What examples exist of democracies postponing national elections during wartime, and what were the political consequences?
Executive summary
Democracies have sometimes postponed national elections when faced with existential wars, but the practice is rare and politically consequential: postponements have preserved wartime coalitions and governance in the short term while producing major shifts in postwar legitimacy and electoral outcomes in the long term [1]. Notable examples include Britain, Canada, New Zealand and other democracies that deferred ballots during the world wars, Israel’s 1973 Knesset postponement, and modern-day Ukraine’s constitutional ban on wartime voting — each case offering distinct political consequences ranging from strengthened unity governments to postwar electoral revolts [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Wartime postponement as the historical norm, and why it happens
Scholars and practitioners observing global precedent conclude that holding national elections amid active large-scale conflict is exceptional; most democracies choose delay because wartime conditions — security risks, displacement, disrupted campaigning and threats to independent oversight — make free and fair balloting implausible [1]. The idea that delay equals democratic backsliding is contested by international experts who argue postponement can be a legitimate protection of electoral integrity until stable conditions return [1].
2. Canonical examples: Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Israel and the United States contrast
The United Kingdom deferred general elections throughout the Second World War, governing through a wartime coalition until 1945, a choice mirrored by New Zealand and Canada in wartime periods, while Denmark remains a rare European case that managed some voting under occupation — an outlier shaped by particular local circumstances [2] [7] [8] [6]. Israel’s Knesset postponed general elections in 1973 after the Yom Kippur War began, and Israel has a history of delaying votes in moments of acute hostilities [4] [3]. By contrast, the United States did not postpone presidential elections during World War II and continued regular electoral competition, illustrating that democratic responses vary by legal rules and strategic calculation [9].
3. Ukraine as a contemporary case and the legal-political logic for postponement
Ukraine’s prohibition on wartime elections is grounded in its constitution and reinforced by broad domestic political and public consensus that campaigning and balloting under martial law would be impractical and potentially illegitimate — surveys show large majorities oppose wartime votes because soldiers cannot vote and polling sites would be insecure — a reasoning cited repeatedly by analysts and domestic institutions [5] [10] [6]. International partners sometimes pressure for elections as a sign of resilience, but experts stress constitutional and operational constraints in active conflict zones [9] [1].
4. Political consequences: unity, legitimacy risks, and dramatic postwar realignments
Postponement commonly produces short-term cross-party unity and executive stability, typified by wartime coalitions in Britain that concentrated authority to prosecute the war effort [2]. Yet the political costs surface once peace returns: postponed elections can trigger dramatic electoral punishment of incumbents or sweeping realignments — Britain’s 1945 election returned a Labour landslide after years of coalition rule, showing how delaying an election does not guarantee political continuity [2]. Scholars warn that holding elections during war can likewise produce legitimacy problems if the vote is narrowly inclusive or if competitive conditions are skewed, and historical review finds few successful wartime ballots without serious questions about fairness [1].
5. Rules, safeguards and political dangers to watch for
Democracies use two main legal models to manage emergencies: constitutional prohibitions that clearly bar wartime elections, and legislative emergency powers that permit postponement — the former reduces abuse risk, the latter can be exploited in weak democracies [1]. Observers highlight that modifications such as special voting arrangements can sometimes allow elections to proceed, but they caution that logistical and security constraints often render such fixes insufficient, and international credibility can suffer if postponement appears partisan [1] [11].
Conclusion
Historical and contemporary examples show postponement is a defensible, if fraught, democratic response to high-intensity war: it can preserve governance and protect electoral integrity in the short term, but it also carries political risks — from legitimacy disputes to dramatic postwar turnovers — that make transparent legal rules, cross-party consensus and clear plans for restoration of elections essential [1] [2] [5].