Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, elections have posed a complicated challenge. Hungary’s parliament, for instance, recently passed legislation that gave its prime minister the right to rule by decree (with no end date) and canceled all elections. Nagorno-Karabakh (the Republic of Artsakh) went ahead with its first round of in-person elections at the end of March. Many voters reportedly wore masks and had their temperatures taken before entering polling stations, but also ignored social distancing rules. And while there have been calls to postpone the second round of elections, it is scheduled for April 14. In the United States, poll workers in Florida tested positive for the virus following the state’s primary, which led to at least 15 other Democratic primaries being delayed, and the Democratic National Convention being postponed until August. Protests and a shortage of poll workers have plagued other U.S. states that have decided to move forward with their primaries, raising expectations of low voter turnouts.

Striking a balance between designing and enforcing pandemic containment measures and continuing with an electoral process, which inherently encourages mass participation and gatherings, is no easy dilemma. The European Union and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have expressed concerns about Hungary and other European nations going too far, potentially undercutting democracy and suppressing free speech under the guise of combating the virus. Therefore, as South Korea’s national assembly election quickly approaches, its success or failure may have significant implications for the conduct of future elections amid or even after this pandemic. 

You can read the full article in The National Interest.