Zelensky’s term would have expired in May 2024, but he’s staying

KYIV, Ukraine

President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky's term in office is supposed to end on May 20, 2024 – but it won’t.

As Russia’s war delayed the elections and Zelensky's term is looking indefinite, Ukraine’s President’s Office is preparing to weather the storm of critics questioning the president’s legitimacy.

Officially, the administration stays away from the topic. Unofficially, its members have been warning allies for months that Russia was preparing a targeted campaign to undermine Zelensky’s legitimacy in the eyes of Ukrainians and the West.

Undermining Zelensky’s legitimacy is part of Russia’s multi-component plan to destabilize Ukraine, Deputy Chief of Military Intelligence Vadym Skibitsky told the Economist in a recent interview.

Two sources in the President’s Office, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Western allies were aware of the threat and weren’t willing to push Ukraine toward presidential and parliamentary elections in the near future.

The question of whether Zelensky can stay in office after May is debated in Ukraine, as well, albeit not massively. Zelensky’s critics argue that the Constitution does not authorize the extension of Zelensky's powers under martial law. However, constitutional lawyers say that such an extension is legal and complies with the Constitution.

While legality means compliance with the law, another issue is legitimacy – acceptance of the government by the population.

Zelensky's approval rating, boosted by his leadership during the war, has been falling, leading some to question his legitimacy. However, even after the fall, it stays above 50%.

Political analysts also say that there will be no genuine problems with Zelensky's legitimacy unless there are large-scale protests similar to the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 EuroMaidan Revolution.

The Ukrainian authorities have denied the claim that there are problems with Zelensky’s legality or legitimacy, and have dismissed it as an artificial issue forced by Russia.

"This Russian narrative has no legal grounds," Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk, formerly a legal scholar, said in March. "The Constitution's Article 108 clearly says that the president of Ukraine fulfills his duties until the next president takes office. This is the principle of the continuity of power."

Zelensky’s spokesman Serhiy Nikiforov told the Kyiv Independent that the president’s team does not comment on the issue.

Zelensky was elected president in April 2019 and was inaugurated in May. If martial law had not been imposed, the next presidential election would be held on March 31, 2024, and Zelensky’s term would end on May 20.

Similarly, if not for martial law, a parliamentary election would have been held on Oct. 29, 2023, ending the term for the current parliament elected in July 2019.

The Ukrainian Constitution stipulates that the authority of the country's parliament must be extended until the expiry of martial law. However, the Constitution does not contain similar explicit provisions on presidential elections.

Some of the president’s critics have argued that there is a legal collision between the Constitution and the martial law act. They claim that, since the Ukrainian Constitution is the supreme law, it overrides the martial law act, and presidential elections cannot be postponed.

Former Speaker Dmytro Razumkov, once an ally and now a critic and political opponent of Zelensky, claimed in February that the president's authority would expire in the spring of 2024, after which he must transfer his powers to the parliament speaker. The speaker would then remain acting president until a new president is elected.

This line of reasoning has been extensively used by Russian propaganda.

Vasily Nebenzia, Russia's ambassador to the UN, claimed in March that Zelensky's "decision not to hold presidential elections makes him illegitimate after May 21."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was more ambiguous.

"As far as May 21 is concerned, let's live until it happens," he said. "Maybe we won't have to recognize (Zelensky as legitimate)."