Holding elections during wartime is a rare occurrence. The best example might be the Greek Legislative Elections in 1946, that occurred during – and despite – the Greek Civil War.
It is much more common to postpone elections, as Israel did in 1973, when the Yom Kippur War broke out a few weeks before the scheduled date for voting. Nowadays, we see something similar in Ukraine: parts of the country are occupied by hostile Russian forces, preventing Zelenskyy from holding an election.
But that does not mean that there is no election campaign ongoing: how Zelenskyy and his opposition handles the war is already part of a future election’s campaign, which will happen sooner or later.
Ukraine’s example shows how different politics is during times of war – but in many ways, how similar it is. Let’s zoom in on the complexities of campaigning during wartime.
A political quandary: timing elections amidst conflict
Deciding on the timing for elections during wartime is inherently political. Currently, Ukraine is attempting to answer this difficult question but there seems to be no right answer in politics. Still, Zelenskyy has a clear stance on this. The Ukrainian president said that martial law prevents Ukraine from holding elections, while also deeming it dangerous – after all, Russian rockets continuously kill civilians on Ukrainian territory.
Voters seem to agree with him: a poll late last year showed that 81 percent of Ukrainians are against the idea of holding elections during the war. Of course, the sentiment could change. It might already be changing, along with Zelenskyy’s popularity, which is already happening. The two are intertwined: the less popular the current president is, the more people want to have their say in an election.
That underlines the fact that the first ‘campaign message’ is actually the decision to hold elections. Hold an election too late, and you risk looking like you are afraid of voters. Hold an election too soon, and you risk looking like you jeopardise the war.
Does security trump politics?
Obviously, the most important campaign issue for the current leader is his or her leader’s performance in the ongoing war. If the population believes that the war is justified – for example, it is a defensive war – and their army is winning, the only real question is who could come second in the election.
But if either of these conditions is questioned, new campaign issues pop up: should the army recruit more and more people until it is winning the war? Should it recruit the youngest? The older men? What will they think? What will their mothers or wives think? Will they be inclined to vote for another candidate who is clearly against general mobilisation?
And what if there is a serious concern that the country could lose the war? It could lead to opposition politicians to appear with messages that favour a peace treaty, even with serious concessions. Until the population is under a common, positive ‘psychosis’ of a patriotic war that defends the motherland, the question is not even on the table. But after one, two, three years of relentless war and death, even the most resilient population will ask the question: is it worth it?
These questions illustrate how the war and its related topics trump everything else during a wartime campaign. There is no political debate about the monetary policies to curb inflation; or the exact level of public education’s centralization. There is only war, and it is clearly illustrated by the example of Ukraine.
The question is life and death. On one side, it’s the life and death of the country’s population in an everlasting war – on the other, it’s the life and death of the country, and the need to fight on as long as it is needed.
The technicalities of a wartime campaign
The technicalities of a campaign during war are also fundamentally different.
The first thing that comes to mind is disinformation. While disinfo is increasingly a huge issue in all elections across the West, the wartime enemy has huge incentives to support parties that serve their goals, either through openly supporting the other country, or calling for peace talks while the country is actually winning the war. There is no free and fair election during wartime without doing everything – and more – to stop disinformation from hostile actors.
Digital campaigning could be the ‘winner’ of a war: traditional campaigns could be disrupted due to fears of attacks, which moves the whole campaign online. Virtual town halls and online advertising are much more important in these types of elections.
The diaspora’s role is also much more significant: they can spread campaign messages internationally – or domestically through online campaign tools –, and contribute to fundraising goals.
Another key aspect is the importance of ethical campaigning. Negative ads, tasteless political attacks are a no-go during times of war, and voters would punish those who operate with such campaign tools, as it would seem like they are undermining national unity.
With all these arguments and aspects, it is clear why leaders tend to wait for wars to end, before calling for an election. The risks for the country are almost always too high, much higher than looking a bit anti-democratic. Still, there is always a non-official election campaign, without even a set date for elections. Even during times of war.