From what I understand, the Ukrainian constitution does not allow (national) elections under martial law. It also doesn’t allow amending the constitution under martial law either IIRC, so basically Zelenskyy is president until martial law ends.
Given that it’s allowed by their constitution, you can’t really say it’s illegitimate. You may not like it, but it’s perfectly in line with Ukraine’s laws.
Also, if there’s ever a time to declare martial law, it’s when your country is actively being invaded.
Pretty sure the point is they had to change them to be allowed to continue ruling, whereas Zelenksyy just used the existing laws and constitution as-is.
The Chinese constitution for example was change by Deng Xiaoping, guy right before Xi and then changed back by Xi. Not much of a ‘constitution’.
The point is that you’re taking an arbitrary condition which applies to Russia and China and doesn’t apply to Ukraine. But similar arguments of Zelensky staying in power usin martial law can be made. Zelensky is extremely unpopular in Ukraine currently and would almost certainly lose elections if they were held.
The Chinese constitution for example was change by Deng Xiaoping, guy right before Xi and then changed back by Xi. Not much of a ‘constitution’.
? I can’t tell if you’re saying that Deng Xiaoping was the guy in charge right before Xi (which is just wrong since he died like 30 years ago), or if it was changed by him and the guy before Xi (in which case you could have just named him…), but either way, I’m not sure how this supports your point. Really, all it does is make China’s laws sound arbitrary. In any case, the fact Xi did have to remove the term limits added to the constitution in the 80s is the point.
The point is that you’re taking an arbitrary condition which applies to Russia and China and doesn’t apply to Ukraine. But similar arguments of Zelensky staying in power usin martial law can be made. Zelensky is extremely unpopular in Ukraine currently and would almost certainly lose elections if they were held.
I feel like this is a pointless argument, but using the existing constitution and laws to declare martial law while in a war on your own soil is very different from arbitrarily changing the constitution of your country to allow you to rule forever. If the war ends and he remains in power, then it will be a different story.
If we are going for the Carl Schmitt approach, then yes, China’s constitution has been amended legitimately. As for Ukraine, it is difficult to see how that country should not been under martial law since it has been in a hot war since early 2022. Also, how do you organise free and open elections in the territories that are being occupied by the imperialist aggressor Russia?
From what I understand, the Ukrainian constitution does not allow (national) elections under martial law. It also doesn’t allow amending the constitution under martial law either IIRC, so basically Zelenskyy is president until martial law ends.
The martial law which he himself declares.
Same schtick different justification.
Given that it’s allowed by their constitution, you can’t really say it’s illegitimate. You may not like it, but it’s perfectly in line with Ukraine’s laws.
Also, if there’s ever a time to declare martial law, it’s when your country is actively being invaded.
Okay cool so Putin and Xi are also legitimate because they were clearly allowed to changed their own laws.
Pretty sure the point is they had to change them to be allowed to continue ruling, whereas Zelenksyy just used the existing laws and constitution as-is.
The Chinese constitution for example was change by Deng Xiaoping, guy right before Xi and then changed back by Xi. Not much of a ‘constitution’.
The point is that you’re taking an arbitrary condition which applies to Russia and China and doesn’t apply to Ukraine. But similar arguments of Zelensky staying in power usin martial law can be made. Zelensky is extremely unpopular in Ukraine currently and would almost certainly lose elections if they were held.
? I can’t tell if you’re saying that Deng Xiaoping was the guy in charge right before Xi (which is just wrong since he died like 30 years ago), or if it was changed by him and the guy before Xi (in which case you could have just named him…), but either way, I’m not sure how this supports your point. Really, all it does is make China’s laws sound arbitrary. In any case, the fact Xi did have to remove the term limits added to the constitution in the 80s is the point.
I feel like this is a pointless argument, but using the existing constitution and laws to declare martial law while in a war on your own soil is very different from arbitrarily changing the constitution of your country to allow you to rule forever. If the war ends and he remains in power, then it will be a different story.
If we are going for the Carl Schmitt approach, then yes, China’s constitution has been amended legitimately. As for Ukraine, it is difficult to see how that country should not been under martial law since it has been in a hot war since early 2022. Also, how do you organise free and open elections in the territories that are being occupied by the imperialist aggressor Russia?
I’m ashamed to admit that it took me this long down the thread, to realize that this is a lemmy.ml community.
Really? it wasn’t your cognitive dissonance?