If It Itches, Scratch It? Four Ways Wartime Elections Could Go Wrong

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Ukraine is once again standing before the same door it faced one and two years ago: the prospect of elections during a full-scale war. This time, however, the pressure is louder — from Washington and Brussels, and from domestic politicians who have long been waiting in the wings on Bankova Street, eager for the moment when they can queue at the Central Election Commission as casually as for a morning coffee.

President Zelenskyy has made a blunt statement: he is ready to hold elections as early as tomorrow — provided Ukraine’s partners ensure security and the Verkhovna Rada delivers the necessary legal guarantees.

So what is actually possible? And what only seems plausible to those who believe missiles land “somewhere out there, in the news”? Below are four scenarios — equally realistic and absurd, and therefore, in a sense, perfectly Ukrainian.

Scenario #1. Elections after the war, or: can we finish with the orcs first — and only then with the ballots?

The simplest and least scandalous option. Ukraine tells its partners plainly: let’s stabilise the front line, bring people home, pull those currently in the trenches back into civilian life — and then vote, even if in marble polling booths.

This scenario would require minimal legislative changes: clearly defining that the first post-war elections take place within a fixed timeframe — for example, six months after martial law is lifted. Add to that the time needed to restore the voter register, organise polling stations abroad, ensure voting for internally displaced persons, and address dozens of technical issues that normally take years, not months, even in stable democracies.

Advantages: legitimacy, security, common sense.

Disadvantage: this scenario is economical, everyone likes it, except for those who really want “elections right now, because the ratings are going down the drain.”

Scenario #2. “Ad hoc elections during the war: if we lived in Israel, it might have worked out.”

This is exactly the scenario that Zelenskyy is hinting at: let’s rewrite the law, allow elections during martial law, and hold them according to a special procedure. Everything is clear, beautiful, and dangerous, like the work of a sapper.

This is where romance comes in:
* mobile election commissions at the front;
* soldiers voting under artillery fire;
* refugees queuing at consulates in Berlin and Warsaw;
* voter lists, which again “do not match up a little”, but that’s okay, because it’s war.

This option is legally, technically, and politically feasible — but only in countries where the enemy does not launch missiles minutes after polling station hours are made public.

Advantages: partners are satisfied; democracy appears to “work.”

Disadvantages: there will be no satisfied voters — and no satisfied political opponents of Zelenskyy.

Scenario #3. Lift martial law for two months: a window of opportunity… for Russian missiles

This scenario is for political optimists — or the exceptionally brave. Martial law is lifted for one or two months, elections are held, and then it is reinstated.

The consequences are easy to predict:

• The Kremlin treats this as a personal invitation to fireworks. The military asks whether mobilisation can be switched off without consequences.

• lawyers shake their heads, because the Constitution is not a rubber band.

The military asks whether mobilisation can be switched off without immediate consequences.

Disadvantages: Who would be willing to recognise the results of such an election?

Scenario #4. Hybrid elections: those who can vote, and those who cannot, are asked to accept it

One of the most likely compromises. Elections are held only in territories under Ukrainian control, in areas with a verifiable level of security. The military votes under special procedures. Refugees vote abroad. Territories where voting is impossible are temporarily left without representation or have mandates allocated proportionally.

This would resemble the 2014 elections — but on a scale no one could have imagined at the time. Such a scenario would require:

• amendments to the Electoral Code;

• the participation of international observers;

• an exceptionally transparent vote-counting system, leaving little room for later claims that “legitimacy is in question.”

Advantages: realistic and technically feasible — provided that all participants commit in advance to accepting the results.

Disadvantages: Russia will seek to delegitimize the elections, and a substantial portion of the world could take notice.

So — elections are possible. But not all options are equally viable. Ukraine finds itself in a unique position: the world wants to see democracy in action, “precisely while we are under fire.”

Our task is not simply to hold elections during war, but to hold elections that do not further erode trust in the state — no more than Zelenskyy already has. Victory on the front means little if the political system collapses at the first viral fake on social media.

There are four scenarios. Each follows its own logic. Each carries a chasm of risks. The key is not to forget the simple truth: elections should strengthen the state, not trigger civil conflict amid war.

War is fought with weapons. Elections are fought for legitimacy.

And in the 21st century, legitimacy is as critical as air defence.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.