▲ | mopsi 5 hours ago | |||||||
The fact that someone won elections doesn't mean they get to stay until the end of their term no matter what they do. Yanukovych had over 100 people killed in a violent crackdown on protests, then fled to Russia as he was about to be imprisoned. On 21 February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to hold snap elections to replace Yanukovych before the end of his term. Not a single member of his own party supported him or voted against the decision. He was replaced through general elections held a few months later. This is exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. | ||||||||
▲ | lenkite 4 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Sure, by that time the coup was successful. Anyone in Kyiv who objected to it would face arrest and incarceration themselves. The vote did not follow formal impeachment procedure under Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution (which requires a Constitutional Court review and more formal steps). I am sure you then have no objections to the 53–0 vote in Crimea to remove the then-Ukrainian-appointed prime minister Anatoly Mogilev and install Sergei Aksyonov and the subsequent referendum on autonomy. After all, this is "exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work". | ||||||||
|