Elections

new video loaded: More

President Emmanuel Macron lost his absolute majority in the lower house. Opposition groups have threatened to block his domestic agenda and called for the resignation of his prime minister.PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron’s ability to govern effectively was in question on Monday after he lost his absolute majority in the lower house of Parliament in France, with opposition groups threatening to block his legislative agenda and openly calling for the resignation of his prime minister.After nationwide voting on Sunday, Mr. Macron’s centrist coalition finished first overall, with 245 seats, but it fell far short of the absolute majority that it enjoyed in the 577-seat National Assembly during his first term, fueling fears of political gridlock.“Ungovernable!” read the front page of Le Parisien, a daily newspaper.Much was still uncertain on Monday after the elections, which produced a complex and fragmented political landscape with three main opposition groups: a left-wing alliance, the far right, and mainstream conservatives. All won enough seats to potentially hamstring Mr. Macron’s legislative agenda, but they are also deeply opposed to each other in various ways, limiting the prospect of a broad, tenable anti-Macron coalition.Still, this much was clear: After five years of relatively smooth sailing in a National Assembly dominated by his party and its allies, Mr. Macron’s second-term agenda is in for a rough ride.“My biggest fear is that the country will be blocked,” Olivia Grégoire, a spokeswoman for Mr. Macron’s government, told France Inter radio on Monday. She said that a coming bill to help French households deal with rising inflation was a top priority and would be a first test of the weakened majority’s ability to build consensus.Mr. Macron must now contend with parliamentary constraints that he had mostly been able to circumvent during his first term. His party will not be able to readily dismiss opposition amendments, for instance, and legislative debates could be much harsher.Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of a French hard-left opposition party, speaking to supporters after early results returned on Sunday night.Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters“It’s like going from a very strong presidential regime to a parliamentary regime,” said Chloé Morin, a political scientist at the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, a progressive think tank. “It moves the center of power to the National Assembly.”But, she added, unlike other European nations, where political parties are used to hammering out coalitions and compromises, that “is neither the culture of politicians nor of the French people.”“We have a culture of verticality,” she said, with extensive presidential powers, and after five years of Mr. Macron’s top-down governing style, none of his opponents appeared inclined to work with him.Instead, Ms. Morin predicted months of gridlock in the National Assembly, which could prompt Mr. Macron to dissolve the body and call new parliamentary elections some time next year.France’s presidents can rule by decree on some issues, and they have a relatively free rein to conduct foreign policy. But major domestic overhauls promised by Mr. Macron during his re-election campaign this year require a bill in Parliament, such as his contentious plans to raise the legal age of retirement to 65, from 62, which Mr. Macron had vowed to get done by the summer of 2023.The fate of such bills is now in jeopardy. Mr. Macron will most likely be forced to seek a coalition or build short-term alliances with opposition forces if he wants to push through legislation. A natural fit would be Les Républicains, the mainstream conservative party, which, on paper at least, could back some of Mr. Macron’s pro-business policies.“It’s not completely blocked, it’s a suspended Parliament,” said Vincent Martigny, a professor of political science at the University of Nice, adding that Mr. Macron “is now completely in the hands of Les Républicains.”But leaders from Les Républicains, some of whom are worried that a long-term coalition with Mr. Macron would incur the anger of their political base, have already ruled out a partnership.Voting in Paris on Sunday. Although Mr. Macron’s coalition finished first overall, it fell far short of the absolute majority that it enjoyed during his first term.Yoan Valat/EPA, via Shutterstock“We campaigned in the opposition, we are in the opposition and we will remain in the opposition,” Christian Jacob, the party’s president, said on Sunday night. “Things are very clear,” he added.The two largest opposition forces in Parliament — a broad coalition of left-wing parties, which secured 131 seats; and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally, which took 89 — have all but promised to challenge Mr. Macron’s government relentlessly.Representatives from both forces wasted no time on Monday as they called for the resignation of Élisabeth Borne, the prime minister appointed by Mr. Macron last month.“The government as formed by Emmanuel Macron cannot continue to govern as if nothing had happened,” Manuel Bompard, a member of the hard-left France Unbowed party, told the French channel BFMTV on Monday. With 72 seats, France Unbowed, under its leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is the biggest force in the left-wing coalition.French prime ministers traditionally resign even after victorious parliamentary elections, only to be immediately reappointed by the president and tasked with tweaking the existing cabinet at the margins.It was unclear what Mr. Macron, who has not yet said anything publicly about the results, would do in the short term. He had vowed that ministers who lost their parliamentary races would have to quit; three fall into that category and will need to be replaced, if Mr. Macron follows through. The president could decide to address voter frustrations by reshuffling his cabinet more extensively.Opposition forces are now expected to control key committees, such as the powerful finance committee that oversees the state budget, and to fill strategic positions in the National Assembly.“They can do everything that Emmanuel Macron doesn’t like, that is, force his hand on some amendments, force him into debates,” Mr. Martigny said.Mr. Macron also lost key allies who would have helped him navigate the National Assembly’s newly treacherous waters and manage its reinvigorated opposition. Richard Ferrand, the president of the lower house, and Christophe Castaner, who was one of Mr. Macron’s top lawmakers there, both lost their seats.Marine Le Pen in Hénin-Beaumont, northern France, on Sunday. She was handily re-elected, and she led her far-right National Rally party to a tally of 89 seats overall.Denis Charlet/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe left-wing coalition and the National Rally both have enough lawmakers to bring a vote of no confidence, but they would need to muster an absolute majority in Parliament to bring down the government, which seems unlikely at the moment.“Yes, we are asking for everything that an opposition group is entitled to, the finance committee of course, the vice presidency, of course,” Ms. Le Pen told reporters on Monday. “Will Emmanuel Macron be able to do what he wants? No, and so much the better.”Ms. Le Pen, who was handily re-elected to her own seat in the National Assembly, managed to bring with her a record number of lawmakers, who are now about 10 times as numerous as they were during Mr. Macron’s previous term.That will enable the party to officially form what is known as a parliamentary group, giving the National Rally more speaking time, as well as specific legislative powers such as the ability to create special committees, further anchoring the party in the political mainstream.French political parties receive public funding based on factors that include their election results and their number of seats in Parliament, meaning that the National Rally’s spectacular surge will also bring a welcome financial windfall to a party that has long been indebted.The party is expected to receive almost 10 million euros, about $10.5 million, in public funding every year, compared to around €5 million during the previous term. That could be enough to finally pay off the €9.6 million that remains of a loan the National Rally contracted with a Russian bank in 2014, which has prompted accusations of the party’s having close ties to the Kremlin.Analysts said the surge of the far right was a failure for Mr. Macron, who five years ago began his first term by pledging to unite the French so that there would be “no reason at all to vote for the extremes.”But Ms. Morin and Mr. Martigny also noted that the National Assembly now offered a more accurate photograph of the French political landscape, including with the arrival of more working-class lawmakers.“That’s rather good news,” Mr. Martigny said. “It will force changes in a political culture that was not particularly favorable to parliamentary debates.” More

The evidence gathered by the Jan. 6 committee and in some of the federal cases against those involved in the Capitol attack pose for Attorney General Merrick Garland one of the most consequential questions that any attorney general has ever faced: Should the United States indict former President Donald Trump?The basic allegations against Mr. Trump are well known. In disregard of advice by many of his closest aides, including Attorney General William Barr, he falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and stolen; he pressured Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes for Joe Biden during the electoral count in Congress on Jan. 6; and he riled up a mob, directed it to the Capitol and refused for a time to take steps to stop the ensuing violence.To indict Mr. Trump for these and other acts, Mr. Garland must make three decisions, each more difficult than the previous, and none of which has an obvious answer.First, he must determine whether the decision to indict Mr. Trump is his to make. If Mr. Garland decides that a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump is warranted, Justice Department regulations require him to appoint a special counsel if the investigation presents a conflict of interest for the department and if Mr. Garland believes such an appointment would be in the public interest.The department arguably faces a conflict of interest. Mr. Trump is a political adversary of Mr. Garland’s boss, President Biden. Mr. Trump is also Mr. Biden’s likeliest political opponent in the 2024 presidential election. Mr. Garland’s judgments impact the political fate of Mr. Biden and his own possible tenure in office. The appearance of a conflict sharpened when Mr. Biden reportedly told his inner circle that Mr. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, and complained about Mr. Garland’s dawdling on the matter.Even if conflicted, Mr. Garland could keep full control over Mr. Trump’s legal fate if he believes that a special counsel would not serve the public interest. Some will argue that the public interest in a fair-minded prosecution would best be served by appointment of a quasi-independent special counsel, perhaps one who is a member of Mr. Trump’s party.But no matter who leads it, a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump would occur in a polarized political environment and overheated media environment. In this context, Mr. Garland could legitimately conclude that the public interest demands that the Trump matter be guided by the politically accountable person whom the Senate confirmed in 2021 by a vote of 70-30.If Mr. Garland opens a Trump investigation and keeps the case — decisions he might already have made — the second issue is whether he has adequate evidence to indict Mr. Trump. The basic question here is whether, in the words of Justice Department guidelines, Mr. Trump’s acts constitute a federal offense and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”These will be hard conclusions for Mr. Garland to reach. He would have to believe that the department could probably convince a unanimous jury that Mr. Trump committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Garland cannot rest this judgment on the Jan. 6 committee’s one-sided factual recitations or legal contentions. Nor can he put much stock in a ruling by a federal judge who, in a civil subpoena dispute — a process that requires a significantly lower standard of proof to prevail than in a criminal trial — concluded that Mr. Trump (who was not represented) “more likely than not” committed a crime related to Jan. 6.Instead, Mr. Garland must assess how any charges against Mr. Trump would fare in an adversarial criminal proceeding administered by an independent judge, where Mr. Trump’s lawyers will contest the government’s factual and legal contentions, tell his side of events, raise many defenses and appeal every important adverse legal decision to the Supreme Court.Attorney General Merrick Garland.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressThe two most frequently mentioned crimes Mr. Trump may have committed are the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding (the Jan. 6 vote count) and conspiracy to defraud the United States (in working to overturn election results). Many have noted that Mr. Trump can plausibly defend these charges by arguing that he lacked criminal intent because he truly believed that massive voter fraud had taken place.Mr. Trump would also claim that key elements of his supposedly criminal actions — his interpretations of the law, his pressure on Mr. Pence, his delay in responding to the Capitol breach and more — were exercises of his constitutional prerogatives as chief executive. Mr. Garland would need to assess how these legally powerful claims inform the applicability of criminal laws to Mr. Trump’s actions in what would be the first criminal trial of a president. He would also consider the adverse implications of a Trump prosecution for more virtuous future presidents.If Mr. Garland concludes that Mr. Trump has committed convictable crimes, he would face the third and hardest decision: whether the national interest would be served by prosecuting Mr. Trump. This is not a question that lawyerly analysis alone can resolve. It is a judgment call about the nature, and fate, of our democracy.A failure to indict Mr. Trump in these circumstances would imply that a president — who cannot be indicted while in office — is literally above the law, in defiance of the very notion of constitutional government. It would encourage lawlessness by future presidents, none more so than Mr. Trump should he win the next election. By contrast, the rule of law would be vindicated by a Trump conviction. And it might be enhanced by a full judicial airing of Mr. Trump’s possible crimes in office, even if it ultimately fails.And yet Mr. Garland cannot be sanguine that a Trump prosecution would promote national reconciliation or enhance confidence in American justice. Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude; would last through, and deeply impact, the next election; and would leave Mr. Trump’s ultimate fate to the next administration, which could be headed by Mr. Trump.Along the way, the prosecution would further enflame our already-blazing partisan acrimony; consume the rest of Mr. Biden’s term; embolden, and possibly politically enhance, Mr. Trump; and threaten to set off tit-for-tat recriminations across presidential administrations. The prosecution thus might jeopardize Mr. Garland’s cherished aim to restore norms of Justice Department “independence and integrity” even if he prosecutes Mr. Trump in the service of those norms. And if the prosecution fails, many will conclude that the country and the rule of law suffered tremendous pain for naught.Mr. Garland’s decisions will be deeply controversial and have consequences beyond his lifetime. It is easy to understand, contrary to his many critics, why he is gathering as much information as possible — including what has emerged from the Jan. 6 committee and the prosecution of the higher-ups involved in the Capitol breach — before making these momentous judgments.Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Gail Collins: Bret, I never did like Mike Pence at all — his far-right social values would have turned me off even if he didn’t call his wife “Mother.”Bret Stephens: Well, it beats “Cousin.” Sorry, continue.Gail: And I’ve never forgotten the moment when Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” asked Pence if he ever thought he’d be able to tell Donald Trump he needed to apologize for having “crossed the line.” Pence just kinda babbled without answering until Trump interrupted. “Absolutely. I might not apologize,” Trump said. “But I would absolutely want him to come in.”But now, the worm has turned! Except I guess I shouldn’t be calling Pence a worm any more.Bret: I’m having a hard time joining the “Mike Pence the Hero” bandwagon that some of my old friends on the right have jumped aboard.Where was Pence in November when Trump started lying about the election the moment their defeat became clear? Where was he when the president enlisted the likes of Sidney Powell and John Eastman to peddle insane conspiracy theories about voting machines and preposterous interpretations of the Electoral Count Act? Where was he on invoking the 25th Amendment after the assault on the Capitol, or at least on supporting impeachment? Pence was a worm who, for a few hours on Jan. 6, turned into a glowworm.Gail: OK, I can’t top that.Still, I keep imagining what chaos the country would have fallen into if Pence had panicked and refused to count the election results back to the states instead of just certifying Joe Biden as president.Bret: Nancy Pelosi would have beaten him to a pulp with that giant gavel of hers before he could have done it.Gail: That’s an image I plan to carry around with me for a long time.Bret: Also, can I fume a bit about the so-called sane right’s position on all this? They’re busy trying to switch the subject to left-wing rioting, as if trashing a courthouse in Portland, bad as that is, is somehow an equivalent event to a sitting president inciting a violent mob to trash the Capitol in order to overturn a national election.Gail: Feel free to fume for both of us.Bret: OK, end of rant. What conclusions do you draw from the Jan. 6 committee hearings?Gail: Well, we certainly were reminded that Trump was totally complicit in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.Bret: Not complicit. Guilty.Gail: Yeah, thanks for the better word. And apparently when he insisted he won the election he was ignoring virtually everybody giving him advice except Rudy Giuliani.Wow, just imagine a defiant Trump telling his expert counselors: “That might be all your opinion — but Rudy was making some very good points before he passed out over there.”Bret: Some of our younger readers may not remember that Giuliani was Time’s Person of the Year in 2001 for his leadership after the attacks of Sept. 11. His fall from grace has been like a bungee jump minus the bungee.Gail: Giuliani’s role during Sept. 11 was … not what you imagine. He wouldn’t, for instance, have been dramatically marching around the streets after the attack if he hadn’t moved the critically important emergency command center into the World Trade Center, a well-identified terrorist target, because he wanted it within walking distance of his office.Could go on, but for me Rudy’s fall from heroic grace goes back a trillion years.Bret: I’m beginning to think you’re right. Never did like the way he went after Michael Milken.Gail: As for Trump, even if nothing we learned at the hearings has been a big surprise, it’s so, so very important to get all this stuff on the record in as public and evenhanded a way as possible.And again, I’ve gotta say: Good work, Mike Pence. You’re a terrible person, but you had a moment. If the vice president had panicked and gone to hide in a relative’s basement when it was time to certify the election, can’t imagine where we’d be now.Bret: Pass the peyote. Gail Collins has a better impression of Mike Pence than I do.Gail: Well, I’m giving him one good day.And what’s your prediction for what happens next to Trump? Presidential election bid in 2024 or the slammer?Bret: In a just world? I’d want one jury to indict him, another to convict him and a warden to lock him up — to borrow a phrase.What I don’t know is whether that’s the smart thing to do. On one hand, prosecuting him would be a good reminder that we’re a nation of laws. On the other, it would radicalize the right even further, turn him into a national martyr to about a third of the country if he goes to prison and make him a clear and present danger to everyone else if he doesn’t. And it would be the only thing the country could talk about for years while we have a few other problems to deal with.What say you?Gail: Prosecuting Trump would be righteous, but you’re right — it would leave him subject of still more right-wing hero-worship. My real dream is to see him go completely bankrupt.Bret: Once again.Gail: Permanently this time. First we have to get past 2024 and any chance he returns to the presidency, God help us. Then all the civil lawsuits and public investigations into his business dealings in New York come to fruition — and then he’s down to a basement apartment in Staten Island.Bret: Even Staten Island doesn’t deserve that. But I doubt Trump will be convicted or fined for all of his dodgy business deals. His crime is treason, in the Constitution’s precise definition: levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies and giving them aid and comfort.Gail: I agree about what he deserves, but I’m still worried the long and unprecedented attempt to send him to jail would fail while splitting the country way more.And I’d love to dwell on my vision of Trump holding out an empty coffee cup on some corner, begging for change. Maybe not realistic, but so … sweet.Now we ought to talk some about Biden and the state of the economy. Feel free to vent.Bret: Many of our readers have fond feelings toward Jimmy Carter as a person, but the Biden administration increasingly feels like a rerun of the Carter years, complete with stagflation, an energy crisis and Moscow invading a neighboring country. The smartest thing Biden can do, politically and economically, is to stop blaming others — even genuine villains like Vladimir Putin — so that his administration doesn’t project an air of being at the mercy of events.Gail: Go on …Bret: As I was saying last week, he should fire Janet Yellen, preferably this week, and replace her with Larry Summers. It will create a sense of accountability and put energy in the executive, as Alexander Hamilton might have said. Work with Canada to import more oil, whether by rail or pipeline or truck: It beats getting our oil from Venezuela. Give Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo or the infrastructure czar Mitch Landrieu the job of anticipating and preventing consumer-goods shortages, from baby formula to tampons to whatever is next.If all this sounds extreme, consider what will happen if we just drift along until President DeSantis takes the reins in 2025. Or President Trump. But I’m always happy to hear of a better way.Gail: I don’t blame Yellen for our economic mess, although I’d sadly sacrifice her if it would move us forward. Your other ideas don’t sound extremely extreme — although if we’re going to start piping oil from Canada the plan needs to be married to the battle against global warming.Bret: Step One: Subsidize an accelerated transition to a hybrid- and electric-car vehicle fleet. Step Two: Build safer next-generation nuclear reactors to power more of the grid. Step Three: Blame Canada for any and all remaining issues.Gail: Well, giving you half a step for the electric cars.Back to the economy: If Biden had any prayer of getting Congressional support, I’d want him to return to his early-administration dreams. Invest in quality child care options to bring women back into the work force and reduce the labor shortage. Give lower- and middle-income workers a jolt of extra cash through tax rebates. Install his program to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. In a perfect world, fund a federal program to cut back on student debt.Bret: Nice to be reminded that in some post-Trump universe, there’s a lot we still disagree about.Gail: Of course, all this would cost money, and that’s why we’d need — yes! — tax hikes on the rich. Many of whom are making out like bandits in the current economy.Bret: Let’s fight about that later. In the meantime, our readers shouldn’t miss our former opinion-page colleague Clay Risen’s wonderful “Overlooked No More” obituary for William B. Gould, who in 1862 escaped slavery in North Carolina by commandeering a sailboat, joined the crew of a Union blockade ship, kept a meticulous diary, went on to prosperity in Massachusetts and lived to be 85. Next year Dedham, Mass., will unveil a statue in his honor on the centenary of his death. A great reminder of all that’s worth celebrating this Juneteenth.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

Raphael Warnock claims he’s not a politician, though he certainly sounds like one and serves as one. The U.S. senator from Georgia, who has long been the pastor at Martin Luther King Jr.’s former church, says that his “entry into politics is an extension” of his work on a range of what he sees as moral issues, such as health care, criminal-justice reform and voting rights.Warnock became Georgia’s first Black senator in January 2021, when he narrowly beat the Republican incumbent, Kelly Loeffler, in a special runoff election. And he is set for yet another tough political battle ahead, against Herschel Walker, the former N.F.L. player, who in addition to his celebrity status also has an endorsement from Donald Trump. The stakes are high: “God knows these days, the Senate needs a soul,” Warnock says.[You can listen to this episode of “Sway” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]In this conversation, Kara Swisher talks to Warnock about his path from the pulpit to the Senate and the religious journey he traces in his recent memoir, “A Way Out of No Way.” She presses him on whether he can beat his celebrity opponent and asks what shadow Trump casts on this election. And they discuss the contrast between the jubilation he felt on his history-making victory and the horror that unfolded less than 24 hours later, as a mob attacked his “new office,” the Capitol, on Jan. 6.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Keven LoweryThoughts? Email us at [email protected].“Sway” is produced by Nayeema Raza, Blakeney Schick, Caitlin O’Keefe and Wyatt Orme, and edited by Nayeema Raza; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones and Sonia Herrero; mixing by Carole Sabouraud and Sonia Herrero; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski. More

Long before Gustavo Petro emerged as the apparently victorious leftist candidate for president, he was part of the M-19, an urban guerrilla group that sought to seize power through violence in the name of promoting social justice.For some Colombian voters, his past was a source of concern after decades of armed conflict. For others, it offered a sign of hope for one of most inequitable countries in Latin America.The M-19 was born in 1970 as a response to alleged fraud in that year’s presidential elections. It was far smaller than the country’s main guerrilla force, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which was Marxist and sought haven in Colombia’s jungles and rural areas.The M-19 was an urban military group formed by university students, activists and artists who wanted to topple a governing system they believed failed to bridge a chronic divide between the rich and the poor.“The M-19 was born in arms to build a democracy,” Mr. Petro told The New York Times in an interview.It originally tried to promote a Robin Hood image, robbing milk from supermarket trucks to distribute in poor neighborhoods and, in a symbolic act of rebellion, stole a sword from a museum that Simón Bolívar used in Colombia’s war for independence.Mr. Petro, 62, joined the group when he was 17 and an economics student, dismayed by the poverty he witnessed in the town where has living, outside Bogotá, the capital.While the M-19 was less brutal than other rebel groups, it did orchestrate what is considered one of the bloodiest acts in the country’s recent history: the 1985 siege of Colombia’s national judicial building that led to a battle with the police and the military, leaving 94 people dead.The group also stole 5,000 weapons from the Colombian military and used kidnapping as a tactic to try to wrest concessions from the government.Mr. Petro, who spent 10 years in the M-19, largely stockpiled stolen weapons, said Sandra Borda, a political science professor at the University of the Andes in Bogotá.“What’s key is that he wasn’t part of the main circle who made the decisions in M-19. He was very young at that moment,” she said. “He didn’t participate in the most important operations of the M-19, the military operations.”At the time of the justice building takeover, Mr. Petro was in prison for his involvement with the group and he has described being beaten and electrocuted by the authorities.The group eventually demobilized in 1990, which was considered one of the most successful peace processes in the country’s long history of conflict. It turned into a political party that helped rewrite the country’s constitution to focus more on equality and human rights.Mr. Petro ran for Senate as a member of the party, launching his political career.Sofía Villamil More

La victoria del exrebelde y senador veterano sitúa al tercer país más poblado de América Latina en un nuevo rumbo.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Por primera vez, Colombia tendrá un presidente de izquierda.Gustavo Petro, un exrebelde y legislador con experiencia, ganó las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia el domingo, movilizando a los votantes frustrados por décadas de pobreza y desigualdad con gobiernos conservadores, con promesas de ampliar los programas sociales, poner impuestos a los ricos y alejarse de una economía que él ha calificado de excesivamente dependiente de los combustibles fósiles.Su victoria sitúa al tercer país más poblado de América Latina en una senda muy incierta, justo cuando se enfrenta a un aumento de la pobreza y la violencia que ha enviado a un número récord de colombianos hacia la frontera con Estados Unidos; a los altos niveles de deforestación en la Amazonía colombiana, un amortiguador clave contra el cambio climático; y a una creciente desconfianza en las instituciones democráticas clave, algo que se ha convertido en una tendencia en la región.Petro, de 62 años, obtuvo más del 50 por ciento de los votos, con más del 99 por ciento escrutado el domingo por la noche. Su contrincante, Rodolfo Hernández, un magnate de la construcción que entusiasmó al país con una plataforma anticorrupción, obtuvo algo más del 47 por ciento.Poco después de conocerse los resultados de la votación, Hernández reconoció la victoria de Petro.“Colombianos, hoy la mayoría de ciudadanos que votaron, lo han hecho escogiendo al otro candidato”, dijo. “Como lo expresé reiteradamente, acepto el resultado”.Petro subió al escenario flanqueado por Francia Márquez, su elección para vicepresidenta, y tres de sus hijos. El estadio, repleto, se volvió loco. La gente estaba de pie en los asientos y sostenía en alto sus celulares.“Esta historia que estamos escribiendo en este momento es una historia nueva para Colombia, para América Latina, para el mundo”, dijo. “No vamos a traicionar este electorado”.Prometió gobernar con lo que llamó “la política del amor”, basada en la esperanza, el diálogo y la comprensión.Francia Márquez durante un evento de campaña el mes pasado en Yumbo, Colombia.Federico Rios para The New York TimesPoco más de 58 por ciento de los 39 millones de electores de Colombia emitieron su voto, según las cifras oficiales.La victoria significa que Márquez, una activista medioambiental que salió de la pobreza para convertirse en una destacada defensora de la justicia social, se convertirá en la primera vicepresidenta negra del país.La victoria de Petro y Márquez refleja un fervor antisistema que se ha extendido por toda Latinoamérica, donde la pandemia ha exacerbado el enfado con problemas de larga data, como la falta de oportunidades.“El país entero está pidiendo un cambio”, dijo Fernando Posada, un politólogo colombiano, “y eso es clarísimo”.En abril, los costarricenses eligieron a la presidencia a Rodrigo Chaves, un exfuncionario del Banco Mundial y outsider de la política del país que aprovechó el descontento generalizado con el partido en el poder. El año pasado, Chile, Perú y Honduras votaron por líderes de izquierda que compitieron contra candidatos derechistas, lo que amplió una tendencia que ya lleva varios años en América Latina.Como candidato, Petro ha entusiasmado a una generación que es la más educada de la historia de Colombia, pero que también se enfrenta a una inflación anual del 10 por ciento, una tasa de desempleo juvenil del 20 por ciento y una tasa de pobreza del 40 por ciento. Sus mítines a menudo estaban llenos de jóvenes, muchos de los cuales decían sentirse traicionados por décadas de líderes que habían hecho grandes promesas, pero que habían cumplido poco.“No conformarnos con la mediocridad que viene de las generaciones pasadas”, dijo Larry Rico, de 23 años, un votante a favor de Petro en un sitio de votación de Ciudad Bolívar, un barrio pobre de la capital, Bogotá.La victoria de Petro es aún más significativa debido a la historia del país. Durante décadas, el gobierno luchó contra una brutal insurgencia izquierdista conocida como las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, o FARC, y el estigma del conflicto dificultó el florecimiento de una izquierda legítima.Pero las FARC firmaron un acuerdo de paz con el gobierno en 2016, dejando las armas y abriendo espacio para un discurso político más amplio.Petro había formado parte de otro grupo rebelde, llamado M-19, que se desmovilizó en 1990 y se convirtió en un partido político que ayudó a reescribir la constitución del país. Con el tiempo, Petro se convirtió en un líder contundente de la oposición del país, conocido por denunciar los abusos a los derechos humanos y la corrupción.Votantes emitiendo sus votos en las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia, en Bucaramanga, el domingo.Nathalia Angarita para The New York TimesEl domingo, en una zona acomodada de Bogotá, Francisco Ortiz, de 67 años y director de televisión, dijo que también había votado por Petro.“Creo que hacía mucho tiempo no teníamos una oportunidad como esta para cambiar”, dijo. “Que si es mejor, mejor, no lo sé, pero si seguimos en lo mismo, sí sabemos qué es lo que vamos a tener”.La victoria también podría poner a prueba la relación de Estados Unidos con su aliado más fuerte en América Latina. Tradicionalmente, Colombia ha sido la piedra angular de la política de Washington en la región.Pero Petro ha criticado lo que él llama el enfoque fallido de Estados Unidos en la guerra contra las drogas, al decir que se ha centrado demasiado en la erradicación del cultivo de coca, el producto base de la cocaína, y no lo suficiente en el desarrollo rural y otras medidas.Petro ha dicho que apoya alguna forma de legalización de las drogas, que renegociará un acuerdo comercial existente con Estados Unidos para beneficiar mejor a los colombianos y que restaurará las relaciones con el gobierno autoritario del presidente Nicolás Maduro de Venezuela, todo lo cual podría crear conflictos con Washington.Unos dos millones de migrantes venezolanos han huido a Colombia en los últimos años en medio de una crisis económica, política y humanitaria.Soldados colombianos en una zona de cultivos de coca cerca de la frontera con Venezuela. Estados Unidos ha desembolsado miles de millones de dólares en las últimas dos décadas para reducir la producción y exportación de cocaína, sin grandes resultados.Federico Rios para The New York TimesEn una entrevistade este año, Petro dijo que creía que podría trabajar bien con el gobierno del presidente Joe Biden, y agregó que su relación con los Estados Unidos se centraría en el trabajo conjunto para hacer frente al cambio climático, específicamente para detener la rápida erosión de la Amazonía.“Ahí hay un punto de diálogo”, dijo. “Porque salvar la selva amazónica implica unos instrumentos, unos programas, que hoy no existen por lo menos con respecto a Estados Unidos. Es, en mi opinión, la prioridad”.Tanto Petro como Hernández se impusieron a Federico Gutiérrez, exalcalde de una gran ciudad respaldado por la élite conservadora, en la primera vuelta de la votación del 29 de mayo, lo que los llevó a una segunda vuelta.Ambos se habían autodenominado candidatos antisistema, diciendo que se presentaban contra una clase política que había controlado el país durante generaciones.Uno de los factores que más les distinguía era su visión de la raíz de los problemas del país.Petro piensa que el sistema económico está roto, que depende demasiado de la exportación de petróleo y de un negocio floreciente e ilegal de cocaína que, según él, ha hecho que los ricos sean más ricos y los pobres más pobres. Exige detener las nuevas exploraciones petroleras, un cambio hacia el desarrollo de otras industrias.También ha dicho que introducirá el trabajo garantizado con una renta básica, hará que el país pase a tener un sistema de salud controlado públicamente y aumentará el acceso a la educación superior, en parte subiendo los impuestos a los ricos.“Hoy lo que tenemos es un resultado de esto que yo llamo el agotamiento del modelo”, dijo Petro en la entrevista mencionada, refiriéndose al sistema económico actual. “El resultado final es un empobrecimiento brutal”.Sin embargo, su ambicioso plan económico ha suscitado preocupaciones. Un exministro de Hacienda definió su plan energético como un “suicidio económico”.Hernández no propuso modificar el marco económico, pero dijo que era ineficiente porque está plagado de corrupción y gastos frívolos. Pidió que algunos ministerios se fusionaran; propuso eliminar algunas embajadas y despedir a los empleados gubernamentales ineficientes y que el dinero que se ahorrara con esas medidas se utilizara para ayudar a los pobres.Hernández durante un evento de campaña este mes en Barranquilla, Colombia.Federico Rios for The New York TimesUna partidaria de Hernández, Nilia Mesa de Reyes, de 70 años, profesora de ética jubilada que votó en un sector adinerado de Bogotá, dijo que las políticas de izquierda de Petro, y su pasado con el M-19, la aterrorizaban. “Estamos pensando en irnos del país”, dijo.Los críticos de Petro, incluidos antiguos aliados, lo han acusado de una arrogancia que lo lleva a ignorar a sus asesores y a batallar para lograr consenso. Cuando asuma el cargo en agosto, se enfrentará a una sociedad profundamente polarizada en la que las encuestas muestran una creciente desconfianza en casi todas las instituciones importantes.Ha prometido ser presidente de todos los colombianos, no solo de quienes votaron por él.El domingo, en una secundaria convertida en lugar de votación en Bogotá, Ingrid Forrero, de 31 años, dijo que veía una división generacional en su comunidad, con los jóvenes apoyando a Petro y las generaciones mayores a favor de Hernández.Su propia familia la llama la “guerrillerita” por su apoyo a Petro, a quien dijo preferir por sus políticas sobre la educación y la desigualdad salarial.“La juventud está más inclinada hacia la revolución”, dijo, “hacia la izquierda, hacia un cambio”.Megan Janetsky More

The former rebel and longtime senator’s victory sets the third largest nation in Latin America on a sharply new path.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — For the first time, Colombia will have a leftist president.Gustavo Petro, a former rebel and a longtime legislator, won Colombia’s presidential election on Sunday, galvanizing voters frustrated by decades of poverty and inequality under conservative leaders, with promises to expand social programs, tax the wealthy and move away from an economy he has called overly reliant on fossil fuels.His victory sets the third largest nation in Latin America on a sharply uncertain path, just as it faces rising poverty and violence that have sent record numbers of Colombians to the United States border; high levels of deforestation in the Colombian Amazon, a key buffer against climate change; and a growing distrust of key democratic institutions, which has become a trend in the region.Mr. Petro, 62, received more than 50 percent of the vote, with more than 99 percent counted Sunday evening. His opponent, Rodolfo Hernández, a construction magnate who had energized the country with a scorched-earth anti-corruption platform, won just over 47 percent.Shortly after the vote, Mr. Hernández conceded to Mr. Petro.“Colombians, today the majority of citizens have chosen the other candidate,” he said. “As I said during the campaign, I accept the results of this election.”Mr. Petro took the stage Sunday night flanked by his vice-presidential pick, Francia Márquez, and three of his children. The packed stadium went wild, with people standing on chairs and holding phones aloft.“This story that we are writing today is a new story for Colombia, for Latin America, for the world,” he said. “We are not going to betray this electorate.”He pledged to govern with what he has called “the politics of love,” based on hope, dialogue and understanding.Just over 58 percent of Colombia’s 39 million voters turned out to cast a ballot, according to official figures.The victory means that Ms. Márquez, an environmental activist who rose from poverty to become a prominent advocate for social justice, will become the country’s first Black vice president.Francia Márquez, at a campaign event last month in Yumbo, Colombia.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Petro and Ms. Márquez’s victory reflects an anti-establishment fervor that has spread across Latin America, exacerbated by the pandemic and other longstanding issues, including a lack of opportunity.“The entire country is begging for change,” said Fernando Posada, a Colombian political scientist, “and that is absolutely clear.”In April, Costa Ricans elected to the presidency Rodrigo Chaves, a former World Bank official and political outsider, who took advantage of widespread discontent with the incumbent party. Last year, Chile, Peru and Honduras voted for leftist leaders running against candidates on the right, extending a significant, multiyear shift across Latin America.As a candidate, Mr. Petro had energized a generation that is the most educated in Colombian history, but is also dealing with 10 percent annual inflation, a 20 percent youth unemployment rate and a 40 percent poverty rate. His rallies were often full of young people, many of whom said they feel betrayed by decades of leaders who had made grand promises, but delivered little.“We’re not satisfied with the mediocrity of past generations,” said Larry Rico, 23, a Petro voter at a polling station in Ciudad Bolívar, a poor neighborhood in Bogotá, the capital.Mr. Petro’s win is all the more significant because of the country’s history. For decades, the government fought a brutal leftist insurgency known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, with the stigma from the conflict making it difficult for a legitimate left to flourish.But the FARC signed a peace deal with the government in 2016, laying down their arms and opening space for a broader political discourse.Mr. Petro had been part of a different rebel group, called the M-19, which demobilized in 1990, and became a political party that helped rewrite the country’s constitution. Eventually, Mr. Petro became a forceful leader in the country’s opposition, known for denouncing human rights abuses and corruption.Voters cast their ballots in Colombia’s presidential election, in Bucaramanga, on Sunday.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesOn Sunday, in a wealthy part of Bogotá, Francisco Ortiz, 67, a television director, said he had also voted for Mr. Petro.“It’s been a long time since we had an opportunity like this for change,” he said. “If things will get better, I don’t know. But if we stick with the same, we already know what we’re going to get.”The win could also test the United States’ relationship with its strongest ally in Latin America. Traditionally, Colombia has formed the cornerstone of Washington’s policy in the region.But Mr. Petro has criticized what he calls the United States’ failed approach to the drug war, saying it has focused too much on eradication of the coca crop, the base product in cocaine, and not enough on rural development and other measures.Mr. Petro has said he embraces some form of drug legalization, that he will renegotiate an existing trade deal with the United States to better benefit Colombians and that he will restore relations with the authoritarian government of president Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, all of which could create conflict with the United States.About two million Venezuelan migrants have fled to Colombia in recent years amid an economic, political and humanitarian crisis.Colombian soldiers in a coca growing area near the border with Venezuela. The United States has spent billions of dollars in Colombia in the past two decades to help its governments halt the production and export of cocaine, to little effect.Federico Rios for The New York TimesMr. Petro, in an interview earlier this year, said he believed he could work well with the government of President Biden, adding that his relationship with the United States would focus on working together to tackle climate change, specifically halting the rapid erosion of the Amazon.“There is a point of dialogue there,” he said. “Because saving the Amazon rainforest involves some instruments, some programs, that do not exist today, at least not with respect to the United States. It is, in my opinion, the priority.”Both Mr. Petro and Mr. Hernández had beaten Federico Gutiérrez, a former big city mayor backed by the conservative elite, in a first round of voting on May 29, sending them to a runoff.Both men had billed themselves as anti-establishment candidates, saying they were running against a political class that had controlled the country for generations.Among the factors that most distinguished them was how they viewed the root of the country’s problems.Mr. Petro believes the economic system is broken, overly reliant on oil export and a flourishing and illegal cocaine business that he said has made the rich richer and poor poorer. He is calling for a halt to all new oil exploration, and a shift to developing other industries.He has also said he will introduce guaranteed work with a basic income, move the country to a publicly controlled health system and increase access to higher education, in part by raising taxes on the rich.“What we have today is the result of what I call ‘the depletion of the model,’” Mr. Petro said in the interview earlier this year, referring to the current economic system. “The end result is a brutal poverty.”His ambitious economic plan has, however, raised concerns. One former finance minister called his energy plan “economic suicide.”Mr. Hernández did not want to overhaul the economic framework, but said it was inefficient because it is riddled with corruption and frivolous spending. He had called for combining ministries, eliminating some embassies and firing inefficient government employees, while using savings to help the poor.Mr. Hernández during a campaign event this month in Barranquilla, Colombia.Federico Rios for The New York TimesOne Hernández supporter, Nilia Mesa de Reyes, 70, a retired ethics professor who voted in an affluent section of Bogotá, said that Mr. Petro’s leftist policies, and his past with the M-19, terrified her. “We’re thinking about leaving the country,” she said.Mr. Petro’s critics, including former allies, have accused him of arrogance that leads him to ignore advisers and struggle to build consensus. When he takes office in August, he will face a deeply polarized society where polls show growing distrust in almost all major institutions.He has vowed to serve as the president of all Colombians, not just those who voted for him.On Sunday, at a high school-turned-polling station in Bogotá, Ingrid Forrero, 31, said she saw a generational divide in her community, with young people supporting Mr. Petro and older generations in favor of Mr. Hernández.Her own family calls her the “little rebel” because of her support for Mr. Petro, whom she said she favors because of his policies on education and income inequality.“The youth is more inclined toward revolution,” she said, “toward the left, toward a change.”Megan Janetsky contributed reporting from Bucaramanga, Colombia, and Sofía Villamil and Genevieve Glatsky contributed reporting from Bogotá. More