A democratic society is defined not by its slogans but by its institutions. That is, by the rule of law, free elections, pluralistic parties, and independent media. Remove these pillars, and democracy collapses into something else entirely. Since Russia’s invasion in 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky has been praised in Western capitals as the avatar of liberal resistance, a Churchillian figure standing alone before the Kremlin’s tyranny. And yet, the very things we cherish in a free society have vanished under his leadership. This is not a slur, nor a partisan caricature. It is a description of observable fact. The structure of governance in Ukraine today has more in common with the centralized regimes of Europe’s authoritarian past than with the constitutional republics of the modern West.
To call Zelensky a dictator is not to diminish the reality of Russia’s aggression. It is to acknowledge that tyranny need not wear a Russian uniform. Nor must it speak with a thick accent or detain poets in Siberia. The hallmark of dictatorship is not aesthetic, it is procedural. And by the relevant criteria, Zelensky’s government has met that standard. There have been no elections. There is no meaningful opposition. The press is no longer independent. These are not wartime contingencies, they are defining traits of authoritarian rule.
Let us begin with the suspension of elections. Under Ukraine’s constitution, presidential terms are limited. Zelensky’s was due to end in 2024. It did not. Elections have been indefinitely postponed under the justification of martial law. One might reply, sensibly enough, that wartime necessitates unusual accommodations. But this evasion collapses under scrutiny. The United States held elections during the Civil War. Israel has never canceled elections, despite living in a state of near-perpetual conflict. Britain did not suspend democracy during the Blitz. Even in 1944, Franklin Roosevelt faced the voters while Hitler’s armies stormed across Europe. The idea that war precludes elections is not a principle. It is a pretext.
Nor is this merely about a delay of months. Ukraine’s war has no defined endpoint. Russia is not likely to surrender unconditionally. So long as hostilities continue, so too does Zelensky’s tenure, without consent or contest. This is rule without renewal. And if elections are the essence of democracy, their suspension is its negation.
Zelensky has not only frozen the electoral process. He has extinguished political competition. In March 2022, his government banned eleven opposition parties, including the second-largest parliamentary bloc, Opposition Platform, For Life. This party had earned over a tenth of the popular vote in the 2019 elections. Its crime? Alleged ties to Russia. But such associations, even if substantiated, do not justify outlawing an entire party. Democracies defeat bad ideas at the ballot box. Autocracies ban them. And the crackdown does not end with party bans. Many of Zelensky’s political opponents now find themselves in jail, in exile, or in some cases lying dead in the street. Just this morning, Andriy Portnov, a former adviser to Ukraine’s ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, was gunned down while dropping off his children at the American School in Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid. He was assassinated in broad daylight. Zelensky is widely suspected of ordering the hit. When opposition figures are hunted across borders and killed in front of their children, we are no longer speaking of a democracy under strain. We are speaking of a regime that treats dissent as a mortal offense.
This tactic is not new. Franco did it. So did Perón. Even Hitler, under the guise of emergency, abolished opposition by declaring their beliefs subversive. The effect is always the same: one party rule, cloaked in national security rhetoric. When dissent becomes treason by definition, what remains is not a republic but a regime.
Control of information is another defining attribute of dictatorship. Here, too, Zelensky has crossed the line. In March 2022, his administration consolidated all major television outlets into a single state-managed platform called “United News.” Ostensibly, the rationale was to curb Russian disinformation and preserve a unified narrative. In reality, this move eliminated the independent press. It placed the power to shape public perception directly into the government’s hands. Wartime censorship is not uncommon, but outright monopolization of the media is the hallmark of authoritarianism, not liberal democracy.
Contrast this with the conduct of democracies under duress. During World War II, American newspapers remained privately owned and editorially independent. Britain had a Ministry of Information, but independent outlets like The Times and the BBC remained separate from Downing Street. In Ukraine, there is no meaningful separation. The government does not merely influence the narrative; it authors it.
The trajectory of this centralization reveals a dangerous logic. If dissent is disloyal, and criticism is sabotage, then the very mechanisms of accountability are seen as threats. That logic leads inevitably to a state where the only legitimate voice is the state itself.
Zelensky’s authoritarian campaign has also targeted the church. His administration’s crackdown on the Russian-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) fits a larger pattern of suppressing civil institutions that might pose a threat to centralized power. In March 2023, his government seized the 974-year-old Kyiv Pechersk Lavra monastery, one of Eastern Orthodoxy’s most sacred sites. Clergy were evicted, and several UOC priests were arrested on charges of alleged Russian collaboration. Zelensky went further. On August 24, 2024, he signed a law banning religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. This measure, under the guise of national security, stripped millions of Ukrainian believers of their spiritual autonomy. Religious freedom, like political pluralism and free speech, is a cornerstone of any genuine democracy. The attempt to control doctrine and dismantle church authority is not the act of a reformer. It is the mark of a regime that fears moral authority outside its own.. If dissent is disloyal, and criticism is sabotage, then the very mechanisms of accountability are seen as threats. That logic leads inevitably to a state where the only legitimate voice is the state itself.
Zelensky’s administration has also engaged in a sweeping purge of cultural material. As part of a broader de-Russification campaign, Ukraine has removed millions of books from its public libraries. By November 2022, approximately 19 million volumes had been withdrawn, including 11 million in Russian. This campaign did not stop at removal. In June 2022, Ukraine’s parliament passed a law banning the import and distribution of books from Russia and Belarus, which Zelensky signed into law in June 2023. The measure goes further, restricting Russian-language publications from any country unless pre-screened for anti-Ukrainian content. Such actions are characteristic of regimes that seek to control not only the present but also the cultural memory of their citizens. Book bans, however justified as national defense, are tools of repression. From Savonarola to Stalin, authoritarian leaders have always feared ideas. Democracies trust their people to judge those ideas for themselves.
One might protest that Zelensky remains popular. But popularity is not a defense against autocracy. Dictators often enjoy enthusiastic support. Indeed, plebiscitary approval is a known feature of modern authoritarian regimes. Erdogan wins elections. So did Chavez. Putin stages them with considerable flair. Democracy is not reducible to polling numbers or celebrity. It is reducible to process. And when process collapses, the substance of freedom disappears with it.
Zelensky, it should be said, did not set out to be a dictator. He was elected in good faith, with genuine democratic mandate. But good intentions are no defense when constitutional structures are dismantled. As James Madison warned, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” The tragedy of Ukraine is not only the invasion it suffered, but the erosion of liberty it endured in the name of resistance.
Nor can we assume that the situation is temporary. Dictatorships rarely return power willingly. The longer the apparatus of emergency persists, the more normal it becomes. The mechanisms of control harden. Institutions atrophy. Civil society is co-opted or crushed. What began as a temporary expedient becomes a permanent condition.
And what of negotiation? Here, too, Zelensky’s stance bears the mark of absolutism. He has sabotaged serious peace talks, insisting on maximalist terms: full Russian withdrawal, restitution, and trials for war crimes. These demands, however morally sound, are politically unfeasible. By excluding compromise, Zelensky commits Ukraine to a war without a clear path to victory, thereby justifying the indefinite extension of martial law and his own rule.
Donald Trump’s previous description of Zelensky as a dictator was met with scorn in many quarters. But if one is willing to apply a consistent standard, the same standard used to criticize Hungary’s Orban or Turkey’s Erdogan, then the label fits. Democracy requires more than uniforms and ballots. It requires the regular, contested, and transparent transfer of power. Ukraine has forfeited this.
Western media, ever eager to simplify, has made Zelensky into a symbol. But symbols are not immune to scrutiny. If we defend democracy abroad, we must be honest about where it still exists. And where it does not. Ukraine deserves sympathy, yes, and sovereignty. But it does not deserve a blank check. Our support must be conditioned not only on battlefield strategy but on the restoration of civil liberties. That includes elections. That includes opposition. That includes independent media.
The West has been here before. During the Cold War, we supported autocrats who spoke the language of liberty but practiced the politics of repression. It did not end well. Our credibility suffered, and our enemies had an easy rebuttal: your values are conditional, they said, and your principles selective. If we make Zelensky the new model of democratic virtue, we will hear that argument again.
In defending democracy, we must remember what democracy requires. If a leader cancels elections, bans parties, monopolizes the press, and purges libraries, he is no longer a president. He is something else entirely. Zelensky may not be a tyrant in temperament. But in function, he governs without the constraints of a free society.
And if that is not dictatorship, then the word has no meaning.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: Leading Union Sparks Backlash Over Anti-Police Campaign
This would be worth a chuckle if it wasn’t so sad and ridiculous. Of all the times debating about a dictatorship when a nation is fighting for its very existence. Maybe the writer forgets what went on with all the other countries that were faced with annihilation under similar circumstances. We forget about leadership in South Vietnam, South Korea, France during WWII, even the U.S. with FDR during our many crises. What we think of as “Democracy” is hard-put to stand up against invasions. I can’t think of a single Democracy which was able to successfully fight off an invasion. There’s no “toughness” there, and definitely no one individual behind the fight for survival. Without Zelensky, Ukraine would have been history long ago. He was the catalyst to keep the Russians from running roughshod over Ukraine in the beginning. We need to be glad that he was (and is) there. Ukraine just might continue to exist because of him. Maybe some dictatorial powers are needed under such circumstances. I believe that, even in the U.S., if there were an invasion, that the military would take over the government. Let’s quit all the criticizing of Zelensky for the foreseeable future and concentrate on putting enough pressure on Putin to put him out of the picture permanently. If he is allowed to persevere, that will not bode well for the future of the world, and we will, in the end, not be able to avoid his aggression. Without Zelensky leading the “charge”, Putin would now be in Europe, challenging NATO, and the U.S. would, like it or not, be in the midst of the conflict. So lay off the guy and direct your criticism to where it belongs…”Mad Dog” Putin.