“Why Is Zelenskyy’s Legitimacy Questioned While Putin’s Regime Thrives?”
Putin election manipulation, Zelenskyy democratic legitimacy, Macron political commentary
—————–

In a recent tweet, Tymofiy Mylovanov highlighted the stark contrast between the political legitimacy of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Mylovanov pointed out that Putin has never participated in a free election, having allegedly eliminated political opponents, imprisoned dissenters, and manipulated the constitution to maintain his grip on power indefinitely. In contrast, Zelenskyy was elected through a legitimate and transparent democratic process, yet he still faces skepticism regarding his legitimacy as a leader. French President Emmanuel Macron aptly summarized this situation by stating, “Zelenskyy was elected. Putin was not.”

### The Context of Political Legitimacy

The issue of political legitimacy is crucial in understanding the dynamics of governance in Russia and Ukraine. Putin’s regime has been characterized by authoritarian practices, including the suppression of free speech and the stifling of political opposition. This has raised questions about the authenticity of his leadership and the extent to which he represents the will of the Russian people. By contrast, Zelenskyy’s rise to power came after a decisive electoral victory, reflecting the aspirations of Ukrainian citizens for a democratic and transparent government.

### The Impact of Authoritarianism

Putin’s tenure has been marked by increasingly authoritarian measures, including the elimination of political rivals and the consolidation of power within the state apparatus. This has resulted in a political environment where dissent is not tolerated, and the concept of a fair election is virtually nonexistent. The Russian leader’s actions have not only raised concerns within Russia but have also drawn international condemnation, as the global community grapples with the implications of such authoritarianism on regional stability.

### Zelenskyy’s Democratic Mandate

Zelenskyy’s election in 2019 was heralded as a significant step towards democratic governance in Ukraine. His campaign was built on the promise of reform and a commitment to fighting corruption, resonating with the electorate’s desire for change. Unlike Putin, Zelenskyy has been subjected to the rigors of democratic accountability, facing the challenges and responsibilities that come with being an elected official. His legitimacy stems from a transparent electoral process that reflects the will of the people, contrasting sharply with the autocratic rule of his Russian counterpart.

### The Double Standards in Legitimacy

Mylovanov’s tweet underscores the double standards that often emerge in discussions of political legitimacy. While Zelenskyy, who has been elected through a democratic process, faces scrutiny and skepticism, Putin’s authoritarian regime is often accepted without the same level of criticism. This discrepancy raises important questions about how political narratives are shaped and the factors that influence perceptions of legitimacy on the global stage.

### Conclusion

In summary, the contrasting political landscapes of Russia and Ukraine illuminate the complexities of legitimacy in governance. Putin’s authoritarian rule stands in stark opposition to Zelenskyy’s democratic mandate, highlighting the ongoing struggle for democratic values in the face of oppression. As international discussions continue regarding these leaders, it is essential to recognize the significance of free elections and the voices of the people in determining the legitimacy of political authority.

Putin has never faced a free election. He killed opponents, jailed others, and rewrote the constitution to rule indefinitely

Yet it’s Zelenskyy – elected in a free and fair vote – whose legitimacy gets questioned

Macron had said it best: Zelenskyy was elected. Putin was not pic.twitter.com/R1VlJGs4xZ

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 28, 2025

Putin Has Never Faced a Free Election: A Closer Look

When you think about political legitimacy, the first name that often comes to mind is Vladimir Putin. He has been at the helm of Russian politics for over two decades, but what’s the real story behind his power? The claim that “Putin has never faced a free election” isn’t just a buzzword; it reflects the grim reality of political repression in Russia. Over the years, Putin has taken extreme measures, including killing opponents, jailing dissenters, and even rewriting the constitution to extend his rule indefinitely. This raises an important question: how can a leader with such a questionable track record be considered a legitimate ruler?

Killing Opponents and Jailing Others

The tactics used by Putin to maintain his grip on power are notorious. The chilling accounts of political opponents who’ve mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances paint a haunting picture. For instance, the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London and the suspicious death of Boris Nemtsov near the Kremlin are just the tip of the iceberg. These incidents serve as a stark warning to anyone who dares to oppose him.

Moreover, many political activists and critics have found themselves behind bars, often on trumped-up charges. Figures like Alexei Navalny have become symbols of resistance, yet they face immense risks just for speaking out against the Kremlin. When you look at the broader context, it becomes clear: Putin’s regime thrives on fear and repression, ensuring that any genuine challenge to his authority is swiftly quashed.

Rewriting the Constitution to Rule Indefinitely

In a move that shocked many, Putin successfully pushed through constitutional changes that allow him to run for president until 2036. This isn’t just a minor tweak; it’s a fundamental alteration of the Russian political landscape. By effectively eliminating term limits, Putin has secured his position as a ruler without a clear endpoint. This kind of maneuver is a hallmark of authoritarian governance, where the rule of law is bent to serve the interests of the powerful.

It’s important to recognize that these actions have serious implications not just for Russia, but for global politics. The message is clear: in Putin’s Russia, the political landscape is designed to keep him in power, while genuine democratic processes are sidelined.

Zelenskyy Elected in a Free and Fair Vote

Now, let’s pivot to Ukraine and the figure of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Unlike Putin, Zelenskyy was elected in a free and fair vote, a fact that stands in stark contrast to his Russian counterpart. His rise to power was not just a political maneuver; it was a reflection of the people’s desire for change and reform in a nation that has been marred by corruption and political instability.

In the 2019 presidential elections, Zelenskyy, a former comedian with no prior political experience, captured the imagination of voters. His campaign focused on anti-corruption, transparency, and a renewed sense of national pride. This was a significant moment for Ukraine, showcasing how a democratic process can bring about real change. Yet, despite his legitimate election, Zelenskyy’s authority has often been questioned, particularly in tense geopolitical climates.

Legitimacy Gets Questioned: A Double Standard?

It’s baffling to see how Zelenskyy’s legitimacy is questioned while Putin’s authoritarian regime is often overlooked. Why is it that a leader elected by the people faces skepticism, while a ruler who manipulates the system to maintain power is accepted? This double standard raises serious questions about how we view democracy and legitimacy on the global stage.

French President Emmanuel Macron encapsulated this sentiment perfectly when he stated, “Zelenskyy was elected. Putin was not.” The irony is hard to miss. How can a democratically elected leader, who embodies the will of the people, be doubted, while an autocrat is left unchallenged? This disparity highlights the complexities of international politics, where narratives can be shaped by strategic interests rather than facts.

International Reactions and Support

When it comes to international reactions, the world has largely rallied behind Zelenskyy, particularly in the face of Russian aggression. The support for Ukraine, especially from Western nations, reflects a recognition of the importance of sovereignty and democratic governance. Leaders like Biden and Macron have emphasized the need to support Ukraine in its fight for freedom, contrasting starkly with the isolation experienced by Russia under Putin’s rule.

In this light, it’s essential to understand the role of global perception in shaping political narratives. The support for Zelenskyy isn’t just about his leadership; it’s about endorsing the values of democracy, human rights, and the right of people to choose their leaders.

Media Representation and Public Perception

Media representation plays a significant role in shaping public perception of political figures. The portrayal of Putin as a strongman often overshadows the reality of his oppressive regime. On the flip side, Zelenskyy’s story is often framed as one of resilience and determination. This media narrative can significantly influence how people perceive legitimacy in politics.

The challenge lies in cutting through the noise and examining the facts. While Putin’s regime is characterized by repression, Zelenskyy’s administration is rooted in democratic principles. As citizens, it’s our responsibility to question these narratives and seek the truth behind the headlines.

The Importance of Democratic Processes

The contrast between Putin and Zelenskyy underscores the importance of democratic processes. Elections should not just be a formality; they should reflect the will of the people. The right to vote and participate in governance is a cornerstone of democracy, and when that is undermined, the very fabric of society is at risk.

In countries where democracy is flourishing, leaders are held accountable, and citizens have a voice. This is something that both Russia and Ukraine can learn from each other—albeit from very different positions on the political spectrum.

Conclusion: Advocating for Truth in Politics

In the end, the juxtaposition of Putin and Zelenskyy serves as a powerful reminder of what is at stake in the realm of global politics. The narrative that “Putin has never faced a free election” while questioning the legitimacy of an elected leader like Zelenskyy is a disservice to the values we hold dear. It’s crucial to advocate for truth in politics and support those who genuinely represent the will of the people.

As we navigate through these complex political waters, let’s strive to understand the implications of leadership styles and the importance of democratic processes. The world is watching, and it’s time to stand up for the values that promote freedom and accountability.