A pure and true example of Democracy™ which all European countries should imitate. Elections are a waste of money, and if there is more than one party are a threat to political stability. Let’s abolish all elections altogether./s
Tell me, how is Zelinsky not a fascist? He and his government has been persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for well over a year now, countless Nazi groups in his military wearing pagan Nazi symbols. Heck, Canada recently “honored” a general that was literally in the Nazi army back in WW2 and Zelinski said he’s a “Ukrainian hero”
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
People are dying day by day due to these wards, i recently found that this person died in war as he was innocent person ' https://themixnews.com/stephen-daniels-obituary/ '
Remembering Stephen Daniels: A Teacher, Coach, and Friend Who Left a Lasting Legacy at Steenberg High School
Constitutions can be changed (Alabama's 6th constitution was amended 977 times before they made a 7th constitution last year, for example). Headline is definitely inflammatory, but just because you happen to be in the position of dictator doesn't mean can't work towards not being one.
The Constitution of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Конституція України, romanized: Konstytutsiia Ukrainy) is the fundamental law of Ukraine. The constitution was adopted and ratified at the 5th session of the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament of Ukraine, on 28 June 1996.[1] The constitution was passed with 315 ayes out of 450 votes possible (300 ayes minimum).[1] All other laws and other normative legal acts of Ukraine must conform to the constitution. The right to amend the constitution through a special legislative procedure is vested exclusively in the parliament. The only body that may interpret the constitution and determine whether legislation conforms to it is the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
I'm still looking for the actual constitutional bit that says "no elections during war," or whatever phraseology has been passed around - Edit: Found it. (Links to original legal texts in this article.)
These regularly scheduled elections were disrupted by the state of martial law declared in 2022, at the start of the full-scale Russian invasion. This can be expected from a country fighting for its very existence, where significant portions of its territory are occupied. Martial law is established as a concept in the Ukrainian Constitution and last updated by the national legislature in 2015, before Zelensky entered politics.
Article 83 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires under martial law, it shall automatically be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law. Article 19 of Ukraine’s martial law legislation specifically forbids conducting national elections. Thus, for Ukraine to conduct elections while under martial law would be a violation of legal norms that predate Zelensky and the full-scale Russian invasion.
but assuming that's true, Zelenskyy has nothing to do with whether or not elections happen. Having elections would be in violation of the constitution. And Zelenskyy has nothing to do with amending the constitution, either; that's for the legislature to do. Zelenskyy is following the law, as his office requires that he do.
Edit: I'm a bit wrong there. Article 93 reads:
The right of legislative initiative in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine belongs to the President of Ukraine, the People's Deputies of Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Draft laws defined by the President of Ukraine as not postponable, are considered out of turn by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Which means that the President can put forward legislation for the parliament to vote on, even cutting to the front of the line. I bet this includes constitutional amendments.
But Article 19 Section 1 of the Ukrainian martial law legislation says no changes to the consitution and no national elections during martial law.
83-4 only refers to the parliament. 157-2 says exactly that.
Article 19 Section 1 of Ukraine's Martial Law legislation reads (translated to English from Ukranian with Google translate):
In the conditions of martial law, the following are prohibited:
changing the Constitution of Ukraine ;
amendment of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ;
conducting elections of the President of Ukraine, as well as elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and local self-government bodies;
So they amend their constitution. During a war. To force people into the streets to vote.
How does the government make sure the election is fair? Some people won't be able to vote due to danger. Some will be attacked. Some areas are occupied, and the occupation lines may change during the election.
If they tried to run an election now, Russia would publish their own results showing that the occupied areas voted for Putin. Trying to run elections is hard enough in normal times, doing so with Russia literally holding a large swath of your country is impossible.
What exactly is the process for a complete replacement in the constitution in Ukraine? Is it something that can feasibly be accomplished during wartime?
So basically there is no way for Zelensky to change anything about the situation without just fraglantly breaking the law (or declaring an end to martial law during wartime, which would be beyond stupid). Pretty hard to argue he’s a “dictator” when literally all he’s doing is following the law that was out in place well before he was elected.
Now, if the war ends and he still refuses to hold a election, I’ll be right with you in calling for action, but I fail to see any fault with his current course on this specific issue
So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution? And he should be allowed to do this unilaterally? And this would make him not a dictator? He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.
The foundation of democracy is the idea that our elected officials have to abide by the rules of law that are already in place, including (and especially) those laws that concern how other laws are made. Otherwise any elected official could just declare themselves the new supreme ruler and toss out every law that limits their power.
And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol
So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution?
Not unilaterally, no. The constitution establishes a dictatorship, therefore it would need to be replaced or amended to no longer have a dictator. Alternatively, they could rescind martial law, thereby ending suspension of elections and no longer be a dictatorship. And that would be required to allow them to amend the current constitution following its rules. Not saying any of those are good ideas. Just listing the options they have to not be a dictatorship (technically he could just step down as well, but that wouldn't change their government structure; just change who the dictator is).
Not his fault he's a dictator. But dictator literally refers to someone who rules in time of emergency. So by definition he's a dictator. I don't mean it as a personal insult of the person who happens to be in the position nor am I saying its outrageous for someone to keep such a position.
He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether he's a dictator or not. Don't forget that the first dictator most people probably think of was also an elected head of state. Obviously I'm not comparing the actions that the two did using that position. Simply being a dictator doesn't say anything about whether their rule is justified or whether they're committing atrocities. I do think leaving the loophole in the constitution is a liability, so it eventually should be changed. But its not exactly a high priority right now.
And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol
Irrelevant, since my critique actually has nothing to do with Ukraine, but about constitutions in general.
Irrelevant, since my critique actually has nothing to do with Ukraine, but about constitutions in general.
So you’re advocating for him to break the constitution he was elected to uphold, to hold an election that would have to be incomplete and unfair - all so that you, a person who isn’t even a Ukrainian can feel better about the situation? Despite the fact that there’s no call for this from the actual Ukranian public?
The person I replied to cited a constitution. My reply is about constitutions. Anything after that is a discussion about constitution where people keep bringing up Ukraine for some reason.
Yo! Wtf don’t you understand about no changes being allowed during wartime? It’s not like the president is the aggressor here, perpetually keeping his country at war to avoid elections. It can only disenfranchice people to make changes to the government via a vote at this time.
Passing a new constitution during martial law would be sketchy as hell.
The 14th amendment in the US and the 1864 election happened in war time.
Changes can be made during war time. An old constitution saying you can't is irrelevant.
A new constitution that is identical to the old one except it takes away dictatorial powers from those passing the constitution wouldn't be sketchy at all.
Opponents will always point to it as a violation of the existing constitution and be right. Why is it so important to you that they don’t follow their laws? Are you that desperate to come up with excuses to upset the current governmental structure of nation under seige?
I’m just gonna assume that at this point, you are a Russian stooge trying to subvert their enemy’s government online.
Why is it so important to you that they don’t follow their laws?
I don't care if they don't have an election right now. Its fine with me if they don't. My complaint is using "the constitution says so" to justify things like dictatorships as if its a real argument rather than simply begging the question. I don't even like when people use it as if it were an argument for things like being pro-freedom of speech. Its simply deflection.
He doesn’t care if is posible or not, this people only want to make Zelenisky as a bad person. He isn’t perfect by any means but he is one of the ropes holding Ukraine right now, and for that the pro Russian want to bring down his image and by that make Ukraine weaker
Not to mention a large part of the voter ase has fled the country and are living abroad as refugees. Also the logistics of having soldiers rotate off the front to be able to vote would be mindboggling and very dangerous for all involved.
And I bet “Zelensky amends Ukraine’s constitution during wartime” would make similar headlines.
There’s fair criticism to be made of Zelensky, I’m sure. However, not holding an election during wartime, which is backed by the constitution and most Ukrainians, is not one of them.
There aren’t any religious documents here, liar. You need to stop making shit up to suit your arguments. And before you say you “don’t really care” again, you obviously do, because you won’t stop making up excuses for breaking the laws which were established by those same people you pretend to care so much about.
They aren't. But people treat them like they are. I do care about people using constitutions as if they were moral documents. I'd be just as annoyed if someone used a constitution to defend something like freedom of press or freedom of speech. I don't care about what the particular issue is: its the citing constitutions like they prescribes perfect morals that I care about.
You are projecting if you think people consider the constitution a moral prescription. It’s literally the law laid out by the people. If you would be annoyed by people using it to defend the freedom of speech and the press, then we already kinda know where your morality lies:
I’d be just as annoyed if someone used a constitution to defend something like freedom of press or freedom of speech.
As an Alabamian. We are NOT a role model to anyone for anything. If anything we are a cautionary tale of how not to do things. Like, your argument is deeply flawed the second you say “You could do what Alabama did”.
They are both (supposedly) elected officials of a (supposed) democratic state, and they are both at war. If Putin said he wasn't going to hold elections because it would be irresponsible to do so during a war, I don't think he'd get the same understanding answers. There's precedence for countries holding elections while at war, it's not like it's some infeasible thing. Just seems weird for everyone to be so quick to say that it's reasonable to suspend an election.
Because they are completely different situations. They are not merely "both at war," you are comparing the head of an invading country to the head of the country being invaded. And Putin has decades of history of overseeing dishonest elections. It's borderline gaslighting to feign ignorance of the differences.
Russia is trying to interfere with elections of countries it's not even at war with. Is Ukraine just never supposed to have an election again because Russia might interfere with it? Is it not up to Ukraine to ensure that their elections are free and fair? Like, I don't think that any precautions they would take against Russia interfering is gonna stop when the war stops.
Does Russia have a foreign army in their borders? Very strange use of the word precedence there... there are also cases where countries at war have postponed elections, isn't that precedence too? How is that relevant for Ukraine specifically?
It's not relevant for Ukraine specifically, it's relevant for anyone who would claim that free, fair, and regular elections are a cornerstone of democracy. Someone else said better than I could: shouldn't the people get a say in who is leading them in this war?
Having a different perspective than you doesn't make me a troll. I never thought I'd be called a troll for saying maybe they should conduct an election.
Again, having a different perspective than you doesn't mean I am arguing in bad faith or being disingenuous. If you're not trying to have a conversation or convince me, then you're just being vitriolic for no reason, so I'm the one who is a troll? Come on man.
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
Not surprised that an .ee doesn’t find “literal fascism” unreasonable.
I thought the entire reason that the white western world has been pouring untold amounts of money and resources into this small part of the world was to uphold and protect democracy? Funny how quickly that excuse just vaporizes the absolute second it’s not convenient anymore.
They love China, love Russia, and all of their past, current and yet to be supreme leaders. They like the taste of military boot leather. Some are trolls some are a little more "leftist" than the rest of Lemmy, but most are tankies.
@HuddaBudda it's a tankie instance. It's been around since ChapoTraphouse got banned from reddit. It has a culture of ... argumentative engagement. Several of the big instances have defederated it due to allegations of brigading etc.
Correct, but I wasn’t crying about it. Just pointing it out. Do you think that climate scientists who look at the overwhelming amount of data in favor of global climate change are “crying” about it when they publish their research?
I also love that the thing you’re bent out of shape about is that I’m posting something that is at worst mildly annoying to you in a comment section, rather than the fact that Ukraine’s president announced that he’s pulling the mask off and just implementing full on fascism in Ukraine.
tbf there are members on that instance and yours who have said essentially the same thing about their own instances. I assume they stay for the slop associated with broader federation (which I don’t begrudge).
This is one of those “not all men” “not all white people” things. It’s common practice to speak in generalization about groups that have a general consensus of chauvinism (whether demographics, organization members, or whatever). One thing that is good about this is that it encourages the relative outliers to not identify with the group (e.g. you can’t ‘opt out’ of being white, but you can stop personally self-identifying with the social formation of whiteness). When a .ee or .ml user disparages their instance, they are not disparaging themselves or literally every single person in it (despite the denotative meaning of the words they use) but are pointing to a broad and explicit consensus around certain views and traits. Incidentally, there are groups that you can opt out of, whether it’s being a member of a bourgeois-democratic party (“not all Liberals”) or something more trivial, like being a user on a neoliberal instance. I think it’s better to stay on one’s instance and try to change it, but it’s worth noting for the sake of completeness, and there are some instances that are not worth trying to change except to kill, like .world
We can language police all day long, but this line is old-hat and there’s little reason to believe any wording would be received as “correct” and “properly inoffensive” except for silence. A “possible ally” who is alienated by something this trivial wasn’t ready to be an ally anyway.
Zelensky wasn’t elected to be a wartime leader; his mandate from the public was to do the opposite. Perhaps he has won over some citizens during the conflict, but he owes it to the people of Ukraine to give them the choice to pursue peace.
First of all do you have a source for the shelling claim never heard of it, but the other claim of unfair treatment and prosecution of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk means that Russia wants to at least take control of those areas. And the claims that Ukraine is run by neo-nazis means that Russia may want to take control of Ukraine as a whole.
Yes, and that's not in the best interest of Ukraine. So Ukraine doesn't want to lose all of that territory, but Russia wants to gain it, and Ukraine thinks it is capable of defending it's territory, while Russia thinks that it's capable of defeating them.
That's how you get a war. To get peace negotiations you need one of, or both of the nations to decide that they've had enough casualties or other loses, and that they're ready to settle down for less. Neither of them have decided that.
I don’t even understand what the stakes are from his perspective, he’s already banned like a dozen political parties and nobody cares, what do you have to fear holding an election when you’re allowed to ban people who oppose you? It’s a free rubber stamp basically, you get democracy points and to renew your mandate by being the only legal option, it’s a win win.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Because he barely had any experience in diplomatic relations before being thrust into Ukrainian Ultimate Commander. He unfortunately has become a wartime politician, even though that was never his intentions.
UK, 1939-1945: No general elections were held during the Second World War until Allied victory was assured via acts of Parliament; hence the 1935 House sat until 1945. (per Wikipedia)
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?
Hahahahahahahaha, oh that’s a good bit. I have never seen better proof of “cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds” than when it comes to Ukraine and Israel. Zelensky came to power after a right wing coup orchestrated by the CIA, his corrupt government has pilfered billions of dollars in aid, and he’s suspended elections. I can’t wait for a couple years from now when these same libs are making excuses for Trump suspending elections and the Supreme Court eliminating presidential term limits.
Add comment