How has it tightened its grip on power? I’m genuinely asking, I don’t know.
Lincoln did the same thing, for what it’s worth, arresting people who published secessionist newspapers and detaining civilians without due process who he said were “dangerous to the public safety.” What he said about it was that, in war people get murdered on a massive scale, property gets stolen, cities burn, all the rules go out the window. If that’s what we’re doing, we might as well do it and try to win.
“Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?”
I’m not saying I agree as pertains to Ukraine. Like I said I really don’t know what has been happening with them. Ukraine has famously had a pretty corrupt government as all the post-Soviet states tended to do, and I am in favor of the upsetting story of them trying to replace it with something decent, all the while at the mercy of massive powers on all sides which don’t have their best interests at heart.
War obviously poses challenges and some changes may be necessary but Lincoln did hold elections during the civil war and I believe it is perhaps the most important time for people’s voices to be heard, despite the challenges. The war is primarily confined to eastern Ukraine so I see no practical reason elections could not be held. Other than that they may not be in the interests of ruling powers.
Power always corrupts and wartime powers are no different.
War is not confined to eastern regions, it never was, even in 2014.
Elections and freedom of speech, also freedom of movement, freedom of association and a lot of other freedoms are suspended for the duration of martial law being in effect, that’s part of the law. Changes to constitution, referendums, strikes are prohibited as well. Law #389-vii (may 12, 2015) itself is powered by Constitution (article 64 part 2 mentions what freedoms can’t be suspended during martial law). All previous iterations of the law starting from 2000, I think, have ± same conditions and change mostly in wording.
Civil war was civil as in not against outside threat and it wasn’t an existential threat. Stated r*ssian goals include genocide.
I never said it was completely confined there, just primarily. I think contextually it should be clear that what I mean is that war has not affected the government or society away from the front so dramatically that elections could not be held.
I am aware of the law. But I think the law is wrong. Ukraine has never been a particularly democratic country so its laws were a product of that context, even before the war. They open the door to autocracy and should be changed.
Your last point isn’t relevant. They could and still should hold elections regardless of Russias intentions which they have no ability to bring about outside of their area of control.
You do understand law as a concept? Especially constitution as a basic law that can’t be violated unless every other law becomes invalid?
As for not being particularly democratic that’s either extremely uninformed or completely detached view. I would love to hear what is not particularly democratic about ukrainian state.
As for president and safety council being autocratic, and holding dictatorial power, that is the whole point of martial law and any kind of emergency powers that granted to elected or not elected officials during emergency.
I acknowledge that laws exist. I don’t respect or follow the bad ones. The laws were written, as in many countries, to prevent self governance by the people. This is always and everywhere the greatest fear of the powerful.
Your comment is self-contradictory. A dictatorship that governs with emergency powers and no elections is in no way democratic.
It’s clear from your comment that you think this kind of dictatorship is a good idea. I think you should defend this idea instead of acting confused about what I mean when you clearly understand what I’m talking about here.
I sincerely doubt that you don’t follow “bad” laws. Dictatorial powers are granted as part of emergency, with conditions that must be met. Conditions that were explained earlier, again, you can’t ignore laws like your country constitution (if there is one) unless the next step planned is dissolution of your nation.
My personal opinion on granting or not granting whatever powers are irrelevant. That’s how laws work.
Your claims of there being a lack of democracy weren’t explained, enlighten me.
I can’t understand your position on elections because you have a very warped idea what war means. At best there are multiple air raid alerts in every big city, at best every day hundreds of people are being either killed or being injured. Every industry is either completely destroyed or partially destroyed, absolute majority of critical infrastructure objects are at least partially destroyed. At least a million people are in armed forces with more than a half being on the front lines, they can’t drop everything and go vote.
Ballistic missile can arrive in 1-2 minutes after being detected, some can in less then a 1, and public events are usual r*ssian targets, you don’t want your election start with multiple places being struck with ballistic missisles with cluster munition. Can you explain how to hold elections in this situation, the logistics of the operation and a purpose?
Some bad laws I obey, some I don’t. Depends on the level of enforcement. But I’m just an ordinary person, not a leader of government. The rules are quite different for me.
Constitutional law is violated or ignored all the time when it’s convenient to the ruling powers. It’s only when it’s inconvenient to them that it suddenly becomes a sacred institution. But regardless, they could easily get around this issue by pausing martial law during the election, or confining it only to regions of intense fighting.
My claims were explained and substantiated. There are no elections, little press freedom and these restrictions go far beyond the conditions necessary given the situation there. Do you dispute this or do you think these conditions are those of a free and democratic society? I truly don’t know what more you are asking for. Maybe you can be more specific?
Otherwise your comment is an exaggeration of conditions there. Ukrainian industry is rapidly recovering from the initial invasion period (when there was more widespread fighting). Most of the casualties are happening at the front lines, involve soldiers, and will not significantly interfere with elections elsewhere. For soldiers fighting, absentee ballots are widely used in similar situations across the world.
Could Russia target election sites? Perhaps, but much of the world has developed a robust mail-in ballot system as a result of covid, and there is therefore no need to have in person voting if that is impossible. However, at least when I have voted, sites can be split into many small locations such that large gatherings are not needed—I typically see a few dozen people at most when I go to vote. As you can see in this video, such gatherings are safe enough, despite occasional air raids. https://youtu.be/SvTtHc_Gua4. It’s clear that despite some obstacles, Ukraine is perfectly capable of running elections if they wished to. They simply don’t wish to.
The purpose is to give people a voice in the leadership and direction of their country. Many impactful decisions are being made during wartime that may affect their lives greatly, they should have a say in that. It is the same justification for democracy anywhere.
How has it tightened its grip on power? I’m genuinely asking, I don’t know.
Lincoln did the same thing, for what it’s worth, arresting people who published secessionist newspapers and detaining civilians without due process who he said were “dangerous to the public safety.” What he said about it was that, in war people get murdered on a massive scale, property gets stolen, cities burn, all the rules go out the window. If that’s what we’re doing, we might as well do it and try to win.
I’m not saying I agree as pertains to Ukraine. Like I said I really don’t know what has been happening with them. Ukraine has famously had a pretty corrupt government as all the post-Soviet states tended to do, and I am in favor of the upsetting story of them trying to replace it with something decent, all the while at the mercy of massive powers on all sides which don’t have their best interests at heart.
Canceled elections and tamping down freedom of speech: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/world/europe/ukraine-press-freedom.html
War obviously poses challenges and some changes may be necessary but Lincoln did hold elections during the civil war and I believe it is perhaps the most important time for people’s voices to be heard, despite the challenges. The war is primarily confined to eastern Ukraine so I see no practical reason elections could not be held. Other than that they may not be in the interests of ruling powers.
Power always corrupts and wartime powers are no different.
I never said it was completely confined there, just primarily. I think contextually it should be clear that what I mean is that war has not affected the government or society away from the front so dramatically that elections could not be held.
I am aware of the law. But I think the law is wrong. Ukraine has never been a particularly democratic country so its laws were a product of that context, even before the war. They open the door to autocracy and should be changed.
Your last point isn’t relevant. They could and still should hold elections regardless of Russias intentions which they have no ability to bring about outside of their area of control.
You do understand law as a concept? Especially constitution as a basic law that can’t be violated unless every other law becomes invalid?
As for not being particularly democratic that’s either extremely uninformed or completely detached view. I would love to hear what is not particularly democratic about ukrainian state.
As for president and safety council being autocratic, and holding dictatorial power, that is the whole point of martial law and any kind of emergency powers that granted to elected or not elected officials during emergency.
I acknowledge that laws exist. I don’t respect or follow the bad ones. The laws were written, as in many countries, to prevent self governance by the people. This is always and everywhere the greatest fear of the powerful.
Your comment is self-contradictory. A dictatorship that governs with emergency powers and no elections is in no way democratic.
It’s clear from your comment that you think this kind of dictatorship is a good idea. I think you should defend this idea instead of acting confused about what I mean when you clearly understand what I’m talking about here.
I sincerely doubt that you don’t follow “bad” laws. Dictatorial powers are granted as part of emergency, with conditions that must be met. Conditions that were explained earlier, again, you can’t ignore laws like your country constitution (if there is one) unless the next step planned is dissolution of your nation.
My personal opinion on granting or not granting whatever powers are irrelevant. That’s how laws work.
Your claims of there being a lack of democracy weren’t explained, enlighten me. I can’t understand your position on elections because you have a very warped idea what war means. At best there are multiple air raid alerts in every big city, at best every day hundreds of people are being either killed or being injured. Every industry is either completely destroyed or partially destroyed, absolute majority of critical infrastructure objects are at least partially destroyed. At least a million people are in armed forces with more than a half being on the front lines, they can’t drop everything and go vote. Ballistic missile can arrive in 1-2 minutes after being detected, some can in less then a 1, and public events are usual r*ssian targets, you don’t want your election start with multiple places being struck with ballistic missisles with cluster munition. Can you explain how to hold elections in this situation, the logistics of the operation and a purpose?
Some bad laws I obey, some I don’t. Depends on the level of enforcement. But I’m just an ordinary person, not a leader of government. The rules are quite different for me.
Constitutional law is violated or ignored all the time when it’s convenient to the ruling powers. It’s only when it’s inconvenient to them that it suddenly becomes a sacred institution. But regardless, they could easily get around this issue by pausing martial law during the election, or confining it only to regions of intense fighting.
My claims were explained and substantiated. There are no elections, little press freedom and these restrictions go far beyond the conditions necessary given the situation there. Do you dispute this or do you think these conditions are those of a free and democratic society? I truly don’t know what more you are asking for. Maybe you can be more specific?
Otherwise your comment is an exaggeration of conditions there. Ukrainian industry is rapidly recovering from the initial invasion period (when there was more widespread fighting). Most of the casualties are happening at the front lines, involve soldiers, and will not significantly interfere with elections elsewhere. For soldiers fighting, absentee ballots are widely used in similar situations across the world.
Could Russia target election sites? Perhaps, but much of the world has developed a robust mail-in ballot system as a result of covid, and there is therefore no need to have in person voting if that is impossible. However, at least when I have voted, sites can be split into many small locations such that large gatherings are not needed—I typically see a few dozen people at most when I go to vote. As you can see in this video, such gatherings are safe enough, despite occasional air raids. https://youtu.be/SvTtHc_Gua4. It’s clear that despite some obstacles, Ukraine is perfectly capable of running elections if they wished to. They simply don’t wish to.
The purpose is to give people a voice in the leadership and direction of their country. Many impactful decisions are being made during wartime that may affect their lives greatly, they should have a say in that. It is the same justification for democracy anywhere.