Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6041
Should elections be held in Ukraine during the war?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Glad to be here. Let's begin.
Holding elections during wartime is impossible for several reasons:
Security Concerns
- Russian attacks make elections unsafe. Constant Russian drone and missile strikes pose a serious threat. This means that polling stations must have shelters capable of accommodating a large number of people. I am certain that Russia will continue its drone terror during the elections (even though, ironically, elections in Ukraine are in Russia’s interest—but we'll get to that later).
Logistical and Financial Challenges
- Elections require resources that Ukraine cannot afford. Organizing elections demands significant financial resources. Ukraine is at war, and every available resource should be directed toward the military effort.
- Millions of Ukrainians won’t be able to vote. How will soldiers and displaced Ukrainians vote? A significant portion of the population will be unable to participate. While overseas polling stations could be arranged for those who fled the country, what about the military personnel on the front lines?
Political Manipulation
- Russia wants elections to destabilize Ukraine. These elections play into Russia’s hands by destabilizing Ukraine from within. They would distract the government with electoral campaigns and political disputes that serve no real purpose.Russia has used political chaos as a weapon for years. Their goal is not just to push their preferred candidate into power but, at the very least, to sow chaos within Ukraine—a tactic they have employed for years.
Hello, I'd like to show you the way you can solve the problems that you mentioned earlier.
Security Concerns
Holding elections during wartime carries risks, but every democracy has faced challenges during elections. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan held elections under active security threats, proving it is possible. If they managed, Ukraine can too.
You pointed out the insecurity of polling stations, but polling stations are not the only way to vote. Ukraine can implement digital voting, military voting, and secure embassy voting for displaced citizens. Additionally, polling stations can be fortified with EU assistance.
Russia is already attacking civilians daily. Holding elections won’t make things worse, but not holding elections would weaken Ukraine’s democracy, playing directly into Russia’s hands.
Logistical & Financial Challenges
The claim is totally false; Ukraine cannot afford to hold an election. If anything, during the war Ukraine received more than $200 billion from the EU and U.S. If one can fund warfare then they could well fund free and fair elections.
The cost of elections is just a fraction of this aid—hundreds of millions at most. Given that Ukraine’s allies want it to remain a strong democracy, they will help finance the elections.
Furthermore, not every resource should be spent solely on war. Running a country requires governance, legitimacy, and democracy. If elections are postponed indefinitely, Ukraine’s internal stability will erode, which is a bigger long-term risk.
Political Destabilization
It is true that Russia would like to destabilize Ukraine, but elections are not going to do that. In fact, holding elections will strengthen political stability and unity.
Polls indicate 63% of Ukrainians support Zelensky. This means the political landscape in Ukraine is already stable. There is no need for major campaigns or political infighting-the election will simply confirm legitimacy rather than cause division.
I will mention the 2014 invasion as example, when Russia intervened after its preferred candidate lost. However, today’s situation is completely different—Ukraine is already at war. There is no further political leverage for Russia to exploit. At this point, avoiding elections is more dangerous than holding them.
Finally, no true democracy avoids elections out of fear. Ukraine must proceed with elections to prove its strength and resilience. Postponing them would send the wrong message to both its people and its allies.
Afghan election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Afghan_presidential_election
The approval poll reported by Kyiv Independent: https://kyivindependent.com/63-of-ukrainians-approve-zelensky-as-president-poll-shows/
The total aid for Ukraine researched by BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
One thing to mind is that both of these reports are made by medias and they can be unreliable and therefore I recommend you to see the official documents for clear numbers.
Round 2
I have carefully read your arguments and here is what:
1. The comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan is incorrect
The war in Ukraine has a much higher intensity, and combat operations take place over a much wider territory. In Iraq and Afghanistan, elections were held with the participation of international military missions that controlled the situation. In Ukraine, no external force will ensure election security, and the fighting is occurring under much more complex conditions.
2. Digital voting is an open door for Russian interference
Any online voting system requires strong security, and in wartime, Ukraine is a prime target for Russian cyberattacks. The experience of other countries shows that even in peacetime, this poses risks—Norway and Switzerland abandoned digital voting due to security concerns. Implementing such a system now would only create new opportunities for Russian manipulation.
3. Mass elections = mass gatherings
You say elections "won't make the situation worse" because Russia is already attacking civilians daily. However, elections mean large gatherings of people in specific locations, making them perfect targets for Russian missile strikes.
4. Financial support
The argument about "$200 billion in aid" is misleading. Most of this money is military assistance in the form of equipment, not "cash" that can be spent on elections. Additionally, a significant portion of this sum remained in donor countries in the form of contracts for arms production. During wartime, diverting funds from the military only benefits Russia.
5. Elections always create division, not unity
The opponent claims that elections "will strengthen unity." In reality, no election unites society. A clear example is the U.S. in 2020, when the Trump vs. Biden election resulted in the storming of the Capitol. In Ukraine, elections have always been accompanied by conflicts, and during war, they can deepen divisions even further.
6. If the political situation is stable, why hold elections?
If 63% of Ukrainians support the current president, then his legitimacy is not in question. Holding elections will not change anything but will introduce risks.
7. Misinterpreting 2014
In 2014, there were no elections—there was the Maidan, which removed Yanukovych. Russia used this moment to invade. However, the scale of the war back then was much smaller. Now, Russia’s aggression is an open full-scale war, not masked by any so-called "people’s will."
Moreover, one of the reasons for Russia’s success in Crimea and Donbas was that Ukraine was left without leadership and could not effectively respond to aggression. The absence of a clear political structure and chaos in governance allowed Russia to take Crimea almost without a fight and ignite war in Donbas. This is further proof that changing leadership in a crisis period only weakens the state against external threats.
8. The false claim that "No real democracy cancels elections out of fear"
Example: the United Kingdom. During World War II, the country held no parliamentary elections from 1935 to 1945. This did not mean that Britain ceased to be a democracy—it simply recognized that, in wartime, changing leadership could weaken the state. No one claimed that Britain became a dictatorship because of this.
Ukraine is in a similar situation now: the war continues, and a change in leadership could only destabilize the country.
Ukraine's Presidential Elections Amid War: Challenges and Public Opinion
Yes, I have also read your argument very carefully, and I would like to propose these facts to address those concerns.
The Comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan
The wiki says:
As of 2024, Russia occupies almost 20% of Ukraine and about 3 to 3.5 million Ukrainians are estimated to be living under occupation
First, it is important to accept that the Ukraine-Russia conflict is more intense than Iraq and Afghanistan, and those countries were helped by NATO forces. However, the Ukrainian army is fighting the war alone without NATO forces and has managed to control almost 80 percent of Ukraine. So, it is highly possible for Ukraine to hold elections, even without EU assistance.
Digital Voting
Although it is true that digital voting or e-voting can be vulnerable to cyberattacks, it is highly secure with the help of allies' technological expertise. Ukraine is already standing strong against Russian cyberattacks, and nothing significant has damaged Ukraine yet. You also presented Norway and Switzerland as examples, and I must say they are great examples. The difference is that these countries are in peacetime, but Ukraine is in a state of war. In peaceful countries, it is more secure to vote physically, as it is peacetime. However, voting digitally is more secure in Ukraine's situation. This fact really highlights the reason to empower digital voting or e-voting, as citizens could vote from the internet without having to go outside. Lastly, Ukraine is receiving support from its allies, and I believe e-voting will be a success.
Switzerland restarted using e-voting after making it more secure.
Mass Elections ≠ Mass Gatherings
The election will not gather people together and make them "perfect targets" for Russia.
- It is a war crime to attack civilians.
- The Ukrainian government can deploy tactics to protect the voters:
- Scattered stations
- Staged voting across the country
- Delayed voting
- E-voting or digital voting (the safest option)As I proposed earlier, polling stations and digital voting can be fortified with the help of allies.
- Scattered stations
Financial Support
No, it is not misleading to say Ukraine received 200 billion in aid because I argue that if allies are willing to spend that amount, they can also fund the election.
Let me clarify the information I used:
- Ukraine received more than 200 billion dollars worth of aid from the US, EU, and other countries.
- Most of this was in the form of military equipment and contracts.
- However, Ukraine also received 40 billion dollars in cash as economic support.
- The election won't cost more than hundreds of millions of dollars, and Ukraine should hold the election.
Political Stability
Elections do not create division—division already exists in every country. The difference is how a country handles it. Ukraine is not the U.S.; Ukrainian society is already united against Russia. In fact, 63% of Ukrainians support Zelensky, meaning there is no major political crisis. Holding elections will confirm Ukraine’s unity, not weaken it.
Why Hold Elections if 63% of Ukrainians Support the Current President?
A media outlet from Ukraine reported that 63% of Ukrainians support the current president.
This does not mean:
- It is as legal as an election
- The allies and the world can observe it and accept it
- The people will fully agree on itThe US and its allies are looking for a "legitimate" election, not just a news report.So, holding elections will help Ukraine gain the trust of the US and secure more aid.
Misinterpreting 2014
My opponent says:
In 2014, there were no elections—there was the Maidan, which removed Yanukovych.
You claim there were no elections in 2014, but that is incorrect. Ukraine held a presidential election on May 25, 2014, after Yanukovych fled. This election was internationally recognized as legitimate, despite the ongoing conflict. If Ukraine could hold elections during the 2014 crisis, it can do so now.
If you say elections destabilized Ukraine in 2014, why did international observers approve them? And why did they help stabilize the country by electing a legitimate leader?
In fact, Ukraine has already proven that it can hold elections during conflict—not just once, but twice. Ukraine held a presidential election in 2014 and local elections in 2015, despite ongoing Russian aggression. Both elections were internationally recognized, showing that war does not stop democracy.
No Real Democracy Cancels Elections Out of Fear
The UK's decision during WWII was a unique case, not a universal rule. Ukraine is a different country with a different political system and different wartime conditions. The legitimacy of Ukraine’s leadership depends on elections, and delaying them indefinitely could weaken democracy.
If skipping elections was always the right move during war, why did the U.S. hold elections in 1864 during the Civil War? Why did Ukraine hold elections in 2014 and 2015 while already fighting Russia?
In conclusion, holding elections in Ukraine is important for keeping democracy strong. My opponent says elections are risky, but not having them is an even bigger risk. It could make the government look weak and give Russia an advantage. Ukraine has already held elections during conflict in 2014 and 2015. With help from allies and good security, elections can still happen. A real democracy does not stop because of war but it keeps going no matter what.
Round 3
Unfortunately, I have to admit a technical defeat. Due to lack of time. I would have continued to debate with my opponent, but unfortunately the circumstances have turned out this way.
First, I want to thank you for participating in the debate. Since you have not been able to present your final argument, I don't want to take advantage of the situation. Therefore, I will also end my argument here.