was there an election?
Feb. 19th, 2025 07:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacDT has claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a "dictator," apparently because Ukraine holds presidential elections every five years but Zelensky is in his sixth year. As this article points out, "Ukraine is currently under martial law because of the full-scale Russian invasion" and the relevant law postpones elections in time of martial law.
Leaving aside the question of whether that makes you a dictator or not - DT said he was going to be a dictator on day 1; now he's even saying he's the king - the article quoted Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) as saying that Zelensky "should hold an election." It then goes on to say, "When reporters noted to Hawley that Ukraine hasn’t been able to hold an election because of the war, Hawley argued that the United States and Britain held elections during World War II."
But here we have British prime minister Keir Starmer saying that it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did during World War II."
So who's right, Hawley or Starmer? Did Britain hold elections during WW2 or not?
Starmer is right, basically.
The US held elections without interruption during the war, but - the attack on Pearl Harbor aside - the US wasn't in the front lines of the war. Ukraine is being subject to a full-scale invasion. Britain wasn't quite that close to the front lines, but it was under German attack and it did suspend general elections.
A regular election for the House of Commons was due in 1940. The House suspended it by legislation, one year at a time, each year until the European war was over in 1945. Then they held an election.
They'd done something similar during WW1. But those are the only times the British have suspended their then-current law requiring regular elections.
There is a minor exception, though. Special elections to fill vacant seats in the House were held. Those were local and easier to manage. But all the major parties had agreed on an electoral truce. Whichever party had held the seat prior to the vacancy was allowed to nominate a candidate unopposed by the other parties.
However, particularly near the end of the war, voters impatient at not having a choice would sometimes nominate an independent or minor-party candidate in opposition, and sometimes that candidate even won.
But that's the only exception. Britain did not hold a general election during the European conflict in WW2.
Leaving aside the question of whether that makes you a dictator or not - DT said he was going to be a dictator on day 1; now he's even saying he's the king - the article quoted Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) as saying that Zelensky "should hold an election." It then goes on to say, "When reporters noted to Hawley that Ukraine hasn’t been able to hold an election because of the war, Hawley argued that the United States and Britain held elections during World War II."
But here we have British prime minister Keir Starmer saying that it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did during World War II."
So who's right, Hawley or Starmer? Did Britain hold elections during WW2 or not?
Starmer is right, basically.
The US held elections without interruption during the war, but - the attack on Pearl Harbor aside - the US wasn't in the front lines of the war. Ukraine is being subject to a full-scale invasion. Britain wasn't quite that close to the front lines, but it was under German attack and it did suspend general elections.
A regular election for the House of Commons was due in 1940. The House suspended it by legislation, one year at a time, each year until the European war was over in 1945. Then they held an election.
They'd done something similar during WW1. But those are the only times the British have suspended their then-current law requiring regular elections.
There is a minor exception, though. Special elections to fill vacant seats in the House were held. Those were local and easier to manage. But all the major parties had agreed on an electoral truce. Whichever party had held the seat prior to the vacancy was allowed to nominate a candidate unopposed by the other parties.
However, particularly near the end of the war, voters impatient at not having a choice would sometimes nominate an independent or minor-party candidate in opposition, and sometimes that candidate even won.
But that's the only exception. Britain did not hold a general election during the European conflict in WW2.
no subject
Date: 2025-02-20 10:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-02-20 12:04 pm (UTC)Plus:
"4.(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be."
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art4.html
no subject
Date: 2025-02-20 01:29 pm (UTC)