Understanding the Legitimacy of President Zelensky in Ukraine

The political landscape in Ukraine has been shaped significantly by the ongoing conflict with Russia, raising questions about the legitimacy of its leadership. Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected president on April 21, 2019, secured a decisive victory against incumbent Petro Poroshenko, garnering over 73 percent of the votes in the runoff election. He was sworn into office a month later, and according to Article 103 of the Ukrainian Constitution, the presidential term is set for five years.

Since the onset of the Russian invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has been under martial law, a condition that has been extended multiple times. Experts in constitutional law assert that the enforcement of martial law justifies the postponement of new elections, allowing both the president and the parliament to remain in office beyond their original term limits. The ongoing debate surrounding the need for elections continues, with a general consensus among the populace to delay such proceedings amid the active conflict. This consensus is largely due to logistical challenges in organizing elections and ensuring voter participation among soldiers and displaced citizens.

Critics of Zelensky, particularly from the Russian government, have attempted to undermine his legitimacy. The Kremlin has portrayed the Ukrainian government as a group of extremists, asserting that Zelensky's rise to power was a result of a coup. This narrative has been echoed by various figures, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, who have questioned Zelensky's status as a legitimate leader, suggesting that he could be sidelined in potential peace negotiations.

Despite these claims, international legal perspectives suggest that Zelensky's continued presidency is supported by established practices in other democracies. For instance, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Oleksij Makejew, pointed out that similar provisions exist in many countries, including Germany, where the Basic Law permits extending the terms of elected representatives during a state of defense.

During World War II, the United Kingdom also suspended elections, a precedent that underscores the acceptability of such measures in times of war. Prominent political leaders, including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have publicly backed Zelensky, asserting that it is reasonable to postpone elections during wartime.

In conclusion, the situation in Ukraine illustrates the complexities of governance during armed conflict. The legitimacy of President Zelensky remains intact under the current constitutional framework, bolstered by international norms and practices observed in other nations facing similar crises. As the conflict continues, the discourse surrounding electoral processes and leadership legitimacy will likely evolve, reflecting the dynamic nature of Ukraine's geopolitical circumstances.