Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov opened a new front in the country’s sharpening political scene on Tuesday, calling for new elections despite the continuing war with Russia.
Fedorov, a popular reformer credited with modernizing Ukraine’s government and expanding its military drone program, had served as one of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s most prominent ministers before his dismissal last month. In a nine-minute video address, the former defense minister argued that Ukrainians should not allow Russian President Vladimir Putin to determine when they can choose their government. “Democracy is not a peacetime luxury,” he said. “Democracy is part of what we are fighting for today.”
Fedorov stopped short of demanding an immediate vote or proposing a timetable. Instead, he called for a mechanism that would allow Ukrainians to judge the record of those governing them. He also criticized corruption, bureaucratic inertia, and the concentration of power, arguing that wartime authority must be accompanied by accountability.
These are legitimate concerns.
Still, the timing of this announcement makes Fedorov’s intervention unmistakably self-serving. The conditions that Fedorov cites were already present while he served in government, after all. As now, Ukraine was under martial law and elections were prohibited. But Fedorov did not publicly challenge this arrangement until Zelensky dismissed him.
What happens next?
Well, holding elections during wartime is unusual but not impossible. The United States reelected Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 (although World War II was not being fought across American cities and territory). The closer precedent is Abraham Lincoln’s reelection during the Civil War in 1864. Even then, the Confederate states did not participate, and elaborate arrangements were required to collect soldiers’ ballots. These limitations underline Ukraine’s present dilemma.
Nearly 6 million Ukrainians remain abroad, while another 3.7 million people are displaced inside the country. Russia occupies about one-fifth of Ukrainian territory. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are deployed, many in positions where campaigning, registering, or voting would be difficult. Ukrainians living under Russian occupation could not cast free ballots at all. Any wartime vote would therefore raise questions of electoral legitimacy. Other questions include how Ukraine would protect polling stations from attack and how candidates could campaign fairly when military information is restricted and television broadcasting centers on wartime coverage.
Ukrainian law prohibits national elections under martial law, so holding a vote would require legal changes and broad agreement over rules, security, and legitimacy. Still, Fedorov is right to ask what happens if the war lasts another five years or longer. Ukraine cannot suspend political accountability indefinitely.
TRUMP IS DOING THE ONE THING CLINTON, BUSH, OBAMA, AND BIDEN REFUSED TO DO FOR UKRAINE
All of this makes some form of broader wartime government worth considering. Israel’s emergency unity government after the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist atrocities offers one possible model. Although Zelensky may be reluctant to dilute presidential power to opposition parties. Such an arrangement could also obscure accountability and move political rivalries inside the government rather than resolve them.
Ukraine clearly needs plans for eventual elections. But launching an electoral contest in the middle of a total war could carry costs of its own. Campaigns require politicians to distinguish themselves from one another, assign blame, and mobilize competing constituencies. Those are normal democratic activities in normal times. But in a country fighting for its very survival, these activities could deepen divisions precisely when military and social cohesion remain essential.