Anatomy of electoral challenges in a state of uncertainty

Institutional modeling of the post-war transition of power is an important element of the internal political process of preparation for the elections.

There is a conceptual shift in public discourse from the paradigm of postponing elections to finding a balance between the need to renew the democratic mandate and the security imperatives of martial law.

The perception of the newly elected government and its perception in the international arena will depend on the quality of the election process.

Advertising:

In this connection, two important events took place, which directly affect the preparation for the elections.

Restoration of the Registry The first is the restoration from January 1, 2026 of the functioning of the automated information and communication system “State Register of Voters” according to with by resolution No. 73 of the Central Election Commission dated December 23, 2025.

Restoring the functioning of the automated information and communication system “State Register of Voters” will enable active data verificationh and start a large-scale inventory of the electoral resource, under the conditions of a sometimes critical state electoral infrastructure.

By data According to the State Register of Voters, by the end of 2025, the number of voters is 34,191,056. Compared to previous election periods, this number decreased due to military operations and mass population migration. However, official statistics do not fully reflect the scale of forced resettlement: only 1.4 million people have the official status of “removal”, which significantly dissonant with UN data on the number of refugees.

At first glance, this number demonstrates the stability of the electorate, but behind the facade of statistics lies a deep accounting crisis. Millions of citizens are scattered around the world de facto, others de jure registered in destroyed settlements, in the occupied territory or in the combat zone. Hundreds destroyed elections precincts make it necessary to review the map of electoral districts.

The resumption of the Registry is only an attempt to conduct an initial audit of the data, which will probably show an even greater disparity between the registry accounting and the actual state.

It is obvious that the data of 7 million Ukrainians registered in the EU also do not correspond to reality and more real figures leads The representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on human rights noting about 11 million Ukrainians who went abroad and 4.6 million internally displaced persons. The existing system of consular registration covers a very small percentage of voters, and for Ukrainians abroad to become consular accounting is not a priority task in terms of the need for survival.

No one knows for sure where a significant number of voters are today, but the issue of the possibility of their access to participation in the election process is extremely important.

Working group The second important event is the creation of the Working Group for the preparation of comprehensive legislative proposals regarding the specifics of the organization and holding of elections and referenda in a special or post-war period, in accordance with clause 5 Order of the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine dated December 22, 2025 No. 1993.

According to Article 88 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the relevant provisions of the Regulations of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada organizes the work of the Parliament and coordinates the activities of its bodies.

At the same time, the creation of the group by the Order of the Speaker, and not by the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada, somewhat lowers the status of the prepared documents and brings the process out of full parliamentary control. It would be appropriate to ensure transparent quota representation of all factions and a clear mandate approved by voting in the session hall.

Today, the concentration of management positions in Working group representatives of the “Servant of the People” party provide the authorities with full control, at least over the agenda.

The question of forming the staff of the Working Group in modern conditions is also complicated by the fact that a good half of the People’s Deputies are under the pressure of criminal prosecutions by numerous law enforcement agencies, and corruption scandals erupt around parliamentarians and the President’s entourage with unstoppable regularity. At the same time, one cannot but agree with colleagues who express fears that the Constitution of Ukraine does not provide for other options for who should exercise parliamentary functions at the same timeand incapacity of the parliament.

The structural imbalance in the formation of the Working Group may call into question the impartiality of the solutions developed. A significant number of representatives of the law enforcement and defense agencies, the involvement of acting representatives of the judicial and executive authorities, which directly violates the principle of separation of powers, and in some places creates a precedent when “arbiters” and “controllers” write rules that they themselves will later interpret.

The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) in its conclusions noted that judges should refrain from participating in political working groups that develop norms that may later become the subject of judicial review, and also question their impartiality.

A broad discussion of the draft law cannot be opposed to the goal of the activities of the judicial and executive authorities.

The first two meetings of the Working Group have already shown that there is a risk of political expediency dominating over legal certainty.

This trend is already observed in Resolution No. 1 of the Central Election Commission dated January 7, 2026, which formalized its own vision of the election process in the form of a draft special law. It seems that instead of promoting the expression of will and the declared goal of the unification of procedures, the proposed document contains a number of controversial novelties that have signs of discrimination, the introduction of additional administrative barriers and new criteria for “filtering” candidates, which actually narrow the constitutional scope of the passive right to vote. After all, the selective admission of citizens to the political process directly contradicts international standards of equality of electoral rights.

Mandate of the group formulated as the development of legislation for a “special period”that contains a legal conflict between special legislation and the Constitution of Ukraine. An attempt is being made to introduce the concept of “special period” as a euphemism for softening the martial law regime in order to hold elections. However, any electoral procedures during the legal regime of martial law are unconstitutional. Even under the condition of political expediency, special legislation cannot replace the constitutional prerequisite of ending martial law as a necessary condition of the electoral process. Therefore, preventing a vacuum of legitimacy is a priority task of the next elections.

A key feature of the group’s mandate is development legislation for a specific case which one will have a one-time application with extraordinary norms. The first expectations for the development of the project in a short period of time turned out to be impossible. From both political and legal points of view, holding “quick” elections is impossible. Legitimacy is maintained through adherence to procedures, legal certainty, constitutionality, not through the fact of voting.

For the opposition, the Working Group acts as a mechanism to prevent potential usurpation of power through the use of an administrative resource, the “United Marathon” and the “Action” platform, with the aim of consolidating political power. For the authorities, it is a tool for sharing responsibility with the involved public and leveling critical remarks from political partners.

The work of the Working Group does not take place in a vacuum. Ukraine is under strong pressure from internal and external factors, which are often mutually exclusive.

On the one hand, European countries see in the elections the need to renew the mandate, to confirm the democratic image, but do not take into account all the organizational and security risks of holding them during the war. On the other hand, individual parliamentarians point to the inadmissibility of holding elections under the pressure of international partners.

So the Ukrainian authorities are forced to balance between the desire to satisfy partners and the understanding of the catastrophic consequences of premature races.

We hope that the Working Group at this stage will be able to at least systematize all the challenges that have formed today, and their structuring in working groups will be an attempt to find adequate solutions, including taking into account the positions and recommendations of the Venice Commission and the European Court of Human Rights.

Therefore, posing these questions should become the foundation for their further resolution and transformation into a law-making process.

***

It is undeniable that elections are a fundamental issue of state building.

The problems of the upcoming elections cannot even be outlined in one study, but already today it is becoming clear that they will not be solved by making simple decisions, in particular, the discussion is already going around:

• reconstruction of the architecture of the State Register of Voters;
• registration of migration (both internal and external) and the creation of mechanisms for voting by place of residence without changing the electoral address, or a simplified procedure for its change;
• disagreements about online voting and ensuring the secrecy of voting, which update other questions:
• the impossibility of opening thousands of stations abroad;
• ensuring the electoral rights of at least a third of the electorate with outdated data in the Register;
• public trust in digital systems and the risk of creating a “controlled electoral environment”;
• how to prevent bribery of voters, administrative, family and other forms of coercion, in particular in military units, in occupied territories and in places of deprivation of liberty;
• the institute of “electoral lustration” and the possibility to participate in the election process of politicians subject to sanctions;
• ensuring equal conditions for military and civilians and avoiding politicization of the army;
• transparency of funding of political forces, etc.

This is a far from complete list of issues, chief among which is willingness to compromise. The post-war elections will be the most expensive and the most complex administrative and political project in the history of independent Ukraine, and there are obviously no simple solutions.

Election rules should be the result of broad consensus, not the product of the political expediency of one power. Otherwise, hasty elections will not be an act of restoration of democracy, but a catalyst for internal destabilization.

In addition, any election modelwhich will not be based on a constitutionally agreed consensus, carries a systemic risk of delegitimization both at the national and international levels.

Volodymyr Bogatyrlawyer, honored lawyer of Ukraine

A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.