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.
Pass a new constitution then. Could be identical minus those two things.
What exactly is the process for a complete replacement in the constitution in Ukraine? Is it something that can feasibly be accomplished during wartime?
Edit: apparently the process is “you can’t” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text (Article 19 Section 1)
So basically there is no way for Zelensky to change anything about the situation without just fraglantly breaking the law (or declaring an end to martial law during wartime, which would be beyond stupid). Pretty hard to argue he’s a “dictator” when literally all he’s doing is following the law that was out in place well before he was elected.
Now, if the war ends and he still refuses to hold a election, I’ll be right with you in calling for action, but I fail to see any fault with his current course on this specific issue
An old constitution can’t control a new one. Its literally replacing the old one. Nothing it says is relevant.
So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution? And he should be allowed to do this unilaterally? And this would make him not a dictator? He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.
The foundation of democracy is the idea that our elected officials have to abide by the rules of law that are already in place, including (and especially) those laws that concern how other laws are made. Otherwise any elected official could just declare themselves the new supreme ruler and toss out every law that limits their power.
And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol
Removed by mod
He doesn’t care if is posible or not, this people only want to make Zelenisky as a bad person. He isn’t perfect by any means but he is one of the ropes holding Ukraine right now, and for that the pro Russian want to bring down his image and by that make Ukraine weaker
The 14th amendment in the US and the 1864 election happened in war time.
Changes can be made during war time. An old constitution saying you can’t is irrelevant.
A new constitution that is identical to the old one except it takes away dictatorial powers from those passing the constitution wouldn’t be sketchy at all.
Removed by mod
The 14th amendment in the US and the 1864 election happened in war time.
On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely were civilian areas to be hit by artillery shells and rockets during the civil war?
Hint: the maximum range of a cannon at that time was barely a mile.
Again, what good would this do if you are in a war torn country that cannot secure its elections?
Pretty sure these people aren’t arguing in good faith
I don’t really care. Irrelevant to my point, which has nothing to do with Zelensky or Ukraine.
Correct, and the discussion is about Zelenskyy and Ukraine.
deleted by creator
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”.
A broken clock is still right twice a day.
deleted by creator
Broken? The family’s closer than ever!
Not when it’s smashed to pieces, scattered all over a landfill
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.
Not really criticizing him. My criticism is the weird constitution worship used as non-argument that simply begs the question.
Removed by mod
The people are the foundation of a country. Religious documents are just excuses.
Removed by mod
They aren’t. But people treat them like they are. I do care about people using constitutions as if they were moral documents. I’d be just as annoyed if someone used a constitution to defend something like freedom of press or freedom of speech. I don’t care about what the particular issue is: its the citing constitutions like they prescribes perfect morals that I care about.
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.
83-4 only refers to the parliament. 157-2 says exactly that.
Article 19 Section 1 of Ukraine’s Martial Law legislation reads (translated to English from Ukranian with Google translate):
- In the conditions of martial law, the following are prohibited:
changing the Constitution of Ukraine ;
amendment of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ;
conducting 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 and local self-government bodies;
conducting all-Ukrainian and local referenda;
conducting strikes, mass meetings and actions.
Sounds like a democracy we should continue supporting right??
Yes
Removed by mod
“Zelensky follows the laws in the Ukraine Constitution while the country continues to be at war”
- FTFY, dickbag headline writer
Yeah didn’t this come up as a clickbait non-issue last year?
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.
It’s not much of a secret, he has said so himself.
Did he at least whisper it?
He was a stand up comedian before? Seems like he thought he’d be a peacetime leader.
deleted by creator
Why would they choose someone else, though?
Because he barely had any experience in diplomatic relations before being thrust into Ukrainian Ultimate Commander. He unfortunately has become a wartime politician, even though that was never his intentions.
So you think it’s better to choose someone else because of experience diplomatic relations?
Are there other people in Ukraine who are considered to be preferred for the job when the war ends?
deleted by creator
If the Japanese had taken the west coast I bet they would have delayed them.
deleted by creator
false equivalence to the extreme
deleted by creator
as to the elections, it’s not unusual to postpone elections in the midst of a defensive war.
deleted by creator
- France, 1914-1918 war: no elections
- UK, 1939-1945: No general elections were held during the Second World War until Allied victory was assured via acts of Parliament; hence the 1935 House sat until 1945. (per Wikipedia)
Shall I continue?
Yes continue.
deleted by creator
Logistically, that’s a very different prospect though.
Newsweek is trash for that headline.
Usually they have a “fairness meter” on their articles, but it seems to be missing from this one.
deleted by creator
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
Not to mention that Russia would absolutely bomb voting centers.
You’re confused with the country bombing hospitals right now.
And then claim Ukraine did it.
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.
I’m with you, I’m just being illustrative here.
Guess what the Americans and Brits did to the Italians after WW2? You might be surprised at the answer.
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.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“We all understand that now, in wartime, when there are many challenges, it is utterly irresponsible to engage in topics related to an election in such a frivolous manner,” Zelensky said in his nightly video address to the nation on Monday.
Prior to the war, Ukraine’s presidential elections were scheduled for March 2024, but the country’s constitution mandates that they cannot go ahead until any declaration of martial law is lifted, which is unlikely to happen in the near future.
Zelensky first declared martial law on February 24, 2022, the day Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of his country.
Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Alexey Danilov has also said that “no elections can be held” under martial law in the country.
Days earlier, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said during an online appearance at the World Policy Conference in the United Arab Emirates that Zelensky was weighing the pros and cons of a presidential vote in spring 2024.
The Ukrainian leader’s approval rating in Ukraine remains near the record-highs set shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country began, data from Gallup shows.
The original article contains 423 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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.
Did you read a different article?
Based comment
A pure and true example of Democracy™ which all European countries should imitate. Elections are a waste of money, and if there is more than one party are a threat to political stability. Let’s abolish all elections altogether./s
Removed by mod
Tell me, how is Zelinsky not a fascist? He and his government has been persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for well over a year now, countless Nazi groups in his military wearing pagan Nazi symbols. Heck, Canada recently “honored” a general that was literally in the Nazi army back in WW2 and Zelinski said he’s a “Ukrainian hero”
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
I’m just not sure why being the invaded party is the deciding factor here. Do the people not get a say in who leads their defense, only their offense?
Ok so you’re being intentionally obtuse. Got it 👍
No, I’m not. Could you please at least engage in the conversation if you’re going to reply?
they don’t owe you shit, troll. begone
Having a different perspective than you doesn’t make me a troll. I never thought I’d be called a troll for saying maybe they should conduct an election.
violating their own constitution. fuck off, you know what you’re doing. you’re being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith
Rather false equivalency, don’t you think? They’re not comparable in any other way, thus the difference…
They are both (supposedly) elected officials of a (supposed) democratic state, and they are both at war. If Putin said he wasn’t going to hold elections because it would be irresponsible to do so during a war, I don’t think he’d get the same understanding answers. There’s precedence for countries holding elections while at war, it’s not like it’s some infeasible thing. Just seems weird for everyone to be so quick to say that it’s reasonable to suspend an election.
Because they are completely different situations. They are not merely “both at war,” you are comparing the head of an invading country to the head of the country being invaded. And Putin has decades of history of overseeing dishonest elections. It’s borderline gaslighting to feign ignorance of the differences.
Russia is trying to interfere with elections of countries it’s not even at war with. Is Ukraine just never supposed to have an election again because Russia might interfere with it? Is it not up to Ukraine to ensure that their elections are free and fair? Like, I don’t think that any precautions they would take against Russia interfering is gonna stop when the war stops.
Does Russia have a foreign army in their borders? Very strange use of the word precedence there… there are also cases where countries at war have postponed elections, isn’t that precedence too? How is that relevant for Ukraine specifically?
It’s not relevant for Ukraine specifically, it’s relevant for anyone who would claim that free, fair, and regular elections are a cornerstone of democracy. Someone else said better than I could: shouldn’t the people get a say in who is leading them in this war?
I think there’s a pretty massive difference between being invaded and being the country orchestrating the invasion.
Probably similar, if a large portion of the populace would be unable to vote due to occupation by a foreign (former super-)power.
Do we have a rough idea what percentage of Ukrainians are under Russian control right now?
I do not, but the Ukraine most certainly has as well as people who know more about the topic than I do.
It’s just Ukraine btw.
Well, thank you for your correction then. I hope you have also learned from this conversation.
