Models of Political Opposition Functioning During Martial Law: Foreign and Ukrainian Experience

Abstract

This article is devoted to the analysis of models of political opposition functioning under martial law based on 
foreign and Ukrainian experience. The relevance of the topic is conditioned by the necessity to preserve democratic 
institutions during crisis periods, particularly amid armed conflict, when issues of national security often prevail over 
democratic procedures. In such conditions, a conflict arises between the need for unity and ensuring political pluralism. 
The study aims to identify the main models of interaction between the opposition and the authorities during martial law, 
to determine their characteristics and potential for maintaining democratic control during and after the war. The 
methodological basis of the article is a comparative analysis of historical and contemporary examples of opposition 
functioning in countries such as the United Kingdom, Israel, Finland, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Egypt, as well as 
an assessment of the transformations in the Ukrainian political system following the full-scale Russian invasion of 
Ukraine in 2022. The article distinguishes three main models of opposition functioning during war: national unity 
governments involving opposition forces in the executive branch; authoritarian models with restriction or suppression 
of opposition; and models preserving democratic control by maintaining parliamentary mechanisms and institutional 
opposition participation. 
Special attention is given to the Ukrainian case, which demonstrates a hybrid model combining elements of 
political consolidation with limited preservation of parliamentary control. The role of parliamentary factions, the ban 
on pro-Russian parties, media environment restrictions, and efforts to support the institutional presence of the 
opposition under wartime conditions are analyzed. It is established that despite security challenges, the foundations of 
political pluralism persist in Ukraine, which may serve as a basis for sustainable post-war recovery. The conclusions 
emphasize that preserving the institution of political opposition is a vital condition for maintaining government 
legitimacy, ensuring transparency in decision-making, and preventing power usurpation. The key directions for forming 
an effective model of coexistence between national security and democratic procedures in the perspective of post-war 
recovery are outlined.