The UK’s postponement of its general election during World War II and Ukraine’s postponement of its general election during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict share some similarities but also differ significantly due to their historical contexts, legal frameworks, and practical circumstances. Below is a comparison based on these aspects.
Both the UK during World War II and Ukraine in the current conflict faced existential threats that prioritized national defense over regular political processes. In the UK, the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and subsequent escalation of war led to a focus on unity and resilience against Nazi aggression. Similarly, Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, shifting resources and attention to repelling the aggressor. In both cases, holding elections was seen as a potential distraction from the war effort.
Each country had a legal mechanism to delay elections. In the UK, the government passed the Prolongation of Parliament Act annually from 1940 to 1944, extending the life of the existing Parliament with broad legislative consent. In Ukraine, the constitution and martial law legislation explicitly prohibit elections during a state of emergency or war, a provision enacted in 2015 and applied after the 2022 invasion. These legal frameworks reflect a recognition that wartime conditions undermine the feasibility of democratic exercises.
Both nations faced logistical barriers to conducting elections. During World War II, the UK dealt with millions of displaced citizens, soldiers stationed abroad, and the constant threat of air raids, making a fair and safe vote impractical. Ukraine today contends with millions of refugees, internally displaced people, occupied territories, and ongoing Russian attacks, which would disenfranchise large portions of the electorate and compromise the integrity of any election.
In both cases, postponing elections was partly justified by the need to maintain unity. The UK formed a coalition government in 1940 under Winston Churchill, involving Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals, to avoid divisive campaigning. Ukraine’s leadership, under Volodymyr Zelensky, has similarly emphasized cohesion, with polls showing strong public support (around 80% per the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in 2023) for delaying elections until the war ends.
The UK’s postponement was a deliberate, consensual act by a functioning Parliament. Each year, the coalition government sought and received approval to extend its term, reflecting a democratic process even amid war. In contrast, Ukraine’s postponement stems from an automatic constitutional ban triggered by martial law, declared by Zelensky and upheld by parliamentary consensus in November 2022. While the UK actively chose to delay, Ukraine’s delay is a legal inevitability unless martial law is lifted.
The UK suspended elections for nearly a decade, from 1935 until July 1945, when the war in Europe had concluded with VE Day in May. This long gap was possible because the immediate threat to British soil subsided after the Battle of Britain, though global conflict persisted. Ukraine’s conflict, now in its third year as of February 2025, remains active and unresolved, with no clear end in sight. The UK held its election shortly after victory in Europe, whereas Ukraine’s next election remains contingent on peace, potentially extending the delay indefinitely.
The UK entered World War II with a stable democracy and a sitting Parliament elected in 1935. The postponement preserved an established government, and the 1945 election saw a dramatic shift to Labour despite Churchill’s wartime popularity. Ukraine, however, was due for a parliamentary election in October 2023 and a presidential election in March 2024, both disrupted by the war. Zelensky’s term technically expired in 2024, raising questions about legitimacy that didn’t apply to the UK’s coalition, though his wartime approval ratings remain high.
The UK’s decision faced little domestic or international debate, as evidenced by minimal discussion in Hansard records, reflecting broad acceptance of the necessity. Ukraine’s postponement, however, has drawn scrutiny, particularly from Western figures and Russian propaganda. Some argue it weakens Ukraine’s democratic credentials, despite legal grounding, while Russia claims it delegitimizes Zelensky—a critique absent in the UK’s case due to its unassailable democratic reputation at the time.
The UK, while bombed and rationed, was not invaded or occupied on its home soil during World War II, allowing governance to continue relatively intact. Ukraine faces occupation of roughly 20% of its territory, widespread destruction, and a dispersed population (over 6 million refugees by UNHCR estimates), posing far greater challenges to even planning an election than the UK encountered.
The UK’s precedent suggests that postponing elections during war doesn’t inherently undermine democracy, as it resumed normalcy post-1945 with a landmark Labour victory. Ukraine’s situation, however, is complicated by an ongoing, unresolved conflict and modern expectations of democratic continuity. While the UK’s delay was a strategic choice within a stable system, Ukraine’s is a forced response to chaos, raising concerns about prolonged martial law eroding political freedoms—though public and parliamentary support mitigate this risk so far.
In conclusion, both cases illustrate how war can justify electoral delays, rooted in legal and practical necessity. The UK’s experience was a controlled pause in a resilient democracy, while Ukraine’s is a survival-driven suspension amid unprecedented disruption, highlighting the unique intensity of its current struggle.