Martial Law: Elections Suspended?

Martial law is a state of emergency that allows the military to take control of civilian government and suspend legal processes. It is often declared in times of war, civil unrest, or natural disasters. During martial law, elections are often suspended due to security risks, displacement of voters, and limited access to polling stations. While some countries have held elections during wartime, most have chosen to postpone them until conditions are safer and fairer for democratic processes. This was the case in the UK and France during World War II, and more recently in Ukraine during its ongoing conflict. The complex dynamics of elections during martial law raise questions about the preservation of democratic values and the role of the military in governance.

Elections during wartime

The impact of war on elections can be twofold. Firstly, the underlying structure of elections remains rooted in the normal ebb and flow of domestic politics. However, the context of war casts a long shadow over the election process, influencing the choices presented to voters. For example, in the 2004 US presidential election, the Iraq War was a significant factor, with the incumbent George W. Bush emphasising his role as commander-in-chief, while his opponent, John Kerry, leveraged his military experiences during the Vietnam War.

During wartime, the safety of citizens becomes a critical concern. Asking citizens to navigate dangerous zones to cast their votes can put them at risk of injury or loss of life. Online voting may seem like a promising alternative, but it introduces other challenges, such as the risk of hacking and technological exploitation. Moreover, the dispersal of voters across different regions, including as refugees in other countries, further complicates the electoral process, making voter registration and the establishment of polling places difficult.

The decision to hold elections during wartime also depends on the legal framework and the specific circumstances of the conflict. In the case of Ukraine's war with Russia, the country's constitution prohibits parliamentary elections from being held until martial law, in effect since February 24, 2022, is lifted and for six months thereafter. Changing this would require altering several laws, presenting a complex situation. Additionally, the war has resulted in the displacement of millions of Ukrainian citizens, making voter registration and the organisation of polling places challenging.

However, postponing elections indefinitely during wartime can also lead to accusations of disrespecting democratic principles. Moreover, elections provide an opportunity for citizens to evaluate their leaders and hold them accountable for their decisions during the conflict. In the case of Ukraine, President Zelensky has suggested that external countries pressing for elections to be held could assist in funding and providing security, thereby enabling the development of a legal framework to conduct elections safely.

Human rights abuses by the military

Martial law refers to the use of the military for law enforcement, and it is usually invoked in times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. It involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule, and a military commander's authority under martial law is virtually unlimited. While martial law can be validly established in certain situations, human rights abuses by the military have often occurred during periods of martial law.

One example of human rights abuses by the military during martial law is the case of Andrew Jackson, who imposed martial law on New Orleans during a British invasion in the early 1800s. Jackson censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained numerous civilians without charge, even after the threat from the British had ended. This prolonged use of martial law and the associated human rights abuses led to dissent and criticism of Jackson's actions.

Another example of human rights abuses during martial law is the case of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the Philippines. In 2006, Arroyo imposed a State of National Emergency to quash a coup attempt and quell protesters, which involved the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This was followed by the declaration of martial law in the Province of Maguindanao in 2009, where hundreds of government troops were sent to raid the armories of a powerful clan implicated in the massacre of civilians, human rights lawyers, and media workers.

In Iran, the imposition of martial law in 1979 led to a violent crackdown on protesters, with the army opening fire on a group of protesters in Tehran's Jaleh Square, resulting in a large number of casualties. The exact number of deaths is disputed, but Iranian human rights activist Emadeddin Baghi estimates that 88 people were killed, with 64 of them gunned down in Jaleh Square. This event, known as Black Friday, highlighted the human rights abuses committed by the military during martial law.

Additionally, in the United States, the use of martial law by President George W. Bush to detain foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, outside of U.S. court jurisdiction, was later overruled by the Supreme Court. This incident demonstrated the potential for human rights abuses when martial law is used to circumvent the normal legal system.

Overall, while martial law can be a necessary measure in times of emergency, it is important to recognize the potential for human rights abuses by the military. The suspension of civil liberties and the concentration of power in the hands of the military can lead to censorship, arbitrary detention, and the use of lethal force against civilians, as evidenced by historical examples from various countries.

The role of the President

Historically, some U.S. presidents have attempted to impose martial law. For example, Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans during the War of 1812, justifying his actions by claiming that the government in New Orleans had ceased to function due to the impending British attack. He censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained civilians without charge, continuing these measures even after the British threat had ended.

In other countries, the President may have more authority to impose martial law. For instance, in the Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was rumoured to be planning to impose martial law to end coup attempts, civilian dissatisfaction, and criticism of her legitimacy. Instead, she imposed a State of National Emergency in 2006 to quash a coup attempt and quell protesters. Later, in 2009, she officially placed the Province of Maguindanao under martial law, suspending the writ of habeas corpus in the province.

In Egypt, the military's imposition of martial law resulted in the dissolution of parliament and the suspension of the constitution. The military's announcements became the de facto constitution and legal framework for the country, granting them the power to intervene in national politics.

It is important to note that the imposition of martial law can have significant consequences, including the suspension of civil liberties, human rights abuses, and the limitation of media freedom, political competition, and opposition participation. The decision to impose martial law should be carefully considered, and the authority to do so should be clearly defined in the country's constitution or legal framework.

The suspension of civil liberties

In the context of elections, martial law can pose significant challenges. Elections may be suspended or postponed during martial law due to security risks, displacement of voters, limited access to polling stations, and difficulties in guaranteeing democratic standards such as political competition, media freedom, and independent oversight. The presence of active conflict can make it difficult to ensure a legitimate and credible electoral process, as seen in Iraq's 2005 elections, where insurgent groups threatened voters and attacked polling stations.

In some cases, elections may still be held during martial law, but they may not fully adhere to democratic norms. For example, during Andrew Jackson's imposition of martial law in New Orleans, he censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained civilians without charge. Similarly, during the 2016 Colombian peace process, an election was held amid ongoing conflict, but the legitimacy of the results was contested, exposing deep societal divisions.

The decision to suspend civil liberties during martial law should be made within the boundaries set by the constitution and relevant laws. In the United States, for instance, the Constitution does not provide a procedure for suspending the First Amendment right to free expression or the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Any suspension of civil liberties must be justified by the exigency of the situation and is subject to judicial review.

Historical examples of elections during martial law

Elections during martial law are rare, and historical examples are limited. In most cases, martial law has been declared in response to national emergencies, foreign invasions, civil wars, or riots, and elections have been suspended or postponed.

One example of elections held during martial law is from Russell County, Alabama, in 1954. Governor Gordon Persons placed the county under martial law due to the influence of organized crime gangs. The National Guard assumed law enforcement duties, shut down gang-controlled establishments, and oversaw lawful elections, which had not occurred in decades.

Another instance occurred in Pakistan in 1969. President Yahya Khan abrogated the Constitution of 1962 and imposed martial law, handing over power to the Army Commander-in-Chief, General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan. General Yahya Khan ordered general elections based on the principle of one man, one vote. However, this was a unique case, as it was the first civilian martial law imposed by a civilian, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who became the first civilian martial law administrator.

In the United States, martial law has been imposed in specific states or regions during wars, disasters, or riots, but elections have not typically been held during these periods. For example, martial law was declared in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, but elections were not disrupted, as they proceeded without issue.

In summary, while there are a few historical examples of elections held during martial law, they are relatively rare, and the decision to hold elections during such times depends on the specific circumstances and the discretion of the governing authorities.

Frequently asked questions