Churchill also did not hold elections during WWII either. Wartime requirements for a country under attack from an outside force take precedent.
it's not that he is refusing to hold elections. headline is, of course, misleading.
the country's constitution literally prohibits elections during martial law, a state the country has been in since the day russia started the war.
Constitutions can be changed (Alabama's 6th constitution was amended 977 times before they made a 7th constitution last year, for example). Headline is definitely inflammatory, but just because you happen to be in the position of dictator doesn't mean can't work towards not being one.
So they amend their constitution. During a war. To force people into the streets to vote.
How does the government make sure the election is fair? Some people won't be able to vote due to danger. Some will be attacked. Some areas are occupied, and the occupation lines may change during the election.
If they tried to run an election now, Russia would publish their own results showing that the occupied areas voted for Putin. Trying to run elections is hard enough in normal times, doing so with Russia literally holding a large swath of your country is impossible.
Amending the constitution or holding national elections (among other things) are prohibited during martial law.
As an Alabamian. We are NOT a role model to anyone for anything. If anything we are a cautionary tale of how not to do things. Like, your argument is deeply flawed the second you say “You could do what Alabama did”.
but just because you happen to be in the position of dictator doesn't mean can't work towards not being one.
I'm pretty sure he's been doing everything he possibly can do to get out of this state of martial law, so I suppose that'll be satisfying for you?
And I bet "Zelensky amends Ukraine's constitution during wartime" would make similar headlines.
There's fair criticism to be made of Zelensky, I'm sure. However, not holding an election during wartime, which is backed by the constitution and most Ukrainians, is not one of them.
The Constitution of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Конституція України, romanized: Konstytutsiia Ukrainy) is the fundamental law of Ukraine. The constitution was adopted and ratified at the 5th session of the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of Ukraine, on 28 June 1996.[1] The constitution was passed with 315 ayes out of 450 votes possible (300 ayes minimum).[1] All other laws and other normative legal acts of Ukraine must conform to the constitution. The right to amend the constitution through a special legislative procedure is vested exclusively in the parliament. The only body that may interpret the constitution and determine whether legislation conforms to it is the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine
I'm still looking for the actual constitutional bit that says "no elections during war," or whatever phraseology has been passed around - Edit: Found it. (Links to original legal texts in this article.)
These regularly scheduled elections were disrupted by the state of martial law declared in 2022, at the start of the full-scale Russian invasion. This can be expected from a country fighting for its very existence, where significant portions of its territory are occupied. Martial law is established as a concept in the Ukrainian Constitution and last updated by the national legislature in 2015, before Zelensky entered politics.
Article 83 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires under martial law, it shall automatically be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law. Article 19 of Ukraine’s martial law legislation specifically forbids conducting national elections. Thus, for Ukraine to conduct elections while under martial law would be a violation of legal norms that predate Zelensky and the full-scale Russian invasion.
~~but assuming that's true,~~ Zelenskyy has nothing to do with whether or not elections happen. Having elections would be in violation of the constitution. ~~And Zelenskyy has nothing to do with amending the constitution, either; that's for the legislature to do.~~ Zelenskyy is following the law, as his office requires that he do.
Edit: I'm a bit wrong there. Article 93 reads:
The right of legislative initiative in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine belongs to the President of Ukraine, the People's Deputies of Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Draft laws defined by the President of Ukraine as not postponable, are considered out of turn by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Which means that the President can put forward legislation for the parliament to vote on, even cutting to the front of the line. I bet this includes constitutional amendments.
But Article 19 Section 1 of the Ukrainian martial law legislation says no changes to the consitution and no national elections during martial law.
I'm still looking for the actual constitutional bit that says "no elections during war,"
Article 83 paragraph 4
And article 157 paragraph 2 forbids amending the constitution during martial law or emergency.
"Zelensky follows the laws in the Ukraine Constitution while the country continues to be at war"
I wonder how many people actually have a problem with this. Very few I'd suspect. Zelensky still seems popular within Ukraine, and I think most would agree that this isn't a good time for a change in leadership. Plus elections are expensive and nobody in the occupied space would be able to vote. Yeah I think this was the right call.
Yes. This is a inflammatory headline purely to try and push an agenda.
There was literally a poll a couple of months ago that showed something like 80% of Ukrainians were in favour of not having elections.
Not to even mention that Ukraine is under Marshall Law, and per their laws disallows elections. And don't even get me started on the entire premise of running elections in a country where a quarter of the landmass is under enemy occupation and the logistics of getting votes from 100s of thousands of deployed troops and the serious security concerns of the election itself from Russian attacks.
In my opinion Newsweek have just outed themselves here and the question is for who?
Probably trying to paint a narrative that Zelensky is undemocratic and corrupt, which some people in the US might believe.
Look at the house GOP who gave a big military aid package to Netanyahu but nothing to Ukraine.
Most of my Ukranian friends would not vote for him in an election, it’s a bit of an ‘open secret’ in the country that he’s seen as a wartime leader who would be expected to step aside in peacetime.
Newsweek is trash for that headline.
Usually they have a "fairness meter" on their articles, but it seems to be missing from this one.
I don't think this is unreasonable. Citizens in occupied territory won't be able to vote and elections would just add pressure to a country that's fighting a major conflict on its own soil.
However I would expect Zelensky to hold free and fair elections as soon as the conflict ends, especially if he wants Ukraine to be part of the EU and eventually NATO
I don't think this is unreasonable
Not surprised that an .ee doesn't find "literal fascism" unreasonable.
I thought the entire reason that the white western world has been pouring untold amounts of money and resources into this small part of the world was to uphold and protect democracy? Funny how quickly that excuse just vaporizes the absolute second it's not convenient anymore.
Zelensky has openly declared many times that the war would not end until Crimea (a territory Ukraine did not control when Zelensky was elected) was taken back, despite there being no hope of such a victory for the Ukrainian government. He has created a set of parameters where, if he is consistent with what he says, there will never be an election for as long as he survives.
For someone who was elected on the basis of promising to take a more conciliatory stance to the breakaway states, perhaps to avoid exactly the conflict he lead Ukraine into, this shit cannot be reasonable.
Zelensky wasn't elected to be a wartime leader; his mandate from the public was to do the opposite. Perhaps he has won over some citizens during the conflict, but he owes it to the people of Ukraine to give them the choice to pursue peace.
I don't even understand what the stakes are from his perspective, he's already banned like a dozen political parties and nobody cares, what do you have to fear holding an election when you're allowed to ban people who oppose you? It's a free rubber stamp basically, you get democracy points and to renew your mandate by being the only legal option, it's a win win.
Pressure to do what?
As someone who lives in a country that's been in more or less continuous conflict since I was born I would be pretty upset if the leadership here decided elections couldn't happen during wartime.
How do you expect Elections to work? All the soldiers take a few hours off of fighting to put their ballots in?
The rest of the citizens amass themselves in a few concentrated areas?
People who are being bombed or in hiding from russia leave their shelters and are exposed for the day? I'm sure if they wear an official uniform, that Russian soldiers won't be tempted to copy the uniform, and replace the ballots.
So, who wants to volunteer to hand out the ballot papers? I'm sure Putin would be more than happy to
I can see his point. They're in the middle of a fight for their existence. Why would you hold an election, particularly if he's doing a good job of it? Yes, I concede that this is a slippery slope for democracy, in that this is the very rationale that dictators use to shore up power. However, the grounds that they make those claims are usually against imagined foes rather than an actual country invading yours.
Day 1 after they kick russia out permanently? Election.
Day 1 after they kick russia out permanently? Election.
You'd actually want to schedule it a bit further out than this. Once the war is over, political parties will need to time organize, build infrastructure and campaign in an environment where the weather isn't "sunny with a chance of bombs later". Holding elections, with any sort of opposition having not had time to campaign is one of the more insidious anti-democratic tricks. As it leads to people voting for the "devil they know", even if the opposition isn't a devil at all.
Why would you hold an election, particularly if he’s doing a good job of it?
Well, that's up for debate and should be decided by the people. As you said: It's a slippery slope and I'll add the way to hell is paved with good intentions.
Given Russia's penchant for messing with elections (and with Ukrainian officials), it seems prudent as a short-term measure.
Seems reasonable for now.
Really disappointing how quickly the west turned on Ukraine so they could go off to fund a genocide. They really are min-maxing for fascism.
I'd be interested to see the comments if this were Putin.
Feel free to check back in with us when Russia is the victim of a major invasion
Rather false equivalency, don't you think? They're not comparable in any other way, thus the difference...
Probably similar, if a large portion of the populace would be unable to vote due to occupation by a foreign (former super-)power.
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc