Yes it is. And a democracy under (quite literal) attack by hostile forces.
Ukraine does have its flaws, with the influence of the oligarchs being a major one, but to not consider it a democracy would just be silly.
Ukraine does have its flaws, with the influence of the oligarchs being a major one, but to not consider it a democracy would just be silly.
Its literally part of there constitution that they don't have elections whilst they are at war, and from a practical standpoint how would it even work for territories on the front line or under occupation?.
UK paused elections for 5-6 years during an existential war. Ukraine is currently fighting an existential war.
It’s very likely that all continental European democracies also would have voluntarily suspended elections, but they were occupied by the German Nazi government and not given a choice.
Finland, another democracy, also decided not to have their people vote for a new president in 1940 due to WW2. They also postponed their 1943 parliamentary elections.
> Due to the lingering threat of another war and the Karelian refugees' dispersal throughout Finland, regular presidential elections were cancelled, and instead the two hundred and eighty eight 1937 presidential electors were summoned to select a new President.
Also I need more context on how “election security in the US” translates to “securely holding an election in occupied Ukraine”. I’m not up-to-date on the specific developments in the USA and also have no idea how they would translate over in Ukraine. I need you to help me understand what you are saying there (with specifics) enumerating which “new election security measures” you are talking about. All I’m aware of is an increase in voter ID requirements. And I’m not sure how that would help the areas of Ukraine who are not free to receive mail or even establish a drop box voting center.
2) The Ukrainian Constitution explicitly shuts down elections during wartime by default. It would be more legally challenging to have one, than to not have one.