Russia Is Holding an ‘Election,’ Ukraine Is Defending Democracy

This weekend, Russia will hold elections to the State Duma, including in parts of Ukraine it occupies and claims to have annexed. The Kremlin will present the spectacle of voting as evidence of constitutional normality. Yet the contrast with the debate unfolding in Ukraine reveals the difference between holding a ballot and preserving democracy. In Russia, meaningful competition has been extinguished. The Supreme Court removed Yabloko’s federal list from the ballot, excluding the only registered party that opposed the war. The remaining parliamentary parties largely operate within boundaries set by the Kremlin. Russia has not invited observers from the OSCE, whose independent scrutiny it has again chosen to avoid.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. Voting will also be organized on sovereign Ukrainian territory under military occupation. The European Union has already said it will not recognize such “elections” or their results. A ballot does not acquire legitimacy merely because boxes are opened and votes are counted –especially when it is imposed by an occupying power. Ukraine presents a very different picture. Elections remain suspended under martial law because the country is fighting for survival. After his dismissal as defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov called for voting during the war. His proposal was publicly debated and rejected even by organizers of protests that had supported him. Other Topics of Interest Canada-Ukraine 100-Year Partnership: What Does It Mean for Both Countries? Canada has historically been one of Ukraine’s most reliable allies, especially in this war against Russia. That disagreement is not evidence of democratic failure. It is evidence that democratic politics persists under extraordinary pressure. A prominent former minister can challenge the president. Civil society can support him on one issue and oppose him on another. Election authorities, parliamentarians and experts can openly examine how voting should eventually resume. Democracy is not a contest over who can announce an election date first. It would be tempting to conclude that, because Russia is staging an election, Ukraine should quickly hold one too – if only to deny Moscow a propaganda argument. That would be the wrong lesson. Democracy is not a contest over who can announce an election date first. A credible election requires security, political pluralism, independent media, meaningful competition, impartial administration, public scrutiny and the sovereign participation of citizens. Russia is violating these principles while using the rituals of elections to legitimize its war. Ukraine would risk undermining those same principles if it rushed to vote. Millions of citizens are displaced inside the country or abroad. Many are serving in the armed forces. Others live under occupation. Missile and drone attacks would threaten voters and election workers, while campaigning and media access would be profoundly unequal. But postponing elections cannot mean postponing democratic preparation. Emergency powers derive their legitimacy from being exceptional and temporary. Those who exercise them must preserve the conditions for full political competition to return as soon as circumstances genuinely permit. Ukraine’s Central Election Commission and a parliamentary working group have already developed proposals for the first post-war elections. Their technical work should now become part of a broader national discussion involving government and opposition, civil society, the armed forces, local authorities and independent media. That discussion should address the security conditions for voting, the participation of soldiers and citizens abroad, the voter register, campaign finance, media pluralism, voting in territories emerging from occupation and safeguards against Russian interference. Agreement should be sought before an election date is fixed – and before political actors know which arrangements may favor them. Russia’s objective in a future Ukrainian election may not be to secure victory for a preferred candidate. After years of aggression, that may be impossible. It may instead seek to convince different parts of Ukrainian society that the process was manipulated or stolen. Building broad agreement in advance is therefore not simply electoral housekeeping; it is a matter of national security. Europe should reinforce this distinction. It should reject Russia’s illegal voting in occupied Ukraine and support Ukraine in building the conditions for a credible democratic return. EU accession is not only a legislative or economic process. It is also a security project centered on political pluralism, accountable institutions and citizens’ right to choose their leaders freely. Russia is trying to show that an election can legitimize conquest. Ukraine must show that a lawful and temporary postponement, combined with open preparation, can protect democratic sovereignty. The democratic frontline does not begin when an election date is announced. It is already visible today: in Ukraine, through argument, scrutiny and preparation; in Russia, through polling stations opened as political choice is closed. The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post. Matteo MecacciMatteo Mecacci is Director of the newly founded European Policy Institute in Kyiv (EPIK) and a former Director of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw.