The disappointment was followed by criticism in the media and social networks. But there are plenty of reasons why Poroshenko probably made the right choice. With all the seeming advantages of the army taking control over all elements of life in the war zone, it would not work in Ukraine. The nation has no capacity to pull it off, so introducing martial law would have simply exposed more weaknesses.
The last time this territory had martial law was in 1945. Not many are around who remember this event. More to the point, the institutional capacity for introducing martial law is non-existent. There may be some theoretical knowledge and a legal basis, but that’s not enough to make it work.
Moreover, there is no legal need to declare martial law. Most of the useful tools are already in the hands of the authorities anyway.
Martial law means that all of the governing functions are effectively controlled by the military and law enforcement agencies. The general headquarters of such an operation is responsible for water supply, maintenance of the electrical network, the functioning of the sewer system, the food supply chain, and so on.
How would that work in Ukraine? Viktor Chumak, a retired army officer and parliament member, described it vividly: “A clever major can become a good village head. But where would we get enough clever colonels to head all of the district administrations?” he asked.
Martial law is difficult to introduce even in a country with an efficient army with an established and effective chain-of-command. Ukraine does not fit that description. Even Russia, a much more militarized state, chose not to introduce martial laws during the Chechen wars, even in Chechnya itself.
One of the most recent cases of martial law being used by Ukraine’s neighbors was in Poland in 1981-83. Poland, which was a quasi-Soviet regime at the time, executed the move virtually overnight.
The decision was taken by General Wojciech Jaruzelski and approved by a newly-formed Military Council of National Salvation. There was no other approval required (unlike in Ukraine, where the procedure is lengthy and requires a recommendation by the National Security and Defense Council, then a presidential decree and then parliamentary approval, which would kill the element of surprise).
A total of 70,000 soldiers and 30,000 policemen oversaw the operation in Poland. There were 1,400 tanks and 1,750 armored personnel vehicles involved, among other heavy machinery. A quarter of the forces were concentrated in or around Warsaw.
“Its sole purpose is to protect the legal order of the country, creating a regulatory guarantee to enable the restoration of order and discipline,” General Jaruzelski said about the operation in his televised address to the Polish people. “This is the last chance to pull the country of out crisis, to save it from disintegration.”
The general maintained that martial law was needed to protect Poland from an invasion by the Soviet Army. But many believed it really aimed at crushing dissent and opposition threatening the Communist regime.
Jaruzelski ordered mass arrests and appointed military commanders at all levels of government, as well as some business organizations, introducing military control over all major activities. A decree spelled out all rules of life, and all of these measures were prepared and executed virtually simultaneously.
“Dictatorship was the key reason why it worked,” says Lviv historian Vasyl Rasevych. But even then the effect was only temporary: the Polish protest could not be subdued and eventually led to revolution, which brought independence, which then broke the spine of the Soviet system.
It’s difficult to imagine Ukraine’s government being able to pull off anything on such a scale; though perhaps some elements of martial law would be useful to have in the war zone in Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
For example, a proper curfew would be able to get people off the streets and allow Ukraine’s army to make bolder moves in the cities, where separatists have used the population as human shields. As Ukraine’s army takes over much of the rural area in the Donbas, the problem of fighting in cities will become more acute.
However, apart from a few such advantages, martial law would have a number of nasty side effects for Ukraine.
One of them is the inability to conduct any elections – it’s a legal limitation imposed by the nation’s law. On top of that, martial law would give an invaluable propaganda tool to the Russians that they could use against Ukraine in the Kremlin’s relentless propaganda aimed at portraying the nation as a failed state. The Russian media would also claim that there are no Russians fighting in Ukraine’s “civil war.” On balance, it seems that martial law would solve few problems and create an array of new ones.
Kyiv Post deputy chief editor Katya Gorchinskaya can be reached at [email protected]
