WHY DO WE NEED ELECTIONS?

Former Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov has called for elections to be held.

Elections during wartime: the restoration of democracy or another beauty contest? Fedorov's call has reignited the debate, but let us ask ourselves whether elections change Ukraine's future if we are once again being offered a choice between representatives of the same system, without clear programmes, genuine competition, or any real possibility for military personnel not just to vote but to stand as candidates?

We examine what elections are actually for, and under what conditions they would be meaningful.

Why do elections matter in a democratic country? And in an authoritarian or totalitarian one?

It is useful to start not with whether elections are possible in Ukraine under martial law, but with what the idea of elections actually means in a democratic country.

In authoritarian or totalitarian countries, elections are a facade, an illusion of democracy designed to conceal the true nature of the regime. Russia formally holds elections, but there is no real possibility of choosing the opposition. Indeed, there is no longer any opposition to speak of. Putin has now governed Russia for 26 years.

But there are other examples. In the post-war era, Japan very rarely changed governments due to the dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party. Since its founding in 1955, the party has only relinquished the prime minister’s office twice, and briefly: from 1993 to 1996, and from 2009 to 2012. The difference, however, is not how long a government goes unchanged. The difference is whether the opposition has a genuine chance of winning. In Japan it does; in Russia it does not. It is no coincidence that, according to the Freedom House freedom rating, Russia scores 12 out of 100. Japan scores 96 out of 100.

If elections in an authoritarian country are a facade, in a democratic country they are the people's instrument for granting or renewing legitimate power. Elections are one of the tools through which people can shape their present and their future, and herein lies their purpose.

An essential component of democratic elections is the substance of the choice available. The goal is to ensure that it is not a choice without a choice, and that it represents genuine competition. This is not a competition of faces, since we are not at a beauty contest, but a competition of ideas and programmes, to which we Ukrainians do not usually pay enough attention.

What is Fedorov's motive in calling for elections?

Why did Fedorov not raise the issue of elections in 2023, when the terms of the president and parliament were approaching their end? Probably because at that time he was part of the existing power structure, enjoyed a privileged relationship with President Zelenskyy, and had no complaints.

He stopped being satisfied when Zelenskyy began to see in Fedorov a potential rival, growing in stature before his very eyes on the strength of the authority Zelenskyy himself had granted him.

Resentment at his dismissal from government, combined with a sense of his own importance fuelled by the demands of protesters, pushed Fedorov to speak out publicly against Zelenskyy. But openly calling for the replacement of the president in a country at war would have been an obvious overreach, and so the former minister's circle opted for what they considered a less provocative approach: a call for elections.

Having earned the support of a portion of Ukrainians as a candidate for the post of defence minister, Fedorov decided to convert that into a presidential rating. Ukrainians, it seems, never quite understood why someone else had decided for them which role they should be backing Fedorov in.

And one further question is pertinent: which elections was Fedorov talking about? Presidential, parliamentary, or local? In the name of freedom and fairness, if elections are to be held, then all of them should be held in turn. But Fedorov is not talking about freedom and fairness. Or rather, he is talking about freedom and fairness, but for himself, not for Ukrainians.

Fedorov's call for elections is an expression of personal grievance against Zelenskyy and a tool of political competition. It is not about protecting the rights of Ukrainians or democratic institutions. It is not in service of the idea of fair elections in which all Ukrainians would have not only the right to vote for Fedorov or Zelenskyy (or Poroshenko) but also the right to stand as candidates.

Around one million Ukrainians serve in Ukraine's Armed Forces. Do those who are sacrificing their lives for our future have the right to stand for election? Or do they only have the right to vote for those who are not prepared to sacrifice their lives for our future?

How would service personnel stand down from duty to take part in an election campaign as candidates in presidential, parliamentary, and local elections? How would the substance of elections be guaranteed under current conditions?

Elections without the active participation of military personnel cannot be legitimate in the eyes of Ukrainians, particularly now. In that format, elections fail to fulfil their primary purpose and become a facade.

So why do we Ukrainians need elections?

Before assessing the possibility of holding elections, it is worth asking: what do we actually expect from them? The answer directly shapes the conditions under which they could be held.

Today, the highest political ratings belong to those whose faces voters associate with various successes in the war. Most of them have no vision of the Ukraine they want to see in the future, let alone any understanding of how to get there. And where they do, as Mirror of the Week rightly noted, their strategies present a future for Ukraine that looks suspiciously like the present.

Our political preferences make elections look more like a beauty contest: whose face do we like most? This explains why even Olya Polyakova has a genuine chance.

The point is that all these faces belong to the same system we are dissatisfied with and want to change. Some of them, like Fedorov and Zelenskyy, are even the architects of this system within which they were successful. Can we really expect that changing the faces of this system will change our future for the better? The same can be said of the opposition, which has already had its chances to change the country, lest Poroshenko’s supporters and bots read this article as a manifesto for their leader.

Without a substantive choice, elections become a beauty contest. For a country at war, that luxury would be fatal.

Today, during the active phase of the war, there is no answer to how elections could be held. It is possible that one will be found in the future. But in searching for that answer, the most important thing is not to lose sight of the real purpose of elections: to change our future, not our faces.

Billi-Villi is an analytical media outlet that explains the mechanics of decision-making, the motivations of politicians, hidden interests, and the consequences that are already shaping the situation in the world and in Ukraine today.