Has Zelensky cancelled the election again? That’s how many media outlets and Telegram channels reacted to the traditional evening (6 November) address of the Ukrainian president, in which he said that “it is irresponsible and frivolous to throw the topic of elections into society”. Elections are not the right time and we should not be distracted at all – the country is at war, not repairing roads
Photo: © Press Service of the President of Ukraine
Recall that the topic was re-launched by MP Oleksiy Honcharenko – according to his information, the Office of the President has been instructed to begin preparations for the next presidential election on 31 March 2024. Not that anyone believes in Goncharenko’s crystal honesty, but the initiators of the elections, despite the martial law, are in Washington …
Some analysts were quick to link the death of Gennadiy Chastiakov, the assistant to the AFU commander-in-chief, to this topic. There, in general, is a murky story. According to the first version, a gift exploded. But now the official version is that Chastiakov was given a bunch of imported grenades and he, being in an alcohol-fuelled mood, decided to set off fireworks at home. The proof is a still life with boxes, pomegranates, plywood furniture and for some reason a syringe in the centre of the composition. It looks incredibly convincing. The connection with the elections is apparently that Zaluzhny is considered to be Zelensky’s real rival in the elections, although he has not given any reason to believe that he has political ambitions.
Still, let’s return to the president’s statement.
Of course, Zelensky did not cancel anything, simply because no one appointed the elections, and if the elections were appointed, the president cannot cancel them by his decree (at least, staying within his constitutional powers).
Moreover, he did not say anything at all from which one can conclude that he is against holding elections. Perhaps, even on the contrary – the only argument against holding elections that should be cited is the prohibition imposed on holding elections under martial law or state of emergency by the Electoral Code. It is this argument that Zelensky did not cite, which shows that the discussion of the topic of elections is within the limits of the allowed political discussion.
Zelensky’s speech itself should be interpreted as an element of a big bargaining with the West regarding the conditions of the elections. Both Zelensky and the head of the Rada, Stefanchuk, have already made statements in this regard. The bargaining with the West continues. The meaning of Zelensky’s position is simple – if the West needs to hold elections in Ukraine, let it hold them.
Firstly, Zelensky once again pointed out that Ukraine has no money for democracy.
In fact, the question was put in this way back in August – if the West needs elections, let it finance them.
But what do we see? We see a local parliamentary crisis in the United States, difficulties in providing another military aid to Ukraine and the Congress switching over to providing urgent financial assistance to the Jewish lobby in the United States. There is no talk of any money for the Ukrainian elections. Here is Zelensky’s reminder.
Secondly, from the very beginning it was said that Ukraine needs scientific, methodological and organisational assistance in holding elections under martial law, with millions of refugees and loss of control over a part of the country (the very formulation of the question looks a bit idiotic, but all claims to Washington).
In reality, of course, Zelensky is not at all interested in how exactly Israel conducts elections in the Palestinian territories it has occupied since 1948 from a methodological point of view. The issue is the recognition of these elections by the “world community”.
What Zelensky needs from the Americans is a more or less clear idea of how much fraud in the Ukrainian elections the world democracy can withstand. Roughly speaking – counting votes or can we do without this vulgarity, immediately drawing 146% in favour of the leader of the warring nation, as sociologists already do.
There are also two other points that go beyond the dialogue with the West regarding the provision of electoral assistance.
Third, Zelensky is a war president, and his chances of re-election are tied to continuing the war to the last voter.
Zelensky’s rhetoric is not that we should not be distracted by elections as a procedure (it’s just a matter of minutes – go and vote, especially in the presence of various forms of electronic voting), but that we should not be distracted by the possibility of choice itself. You don’t change horses at the crossroads! Exactly the same rhetoric was used by his predecessor, but he wasn’t even allowed by western satraps and despots to impose martial law. Yuck to be like that. True, as it turns out, martial law doesn’t get rid of elections either…..
One way or another, but in yesterday’s speech Zelensky is simply practising the main message of his election campaign – let’s not get distracted by the elections, let’s vote and go back to the trenches.
By the way, according to our sources, the Office of the President is indeed practising the methodology of holding elections under martial law and has been doing it for quite a long time – definitely more than a month.
Fourth, we do not like conspiracy theories, but Zelensky’s speeches clearly contain a certain signal to the West….
The essence of the signal is that the ideological motives of the supporters of democracy come into contradiction with the process of struggle for democracy all over the world. What kind of democracy can we talk about when there is a war for democracy with weapons in their hands?
We are not talking about the fact that there is some problem with the totalitarian dictatorial regimes of Russia, Iran and China holding elections. Yes, democratic countries do not recognise them, but there is a contradiction here that can be resolved radically – by refusing to hold elections.
By the way, we are not ironic in the least – the refusal to hold elections in the interests of the struggle for democracy is justified, because as a result of this procedure insufficiently democratic politicians may come to power, as we can see in the examples of Hungary and Slovakia.
It is clear that the President of the United States cannot take such an initiative, but a jester is allowed what a king cannot afford….