Coups D’Etat and Attempted Coups D’Etat

Subterms

    Latest story

    88 Shares54 Views

    U.S. Military to Withdraw Troops From Niger

    by

    The status of a $110 million air base in the desert remains unclear as the West African country deepens its ties with Russia.More than 1,000 American military personnel will leave Niger in the coming months, Biden administration officials said on Friday, upending U.S. counterterrorism and security policy in the tumultuous Sahel region of Africa.In the second of two meetings this week in Washington, Deputy Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell told Niger’s prime minister, Ali Lamine Zeine, that the United States disagreed with the country’s turn toward Russia for security and Iran for a possible deal on its uranium reserves, and the failure of Niger’s military government to map out a path to return to democracy, according to a senior State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic talks.The decision was not a particular surprise. Niger said last month that it was revoking its military cooperation deal with the United States following a highly contentious set of meetings in Niger’s capital, Niamey, with a high-level American diplomatic and military delegation.That move was in keeping with a recent pattern by countries in the Sahel region, an arid area south of the Sahara, of breaking ties with Western countries. Increasingly, they are partnering with Russia instead.American diplomats have sought in the past several weeks to salvage a revamped military cooperation deal with Niger’s military government, U.S. officials said, but in the end they failed to strike a compromise.The talks collapsed amid a growing wave of ill feelings toward the U.S. presence in Niger. Thousands of protesters in the capital last Saturday called for the withdrawal of American armed forces personnel only days after Russia delivered its own set of military equipment and instructors to the country’s military.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Jan. 6 Wasn’t an Insurrection

      by

      I’ve written several times about the case for disqualifying Donald Trump via the 14th Amendment, arguing that it fails tests of political prudence and constitutional plausibility alike. But the debate keeps going, and the proponents of disqualification have dug into the position that whatever the prudential concerns about the amendment’s application, the events of Jan. 6, 2021, obviously amounted to an insurrection in the sense intended by the Constitution, and saying otherwise is just evasion or denial.From their vantage point, any definition of “insurrection” that limits the amendment’s application to the kind of broad political-military rebellion that occasioned its original passage — to the hypothetical raising of a Trumpist Army of Northern Virginia, say, or the seizure of the U.S. Capitol by a Confederate States of Trumpist America — is an abuse of the natural meaning of the word. Such a limitation, they say, ignores all the obvious ways that lesser, less comprehensive forms of resistance to lawful authority clearly qualify as insurrectionary.Here are a couple of examples of this argument: The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer, arguing with me and New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait; and the constitutional law professor Ilya Somin, going back and forth with his fellow legal scholar Steven Calabresi in Reason magazine.I have a basic sympathy with Calabresi’s suggestion that the “paradigmatic example” that the drafters of the 14th Amendment had in mind should guide our understanding of its ambiguities, and since the paradigmatic example is the Civil War, in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed, a five-hour riot probably doesn’t clear the bar. (For related arguments about the perils of applying precedents from specific crises to radically different situations, see this essay from Samuel Issacharoff as well.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Madagascar Votes Amid Violence and Calls for Boycott

      by

      Tensions are high on the island nation off the coast of southeastern Africa, as opposition presidential candidates complain of a rigged election and abuses by security forces.After weeks of political violence, voters on the island nation of Madagascar went to the polls on Thursday to elect a president, even though 10 of the 13 candidates called for a boycott, accusing the man they are vying to replace of unfairly tilting the process in his favor.Most of the 30 million residents of this nation off the southeastern coast of Africa live in poverty. A series of weather-related catastrophes in recent years have damaged the country’s agricultural production, its economic mainstay, increasing the humanitarian crisis.Madagascar is heavily reliant on foreign aid, and there are fears that a disputed election could cause some benefactors to pull back support, which “will lead the country to a chaotic situation,” said Andoniaina Ratsimamanga, a spokeswoman for the Red Cross, which is helping with the humanitarian response in Madagascar.Political instability has been a defining feature of Madagascar’s elections over the years, and the 2018 race saw efforts by Russia to influence the outcome through the paramilitary organization the Wagner Group. It is unclear whether Russia has any involvement in this year’s election, or how much.Since campaigning began in early October, demonstrators and security forces have clashed at political rallies and protests, where supporters of opposition candidates have been beaten, arrested and shot at with rubber bullets and tear gas while protesting an election system they believe to be rigged.The leader of Madagascar’s National Assembly, as well as dozens of civil society organizations in the country, have called for the country’s election commission to postpone voting because of the instability. The U.N., several European countries and the United States have all raised concerns about the government’s violent crackdown of election rallies.Almost all the candidates are asking voters to stay away from the polls because they say that the most recent president, Andry Rajoelina, has unfairly benefited from state institutions run by his loyalists.Andry Rajoelina at a political rally on Saturday. He stepped down from the presidency to run for re-election, but largely enjoys the powers of incumbency. Other candidates say he is tilting the field to his advantage. Rijasolo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Rajoelina, by law, stepped down in September to run for re-election, but largely enjoys the powers of incumbency. The 10 candidates say that state security forces have disrupted their campaigning; that judges Mr. Rajoelina is aligned with made rulings in his favor; and that the national election commission is stacked with his allies. They also say that Mr. Rajoelina is ineligible to hold office because he obtained French citizenship, arguing that the law requires him to renounce his Malagasy nationality as a result.“It’s not fair and transparent,” Marc Ravalomanana, one of the candidates and himself a former president of the country, said in a telephone interview. Mr. Ravalomanana is a longtime nemesis of Mr. Rajoelina, who displaced him in a coup in 2009.“It’s been rigged,” Mr. Ravalomanana said of this race.A spokeswoman for Mr. Rajoelina pushed back, saying that the same rules and institutions overseeing previous elections in which Mr. Rajoelina did not prevail applied in this contest.“There are no tensions or political crises in Madagascar, just politicians who are candidates but don’t want to go to the polls, and who are doing everything they can to create unrest,” the spokeswoman, Lalatiana Rakotondrazafy, wrote in a text message.“Constitutional order must be respected, and voters must be allowed to do their civic duty calmly,” she added.Members of the collective of opposition candidates in a march on Tuesday. There have been calls to postpone Madagascar’s presidential election because of the instability.Rijasolo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Rajoelina, a former disc jockey, ruled a transitional government after staging the coup in 2009, but did not retain power in the 2013 election. He regained power in the most recent election, in 2018.Since the country’s independence from France in 1960, only the past two elections — in 2013 and 2018 — are considered to have had peaceful handovers of power. And even in those contests, there were disputes and challenges over who could run, and the results.The violence this year pales in comparison to what happened during the 2009 coup, when protesters burned buildings and many people died, said Ms. Ratsimamanga, the Red Cross spokeswoman. This year, the political opponents of Mr. Rajoelina have staged rallies attended by thousands of people who have been largely peaceful, she said, but they have often been met by a hostile military response.“Honestly, I think it’s quite exaggerated,” she said of the military’s response, “because on the other side they don’t really have any arms.”Supporters of the collective of opposition candidates cheer a protest march this week.Rijasolo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn a statement released last month, the U.N. said it was “concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation in Madagascar,” adding that “security forces used unnecessary and disproportionate force to disperse four peaceful protests in two weeks.”A few days later, a coalition of embassies, including the European Union, the United States and Japan, issued a joint statement supporting the U.N.’s position, urging “everyone to exercise the utmost restraint.” The United States gave $400,000 to Madagascar’s election commission this year to promote education and awareness around the election.At least one opposition candidate who believes that Mr. Rajoelina is unfairly attempting to tilt the election in his favor is pushing ahead with his campaign to defeat him.Siteny Randrianasoloniaiko, a former judo champion who is now running for the presidency, said boycotting the election was risky because it could allow Mr. Rajoelina to be unopposed for re-election. He is encouraging his supporters to vote, saying that if they discover any discrepancies in the electoral process, he and his team will challenge the outcome.“Let’s see,” he said in an interview. “Let’s wait and see.”Supporters of Mr. Rajoelina attend his last presidential campaign rally on Sunday ahead of the election.Reuters More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Nothing Without Republican Accomplices

      by

      During the first Republican debate of the 2024 presidential primary campaign last month, Donald Trump’s rivals were asked to raise their hands if they would support his candidacy, even if he were “convicted in a court of law.” Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election wasn’t just a potential criminal offense. It also violated the cardinal rule of democracy: Politicians must accept the results of elections, win or lose.But that seemed to matter little on the debate stage. Vivek Ramaswamy’s hand shot up first, and all the other leading candidates followed suit — some eagerly, some more hesitantly and one after casting furtive glances to his right and his left.Behavior like this might seem relatively harmless — a small act of political cowardice aimed at avoiding the wrath of the base. But such banal acquiescence is very dangerous. Individual autocrats, even popular demagogues, are never enough to wreck a democracy. Democracy’s assassins always have accomplices among mainstream politicians in the halls of power. The greatest threat to our democracy comes not from demagogues like Mr. Trump or even from extremist followers like those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, but rather from the ordinary politicians, many of them inside the Capitol that day, who protect and enable him.The problem facing Republican leaders today — the emergence of a popular authoritarian threat in their own ideological camp — is hardly new. It has confronted political leaders across the world for generations. In Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, mainstream center-left and center-right parties had to navigate a political world in which antidemocratic extremists on the communist left and the fascist right enjoyed mass appeal. And in much of South America in the polarized 1960s and 1970s, mainstream parties found that many of their members sympathized with either leftist guerrillas seeking armed revolution or rightist paramilitary groups pushing for military rule.The Spanish political scientist Juan Linz wrote that when mainstream politicians face this sort of predicament, they can proceed in one of two ways.On the one hand, politicians may act as loyal democrats, prioritizing democracy over their short-term ambitions. Loyal democrats publicly condemn authoritarian behavior and work to hold its perpetrators accountable, even when they are ideological allies. Loyal democrats expel antidemocratic extremists from their ranks, refuse to endorse their candidacies, eschew all collaboration with them, and when necessary, join forces with ideological rivals to isolate and defeat them. And they do this even when extremists are popular among the party base. The result, history tells us, is a political firewall that can help a democracy survive periods of intense polarization and crisis.On the other hand, too often, politicians become what Mr. Linz called semi-loyal democrats. At first glance, semi-loyalists look like loyal democrats. They are respectable political insiders and part of the establishment. They dress in suits rather than military camouflage, profess a commitment to democracy and ostensibly play by its rules. We see them in Congress and in governor’s mansions — and on the debate stage. So when democracies die, semi-loyalists’ fingerprints may not be found on the murder weapon.But when we look closely at the histories of democratic breakdowns, from Europe in the interwar period to Argentina, Brazil and Chile in the 1960s and 1970s to Venezuela in the early 2000s, we see a clear pattern: Semi-loyal politicians play a pivotal role in enabling authoritarians.Rather than severing ties to antidemocratic extremists, semi-loyalists tolerate and accommodate them. Rather than condemn and seek accountability for antidemocratic acts committed by ideological allies, semi-loyalists turn a blind eye, denying, downplaying and even justifying those acts — often via what is today called whataboutism. Or they simply remain silent. And when they are faced with a choice between joining forces with partisan rivals to defend democracy or preserving their relationship with antidemocratic allies, semi-loyalists opt for the latter.It is semi-loyalists’ very respectability that makes them so dangerous. As members of the establishment, semi-loyalists can use their positions of authority to normalize antidemocratic extremists, protect them against efforts to hold them legally accountable and empower them by opening doors to the mainstream media, campaign donors and other resources. It is this subtle enabling of extremist forces that can fatally weaken democracies.Consider the example of France. On Feb. 6, 1934, in the center of Paris, thousands of disaffected and angry men — veterans and members of right-wing militia groups — gathered near the national Parliament as its members were inside preparing to vote for a new government. They threw chairs, metal grates and rocks and used poles with razor blades on one end to try breach the doors of Parliament. Members of Parliament, frightened for their lives, had to sneak out of the building. Seventeen people were killed, and thousands were injured. Although the rioters failed to seize the Parliament building, they achieved one of their objectives: The centrist prime minister resigned the next day and was replaced by a right-leaning prime minister.Although French democracy survived the Feb. 6 attack on Parliament, the response of some prominent politicians weakened its defenses. Many centrist and center-left politicians responded as loyal democrats, publicly and unequivocally condemning the violence. But many conservative politicians did not. Key members of France’s main conservative party, the Republican Federation, many of whom were inside the Parliament building that day, sympathized publicly with the rioters. Some praised the insurrectionists as heroes and patriots. Others dismissed the importance of the attack, denying that there had been an organized plot to overthrow the government.When a parliamentary commission was established to investigate the events of Feb. 6, Republican Federation leaders sabotaged the investigation at each step, blocking even modest efforts to hold the rioters to account. Protected from prosecution, many of the insurrection’s organizers were able to continue their political careers. Some of the rioters went on to form the Victims of Feb. 6, a fraternity-like organization that later served as a recruitment channel for the Nazi-sympathizing Vichy government established in the wake of the 1940 German invasion.The failure to hold the Feb. 6 insurrectionists to account also helped legitimize their ideas. Mainstream French conservatives began to embrace the view — once confined to extremist circles — that their democracy was hopelessly corrupt, dysfunctional and infiltrated by Communists and Jews. Historically, French conservatives had been nationalist and staunchly anti-German. But by 1936, many of them so despised the Socialist prime minister, Léon Blum, that they embraced the slogan “Better Hitler than Blum.” Four years later, they acquiesced to Nazi rule.The semi-loyalty of leading conservative politicians fatally weakened the immune system of French democracy. The Nazis, of course, finished it off.A half-century later, Spanish politicians responded very differently to a violent assault on Parliament. After four decades of dictatorship, Spain’s democracy was finally restored in the late 1970s, but its early years were marked by economic crisis and separatist terrorism. And on Feb. 23, 1981, as the Parliament was electing a new prime minister, 200 civil guardsmen entered the building and seized control at gunpoint, holding the 350 members of Parliament hostage. The coup leaders hoped to install a conservative general — a kind of Spanish Charles de Gaulle — as prime minister.The coup attempt failed, thanks to the quick and decisive intervention of the king, Juan Carlos I. Nearly as important, though, was the reaction of Spanish politicians. Leaders across the ideological spectrum — from communists to conservatives who had long embraced the Franco dictatorship — forcefully denounced the coup. Four days later, more than a million people marched in the streets of Madrid to defend democracy. At the head of the rally, Communist, Socialist, centrist and conservative franquista politicians marched side by side, setting aside their partisan rivalries to jointly defend democracy. The coup leaders were arrested, tried and sentenced to long prison terms. Coups became virtually unthinkable in Spain, and democracy took root.That is how democracy is defended. Loyal democrats join forces to condemn attacks on democracy, isolate those responsible for such attacks and hold them accountable.Unfortunately, today’s Republican Party more closely resembles the French right of the 1930s than the Spanish right of the early 1980s. Since the 2020 election, Republican leaders have enabled authoritarianism at four decisive moments. First, rather than adhering to the cardinal rule of accepting election results after Joe Biden won in November, many Republican leaders either questioned the results or remained silent, refusing to publicly recognize Mr. Biden’s victory. Vice President Mike Pence did not congratulate his successor, Kamala Harris, until the middle of January 2021. The Republican Accountability Project, a Republican pro-democracy watchdog group, evaluated the public statements of 261 Republican members of the 117th Congress after the election. They found that 221 of them had publicly expressed doubt about its legitimacy or did not publicly recognize that Biden won. That’s 85 percent. And in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 riot, nearly two-thirds of House Republicans voted against certification of the results. Had Republican leaders not encouraged election denialism, the “stop the steal” movement might have stalled, and thousands of Trump supporters might not have violently stormed the Capitol in an effort to overturn the election.Second, after Mr. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted to acquit him, even though many conceded that, in Senator Mitch McConnell’s words, the president was “practically and morally responsible” for the attack. The acquittal allowed Mr. Trump to continue his political career despite having tried to block the peaceful transfer of power. Had he been convicted in the Senate, he would have been legally barred from running again for president. In other words, Republican senators had a clear opportunity to ensure that an openly antidemocratic figure would never again occupy the White House — and 43 of them, including Mr. McConnell, declined to take it.Third, Republican leaders could have worked with Democrats to create an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 uprising. Had both parties joined forces to seek accountability for the insurrection, the day’s events would have gone down in U.S. history (and would likely have been accepted by a larger majority of Americans) as a criminal assault on our democracy that should never again be allowed to occur, much like Spain’s 1981 coup attempt. Republican leaders’ refusal to support an independent investigation shattered any possible consensus around Jan. 6, making it far less likely that Americans will develop a shared belief that such events are beyond the pale.Finally, with remarkably few exceptions, Republican leaders say they will still support Mr. Trump even if he is convicted of plotting to overturn an election. Alternatives exist. The Republican National Committee could declare that the party will not nominate an individual who poses a threat to democracy or has been indicted on serious criminal charges. Or Republican leaders could jointly declare that, for the sake of democracy, they will endorse Mr. Biden if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee. Such a move would, of course, destroy the party’s chances in 2024. But by keeping Mr. Trump out of the White House, it would help protect our democracy.If Republican leaders continue to endorse Mr. Trump, they will normalize him yet again, telling Americans that he is, at the end of the day, an acceptable choice. The 2024 race will become another ordinary red vs. blue election, much like 2016. And as in 2016, Mr. Trump could win.Republican leaders’ acquiescence to Mr. Trump’s authoritarianism is neither inevitable nor unavoidable. It is a choice.Less than a year ago in Brazil, right-wing politicians chose a different path. President Jair Bolsonaro, who was elected in 2018, was an extreme-right politician who had praised torture, death squads and political assassination. Like Mr. Trump in 2020, Mr. Bolsonaro faced an uphill re-election battle in 2022. And like Mr. Trump, he tried to undermine public trust in the electoral system, attacking it as rigged and seeking to replace the country’s sophisticated electronic voting system with a paper ballot system that was more prone to fraud. And despite some dirty tricks on Election Day (police roadblocks impeded voter access to the polls in opposition strongholds in the northeast), Mr. Bolsonaro, like Mr. Trump, narrowly lost.But the similarities end there. Whereas most Republican leaders refused to recognize Mr. Biden’s victory, most of Mr. Bolsonaro’s major political allies, including the president of Congress and the newly elected governors of powerful states like São Paulo and Minas Gerais, unambiguously accepted his defeat at the hands of Lula da Silva, the winner on election night. Although Mr. Bolsonaro himself remained silent, almost no major Brazilian politician questioned the election results.Likewise, on Jan. 8, 2023, when angry Bolsonaro supporters, seeking to provoke a coup, stormed Congress, the office of the presidency and the Supreme Court building in Brasília, conservative politicians forcefully condemned the violence. In fact, several of them led the push for a congressional investigation into the insurrection. And when the Superior Electoral Court barred Mr. Bolsonaro from seeking public office until 2030 (for abusing his political power, spreading disinformation and making baseless accusations of fraud), the response among right-wing politicians was muted. Although the electoral court’s ruling was controversial, few Brazilian politicians have attacked the legitimacy of the court or defended Mr. Bolsonaro as a victim of political persecution.Not only is Mr. Bolsonaro barred from running for president in the next election, he is politically isolated. For U.S. Republicans, then, Brazil offers a model.Many mainstream politicians who preside over a democracy’s collapse are not authoritarians committed to overthrowing the system; they are careerists who are simply trying to get ahead. They are less opposed to democracy than indifferent to it. Careerism is a normal part of politics. But when democracy is at stake, choosing political ambition over its defense can be lethal.Mr. McConnell, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other top Republican leaders are not trying to kill democracy, but they have subordinated its defense to their own personal and partisan interests. Such reckless indifference could make them indispensable partners in democracy’s demise. They risk joining the long line of semi-loyal politicians littering the histories of interwar Europe and Cold War Latin America who sacrificed democracy on the altar of political expediency. American voters must hold them to account.Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (@dziblatt), professors of government at Harvard, are the authors of “The Tyranny of the Minority” and “How Democracies Die.”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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Los guatemaltecos defienden su democracia. No los dejemos solos

      by

      Cuando visité Guatemala en mayo de 2022, el sentimiento de desesperanza era palpable. El gobierno del presidente Alejandro Giammattei había desatado una feroz persecución contra los funcionarios de la justicia anticorrupción. En febrero de ese año, Virginia Laparra, fiscala de la Fiscalía Especial contra la Impunidad, fue detenida junto con otros cuatro abogados anticorrupción; todos fueron recluidos en la misma celda de la cárcel militar Mariscal Zavala de Guatemala.En 2017, Laparra presentó una denuncia administrativa contra Lesther Castellanos, juez del que sospechaba que había filtrado detalles confidenciales de un caso a un colega. Ahora Castellanos la había denunciado por abuso de autoridad.Cuando llegué, todos menos Laparra habían sido puestos en libertad, a la espera del juicio. Durante nuestra conversación en la cárcel, recitó varios argumentos jurídicos: “los funcionarios que tengan conocimiento de alguna irregularidad están obligados a presentar una denuncia”. Fue una desgarradora muestra de erudición. No la estaban reteniendo porque alguien creyera en serio que había cometido un delito. Estaba encarcelada en represalia por sus intentos de combatir la corrupción; en diciembre, fue sentenciada a cuatro años de prisión.Lilian Virginia Laparra Rivas, exfiscala de la Fiscalía Especial contra la Impunidad, en custodia el año pasadoJosue Decavele/Reuters, via ReduxEl mes pasado, los votantes guatemaltecos abrieron de manera inesperada una brecha en la permanencia en el poder de la élite corrupta del país al votar por alguien ajeno a ese grupo. Hasta ahora, el enfoque del gobierno del presidente de Estados Unidos, Joe Biden, ha sido en su mayor parte el de mantenerse al margen respecto a la corrupción en Guatemala, y no ha llegado a imponer sanciones económicas ni, por lo demás, condenar enérgicamente al gobierno de Giammattei. Biden debería aprovechar esta oportunidad para contribuir al éxito de la verdadera democracia y apoyar al nuevo presidente electo, Bernardo Arévalo.En 1944, una revolución encabezada por los estudiantes, de la que formaron parte mi madre y mi tío, ayudó a abrirle el paso a la década de democracia en Guatemala tras un siglo de dictaduras. Poco después de aquello, emigró a Estados Unidos.Nací en Boston en 1954, el año en que un golpe de Estado dirigido por la CIA derrocó al gobierno electo de Guatemala. La guerra civil de tres décadas que siguió estuvo marcada por masacres genocidas contra los colectivos mayas en las áreas rurales y acabó con los acuerdos de paz en 1996. Las esperanzas de un futuro pacífico y democrático parecieron quedar frustradas en 1998, cuando el obispo Juan Gerardi, defensor de los derechos humanos, fue asesinado por agentes de la inteligencia militar. Sin embargo, en 2001, tres militares fueron condenados por participar en su ejecución extrajudicial, auspiciada por el Estado, un veredicto histórico que parecía anunciar una nueva era de justicia.Construir una democracia funcional mediante la defensa del Estado de derecho y el combate de la corrupción ha sido la lucha central de la política guatemalteca en el siglo XXI. Entre 2007 y 2019, la Comisión Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG), que, con el respaldo de las Naciones Unidas, actuaba en conjunto con el Ministerio Público guatemalteco, dirigió una de las luchas anticorrupción más eficaces de América Latina. La comisión desmanteló 70 estructuras de crimen organizado y corrupción e imputó a unas 680 personas, entre ellas dos expresidentes. Esa lucha duró hasta 2019, cuando el entonces presidente, Jimmy Morales, quien estaba siendo investigado por corrupción, expulsó a la CICIG con el apoyo de los republicanos en Estados Unidos, dejando así el país a la deriva.Bajo el mandato de Morales y su sucesor, Giammattei, una alianza de políticos, militares, élites económicas y miembros del crimen organizado, que los guatemaltecos llaman el “pacto de corruptos”, se hizo rápidamente con el control del poder judicial y otras instituciones. La fiscala general, Consuelo Porras, junto con otros fiscales y jueces, fue incluida en la lista oficial del Departamento de Estado estadounidense de actores antidemócratas y corruptos.Se castigó a muchos de los fiscales y jueces que habían combatido la corrupción. José Rubén Zamora, periodista de investigación y fundador de elPeriódico, detenido en julio de 2022 por acusaciones falsas que la comunidad internacional denunció y calificó de intento de silenciarlo, ocupa ahora la antigua celda de Laparra en Mariscal Zavala.En junio fue acusado de lavado de dinero y sentenciado a seis años de cárcel; su periódico cerró en mayo. En febrero del año pasado, otras dos mujeres retenidas al principio con Laparra —Siomara Sosa, fiscala, y Leyli Santizo, abogada de la CICIG— cruzaron el río Suchiate en balsas neumáticas hasta México.Se encuentran entre los al menos 39 fiscales y jueces guatemaltecos que se han exiliado; la mayoría se marchó en los últimos tres años. En conjunto representan a una generación que alcanzó la mayoría de edad en las décadas posteriores a los acuerdos de paz, que cree en el Estado de derecho como base de la gobernanza democrática.Sosa me dijo una vez que su trabajo en la oficina anticorrupción le hacía sentir que el país tenía una forma de asegurar que los impuestos se destinasen al sistema sanitario y las escuelas, en vez de que se desvíe por medio de chanchullos. “Me gustaba desenmascarar a los que robaban descaradamente millones, porque, mientras ellos se hacían ricos, los niños morían de hambre”, dijo.Una manifestación exigiendo la dimisión de la fiscala general, Consuelo Porras, y del fiscal Rafael Curruchiche, acusados de generar una crisis electoral antes de la segunda vuelta electoral en agosto.Johan Ordonez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMi guía en aquella visita a la cárcel en 2022 fue Jennifer Torres, voluntaria de una organización de defensa de los derechos humanos y brillante estudiante maya de derecho en la Universidad de San Carlos. Faltaba un año para las elecciones presidenciales, y todos mis interlocutores se mostraban pesimistas.Torres me dijo que ella y sus amigos iban a votar por Arévalo, profesor de 64 años y candidato del partido Movimiento Semilla. Aunque es hijo de Juan José Arévalo —el querido primer presidente elegido democráticamente de Guatemala, que gobernó entre 1945 y 1951—, pocos sabían de él o de su partido. Cuando les mencionaba su nombre a los expertos en política guatemalteca, se reían. “Le falta carisma”, me dijo uno de ellos.En el periodo previo a las elecciones, los jueces guatemaltecos expulsaron del proceso electoral a cuatro candidatos considerados poco proclives a apoyar al pacto de corruptos. A Arévalo, quien prometió resucitar la batalla contra la corrupción, se le permitió mantenerse en la contienda porque nadie pensaba que podía ganar. Las encuestas le daban solo el 3 por ciento, pero los sondeos no tuvieron en cuenta a los votantes jóvenes e indígenas como Torres.En un resultado sorprendente, Arévalo pudo pasar a la segunda vuelta del 20 de agosto, en la que arrasó. Muchos guatemaltecos no se habían sentido tan optimistas desde 1944. Mi madre, que por entonces era adolescente, repartía panfletos de la campaña del padre de Arévalo en la acera de delante de nuestra juguetería familiar. La victoria de Arévalo hijo une los recuerdos históricos de los mayores con las esperanzas de los jóvenes de hoy.La semana pasada, el Tribunal Supremo Electoral confirmó la victoria de Arévalo. Pero, también, a instancias de Porras, suspendió temporalmente su partido para, poco después, desandar esa decisión. Lo que parece cierto es que Semilla seguirá siendo asechado y se enfrentará a unos poderes legislativo y judicial repletos de miembros del establishment corrupto: los complots de magnicidio contra el presidente electo son una amenaza constante. El viernes, Arévalo denunció a Porras por orquestar un golpe para impedir que su gobierno tome posesión. En todo el país, los manifestantes están exigiendo la dimisión de Porras.La comunidad internacional, incluido el gobierno de Biden, debe estar alerta y dispuesta a prestar todo el apoyo que pueda a este nuevo gobierno. Pero los guatemaltecos han creado, por sí mismos, esta extraordinaria oportunidad democrática y, hasta ahora, parecen decididos a protegerla.Francisco Goldman es novelista y periodista, cuyo libro más reciente es Monkey Boy, obra finalista del Premio Pulitzer. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Thailand’s Old Guard Keeps Its Grip After Voters Seek Change

      by

      The country went months without naming a new prime minister, only for Parliament to elect Srettha Thavisin, a candidate who many frustrated voters say represents the establishment.The election was supposed to be about change. Three months ago, Thai voters propelled the progressive Move Forward Party to a surprise victory. “A new day for the people has arrived,” said Pita Limjaroenrat, the party leader, as he paraded through the streets of Bangkok.On Tuesday, Thailand named a new prime minister, but it was not Mr. Pita. A coalition government was formed in Parliament, made up almost entirely of parties linked to the generals who led the last military coup. Move Forward is in the opposition.Now, many Thais are asking why the future they had voted for is looking so much like the past.“If you go around and talk to middle-class Thais at the moment, they’re saying, ‘What the hell did we have this election for, if this is the result that we get?’” said Christopher Baker, a historian of Thailand.Thailand, Mr. Baker said, is giving up a chance to “reverse the fact that it’s been going backward, in almost every sense, for the last 15 years.”Supporters of the Move Forward Party during a protest in Bangkok last month. No political party had ever been so explicit about changing the status quo in Thailand.Sakchai Lalit/Associated PressAs the second-largest economy in Southeast Asia and an ally of the United States, Thailand was once a powerful player in the region. More recently it has suffered from prolonged economic stagnation brought about by nine years of military rule under Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the general who seized power in a coup in 2014. Mr. Prayuth has steered Thailand away from democracy and toward authoritarian rule — he cracked down on pro-democracy protests and oversaw the rewriting of a Constitution that gave the military more power.His term fueled rising public anger and frustration, culminating in mass protests in 2020. For the first time, disaffected young Thais questioned publicly the relevance of the country’s powerful monarchy, a topic previously considered taboo. They asked why Thailand needed a royal defamation law, one of the world’s strictest, that carries a maximum sentence of up to 15 years in prison.Move Forward capitalized on this anti-royalist, anti-military sentiment, which became the bedrock of the party’s progressive platform. It announced more than 300 policy proposals, including shrinking the military budget and breaking up big business. No political party had ever been so explicit about changing the status quo.“No one would have thought that the party whose policy is to reform the monarchy and the military could win” the election, said Aim Sinpeng, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Sydney, in Australia. “I don’t think you can take that significance away, ever. It’s completely changed Thailand.”A portrait of Thailand’s king, in Bangkok. Young Thais have questioned publicly the relevance of the powerful monarchy, a topic previously considered taboo.Adam Dean for The New York TimesMove Forward’s election victory jolted the political elite, which quickly set the wheels in motion to block the party’s ascent. In the days after the election, the complaints against Mr. Pita piled up. The Constitutional Court suspended him from Parliament, pending a review of a case involving his shares in a now-defunct media company. The military-appointed Senate blocked him from becoming the prime minister during an initial vote. After that, the Constitutional Court said he could not be renominated for the position.When it became clear that the establishment was not going to allow Move Forward to form a government, Pheu Thai, the populist party founded by the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, stepped in.Pheu Thai had been Move Forward’s partner in the initial coalition. It said it had to part ways with Move Forward and attempt to form its own coalition after it became clear that other conservative parties were not willing to work with Move Forward.Pheu Thai does not share Move Forward’s liberal agenda, though it has promoted itself as a pro-democracy party. Mr. Thaksin had battled the conservative establishment for decades. But as a billionaire businessman, he is essentially a member of the old guard. Since 2001, the political parties he founded have consistently won the most votes in every election — except for this year.For 15 years, Mr. Thaksin had lived in self-imposed exile to avoid a lengthy jail term on corruption and abuse of power charges, with one goal: to return home to Thailand.Democracy demonstrations in Bangkok in 2020.Adam Dean for The New York TimesOn Tuesday, he did that, just hours before Pheu Thai’s candidate, Srettha Thavisin, secured enough votes in Parliament to become the next prime minister.For many in Thailand, Mr. Thaksin’s timing only confirmed their suspicions that a quid pro quo arrangement had been made between Pheu Thai and the conservative establishment to have his prison sentence reduced in exchange for keeping the military and royalists in power.“Srettha was a product of this deal with the Thai establishment,” said Ruchapong Chamjirachaikul, a politics specialist at iLaw, a civil society organization. “The people don’t feel excited about having Srettha as prime minister.”To obtain enough support for Mr. Srettha, Pheu Thai relied on the military’s support, despite vowing repeatedly in the past to remove the generals from politics. Mr. Srettha, a real estate tycoon, says the party had no choice because of “basic math”: to secure the premiership, he needed 374 votes from both houses of Parliament, including the military-appointed Senate.“It’s not deceiving the people, but I have to say it bluntly that we have to accept reality,” Mr. Srettha, 61, said in a speech to Pheu Thai party members on Monday.Move Forward lawmakers voted against Mr. Srettha; they had announced earlier this month that they would do so because Pheu Thai was essentially extending military rule in Thailand. “There will never be a day that this crossbred government can make a difference in society,” Mr. Pita, 42, wrote on Facebook after Mr. Srettha was voted in on Tuesday.The question now is whether Mr. Srettha has the support to hold together an 11-party coalition government that is united in its determination to stop Move Forward but in agreement on little else. Analysts warn that such an unwieldy coalition could lead to more instability.Pheu Thai’s candidate, Srettha Thavisin, had to rely on the military’s support to secure enough votes to become prime minister.Lauren Decicca/Getty Images“It’s very much a government that’s held together by a common enemy, but that doesn’t make them automatically friends,” said Ken Mathis Lohatepanont, an independent political analyst who writes about Thai politics.Thailand’s neighbors and partners are watching developments with apprehension, fearing that political instability in one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations could derail economic cooperation.History warns that this is possible: For the past 70 years, Thai politics have been defined by a cycle of protests and coups — the country has had 13 successful coups in its modern history, and several more attempted ones. Except for Mr. Thaksin’s first term from 2001-2005 and Mr. Prayuth’s term, no government in Thailand has lasted its full term in the past two decades.Countries like the United States, which was quick to condemn Cambodia for a recent election that was deemed not to be free or fair, have been largely silent on the protracted election process in Thailand.Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher on Thailand for Human Rights Watch, said the rights organization had been pressing the United States, the European Union and Australia to take a stronger stance but has been told these governments prefer a “wait and see” approach.Mr. Sunai added that the United States was probably being cautious about alienating Thailand to avoid driving it closer to China.Last month, the State Department said that it was “closely watching” developments in Thailand and that it was concerned about the recent legal cases against Mr. Pita, a graduate of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Move Forward.One complaint before the Constitutional Court centers on the party’s effort to amend the royal defamation law, calling it tantamount to “attempting to overthrow the democratic system with His Majesty the King as the Head of State.”A ruling against the party could lead to its dissolution.The Election Commission is also investigating Mr. Pita to see if he was aware that he could not run for office because he owned shares in a now-defunct media company. If found guilty, he could be imprisoned for up to 10 years.Muktita Suhartono More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Thai Ex-Prime Minister Returns From Exile, Adding to Political Chaos

      by

      Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup in 2006, has come back to Thailand at a time when the country is struggling to elect a new leader.Thaksin Shinawatra, the former premier who was ousted in a coup and has been living in exile since 2006, returned to Bangkok for the first time in 15 years on Tuesday, adding to the country’s political drama on a day that Parliament was to vote for a new prime minister.Mr. Thaksin was living in self-imposed exile in part to avoid facing corruption and abuse of power charges affiliated with his telecom business. While in exile, he shuttled between England, Hong Kong and Dubai, avoiding Thailand for fear of not receiving a fair trial. He was tried for most of these cases in absentia and found guilty of several charges.Mr. Thaksin’s private jet arrived Tuesday morning at the Don Muang International Airport in Bangkok. And his landing comes after months of a political logjam that has left the country without a clear leadership candidate after the top vote-winner in the May general election was functionally blocked from office by allies of the country’s military and monarchy.His return reflects the degree of confidence that he has in his party, Pheu Thai, to form a government and elect a new prime minister this week. Srettha Thavisin, a real estate tycoon and a close ally of Mr. Thaksin, has been nominated for the job by Pheu Thai, but it remains unclear if he will win the post once voting is done on Tuesday.Pheu Thai’s candidates Srettha Thavisin, left, and Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the daughter of Mr. Thaksin, at a rally in Bangkok in May. Jorge Silva/ReutersAt a news conference on Sunday, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, Mr. Thaksin’s youngest daughter, said her father would not be involved in politics once he returned to Thailand. But few Thai voters believe that claim.Mr. Thaksin, a charismatic 74-year-old billionaire, is the founder of Pheu Thai, which still looks to him for guidance, according to party members. His policies remain popular in Thailand, where many Thais recall his populist agenda fondly, particularly his $1 health care program and the disbursement of loans to farmers when he was prime minister from 2001 to 2006.But more recently, Pheu Thai supporters have felt betrayed by the party’s moves to partner with the military in order to form a new government and elect a prime minister.Earlier this month, Pheu Thai abandoned its main coalition partner, the progressive Move Forward Party, which won the general election in May. Move Forward had refused to withdraw its pledge to revise a law that criminalizes criticism of the powerful Thai monarchy, an institution fiercely backed by conservatives and the military.Thai soldiers standing guard in front of the Royal Plaza in Bangkok after the military seized power from Mr. Thaksin in a coup in 2006.Pornchai Kittiwongsakul/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUntil now, Pheu Thai had vowed never to partner with military-backed parties in Parliament.Despite his influence, Mr. Thaksin no longer has the same hold over the Thai public that he did a decade ago. A generation of young Thais see him as a self-serving politician obsessed with orchestrating an elaborate homecoming. In his absence, other charismatic figures like Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of the Move Forward Party, have risen, appealing to an electorate disillusioned with the politics of the old.In 2008, Mr. Thaksin made a brief return to Thailand after his political allies won an election. During that time, he and his then-wife, Potjaman Na Pombejra, were tried on a conflict of interest case over a plot of land that was sold to Ms. Potjaman. He fled to London before the guilty verdict was handed down. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Thailand’s Prime Minister Vote Puts Coalition at Risk

      by

      The progressive Move Forward Party has failed to form a government, leaving members of the liberal opposition scrambling to find alternatives.After winning the general election in May, the progressive Move Forward party in Thailand promised to introduce bold democratic reforms in the Southeast Asian nation. But last week, the party suffered an embarrassing defeat in Parliament when its candidate of choice failed to muster enough votes to win the premiership and form a government.Now, as Parliament gathers on Wednesday to vote for prime minister for a second time in less than a week, the fragile coalition that Move Forward has cobbled together is on the verge of falling apart. At stake may be the fate of democracy in a nation that has repeatedly tried to overturn military rule and in a region where autocracy is on the rise.“Thailand is not ready to change,” said Pongkwan Sawasdipakdi, a political scientist at Thammasat University in Bangkok. “People in the establishment are not going to let change happen.”Opposition parties tend to come and go in Thailand. Each time, they face rough headwinds brought on by the military-appointed Senate and royalist allies that form the bedrock of the country’s conservative political establishment.Move Forward’s predecessor, the Future Forward Party, was dissolved by the Thai government in 2020 after being accused of violating election law. The leader of Move Forward, Pita Limjaroenrat, is under investigation for owning undisclosed shares of a media company, which could disqualify him from office.Supporters see both cases as flagrant moves by the establishment to block the opposition from wresting power from the ruling conservative government.If the Move Forward coalition falls short on Wednesday, that may be a prelude to another cycle of unrest in Thailand, which was rocked by widespread pro-democracy protests during the coronavirus pandemic. But analysts say the opposition could offer a compromise: a new coalition led by the populist Pheu Thai Party, a familiar name in Thai politics that hews much closer to the status quo.Mr. Limjaroenrat reacting after failing to muster enough votes to win the premiership last week.Rungroj Yongrit/EPA, via ShutterstockAfter Wednesday, Pheu Thai could try to form an alternate coalition that appeals to voters who thought Move Forward was pushing for too much change, as well as to the conservative establishment, whose dismal performance in the election has left it with few options for maintaining its present grip on power.Forming a new opposition coalition will present its own challenges for Pheu Thai.For any new coalition to stand a chance, it needs to include conservative and military-backed parties, which will make demands that will likely run counter to the wishes of Move Forward voters. Those supporters, rather than backing the new government, may choose to take to the streets.“There will be protests,” said Phit Bunwiwatthanakan, 32, a Move Forward voter who owns a cat cafe in the northern Thai city of Chiang Rai. “People feel that, since they won the election, their people have a right to form a government.”There is also a possibility that Mr. Pita may not be given the opportunity to stand for renomination on Wednesday. He has said that if it becomes clear Move Forward cannot get him approved as prime minister, the party would allow Pheu Thai to lead the same coalition.The sort of compromises Pheu Thai might be willing to make in order to form its own coalition are unclear. The party, which won the second-largest vote share in the election, was established by Thailand’s most famous politician, the populist leader Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been living in exile after being ousted by a coup and accused of corruption. Many of Mr. Thaksin’s populist policies remain popular among Thais.“Pheu Thai’s really in the driver’s seat for deciding the future of Thailand,” in part because the establishment will likely try to dissolve Move Forward, said David Streckfuss, a historian and the author or “Truth on Trial in Thailand.”With the vote on Wednesday unlikely to end with a new government in power, analysts are already looking ahead to a third vote, which could happen as early as Thursday.Winning the premiership requires a simple majority of votes in the 500-seat House of Representatives and the 250-seat, military-appointed Senate. Pheu Thai has 141 seats, just 10 less than Move Forward, so it would need conservative parties to cobble together a new coalition.A coalition built by Pheu Thai would likely be led by Srettha Thavisin, 60, a property mogul with little political experience, but who is seen as a more palatable option to the generals than Mr. Pita, the Move Forward candidate. (Paetongtarn Shinawatra, 36, the youngest daughter of Mr. Thaksin, had been an early front-runner in the general election, but told reporters on Tuesday that the party would support Mr. Srettha as prime minister.)Paetongtarn Shinawatra, right, and Sretta Thavisin, left, accompanied by key members of the Pheu Thai Party at party headquarters in Bangkok, in May.Rungroj Yongrit/EPA, via ShutterstockTo some Pheu Thai supporters, Move Forward’s tactics, including its refusal to water down its ambitious plans challenging the military and the monarchy, look unworkable in a hierarchical society where pragmatic, palace-friendly parties tend to do best.Pheu Thai cannot deliver on economic priorities if Move Forward leaders “keep complaining about social issues and laws,” Sanpiti Sittipunt, the son of the governor of Bangkok, wrote on Instagram on Tuesday. He added that Move Forward should “listen to the adults.”By defecting from the opposition coalition formed by Move Forward, Pheu Thai could damage its political brand and that of its figurehead, Mr. Thaksin. But the long-term reputational damage might be worth another chance at power, analysts said, particularly if a compromise with the military involved getting permission for Mr. Thaksin to return from exile in Dubai.For now, Pheu Thai is still publicly projecting unity with Move Forward. This week, the two allies and their six smaller partners agreed that Mr. Pita would stand again for the second vote for prime minister on Wednesday.If street protests swell across Thailand after the votes are cast, the fear is that the military would feel compelled to restore order with gunfire, as it did in 2010, or even with a coup, as it did four years later.Any protests would probably only escalate if a military figure became prime minister again, following the lead of the current one, former Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha. Analysts say there is still an outside chance that the conservative establishment could nominate its own candidate for a third vote, such as Gen. Prawit Wongsuwan, 77, a top official in the current government.Anti-government protesters gathering at Ratchaprasong Intersection in the commercial center of Bangkok, in 2020.Adam Dean for The New York TimesEvery possible move to break the current political impasse risks creating more problems, said Jatuporn Prompan, a former protest leader and Pheu Thai lawmaker. A prolonged state of limbo without a prime minister could lead to raging demonstrations, followed by a crackdown, and perhaps another coup.“This is why the country’s in a crisis,” he said.Ms. Paetongtarn, Mr. Thaksin’s youngest daughter, said that Pheu Thai was eager to get to work on developing the economy and improving the lives of ordinary people. “If we focus on the small picture, it’s one of who’s up and this and that,” she told reporters on Tuesday. “But the country has to move on already.”Muktita Suhartono More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Turkey’s Erdogan Rose to Power

      by

      Turkey’s leader faced a criminal conviction, mass protests and a coup. Instead of hurting or ending his political career, they helped him accumulate ever more control.From mayor to lawmaker and prime minister to president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan rose through the ranks to Turkey’s highest positions and then made them his own, bringing the country over the course of 20 years closer to one-man rule.On Sunday, Mr. Erdogan will try to secure another term as president, although only after the opposition forced him into a runoff vote. That the election has gone to a second round is a sign that his grip on the country has slipped, if not been broken, amid a host of problems like economic turmoil, widespread corruption and his government’s handling of catastrophic earthquakes this spring.But Mr. Erdogan has navigated crises since the earliest days of his career, including a jail sentence, mass protests and an attempted coup. Several of those episodes illustrate how he not just survived crises, but found opportunities to consolidate power through them.A lifetime ban that lasted a few yearsIn 1998, Mr. Erdogan, then Istanbul’s 44-year-old mayor, was a rising star of Turkey’s Islamist political movement — which was the target of a crackdown by the military-backed authorities. That year, a court convicted him of having called for religious insurrection by quoting an Islamist poem from the 1920s. He was sentenced to 10 months in jail and handed a lifetime ban on political activity.Although predominantly Muslim, Turkey was founded as a secular republic and the traditional political elites felt the Islamists were anathema to those values.Mr. Erdogan when he was mayor of Istanbul in 1998.Murad Sezer/Associated PressMr. Erdogan spent four months in jail, making plans for a comeback despite the ban. In a general amnesty in 2001, Turkey’s Constitutional Court lifted the ban, and he soon assembled a new political party with other reformists from the Islamist movement who promised good governance and sought ties with the West.Allies who changed the rulesMr. Erdogan’s ascent was nearly stopped in 2002 by Turkey’s electoral board, which barred him from an election because of his criminal conviction. But his party colleagues, who had swept into Parliament, amended the Constitution to let him run. Mr. Erdogan won office and became prime minister in 2003.He governed piously at home and pragmatically abroad, winning allies with a mix of charisma and nationalistic fervor. He pushed to lift bans on women’s head scarves in state offices, promoted the construction of mosques, courted the E.U. market and fended off challenges from rivals among Turkey’s military and business elites.Mr. Erdogan promoted the construction of mosques in the country, such as the Taksim Square mosque in Istanbul.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesHis government also began prosecuting some of those figures, in 2008 accusing dozens of people, including retired army generals and journalists, of trying to stage a coup. Mr. Erdogan’s allies called the trial an attempt to reckon with Turkey’s history of violent power struggle. Critics called it an effort to silence the secular opposition.With voters’ approval in a referendum two years later, Mr. Erdogan reshaped the Constitution again. He said the 2010 overhaul brought Turkey closer to Europe’s democracies and broke from its military past, while his opponents said it gave his conservative government greater control over the military and the courts. He won a third term as prime minister in 2011.The mall that provoked protestsMr. Erdogan was not without significant, if disparate, opposition. In 2013, protests that erupted over a proposed mall to replace an Istanbul park morphed into a demonstration of discontent over many issues, including the drift toward Islamist policies and persistent corruption.Mr. Erdogan cracked down, not just on protesters but also on medics, journalists, activists, business owners and officials accused of sympathizing. Some cultural figures were imprisoned and others fled, and for many who remained, an atmosphere of self-censorship descended.People running away as Turkish riot police fire tear gas on Taksim Square during protests in 2013.Bulent Kilic/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAs his term neared its end, Mr. Erdogan faced a problem: His party’s rules prevented him from another turn as prime minister. In 2014, he instead ran for another office — becoming Turkey’s first popularly elected president, opening his term with words of rapprochement.“I want us to build a new future with an understanding of societal reconciliation, while considering our differences as our richnesses and bringing forward our common values,” he said in a victory speech.But rather than limit himself to the mostly ceremonial duties of the role, he moved to maximize its powers, which included a veto on legislation and the ability to appoint judges.The transformative aftermath of a coupMr. Erdogan’s rule nearly ended in 2016, as a chaotic insurrection by parts of the military and members of an Islamist group that had once been his political ally tried to oust him. But he skirted capture, called Turks to protest in the streets and soon re-emerged in Istanbul to reassert control.“What is being perpetrated is a rebellion,” he said. “They will pay a heavy price for their treason to Turkey.”Soldiers involved in a coup attempt surrendering in Istanbul in 2016.Gokhan Tan/Getty ImagesA purge that followed reshaped Turkey: Thousands accused of connections to the coup plot were arrested, tens of thousands lost jobs in schools, police departments and other institutions, and more than 100 media outlets were shuttered. Most of those caught up in the purge were accused of affiliations with the Gulen movement, the Islamist followers of Fethullah Gulen, the cleric accused by Mr. Erdogan of orchestrating the coup while living in exile in the United States.Within a year, Mr. Erdogan had arranged another referendum for voters, this one on whether to abolish the post of prime minister and move power to the president, as well as grant the role more abilities.With his opponents under pressure and his allies reinvigorated, he narrowly won the referendum, calling the changes necessary to make the government more efficient. The next year, he won re-election to another five-year term.A blitz of decrees and growing discontentHours before his inauguration in 2018, Mr. Erdogan published a 143-page decree that changed the way almost every government department operated. He fired another 18,000 state employees and made several major appointments, naming his son-in-law the new finance minister.The decree was just one sign of how far Mr. Erdogan has taken Turkey down the path toward strongman rule. The government announced new internet restrictions and started monumental projects — including soaring bridges, an enormous mosque and a plan for an “Istanbul Canal.”Many of Mr. Erdogan’s supporters hail efforts like these as visionary, but critics say they feed a construction industry that is plagued by corruption and which has wasted state funds.A poster featuring Mr. Erdogan during the election campaign this month in Istanbul.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThose frustrations have spread among many Turks in recent years. While Mr. Erdogan has raised Turkey’s stature abroad and pursued major projects, his consolidation of power has left some uneasy, and the economy has suffered.That dissent has loosened Mr. Erdogan’s hold over the country.In 2019, his party lost control of some of Turkey’s largest cities — only to contest the results in Istanbul. Turkey’s High Election Council ordered a do-over election, a decision condemned by the opposition as a capitulation to Mr. Erdogan, but his party lost that second vote, too, ending 25 years of dominance in Turkey’s largest city.And now, with his government criticized for its preparation for earthquakes and its response to them, and Turkey’s economy teetering on the verge of crisis, Mr. Erdogan has persisted with major spending and lowering interest rates despite inflation, which has left many Turks feeling far poorer. More