newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, Ukraine has received billions of dollars in aid, with more than $113 billion coming from the United States alone. President Joe Biden recently asked Congress to approve another $60 billion, and Ukraine is almost certain to request more aid from the United States in the future.
In asking these questions, the Ukrainian government has argued that the defense of the homeland is the defense of world democracy. In the words of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, aid is “not charity,” but “a global…investment in democracy, handled in the most responsible way.”
But while defending democracy, their government seems to have forgotten one of its core tenets: holding elections.
Johnson urges support for Ukraine and cooperation on borders: ‘Take care of your own borders first’
Ukraine, like other democracies, regularly schedules presidential and parliamentary elections. The last election campaign was held in 2019 and resulted in a landslide victory for Volodymyr Zelensky and his National Service Party.
The next parliamentary elections were scheduled for October this year, and presidential elections were due to be held in 2024. At least, that’s what it was supposed to be. With the outbreak of full-scale war, Zelenskiy’s government declared martial law and announced the cancellation of elections. And recently, just days after it appeared that Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba would reopen elections, President Zelenskiy again closed the door on the idea of holding elections.
President Zelensky claimed that not everyone has a fair chance to vote in the midst of a war, that soldiers may not be able to vote, and that Ukraine does not have enough funds to hold elections. Others point to the fact that Britain did not hold elections while it was involved in World War II, and that it is a mistake to hold Ukraine to high standards.
Frankly, these arguments are nonsense.
First, not everyone everywhere can vote in a particular election. There is no election in which the turnout is 100%. Many Ukrainian citizens are in exile in the EU, and there is no reason why they cannot simply vote at a Ukrainian embassy or consulate in their country of asylum.
Although doing so in American elections is essentially impossible due to America’s state-based system, it is standard practice for Europeans living outside their home countries to vote at their embassies on election day. be.
Soldiers would have a harder time voting (though they would still be able to send ballots if they could send them by mail). However, the United States itself passed measures allowing soldiers to vote in both World War II and the Civil War, both violent and bitter conflicts. There is no reason why Ukraine should not try the same thing.
Lack of money is equally ridiculous. President Zelenskyy insisted that Ukraine would hold elections if provided with $120 million. But he didn’t seriously ask for that kind of cash, and frankly, considering the billions of dollars Ukraine already receives in military and humanitarian aid, he’s willing to accept just $120 million from its allies. It is very unlikely that you will not be able to scrape together.
Chaos as a defense is also nonsense. Of course, the chaos of war makes elections difficult, but the wars mentioned above, from the Civil War to World War II, were chaotic enough.
Countries like Israel have held regular elections for decades, always living with the threat of terrorist attacks. Furthermore, while fighting near the front lines is of course serious, in cities far from the front lines, daily life continues, with shopping malls frequented and film festivals held.
This is not meant as a disrespect to everyday Ukrainians. They are right to try to maintain some semblance of normal life. But if a country can host an international film festival, it can probably also host national elections.
Defenders of the lack of elections point to the British government’s refusal to hold elections during World War II. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which requires presidential elections every four years, many parliamentary governments can be much more vague about the timing of elections. And he was elected after 1935 in Britain until 1945, when the European War ended.
However, the British government differed from the Ukrainian government in important ways. It was a government of national unity. Although Churchill’s Conservatives had a clear majority in Parliament, Churchill invited members of all major parties into his cabinet to form a war cabinet. Conservative, Labor and Liberal ministers worked side by side at a time of national crisis.
If Ukraine had chosen a similar path, there would probably have been less benefit in calling for elections before further aid. However, the government has not definitively adopted such a policy. Prime Minister Denis Shmyhal’s cabinet is made up almost entirely of members of his and Zelenskiy’s Servant of the People party, as well as some independents. Leaders and representatives of other major political parties are nowhere to be seen.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
Other defenses, such as the argument that Ukrainian law prohibits elections during martial law or that there is no legal structure for mail-in voting, also argue that the Servant of the People has a clear majority and that the simple It makes sense considering the fact that elections can be held in new law.
There are legal workarounds. Even if it is necessary to oppose a constitutional amendment, it is highly unlikely that the government will not approve it. If the opposition blocks the amendment, Zelenskiy will at least be able to claim that he tried to block it.
This is not meant as a disrespect to everyday Ukrainians. They are right to try to maintain some semblance of normal life. But if a country can host an international film festival, it can probably also host national elections.
It is therefore something of a mystery why his government flatly refuses to hold elections. Perhaps the government is worried that the trend will reverse within a year. Zelenskiy’s approval ratings remain incredibly high, but thanks to his courageous decision not to flee the country and his management of the war effort, Petro. Opposition politicians like Mr. Poroshenko (who remained active during the conflict) could emerge. ) is attacking a government that appears to be incompetent.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
For much of 1864, wartime President Abraham Lincoln was fairly certain that he would lose that year’s election. Some fortuitous events, such as the occupation of Atlanta, helped change his political fortunes.
However, Lincoln still held elections. In return for further military aid, Ukraine should do the same.