In a surprisingly negative article for the normally pro-Ukraine The Economist, the magazine has heavily criticised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for monopolising power and undermining its democratic institutions.

The rapid militarisation of the country has led Zelenskiy to increasingly centralised power in his own hands and surround himself with a core group of unelected insiders that increasingly control both the economy and the war machine. Loyalists are rewarded with plummy state company board directorships and liberal thinkers that operate independently from Bankova (Ukraine’s equivalent of the Kremlin) are quickly pushed out or sidelined, the magazine said.

This is not the first time that Zelenskiy has been accused of increasingly authoritarian tendencies. Ukraine's judicial reforms were hit by a serious setback in 2023 after the Rada undermined the Public Integrity Council, an independent watchdog that oversees the appointment of judges.

The public has also complained of the excessive control over the media by Bankova that churns out war propaganda continuously and brooks little criticism or alternative views.

A Swiss study recently concluded that Zelenskiy is showing “authoritarian traits” in July 2023 after he shuttered the opposition media and purged his government several times of technocratic reformers to take tighter personal control of the levers of power.

Ukraine’s political system is again showing signs of strain. The Economist noted that the pressure to maintain Western support has made public criticism of the government increasingly fraught. “While the Western media and European leaders have lionised Zelenskiy and turned him into a celebrity, we feel trapped,” Yulia Mostovaya, editor of independent daily zn.ua, told the magazine.

This atmosphere of loyalty consolidation has intensified since US President Donald Trump labelled President Volodymyr Zelenskiy “a dictator” in February. The result was the public rallied around Zelenskiy, and if criticism was difficult before, it became impossible after Trump’s rebuke.

Most worryingly has been the exclusion of former president Petro Poroshenko from the political system by fiat. Poroshenko ran against Zelenskiy in 2019 and remains his leading political rival. But Bankova has sanctioned him for vague “threats to national security” and he is now under investigation for treason. The investigation effectively bars Poroshenko from running for office, without a case being heard or a conviction being made.

Civic activists and journalists are also being targeted. Another leading potential opposition figure was former commander-in-chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who overtook Zelenskiy in the polls last year before he was sacked and sent to London as Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK.

Vitaly Shabunin, a prominent anti-corruption figure and war volunteer, has also been reassigned to close to the front following critical reporting of the government. Other prominent and effective officials such as ex-Infrastructure Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov and former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba that operated independently of Bankova have also been sacked or have resigned during Zelenskiy’s various purges.

Ukraine’s democracy, never strongly rooted in legal institutions, has historically relied on regional diversity and a vibrant civil society. Yet, according to The Economist, these pluralistic safeguards are being eroded. Power is being centralised not in parliament or cabinet, but within a tight presidential circle headed by Zelenskiy’s Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, speechwriter Dmytro Litvin and security aide Oleh Tatarov.

The press is also under pressure and Bankova’s message is tightly controlled. Sevgil Musaeva, the editor of Ukrainska Pravda, a leading independent, warned that journalists that question the official line are censured and find their access to Bankova cut off.

The Kremlin has long taken the line that Zelenskiy has lost his credibility and legitimacy after his five-year term in office officially expired last May. However, Ukraine’s constitution bars elections from being held while the country is under martial law. The Kremlin argues that this means that at the end of his term in office Zelenskiy should have stepped aside and the speaker of the Rada Ruslan Stefanchuk should have taken over. Russian President Vladimir Putin has raised this point, saying if direct ceasefire talks are to take place between the Kremlin and Bankova, this issue will be a problem, as the Kremlin doesn’t recognise Zelenskiy's authority to represent Ukraine. However, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov later said that the Kremlin was prepared to hold talks with Zelenskiy, “even if he is not the legitimate president.”

Zelenskiy supporters would counter the accusation of his authoritarian traits as the president displaying strength in the face of adversity. Ukraine has a significant corruption problem and unlike Russia, where Putin crushed the oligarchs twenty years ago, Ukraine’s oligarchs have had another two decades to dig in. The state institutions don’t work and he is fighting a war against a power that is at least three-times Ukraine’s size. In circumstances like these there is little room for debate and discussion. No one, especially not Ukraine’s US allies, expected the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) to last more than a few weeks in straight fight against Russia’s army, yet three years on and the AFU is still holding the Russians at bay and inflicting significant damage and death on their forces with innovations like weaponised home-made drones now being produced in basement factories in their millions.

The key test will come when martial law is lifted, but few doubt that Zelenskiy will call elections and most believe he will step aside if he loses the election.