The recent demand from Mykhailo Fedorov, a former defense official, for a wartime election in Ukraine has shattered the fragile political consensus that has held the nation together since the full-scale invasion. For years, the survival of the state necessitated a suspension of the democratic calendar, a reality enshrined in the legal architecture of martial law. Yet, as the conflict enters its fifth year, the structural integrity of this silence is cracking. What was once viewed as a temporary necessity for survival is now being challenged as a potential liability for the very governance it was designed to protect.
Fedorov’s call brings a dormant anxiety into the open. Behind the scenes, the friction is not merely about ballot boxes. It is about the definition of legitimacy in a country where millions are displaced, hundreds of thousands are in the trenches, and the traditional infrastructure of public debate has been systematically dismantled by artillery and aerial bombardment.
The Constitutional Trap
The framework governing this impasse is rigid. Under Article 19 of Ukraine’s law on the legal regime of martial law, national elections are explicitly barred. The logic is defensive. Holding a vote while missiles strike population centers and entire regions remain under occupation creates a theater of vulnerability that the Kremlin would weaponize without hesitation. To hold an election would be to offer an invitation for kinetic interference, where polling stations serve as stationary targets for long-range munitions.
Even if the security dimension could be managed, the logistical barrier remains insurmountable. The state register of voters is a ghost of its former self, fragmented by mass migration and the destruction of local records. A significant portion of the electorate resides beyond national borders, while nearly a million citizens are currently serving in the military. These individuals are not merely voters; they are the primary stakeholders of the current regime. Excluding them from a democratic process would be a betrayal of the social contract; including them in an active combat zone is a military absurdity.
The Myth of Illegitimacy
The internal pressure for a shift in policy often finds its echo in the external narratives pushed by Russian influence operations. Moscow has long prioritized the claim that the current government’s mandate is expiring, seeking to cast President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a leader who has abandoned the ballot for the bunker. This rhetoric is designed to feed internal fatigue. It is a calculated attempt to make the survival of the state feel indistinguishable from the authoritarianism it claims to oppose.
Yet, the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, has repeatedly affirmed its own status. In a rare display of institutional unity, the legislature passed resolutions reaffirming that the current executive mandate remains valid under the constitution until martial law is lifted and a new election can be held in an environment that guarantees basic fairness. This is not just a legal maneuver. It is a recognition that the continuity of state functions is the primary defense against internal collapse.
The Real Cost of Political Strife
The push for an election is often framed as a desire for accountability. However, the reality of campaigning in a nation under siege suggests a different outcome. An election requires a marketplace of ideas, a standard of transparency, and a free press. In a state of total war, these elements are severely restricted by necessity. An election cycle today would likely devolve into a bitter clash of grievances, providing the perfect conditions for external actors to inject further discord.
Imagine a scenario where the opposition centers its campaign on the failures of the military effort, while the incumbent is forced to pivot from defense strategy to electoral survival. The transition of focus from the front line to the political arena could fracture the unity that allows the armed forces to function. When the energy that should be spent on logistics, supply chains, and international diplomacy is diverted into candidate debates, the state’s ability to project power diminishes.
The Dilemma of Duration
The core issue remains the indeterminate duration of the war itself. If the fighting lasts another year, or five, the argument for democracy becomes harder to ignore. Democracy is not a luxury to be enjoyed after the smoke clears; it is the source of the government’s authority to ask citizens to sacrifice their lives.
The tension here is genuine. One side of the argument insists that to fight for democracy is to preserve the institutions that make it possible, even if that means temporarily pausing the act of voting. The other side argues that any state which finds itself unable to renew its mandate is fundamentally weakened, regardless of the necessity of the circumstances.
The path forward is not found in the ballot box today, nor is it found in the indefinite extension of current powers. It requires a new compact, one that addresses the demands for accountability through mechanisms that do not require the impossible logistics of a nationwide vote. Transparency in military expenditures, greater inclusion of civil society in governance, and clear roadmaps for the eventual return to normalcy are the only substitutes that provide a credible defense of democratic values in a time of existential threat.
The pressure on the administration is unlikely to dissipate. As long as the war remains the primary factor in daily life, the hunger for a voice will grow. The challenge for the current leadership is to demonstrate that they are worthy of the mandate they hold, proving every day that the authority exercised in the name of the people is being used to protect, rather than replace, their right to choose their future. The silence of the polling stations must be filled with something more than just the echoes of war. It must be filled with the demonstrable results of a government that recognizes the inherent risks of holding onto power, and manages that risk with total, brutal transparency. The alternative is a state that survives the enemy on its borders only to hollow itself out from within.
