The question of whether Ukraine should hold elections during wartime continues to fuel debate, drawing international attention and becoming a point of contention between Kyiv and its allies. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has indicated a willingness to organize a vote within the next few months, contingent on Western security assistance, the feasibility and legitimacy of such an election remain deeply contested. The debate is further complicated by Russia’s frequent claims that the absence of elections undermines the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government.
The Ukrainian constitution explicitly prohibits elections while martial law is in place – a condition that has existed since Russia’s full-scale invasion began on . This constitutional barrier, however, hasn’t silenced calls for a vote, most recently from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who accused Zelenskyy of using the war as a pretext to postpone elections. Zelenskyy responded by requesting assistance from the United States and European partners to ensure the security of any potential vote.
Experts warn that attempting to hold a national election under the current circumstances – with ongoing Russian bombardment and millions of Ukrainians displaced – would not be a demonstration of democratic principles, but rather a strategic misstep that could provide a propaganda victory for Moscow. The Atlantic Council argues that any such vote would fall far short of recognized democratic standards in terms of freedom, fairness, and representation.
This isn’t the first time the issue of wartime elections in Ukraine has surfaced. Discussions began as early as spring 2024, after Zelenskyy’s presidential term officially ended. Russia has consistently exploited the lack of elections to delegitimize the Ukrainian authorities, despite the clear constitutional prohibition. These claims of illegitimacy are, according to analysis, inaccurate and strategically motivated.
Zelenskyy himself has previously signaled a willingness to consider stepping down if it could facilitate a ceasefire and Ukraine’s path to NATO membership. In an interview last year, he stated he was “ready” to resign if it guaranteed peace for Ukraine, offering his resignation in exchange for NATO admission. However, these statements have been met with skepticism by Ukrainian political opponents, who question his sincerity and point to actions suggesting a desire to remain in power.
The debate over elections also reflects a broader pattern of political maneuvering within Ukraine. Reports suggest a trend of lawfare against opponents, often involving allegations of treason and ties to Russia. This tactic, while not new, has become more prominent during the war.
The situation is further complicated by the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has maintained power through a series of maneuvers that circumvent democratic norms. In 2008, Putin engaged in a “tandem” arrangement with Dmitry Medvedev, effectively swapping roles to extend his influence. In 2020, constitutional amendments were passed through a “people’s vote” allowing him to reset his presidential term limits. Russia’s own electoral processes have long been criticized as carefully orchestrated events with limited genuine competition, with the most recent elections in 2024 excluding the last remaining “opponent” Boris Nadezhdin.
The war in Ukraine is increasingly dictating the political landscape, forcing both Ukraine and Russia to adapt to a new reality. For Putin, the conflict presents a trap of his own making, limiting his options and increasing the stakes. For Zelenskyy, the pressure to balance democratic principles with the exigencies of wartime presents a difficult challenge.
While Zelenskyy has expressed openness to holding elections if a ceasefire is agreed upon, this would require lifting martial law or finding a legal workaround to the constitutional ban. Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a former Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister, remains doubtful of Zelenskyy’s willingness to relinquish power, emphasizing the importance of actions over words.
The implications of this debate extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. The legitimacy of the Ukrainian government is a key factor in maintaining international support and ensuring the continued flow of aid. Russia’s attempts to undermine this legitimacy are part of a broader effort to weaken Ukraine’s position and justify its ongoing aggression. The international community faces a delicate balancing act: supporting Ukraine’s democratic aspirations while recognizing the practical challenges of holding a free and fair election during a full-scale war.
Looking ahead, some analysts suggest that Ukraine’s long-term strategy should focus on achieving strategic neutralization. This approach, advocated by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, could offer a pathway to a sustainable resolution of the conflict, but would require significant concessions from both sides. The path forward remains uncertain, but the debate over elections underscores the complex interplay between domestic politics, international relations, and the realities of wartime governance.
