Explainer: Conducting elections during war

The key challenges include security risks, displacement of voters, limited access to polling stations, and the inability to guarantee democratic standards such as political competition, media freedom, and independent oversight. Conducting elections in war-contested territories requires first determining the boundaries of the territory and defining the eligible electorate to ensure a legitimate and credible electoral process.

Historical Examples of Elections During War

1.    United States (Civil War, 1864 Presidential Election)

While the United States has a history of conducting elections during wartime, such as during the War of 1812, the Civil War, and both World Wars, these conflicts did not take place on U.S. soil in a way that disrupted the electoral process. The closest exception was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, yet even then, elections proceeded without disruption. However, the wars never directly threatened the existence of the state, nor led to the imposition of martial law, making historical precedents of elections during war fundamentally different from the prospect of elections held amidst active battlefield operations.

2.    United Kingdom (World War II, Postponement of Elections)

The UK postponed its scheduled 1940 general elections due to World War II, maintaining a wartime coalition government. A general election was only held in 1945, once military victory was secured and governance could return to democratic norms.

3.    France (World War II, Postponement of Elections)

France also postponed its elections due to the German occupation and the collapse of the democratic government. Elections resumed in 1945 following the war’s conclusion and the liberation of the country.

4.    Israel (Wars and Security Crises)

Israel has a history of postponing elections due to wartime hostilities, prioritizing security and stability before proceeding with democratic processes. The country’s first parliamentary elections, originally scheduled for October 1948, were postponed due to the Arab-Israeli War and held only in January 1949 after the immediate threat had subsided. Similarly, in 1973, the Yom Kippur War forced the postponement of Knesset elections, which were eventually conducted on December 31, after the war ended. Most recently, in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack and the ensuing military operations, local elections were postponed twice—from October 31, 2023, to January 30, 2024, and then to February 27, 2024—demonstrating that electoral processes are deferred in times of active conflict to ensure security and proper democratic functioning.

5.    Afghanistan (2004 & 2009 Elections Under Conflict)

Afghanistan held elections in the midst of active insurgencies, but widespread violence, voter intimidation, and electoral fraud severely compromised their credibility. The presence of foreign troops provided security, yet elections were marked by low turnout and legitimacy concerns.

6.    Iraq (2005 Elections Post-Saddam Hussein)

Iraq’s 2005 elections occurred amid ongoing conflict, with insurgent groups threatening voters and attacking polling stations. Despite efforts to secure the vote, violence prevented many from participating, and the legitimacy of the elections remained contested.

7. Colombia (Peace Agreement Plebiscite 2016)

The 2016 Colombian peace process sought to end over 50 years of armed conflict between the government and FARC-EP. After nearly five years of negotiations, a Final Peace Agreement was reached, aiming to end hostilities and introduce political reforms. To secure legitimacy, the Colombian government held a plebiscite on October 2, 2016, but the agreement was narrowly rejected, with 50.2% voting against and 49.8% in favor, exposing deep societal divisions. This forced a renegotiation, and the revised deal was ratified by Congress instead. The case highlights how elections in post-conflict settings can deepen polarization, especially when complex agreements are reduced to campaign slogans. Colombia’s experience underscores the importance of timing, public engagement, and trust-building in peace processes and the risks of relying on direct democracy for contentious agreements.

When and why is it legitimate to postpone elections?

International democratic standards recognize that elections cannot be conducted during emergencies that threaten human life and security. Legal frameworks in many countries explicitly prohibit the conduct of elections during states of emergency, which often include war, large-scale natural disasters, or pandemics. The rationale is clear: holding elections in such conditions risks undermining electoral integrity, violating democratic principles, and endangering citizens.

Legal safeguards for electoral emergencies protect electoral actors, infrastructure, and integrity during crises. Two main models exist: the constitutional model, which embeds emergency powers in the constitution, and the legislative model, which grants discretion to legislatures, though this can be risky in weak democracies. While some argue for postponement during emergencies, others suggest that modifications to electoral rules, such as special voting arrangements, can allow elections to proceed safely. Legal frameworks for electoral emergencies must balance democratic continuity with crisis management.

James and Alihodzic (2020) developed a typology of election postponements, identifying seven types of delays, including crisis postponements and humanitarian postponements. The latter is particularly relevant in the context of both medical emergencies (such as COVID-19) and war, as it underscores that elections should not be held when they pose immediate threats to human life and security. When such elections take place, they may lead to severely compromised opportunities for deliberation, contestation, participation, and election management quality. Emergencies—whether caused by natural hazards (earthquakes, pandemics, wildfires) or human-made disasters (war, armed conflict, civil unrest)—typically demand that elections be rescheduled to allow for necessary preparations that safeguard electoral integrity and democratic governance.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to over 80 countries postponing elections, even though the crisis was not a military conflict but a public health emergency.  The primary reasons cited were voter safety, logistical challenges, and the need to uphold electoral integrity. 

Challenges of Conducting Elections During Wartime

• Security and Safety Risks – Active conflict zones pose significant threats to voters, candidates, and election officials.
• Displacement of Voters – War displaces millions, making voter registration, ballot access, and fair participation difficult.
• Lack of Political Freedoms – Martial law and emergency measures limit media freedom, political competition, and opposition participation.
• External Influence and Disinformation – Wartime elections are vulnerable to foreign interference, propaganda, and cyber threats.
• Logistical and Administrative Barriers – Conducting elections requires infrastructure, trained personnel, and secure voting locations, all of which are compromised during war.
• Legitimacy and Credibility Concerns – Elections under conflict often lack inclusivity, transparency, and impartiality, leading to contested results and further instability.

Set of universal considerations for deciding on when to hold elections

• Create a decision-making environment that is underpinned by an informed understanding of the local context, specifically regarding the challenges of the timing and sequencing of elections and the design of inclusive and transparent processes that bring together different political and social groups, including minorities, women and youth. 
• Look beyond single elections and outside the electoral process itself; adopt a holistic perspective that gives policy priority to democratic consolidation in the long run. Any decision on the timing and sequencing of transitional elections should acknowledge the incremental nature of democratic transitions, which may experience pauses and reversals. 
• Do not allow transitional and/or power sharing arrangements to hinder democratic development in the long-term. While such measures may be effective in ending stalemates in the short-term, any anti-democratic features of such arrangements will become obstacles in the long term. 
• Ensure that decisions regarding the timing and sequencing of elections are made in the broader context of building sustainable electoral processes. This will in turn provide insights that can both inform the sequencing of elections and help construct a ‘road map’ towards credible elections that are owned by national actors and can be sustained without international support.
• The international community can and should provide targeted support to transitional elections through coordinated diplomatic, technical, observation and financial assistance to national stakeholders. This support is most effective when there is international commitment to long-term democratic consolidation and informed appreciation of unique local dynamics. 
   

Conclusion

Elections are a fundamental pillar of democracy, but they must be conducted under conditions that allow for meaningful participation, competition, and security. Historical examples show that very few democracies have conducted elections successfully during wartime, and those that have often faced serious legitimacy issues. The international community must recognize that postponing elections until conditions are stable is not a sign of democratic weakness, but rather a commitment to ensuring electoral integrity and legitimacy.