NGRNNikita Kravetsky, NGRN Intern
Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election in the United States has created a prospect that had been strongly dismissed by both Ukrainian leadership and society — freezing Russo-Ukrainian war along current frontlines. If this scenario ultimately materializes, the issue of holding general elections — presidential and parliamentary — will become highly relevant again. Regular local elections, scheduled for October 2025, theoretically may be organized on time. However, neither Ukrainian legislation nor the actual situation on the ground allows for comprehensive preparations for this process, as it is associated with a number of challenges, including legislative restrictions, the peculiarities of the electoral system, the need to update legislation, ensuring voters’ rights, and many others.
The first thing that must be clarified is the law. No elections — weather parliamentary, presidential, or local — can be held during martial law, as has been repeatedly emphasized by government officials, citing Article 19 of the Law “On the legal regime of martial law.” The Constitution of Ukraine also prohibits the holding of parliamentary elections during martial law under Article 84, paragraph 4. Therefore, elections can only be held if martial law is lifted. In any case, the elections require a full and comprehensive ceasefire and, most importantly, the absence of any air threats. This should be the primary and indisputable condition for holding elections, which will facilitate preparations for them, reduce costs, decrease the likelihood of fraud, and save the lives of many voters.
It will also be necessary to address the issue of the election timing. Article 20 of the Electoral Code stipulates that the decision to schedule an election the election process of which was terminated or did not begin because of the declaration of martial law shall be made by the respective scheduling entity not later than one month from the date of termination or repeal of martial law. However, the one-month period is objectively not enough due to obvious reasons, including outdated legislation, insufficient funds, damaged infrastructure, internally displaced persons, citizens abroad etc. The legislature has already made progress in addressing this issue, which is embodied in the conclusions of the ninth Jean Monnet Dialogue that recommended holding elections no earlier than six months after the war. Nonetheless, the precise timing of the elections should be based on a thorough evaluation of the war’s aftermath conducted immediately after martial law is lifted, meaning the six-month minimum period might also be subject to revision. At the same time, the threat of a reinvasion will endure amid the freezing of the Russo-Ukrainian war, so planning for the first elections should consider the Russia factor, as well as the fact that Russia may simulate preparations for a reinvasion to disrupt elections and further delegitimize the Ukrainian government.
The sequence of the presidential, parliamentary and local elections must also be determined. Most likely, the government will want to hold all elections simultaneously, including the local ones. The objective is to finally oust the regional elite and save money on the organization. After all, the Central Election Commission has recently estimated that UAH 4.93 billion is needed to prepare and hold local elections alone. In practice, however, this approach may prove too challenging, as some territories may not be ready to hold elections on time due to extensive damage to infrastructure. Restoring the necessary infrastructure for organizing elections and incentivizing people to return to these settlements may take years. In this case, it is possible to hold local elections in phases — at first in settlements that have not been destroyed, and, using the experience of holding elections there, organize the next ones in the restored settlements. Unfortunately, this scenario raises another issue regarding presidential and parliamentary elections: can they be held only after the local election cycle is fully complete, using this experience and ensuring that residents of the restored settlements have the right to vote in the general election, or should they be held as soon as possible, potentially excluding territories to be restored. Taking into account both the priority of renewing the central government and the pressure from the international community, local elections are likely to be held last. The concept of phased local elections will still be relevant.
In this case, the authorities may consider the scenario of simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections, as this approach offers clear benefits: it is cost-effective and more suitable for the voter. On the other hand, this approach introduces several challenges, including different procedural timelines, significant logistical pressures, and, most importantly, the need to update legislation. Despite the increased financial burden, holding elections sequentially provides notable advantages, including streamlining the management of each stage, reducing probability of procedural breaches and manipulations, lowering the risk of judicial appeals. The most effective approach would be to hold parliamentary elections prior to presidential, as this sequence will best comply with the law as well as guarantee the highest levels of transparency, increase the legitimacy of legislature and reduce the intensity of potential conflicts between the president and parliament.
Despite the specific sequence of elections, not all of Ukraine’s territory will be ready for the first electoral cycle due to the large number of destroyed settlements. Therefore, a legislative decision is required to determine which territories will hold the first elections and which will not. Fortunately, we already have precedents for banning elections in certain territories. As for the temporarily occupied territories, the CEC made a necessary decision before the 2014 presidential election, stating that it was impossible to form district election commissions in the occupied territories. Regarding security threats to the government-controlled territories, prior to the 2020 local elections, the CEC decided that local elections could not be held in 18 territorial communities in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts close to the contact line due to security concerns. At the same time, Verkhovna Rada has already made some initial efforts to define the characteristics of territories where elections cannot be held; These are outlined in the draft Law ‘On amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine on establishing the impossibility of organising and holding elections/referendums of Ukrainian citizens in certain territories’. However, it contains provisions that lack clarity. For instance, the draft law stipulates that elections cannot be held if ‘such territories are located within the region bordering the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus’ or if ‘during the last six months, such territories have been shelled by the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus, which resulted in the death and/or injury of civilians’. With these criteria, there are few places where the next elections could be held. Clearly, more precise criteria need to be developed and defined, as a significant restriction on the ability to vote is likely to reduce turnout by several million potential voters. This, in turn would undermine the legitimacy of the newly elected president or deputies. Moreover, it could trigger a wave of criticism from the international community, which may interpret this practice as an attempt to reduce the influence of regions where the population tends to be the least favorably disposed towards the current government.
It is also necessary to decide on the electoral system to be used for the next parliamentary and local elections. The last local elections in 2020 were conducted under a new system — open-list proportional representation. Notably, this system has not yet been applied to parliamentary elections. The conclusions of the ninth Jean Monnet Dialogue propose not only to preserve an open list, but also to abolish the 25% electoral quota. This proposal is reasonable, as it would allow voters to have full control over determining who receives a parliamentary mandate. However, for practical organizational purposes, a closed-list proportional system is a logical choice, as it facilitates the complete formation of parliament even if some territories remain under occupation.
One of the main challenges in preparing and conducting the first post-war elections is to ensure the right to vote for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and citizens living abroad. Additional complications arise from the fact that many individuals do not register at their actual place of residence. Fortunately, the issue of securing voting rights for IDPs is partially addressed by one of the new provisions of the Electoral Code, which provides for the possibility for all voters to vote at the place of actual residence, including in local elections. However, it remains crucial to identify the location of all voters, as the State Register of Voters has been non-operational for over two years since the start of the war. One potential solution is to enable voter registration through the Diia app or directly in the State Voter Register, as this method is both straightforward to implement and efficient for updating missing data. Ensuring the right to vote for Ukrainians abroad presents significant logistical challenges, particularly in organizing polling stations. Under the Electoral Code, expatriates are expected to vote at embassies and consulates, which are recognized as Ukrainian territory under diplomatic protocol. However, the limited number of these diplomatic missions cannot accommodate the voting needs of millions of refugees. Expanding polling stations to other locations is not feasible, as it would conflict with both Ukrainian law and the regulations of host countries. One potential solution is extending voting to two days, covering Saturday and Sunday. Yet, this approach must comply with the Constitution, which mandates that elections take place on a single election day. Resolving this issue would require careful legal adjustments to align with constitutional requirements while addressing practical voting needs.
In this context, it is worth considering the possibility of introducing remote voting methods, which could solve the problem of ensuring the right to vote for both voters abroad and voters in territories where it is impossible to organise elections. Currently, online voting and postal voting are being explored as potential solutions.
Online voting through the Diia system offers clear advantages: it provides convenience for voters, expands access to voting for people with limited mobility, simplifies election administration etc. However, the very concept of digital voting via Diia contradicts the Constitution, namely Article 71, which refers to ‘free secret ballot of citizens’. It is not clear how it can be secret if a voter enters his or her passport details for registration. In addition, the results of online voting are much easier to falsify than the results of physical voting: falsifying 1 digital vote is no different from falsifying a million votes, as it does not require additional resources. Only one person can be involved in such an operation, and this person does not even need to be in Ukraine – an ideal scenario for Russia. While lawmakers cite Estonia’s successful implementation of online voting, they often overlook the failures in other countries, such as Germany, Ireland, and Kenya. At the same time, an independent assessment of Estonia’s online voting system by a group of researchers from the University of Michigan found that there are staggering gaps in procedural and operational security, and the system’s architecture leaves it open to cyberattacks by foreign powers. Finally, digital voting assumes universal access to phones or computers and registration with Diia, which is not yet a reality in Ukraine
Postal voting offers several benefits, making it a viable option for remote voting. It enables independent monitoring, recounts when necessary, and greater transparency in the vote count. Unlike online voting, it does not rely on a complex network of precinct election commissions or require special permission from other countries. However, implementing postal voting comes with significant administrative challenges. Effective coordination would be needed among election authorities, ballot producers, postal services, the MFA, and diplomatic missions. Additionally, the electoral timeline would need adjustments to accommodate this method. Despite these challenges, postal voting could be a practical solution for ensuring participation among large groups of voters. However, its adoption should be preceded by comprehensive public and political discussions, coupled with thorough analysis to address potential risks and build public trust.
Conclusions
1. Planning and preparations for the first post-war elections should be carried out only after martial law is lifted and the security situation in the country is normalised.
2. The specific timing of the elections should be determined after a thorough examination of the security situation and the readiness of the legislation immediately after the lifting of martial law.
3. To organize and conduct the elections, it is essential to update the legislation, particularly regarding the designation of areas where the first post-war elections cannot take place, as well as matters related to election timing, the electoral system to be implemented, the introduction of new voting methods, and more.
4. The use of a closed-list proportional system is a simpler alternative given the freezing of the war on the frontline, and the need to form a full parliament.
5. Holding the elections sequentially rather than simultaneously seems to be a simpler organisational solution to ensure stable governance in the post-war period, guaranteeing a balanced and democratic process of government renewal
6. To ensure the right to vote for voters abroad and people with limited mobility, it is recommended to consider implementation of postal voting.