The Ukrainian Supreme Radar (Parliament) has passed a resolution by an overwhelming majority to postpone local elections scheduled for the end of October and extend the term of office of existing local officials until the end of the order.
There were 308 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and only 1 abstention. Such a voting result is almost unimaginable in ordinary times, but in today's Ukraine, it has become a portrayal of "necessary measures in wartime."
Ukrainian Councillor Zhelezniak announced succinctly on social media after the vote: "Simply put, there will be no local elections in October."
The postponed local elections involve local councils and mayors at all levels in Ukraine. The resolution clearly stipulates that current local officials will remain in office and perform their duties until martial law is lifted.
Delayed elections
There is a paragraph in the resolution that is particularly striking, saying that because the country is now in a state of war, the election operation can't be carried out in practice.
This passage actually shifted the responsibility for postponing the election to Russia. Not surprisingly, Russia protested.
Ukraine’s armistice and general mobilization order has been in place for four years since the first time the conflict broke out.
Under the order, the Ukrainian government has the power to impose a day-to-day ban, restrict the movement of civilians and recruit men of age to serve in the military, according to data from the Ministry of Defense, the total mobilization order has recalled more than 1.5 million.
Economic pressure and public grievances brought about by long-term mobilization have intensified, and conscription protests have even occurred in some areas.
President Zelensky had submitted a bill to parliament aimed at restoring the independent functioning powers of the National Anti-Corruption Office and the Office of the Anti-Corruption Special Prosecutor, stressing that this would “secure law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies from Russian interference.”
His term officially expired in May last year, and he was scheduled for elections in March last year, but the election was postponed indefinitely due to the war.
Disputes and discussions
Zelensky insisted that "elections could not be held during the period in force of the statute" and that this position sparked debates at home and abroad about the legitimacy of his powers.
The Russian side reacted strongly, saying that Zelensky had "lost his legitimacy" and accused him of "refusing to hold elections in order to seize power."
Russian officials even claimed that any peace agreement signed by the Zelensky government could be invalidated due to objections from the future new government in Kiev.
Holding elections in times of war does face great challenges. National security concerns bear the brunt-election campaigns can be targeted by military attacks, and polling stations where voters gather are even more vulnerable.
Zelensky said that he could resign as soon as the war ended and no longer hold the presidency, but that he would continue to exercise the presidency until the end of the war in accordance with the sacred rights conferred by the Constitution.
Russia cannot give up the four states of Uzbekistan and Crimea, which have already been voted to join the federation, nor will Ukraine give up the five regions, and the two countries must continue to fight until one side lies on the ground and does not rise again.
About one-third of Ukraine’s population is still displaced, domestic voters are fleeing their homes, and the arrangements for refugees abroad are complicated, all posing serious challenges to election fairness.
When financial, human and security resources are extremely tight, the answer is self-evident whether to give priority to ensuring war or organizing elections.
Moreover, under the state of martial law, it is difficult to guarantee the necessary conditions for elections such as * and freedom of assembly, and election activities cannot be carried out freely, which greatly reduces the fairness of elections.
The postponement of Ukrainian elections has triggered different reactions in the international community. The European Union and the United States have expressed a certain degree of understanding of this, believing that "it is reasonable to postpone elections under special wartime circumstances".
They acknowledged that “protecting national security is a priority.”
However, some countries are worried that "this move will become a precedent for undermining the * system." If the Ukrainian * mechanism stagnates for a long time, it may affect the support of some countries.
Russia, on the other hand, has taken full advantage of the article, questioning the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government, and attempting to portray Ukraine on international scenes as a “undemocratic” country.
Ukrainian attitude towards the continuous postponement of elections is not monolithic. Opposition voices believe that "long-term concentration of power may breed corruption and arbitrary decision-making, and damage the foundation of *".
Many people are worried that "officials who serve for a long time will easily deviate from public opinion and it will be difficult to effectively solve people's livelihood problems."
According to Ukraine's Constitution, Zelensky does have the right to do so, and in fact members of the Verkhovna Rada also expressed their approval.
Regardless of whether they really supported it, at least they voted in favor, which legalized the postponement of the election.
That is to say, even if Ukraine tried Zelensky after the war, it would not be one of his charges, after all, he fully followed procedural justice.
Kiev, Ukraine and the World
Meanwhile, the wartime Ukrainian society remains vibrant, and in August this year Zelensky unexpectedly announced that it would allow men under 22 years of age to leave the country, the first easing of the mobilization policy in three years.
This decision is seen as a concession to cope with domestic social pressure, but it also has disadvantages. After all, the departure of some personnel may lead to the loss of troops, and Ukraine has reached the point where its troops are exhausted, so much so that it is necessary to arrest people as soldiers.
As the war enters its fourth year, social exhaustion in Ukraine has intensified, and public support for "universal participation in the war" has declined. This may be a factor that the government has to consider.
The postponement of elections is not a Ukrainian original, and there have been many similar events in history, with Britain postponing elections for ten years during World War II, the last election being held in 1935, the next until the end of the war in 1945.
Although the United States continued to hold elections in wartime, the presidential election in the Civil War in 1864 and the election in World War II in 1944 were held as usual, it also faced discussions about whether it should be postponed.
Especially in World War II, President Roosevelt served as president for four terms in one go because of the postponement of the election, and eventually died in the line of duty.
Contemporary international law does not have uniform provisions on wartime elections, but the European Convention on Human Rights allows derogations from certain rights in times of war or public emergency, which may include the right to vote.
The key difference is that Ukraine's situation is exposed to foreign aggression rather than internal conflict, which complicates its situation.
Is it more important to adhere to democratic processes or is it more urgent to concentrate on the right to survive?
The war has changed everything, including the pace of democracy, Ukraine under artillery, is exploring a way to safeguard democracy in its survival, and the resolution clearly states that once the conflict ends, a new local election plan will be formulated in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution and electoral law.
History tells us that * sometimes had to pause its breathing, but it was important that it was able to wake up again at the right moment.
Reference source:
Zelensky made a clear statement — 2025-09-26 National Party Media Information Public Platform