Ukraine’s Constitution was born from a moment of cautious optimism, a beacon for a country emerging from the shadows of Soviet control and embarking on the uncertain path of democratic self-determination. It was a document meticulously crafted to safeguard the young nation from the turbulence that had marked much of its history. Stability was paramount. The architects of the Constitution sought to create a legal framework that would withstand political storms, prevent abrupt shifts in governance, and protect the country’s fragile institutions from manipulation during times of crisis. Yet, what the framers could not fully anticipate was the nature of the prolonged and brutal war that would engulf Ukraine starting in 2014 and escalate into a full-scale invasion in 2022. This conflict has tested the nation's resilience and, in doing so, has revealed the constitutional framework’s profound limitations. These limitations have become particularly stark regarding the impossibility of amending the Constitution under martial law.
Article 157's prohibition on constitutional amendments during wartime was initially conceived as a protective measure. However, the rigidity of this clause now poses a paradox deeply felt across Ukrainian society. The war has created an urgent need for reforms that many believe are essential to the nation’s social cohesion, legal modernization, and democratic vitality. Yet, the very existence of martial law, a necessity born of the conflict, locks the Constitution in place, making change legally impossible no matter how pressing the demand.
Perhaps the most visible and emotionally charged example of this constitutional deadlock is the issue of same-sex marriage. The Ukrainian Constitution explicitly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a provision that, until now, reflected the country’s prevailing social norms and political realities. However, the war has shifted many dynamics within Ukrainian society. As citizens rally together to defend their homeland, questions of equality and human rights have renewed urgency. In 2022, a petition advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage gained unprecedented support, with 28,000 signatures, surpassing the threshold required for the president to consider it formally. This public momentum revealed a significant cultural shift contrasting the Constitution’s outdated stance.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly acknowledged the petition and the importance of recognizing the rights of LGBTQ citizens. Yet he was clear about the legal limits imposed by martial law. Constitutional amendments, including those that would redefine marriage, cannot be made while the country remains under this state of emergency. In response, Zelenskyy proposed introducing civil partnerships, a legal arrangement that could offer many of the protections afforded by marriage without necessitating a constitutional change. This suggestion highlights the government’s recognition of evolving social values and the constraints imposed by the current legal framework.
The stakes are deeply personal for many Ukrainians, especially for LGBTQ individuals who serve in the armed forces. These soldiers fight alongside their fellow citizens, risking their lives for the country’s survival. Yet, the law does not afford their relationships the protections that heterosexual marriages enjoy. Partners face difficulties accessing medical information, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance claims without legal recognition. The inability to formally recognize these relationships under the Constitution perpetuates inequality and risks fracturing the social fabric at a time when unity is paramount. The war, which demands sacrifice and solidarity, simultaneously exposes the fractures and exclusions that persist beneath the surface.
Beyond the question of marriage equality, the war has disrupted the broader democratic processes that the Constitution was designed to uphold. Ukraine’s political system is built on regular, free, and fair elections to renew mandates and ensure accountability.
However, martial law suspends these electoral processes, postponing both parliamentary and presidential elections. While this suspension is legally justified and arguably necessary to maintain national security during wartime, it carries significant democratic costs. Leaders remain in office beyond their elected terms, and the usual mechanisms through which citizens express their will and influence policy are put on hold. This prolonged suspension raises questions about legitimacy and governance that must be addressed when peace returns.
At the heart of these tensions lies the Constitutional Court, an institution entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding the rule of law. The court has faced considerable challenges during the war, including resignations that have left it understaffed and less capable of performing its essential functions. With fewer judges to deliberate on complex constitutional questions, the court’s ability to provide legal clarity and protect fundamental rights has been weakened. This institutional strain compounds the challenges the rigid amendment clause poses, leaving the country without a robust constitutional arbiter when such oversight is most needed.
The paradox of Ukraine’s constitutional framework during this prolonged conflict reveals a fundamental dilemma. The protections designed to preserve the nation’s legal and democratic integrity have become a source of rigidity that hampers the country’s ability to adapt and respond to evolving social realities and urgent governance challenges. The prohibition on constitutional amendments during martial law prevents the nation from addressing pressing issues such as civil rights and electoral legitimacy. It constrains the government’s capacity to offer its citizens new legal protections and renew the democratic mandate that underpins its authority.
As the war grinds on, voices across Ukrainian society call for reexamining the constitutional framework. Legal scholars, activists, and political leaders are increasingly engaged in discussions about how to reconcile the need for constitutional stability with the imperative for flexibility during extraordinary times. There is growing recognition that mechanisms must be developed for careful, deliberate, and legitimate constitutional amendments even under emergencies. Such reforms would enable Ukraine to maintain its commitment to democratic principles and human rights without sacrificing the stability the Constitution aims to protect.
Ukraine’s experience is a powerful reminder that constitutions, while foundational, are not meant to be immutable relics. They must be living documents capable of evolving alongside the societies they govern. The war has illuminated the tension between preserving order and enabling change, between safeguarding institutions and responding to the urgent needs of citizens. When the guns fall silent and peace is restored, Ukraine will face the immense task of rebuilding its cities, economy, and legal and political systems. The hope is that the nation will emerge with a constitution that reflects the lessons of war and the aspirations of its people, a constitution flexible enough to accommodate change, robust enough to protect rights, and resilient enough to guide the country through whatever challenges lie ahead.
Add comment
Comments