Post-war constitutional reform in Ukraine (Part #2): Blueprints for Renewal

As Ukraine confronts the monumental task of post-war recovery, one of her most profound challenges — and opportunities — lies in rethinking the structure of the state itself. If constitutional reform becomes part of Ukraine’s rebuilding, the experience of other post-conflict or transitional democracies offers valuable models. From Poland’s democratic rebirth, to Croatia’s postwar reconstruction, to South Korea’s transformation into a resilient republic, each case offers lessons in both ambition and caution.

Ukraine’s war has redefined not only her national identity but the practical functioning of her government. The question now is not whether reform is desirable — but how, and with what vision of statehood in mind.

Poland: Guardrails Against Authoritarian Drift

Poland’s 1997 Constitution, adopted after the fall of communism and a turbulent transitional period, is often cited as a model for balancing strong parliamentary democracy with institutional checks. It enshrined an independent judiciary, a Constitutional Tribunal, and explicit protections for human rights — while limiting presidential powers and avoiding over-centralisation.

Ukraine, like Poland, is a large and culturally diverse state bordering powerful neighbours. Poland’s constitutional experience underscores the importance of robust institutions that can withstand populist pressure and foreign interference. Yet it also serves as a warning: in recent years, Poland’s own democratic backsliding has been enabled by legal ambiguities exploited by dominant parties — showing that constitutions must not only be well designed but vigilantly defended.

Lesson for Ukraine: Strengthen judicial and anti-corruption institutions constitutionally, but beware of vague clauses that allow executive overreach during crises.

Croatia: Building Sovereignty After War

Croatia, like Ukraine, fought a war for independence on her own territory, faced occupation of key regions, and rebuilt from near-total infrastructural collapse. Her 1990 constitution evolved through the war and the decade that followed. Over time Croatia moved from a hyper-presidential system to a more parliamentary model, while embedding European integration and minority protections as core constitutional values — requirements for her eventual accession to the EU.

Ukraine too will face constitutional dilemmas around decentralisation, minority language rights and the legal status of liberated or occupied territories. Croatia’s model shows how a state can reassert sovereignty and identity while aligning with supranational legal standards.

Lesson for Ukraine: Embrace a constitutional framework that reflects European standards of rights and governance — not as conditions, but as aspirations and eventually legally binding.

South Korea: A Wartime Constitution Reimagined

South Korea’s modern constitution, forged in the crucible of the Cold War and reformed multiple times after military rule, demonstrates how a frontline democracy under constant threat can evolve into a stable, prosperous and participatory republic. Korea’s post-1987 reforms enshrined judicial review, electoral fairness and term limits, while keeping defence and national security embedded in the constitutional order due to the unresolved conflict with the North.

Ukraine similarly faces the challenge of maintaining wartime resilience alongside civil liberties. Her constitutional design must allow for emergency governance without enabling permanent exceptionalism — a delicate balance South Korea continues to refine.

Lesson for Ukraine: Embed emergency powers with sunset clauses, judicial oversight and clearly defined conditions for martial law — ensuring that national defence never becomes a permanent excuse for weakening democracy.

Options for Reform: From Amendment to Rewriting

Ukraine has two broad options: amend the existing 1996 Constitution, or draft a new foundational document.

1. Amendment Process (Article 155 & 156 of the Constitution)

   
   

   • Requires approval by a constitutional majority (300 of 450 MPs), followed by ratification in the next parliamentary session.

   • For changes involving rights, sovereignty, or territory, a nationwide referendum is required.

   • Strength: Legal continuity and institutional stability.

   • Risk: Limited ability to restructure core institutions.

   
   

2. Constitutional Convention or Constituent Assembly

   
   

   • A new constitution could be drafted through a special, elected assembly or a broad-based expert commission with public consultation.

   • This approach allows Ukraine to rewrite the social contract after war, enshrining new values, responsibilities and lessons learned.

   • Strength: Deeper legitimacy and alignment with national transformation.

   • Risk: Politicisation, foreign influence or rushed drafting under pressure.

   
   

3. Incremental Constitutionalism

   
   

   • A middle path: targeted amendments now (e.g. constraints upon emergency powers; judicial independence), followed by broader revision later.

   • Allows for phased legitimacy-building and adaptation over time.

   
   

What Should Be on the Table? Key Reform Domains

Regardless of the method, experts across the political spectrum broadly agree on reform priorities:

• Decentralisation: Guarantee autonomy and resources for municipalities and regions, especially in formerly occupied territories.

• Judicial Reform: Constitutionally protect judicial independence, enforcing integrity vetting, and clarification of the Constitutional Court’s powers.

• Emergency Governance: Define strict limits, timeframes and oversight for martial law and executive authority during national crises.

• Civil Rights: Codify protections for internally displaced persons (IDPs), minorities and veterans; clarify language rights without compromising state unity.

• Defence Integration: Create constitutional provisions for NATO or bilateral defence commitments — without subordinating national sovereignty.

• Corruption Prevention: Mandating transparency and audit mechanisms and protecting anti-corruption bodies from political interference.

Conclusion: Constitutional Reform as Strategic Infrastructure

Constitutional reform is more than legal housekeeping — it is strategic infrastructure for national resilience. For Ukraine, the choice is not only what kind of state she wants to build, but what kind of future she wants to safeguard.

As she rebuilds schools, bridges and homes, Ukraine must also consider the institutional scaffolding that will hold her democracy upright for generations. A constitution born not of compromise with oligarchy or appeasement of empire — but of sacrifice, unity, and vision — would be a fitting foundation for the second Ukrainian republic.