be considered a dictator.
4. How does martial law affect civil liberties and rights?
Martial law can lead to the suspension of certain civil liberties and rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and movement. This is done in the interest of public safety and order, but it can also raise concerns about potential abuses of power.
5. What implications does Trump’s “dictator” claim about Zelenskyy have on international relations?
Accusations of dictatorship can strain diplomatic relations between countries. In the case of Trump’s claim about Zelenskyy, it could impact the relationship between the United States and Ukraine, as well as influence how other nations perceive Ukraine’s government and leadership.
