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.
"Zelensky follows the laws in the Ukraine Constitution while the country continues to be at war"
The Ukrainian constitution prevents Parliamentary elections during wartime, not Presidential ones.
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.
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
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.
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.
I'm with you, I'm just being illustrative here.
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.
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