Ukraine’s political debate has entered a more sensitive phase after former Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov called for a mechanism to hold elections during the war. His intervention does not merely question the timing of a future vote. It raises a broader issue about how Ukraine can preserve democratic accountability while confronting the legal, military, and social constraints of a prolonged conflict.
A Challenge From Within
Fedorov, dismissed from the Defence Ministry in July after only six months in office, urged the government to develop a legal and secure framework for renewing the country’s electoral process. In a public address, he argued that democratic procedures should not remain indefinitely suspended because of Russia’s invasion, while also alleging that Ukraine faces deeper governance problems, including resistance to reform and corruption. Reuters reported that this marked the first explicit call for wartime elections by a major Ukrainian political figure since the full scale invasion began in 2022.
The timing makes the appeal politically consequential. Fedorov was once a prominent ally of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and served for six years as digital transformation minister before moving to defence. His removal, followed by public criticism of then armed forces commander Oleksandr Syrskyi, exposed disagreements over military management, reform, and the conduct of the war. Protests in Kyiv supporting Fedorov’s return have continued, although Reuters noted that participation has fallen from its initial peak.
The Legal Barrier
The immediate obstacle is not political will alone. Ukraine’s Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law prohibits elections for the presidency, parliament, and local offices while martial law remains in effect. The Electoral Code also suspends electoral processes when martial law is declared. Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council has recently reiterated that neither presidential nor parliamentary elections can be conducted under current wartime conditions.
The issue is especially complex because the legal framework protects institutional continuity. Article 83 of Ukraine’s Constitution extends the authority of parliament if its term expires during martial law, until a newly elected parliament meets after those measures end. Legal analysts have also noted that the sitting president remains in office until a successor is elected and sworn in, limiting the prospect of a constitutional vacuum.
Any move toward elections would therefore require difficult legal decisions, potentially including amendment of relevant legislation. Yet constitutional amendments are themselves constrained during martial law, making a rapid institutional solution unlikely.
Security and Representation at Stake
Even if legal barriers were removed, the practical conditions for an election remain formidable. Ukraine has millions of citizens displaced internally or abroad, military personnel deployed across the country, and territories occupied or exposed to attacks. A credible vote would have to secure voter access, ballot secrecy, candidate safety, media competition, and observation across profoundly unequal conditions.
These concerns are not simply technical. An election that excludes soldiers, displaced citizens, or residents of occupied areas could invite disputes over representativeness. Conversely, an indefinite postponement may increase public concern about democratic accountability, particularly if wartime governance becomes associated with allegations of ineffective administration or corruption.
Fedorov’s argument thus identifies a genuine democratic tension. Electoral delay can be legally justified by national security, but it can also become politically costly if citizens conclude that temporary emergency measures have become a substitute for institutional renewal.
Implications for Ukraine’s Partners
For Ukraine’s international partners, the debate may complicate messaging on democratic resilience. Western support has frequently emphasized Ukraine’s defense of sovereignty and democratic institutions. A domestic argument over elections could become a point of pressure, particularly if external actors portray delayed voting as evidence of diminished legitimacy.
However, a rushed election conducted under conditions of insecurity could damage rather than strengthen Ukraine’s democratic standing. The more sustainable approach may be to begin transparent preparation now, including legal review, voter registration planning for displaced populations, and consultation with civil society and election experts, while retaining the principle that a vote must meet credible democratic standards.
A Final Note
Fedorov’s call is unlikely to produce an immediate election. Its greater significance lies in forcing a debate over what democratic continuity should mean in wartime. Ukraine’s challenge is to ensure that legal necessity does not evolve into political stagnation, while avoiding an electoral process that conflict conditions would make neither safe nor fully representative.
