Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Angry Bolsonaro Supporters Protest in the Streets

      by

      Tens of thousands of people demonstrated in cities across Brazil, many of them demanding that the military stop the transfer of power to President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.BRASÍLIA — They arrived by the tens of thousands on Wednesday, angry and draped in Brazilian flags, massing outside military bases across the country. They were there, they said, to save Brazil’s democracy from a rigged election, and there was only one way to do so: The armed forces needed to take control of the government.It was an alarming demand in a country that suffered under a two-decade military dictatorship until 1985 — and yet another bizarre twist in the aftermath of Brazil’s polarizing elections.A day earlier, the far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, reluctantly agreed to a transfer of power after 45 hours of silence following his loss to a leftist former leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. But after Mr. Bolsonaro’s years of unfounded attacks on Brazil’s election systems, his supporters appeared far from accepting defeat.Andrea Vaz, a supporter of President Jair Bolsonaro, holds a sign claiming fraud in the presidential election outside the army headquarters on Wednesday.Dado Galdieri for The New York Times“I don’t understand it that well, but they have to intervene and hold new elections,” said Andrea Vaz, 51, a computer-hardware seller holding a sign that said, “Fraud in the voting machines!” at a large protest outside the Brazilian Army’s national headquarters in Brasília. “We saw various videos. People giving out money, buying votes,” she added. “There’s proof.”But some protesters had clearer, more drastic demands, which were circulating on WhatsApp and Telegram groups: The military should take control of the streets, the Congress and the Supreme Court should be disbanded, and the president should remain in power, at least until new elections could be held.The widespread protests and calls for the armed forces were an escalation of the Brazilian far-right’s refusal to accept the election of Mr. da Silva, a former president whom many on the right view as a criminal because of his past corruption scandal.Mr. Bolsonaro, in a two-minute speech on Tuesday in which he did not acknowledge his loss, said he supported peaceful protests inspired by “feelings of injustice in the electoral process.”Many of his followers saw that as a stamp of approval. “What he said yesterday, that gave me more energy to come,” said Larissa Oliveira da Silva, 22, who was sitting on a beach chair in the protest in São Paulo, propping up her broken foot. “After his comments, I saw that he is on our side.”But other protesters said that Mr. Bolsonaro had effectively given up with his agreement to transfer power to Mr. da Silva on Tuesday, so they were turning to the armed forces instead.In a statement, Brazil’s Ministry of Defense said that “the demonstrations, provided they are orderly and peaceful, are the exercise of freedom of expression, of thought, and of assembly, in accordance with constitutional principles and current laws.”The military has not considered intervening in the transfer of power and, if the protests expand, it may urge the president to ask his supporters to go home, according to a senior military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks. The military, which helped oversee the election, found no signs of fraud, the official said.The Ministry of Defense said that it would soon deliver its report on the vote’s integrity to election officials.In interviews with more than 60 protesters across Brazil since Sunday, almost none believed the election was clean. Those beliefs were rooted in the same circumstantial evidence, unattributed reports and inaccuracies that Mr. Bolsonaro has promoted for years to claim that Brazil’s elections are rife with fraud. They had seen videos of the voting machines malfunctioning, read that patterns in the vote returns were suspicious and, they said, they simply did not trust election officials.Most of all, however, they said that Mr. Bolsonaro had drawn much bigger crowds than Mr. da Silva — and almost everyone they knew voted for the president — so how could it be that he lost?The movement was loosely organized. There appeared to be no formal protest leaders, and prominent public figures, including conservative politicians, did not echo similar calls for intervention. Yet it quickly grew into the largest demonstration since Mr. Bolsonaro lost the vote on Sunday..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.With a collective turnout of well over 100,000 people, protesters gathered in at least 75 cities, including in all of Brazil’s 27 state capitals, often around military bases.Police clashed with pro-Bolsonaro protesters blocking the Castelo Branco highway in São Paulo on Wednesday.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesElsewhere across the country, protesters continued to set up highway blockades, creating miles-long backups and disrupting transportation and freight. Those blockades began immediately after the election results on Sunday as part of what protesters said was an effort to “paralyze” Brazil and force the military to intervene. As of Wednesday afternoon, 146 blockades were still active, according to the federal highway police.Around São Paulo, the blockades caused multiple backups totaling more than 60 miles of traffic jams on Wednesday, according to the local traffic agency, and led to the cancellation of 1,400 buses. The disruptions also caused fuel shortages in at least four states.Mr. Bolsonaro released a video late Tuesday, pleading with his supporters to stop blocking the roads, saying it was disrupting lives and hurting the economy. “I am as upset and sad as you are, but we have to put our heads in the right place,” he said. “Other demonstrations that are taking place across Brazil in public squares are part of the democratic game.”“Let’s do what has to be done,” he added. “I’m with you.” He did not directly address the calls for military intervention.The protests were largely nonviolent. The most notable incident was an attack against protesters in Mirassol, a midsize city north of São Paulo, when a car drove into the crowd, injuring 11 people, according to local police. One man was arrested on attempted murder charges, police said.Beyond their insistence that the vote was stolen, the protesters were also driven by their disdain for Mr. da Silva, who has been the most dominant political figure in the 34 years of Brazil’s modern democracy. Universally known as Lula, he has been a top candidate in six of the nine presidential elections over that stretch, winning three.But after his last administration, he also served 17 months in prison on corruption charges, which were later thrown out when the Supreme Court ruled the judge in his cases was biased.He was never cleared of any wrongdoing, however, fueling a belief that he is not to be trusted and making him perhaps a more polarizing force for many Brazilians than Mr. Bolsonaro.Danielle Mota holds a banner calling for intervention in the election outside army headquarters on Wednesday.Dado Galdieri for The New York Times“We don’t want a thug president who robbed, who was arrested, who had various people in his government who looted Brazil,” said Danielle Mota, 43, a hairdresser holding a sign that said “Federal Intervention.”“We do want a military intervention.” she added. “Just like in 1964.”That was the year that the armed forces, with U.S. support, overthrew the government, instituting a military dictatorship for 21 years that killed or tortured thousands of political opponents. Most protesters interviewed on Wednesday at demonstrations in three of the country’s largest cities, Brasília, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, said they wanted Brazil to remain a democracy. But others, faced with Mr. da Silva as president, said it was time for a military government.“Permanently,” said Kenya Oliveira, 38, holding her 4-year-old son.Camila Rocha, a Brazilian political scientist who wrote a book on the radicalization of Brazil’s right, said the calls for the military were the product of years of absorbing Mr. Bolsonaro’s claims that the elections were rigged, combined with fears of a da Silva administration.Mr. da Silva’s leftist Workers’ Party was at the center of a sprawling government kickback scheme that was revealed after he left office in 2010, leading to the imprisonment of many of the party’s top officials. Mr. Bolsonaro and his allies have long called the party corrupt, but they have also falsely framed it as communist.Many on the right view Mr. da Silva “not as an adversary, but as an enemy that needs to be contained,” Ms. Rocha said. “In this sense, there is a strong parallel with the 1964 coup, which was justified precisely to halt the advance of what was thought to be the rise of communism in Brazil.”Many of the protesters said their demands for intervention were supported by Article 142 of the Brazilian Constitution, which says that the military has the role of “guaranteeing constitutional powers” under the “supreme authority of the president.”According to constitutional lawyers and past court rulings, the article does not allow the military to take control of the government.Marco Aurélio Mello, a retired Supreme Court Justice and an outspoken supporter of Mr. Bolsonaro, said the protesters’ interpretation is merely “nostalgia for the authoritarian regime.”He added that instead the protesters had “the losers’ right to whine.”Laís Martins contributed reporting from São Paulo, Flávia Milhorance, Ana Ionova and Leonardo Coelho from Rio de Janeiro, and André Spigariol and Gustavo Freitas from Brasília. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Denmark’s Center-Left Coalition Wins Election Majority

      by

      An unpredictable race ultimately gave the governing Social Democratic Party its best showing in two decades, though analysts said it looked set to form a more centrist government.COPENHAGEN — Denmark’s center-left coalition emerged with a majority of parliamentary seats early Wednesday, after a tight overnight count in an unpredictable general election gave the governing Social Democratic Party its best showing in two decades.The Scandinavian kingdom is still headed for some uncertainty, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen saying she would formally disband the government and resign her position, setting the stage for a cross-party negotiation that analysts have said is likely to result in a more centrist administration.In a speech in the early hours of Wednesday celebrating the result, she said that her party had been elected to form a “broad government,” and expressed a desire to work with parties across the political spectrum.But Ms. Frederiksen, who called early elections in response to anger over a mink cull during the coronavirus pandemic, acknowledged that she was compelled to form a new government because, “It is clear that there is no longer a majority behind the government in its current form.”With 100 percent of the votes in Denmark counted, the center-left Social Democrats had 50 seats, the most for any party, with the center-right Venstre in second place. With left-leaning seats from the autonomous nations of Greenland and Faroe Islands, the current center-left coalition snagged a majority of one in the 179-seat Parliament.A new party, the Moderates, led by the former Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, came in third with 16 seats, returning Mr. Rasmussen to the Parliament. It was a strong showing, and analysts had said Mr. Rasmussen could play a kingmaker role if left and right were evenly balanced, but the Social Democrats’ success will significantly diminish his influence.Instead, according to Kasper M. Hansen, a professor of political science at the University of Copenhagen, the focus would be back on Ms. Frederiksen.“The whole discussion will now be: How will she negotiate with the other parties?” he said, adding that Ms. Frederiksen had promised to bridge divides across the political spectrum. “We will see a prime minister that will be working across the middle.”Another new party, the right-wing Denmark Democrats — founded by Inger Stojberg, a former immigration minister who was sentenced to two months in jail for illegally ordering the separation of some asylum-seeking couples — also gained 14 seats.Jasmina Nielsen More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Qué significa la victoria de Lula en Brasil para el clima

      by

      Durante sus mandatos anteriores, el presidente electo ayudó a reducir las tasas de deforestación en la selva amazónica. Ahora dice que quiere volver a hacerlo.RÍO DE JANEIRO — En las elecciones más reñidas desde que el país regresó a la democracia en 1985, los electores decidieron traer de regreso al expresidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, quien hizo del medioambiente una piedra angular de su campaña, y rechazaron al mandatario en funciones, Jair Bolsonaro, cuya presidencia vio un fuerte aumento de la deforestación.“Brasil está listo para reanudar su liderazgo en la lucha contra la crisis climática”, dijo el domingo Da Silva en su discurso a sus seguidores tras la victoria. “Probaremos una vez más que es posible generar riqueza sin destruir el medioambiente”.El compromiso es importante porque Brasil contiene gran parte de la selva del Amazonas. En este momento, el bosque absorbe el dióxido de carbono de la atmósfera que calienta el planeta y lo almacena en las raíces de los árboles, las ramas y el suelo. Según un cálculo, hay de 150.000 a 200.000 millones de toneladas métricas de carbono encerradas en el bosque. Pero eso podría cambiar. Si la deforestación continúa, la selva pronto puede convertirse en un emisor neto de gases de efecto invernadero.La región es también uno de los lugares con mayor biodiversidad en la Tierra, y protegerla es clave para defendernos de una crisis mundial de biodiversidad.De vuelta a una lucha conocida: contra la deforestaciónCuando Lula da Silva asumió el cargo por primera vez en 2003, las tasas de deforestación eran más del doble de lo que son hoy. Él promulgó políticas que las redujeron un 80 por ciento. El ritmo más bajo de deforestación se registró dos años después de su renuncia en 2010.p y alentó a sus partidarios a continuar con la minería ilegal. Las tasas de deforestación comenzaron a dispararse nuevamente. Brasil perdió más de 3 millones de hectáreas de la selva amazónica entre 2019 y 2021.Quemando para limpiar la tierra en el estado de Amazonas en septiembre.Michael Dantas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAhora, Da Silva dice que planea reanudar las políticas que redujeron la pérdida de bosques.“Ahora lucharemos por el fin de la deforestación en el Amazonas”, dijo. “Brasil y el planeta necesitan una Amazonía viva”.Pero la resistencia a las políticas para proteger el bosque probablemente será fuerte entre los partidarios de Bolsonaro, tanto en el Congreso como en la Amazonía. Bolsonaro ganó en más de la mitad de los estados que componen la selva.El presidente ha defendido durante mucho tiempo las industrias maderera, minera y ganadera. Si bien son destructivas para el bosque, estas industrias, que a menudo operan de manera ilegal, también brindan algunas de las pocas oportunidades económicas en la región.Fuera de Brasil: el centro de atención está en el sur globalLos dos mandatos de Da Silva como presidente, de 2003 a 2010, estuvieron marcados por iniciativas para reformar los órganos de gobierno mundial, como el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, y para elevar el perfil de los países en desarrollo en los asuntos mundiales.Hay señales de que podría volver a hacer de esos esfuerzos una prioridad, esta vez con un énfasis especial en los problemas climáticos.Él puede “movilizar a otros países en el sur global para insistir que cualquier reforma que se haga a la gobernanza global asuma el tema del clima con seriedad, pero que esto también tiene aportes de los países en desarrollo”, dijo Adriana Abdenur, quien dirige Plataforma Cipó, una organización de investigación en Brasil que se enfoca en la política climática.Meses antes de las elecciones, los asesores de Da Silva se estaban coordinando con Indonesia y la República Democrática del Congo a fin de presionar a las naciones ricas para que amplíen su financiamiento para proteger a los bosques. Marina Silva, su exministra de Medioambiente, dijo a Reuters el lunes que Da Silva enviaría a un representante a la COP27, la cumbre climática mundial que comienza el domingo en Egipto. Un portavoz de Da Silva dijo que el asunto aún se estaba decidiendo.El principal asesor de asuntos exteriores de Da Silva, Celso Amorim, dijo que el presidente electo también planeaba invitar a los líderes regionales a una cumbre sobre la selva amazónica en 2023. Es una señal de que planea fortalecer la Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica, lo cual podría facilitar a los países de la región unirse para diseñar estrategias que protejan el bosque y atraigan inversión extranjera para proyectos de desarrollo sostenible.Cuando Da Silva era presidente, Brasil creó uno de los mecanismos más importantes para la cooperación climática en la gestión forestal, el Fondo Amazonía. De 2009 a 2019, Noruega y Alemania donaron más de 1200 millones de dólares al fondo, que se convirtió en uno de los mecanismos de financiación más importantes para las agencias de protección ambiental en Brasil.Bolsonaro disolvió el órgano rector del fondo, que congeló todas sus operaciones, pese a que su gobierno luchaba por combatir los delitos ambientales. El domingo, el ministro de Clima y Medioambiente de Noruega dijo a los periodistas que se pondría en contacto con Da Silva para reanudar la cooperación entre los dos países.Está previsto que Da Silva asuma la presidencia el 1 de enero.Manuela Andreoni, actualmente radicada en Brasil, escribe en el boletín Climate Forward. Anteriormente fue becaria en Rainforest Investigations Network, donde examinó las fuerzas que impulsan la deforestación en la Amazonía. @manuelaandreoni More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Holds Slight Lead in Israeli Election, Exit Polls Show

      by

      If the right-wing bloc does eke out a narrow victory, it will allow Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, to return to office even as he stands trial on corruption charges.JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance may have won a narrow lead in Israel’s fifth election in less than four years, exit polls suggested on Tuesday night, giving him a chance of returning to power at the helm of one of the most right-wing governments in Israeli history.Three broadcasters’ exit polls indicated that Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, would finish first and that his right-wing bloc was likely to be able to form a narrow majority in Parliament.But exit polls in Israel have been wrong before, particularly in tight races — and they exaggerated Mr. Netanyahu’s eventual tally in the last election, in March 2021.If the right-wing bloc does eke out a narrow victory, it will allow Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, to return to office even as he stands trial on corruption charges.Regardless of whether Mr. Netanyahu wins back power, the election was a triumph for Israel’s far right.An ultranationalist religious alliance that backs Mr. Netanyahu was projected to become the third-largest bloc in Parliament, highlighting how the election was construed by many right-wing Jewish Israeli voters — unsettled by Arab participation in Israel’s outgoing government — as a chance to reinforce the country’s Jewish identity.The far-right alliance seeks to upend Israel’s judicial system, end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank and legalize a form of corruption that Mr. Netanyahu is accused of committing.Prime Minister Yair Lapid arrives at a polling station in Hod Hasharon, Israel, on Tuesday.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Times“The time has come for us to be the landlords of our country,” Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of Mr. Netanyahu’s new far-right partners, said in a speech early on Wednesday morning.Mr. Ben-Gvir seeks to grant legal immunity to Israeli soldiers who shoot at Palestinians, and deport rival lawmakers he accuses of terrorism. Until recently, he hung a portrait in his home of Baruch Goldstein, who shot dead 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994.“The public voted for a Jewish identity,” Mr. Ben-Gvir added, as his supporters chanted “death to terrorists” in the background.At 3 a.m., Mr. Netanyahu arrived at the Likud party headquarters in Jerusalem and was given a triumphant reception by the party faithful. Though he cautioned that the final results were not yet in, he nevertheless delivered a kind of victory speech, telling his supporters, “If the true results reflect the projections, I will establish a national government that will look after everyone.”In an effort to appeal to all Israelis, and assuage the fears of his critics, he said he intended to work to heal the rifts within Israeli society, as well to seek a broader peace with Israel’s neighbors. He spoke of “restoring national pride” in the Jewish state, but added that Israel was a country that “respects all its citizens.” He made no mention of his allies’ divisive proposals to overhaul and weaken the justice system.Clearer results may not emerge until Wednesday morning, and final numbers will not be announced until Friday. Party leaders will not be asked to nominate a prime minister before next week.But if the exit polls prove to be correct, Israel may have ended a four-year political deadlock in which no leader could win a stable parliamentary majority, leaving the country without a national budget for long stretches and repeatedly returning Israelis to the ballot box.For the first time since 2019, the country could be governed by a parliamentary majority formed from a single ideologically aligned bloc — reducing the risk of infighting in the coalition and the likelihood of another early election. In addition to the far-right, Mr. Netanyahu’s likely coalition includes two ultra-Orthodox parties that oppose the secularization of Israeli public life.A government led by Mr. Netanyahu and featuring Mr. Ben-Gvir would bring down the final curtain on one of Israel’s most diverse coalitions ever: Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s eight-party alliance, which united political opponents from the right, left and center, and included the first independent Arab party to join an Israeli governing coalition.If the exit polls are accurate, the leaders of the parties in Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc will be able to formally nominate him for prime minister next week, as long as they can seal a coalition agreement. Two of Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies have said they will push to lead ministries that oversee the army and the police — appointments that Mr. Netanyahu has expressed wariness of, potentially slowing down coalitions negotiations.Adjusted projections early Wednesday morning indicated that Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud finished first, with 30 to 32 seats, while his wider right-wing bloc won 62 seats, according to all three main television channels, enough to form a narrow majority in the 120-seat Parliament.A polling station in the city of Bnei Brak, Israel, on Tuesday.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesMr. Lapid’s centrist party, Yesh Atid, was projected to win 22 to 24 seats, and his wider alliance 54 to 55 seats. An unaligned party won the remaining seats.That calculus could change quickly as real results come in. One Arab party, Balad, was teetering just below the electoral threshold, 3.25 percent of the total vote. Should Balad reach the threshold, analysts said, that would change all the calculations and reduce Mr. Netanyahu’s lead, potentially depriving his bloc of a majority.Early Wednesday, the central elections committee said that the final voter turnout by 10 p.m., when the polls closed, was 71.3 percent. That was the highest since Israel’s 2015 election, when turnout was 71.8 percent, but below some previous votes.Israel’s political gridlock began when Mr. Netanyahu declined to leave power after being placed under investigation on accusations of corruption. His decision left the country roughly evenly divided between voters who thought he should now stay away from politics and those who believed he should stay.An outright victory for Mr. Netanyahu would not resolve a more protracted debate about the kind of society Israelis want — a debate that was central to the election campaign.Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc presented the vote as a quest to preserve Israel’s Jewish character. He and his allies targeted Jewish Israelis alienated by Arab involvement in Mr. Lapid’s departing government and unsettled by a spasm of ethnic unrest between Arabs and Jews in Israeli cities last year.By contrast, Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents presented the election as a bid to protect Israel’s liberal democracy. In particular, they warned of his dependence on a far-right alliance that has frequently antagonized Israel’s Arab minority and seeks to remove checks and balances on the lawmaking process.Outside a polling station in Beit Shean, Israel, on Tuesday.Amit Elkayam for The New York TimesOnce again, Mr. Netanyahu’s fitness for office was the campaign’s defining theme. He was placed under investigation in 2016 on charges related to bribery, fraud and breach of trust.Three elections ended inconclusively in 2019-20, leaving Mr. Netanyahu in power but unable to pass a budget, and forcing Israelis to return each time to the ballot box.Mr. Netanyahu was ousted after a fourth election in 2021, when a former right-wing ally, Naftali Bennett, broke ranks to lead a coalition with Mr. Lapid’s centrist party and seven others, including Raam — the first Arab party to join an Israeli government.That alliance collapsed in July amid profound ideological disagreements among its members, leading Mr. Bennett to make way for Mr. Lapid and call for another election.Then followed a brief, downbeat and stop-start campaign in which the parties and a tired electorate were distracted by a run of four Jewish holidays through September and October.Mr. Netanyahu portrayed himself as the only candidate able to keep Israel safe, portraying a border deal sealed recently by Mr. Lapid with neighboring Lebanon as a weak compromise that had endangered Israel’s security.The far-right alliance allied to Mr. Netanyahu, Religious Zionism, often eclipsed him during the campaign through their populist promises to loosen judicial oversight over lawmaking, grant legal immunity to Israeli soldiers who shoot at Palestinians, and deport rival lawmakers they accuse of terrorism.A campaign poster of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Ramat Gan, Israel, on Tuesday.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesThe leader of Religious Zionism, Bezalel Smotrich, has described himself as a “proud homophobe” and said that Israel’s Arab minority had survived in Israel only “by mistake,” after Israel’s founders didn’t expel enough of them in the wars surrounding the creation of the state in 1948. He has also supported segregated maternity wards for Arab and Jewish women, and said Jewish developers should not have to sell homes to Arabs.His colleague, Mr. Ben-Gvir, was barred from serving in the Israeli Army because he was considered a security threat, and recently described Meir Kahane, an extremist rabbi who wanted to strip Arab Israelis of their citizenship, as his “hero.”Throughout the campaign, Mr. Ben-Gvir presented himself as an enforcer of law and order. He frequently visited areas of pronounced tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, at one point drawing his handgun and calling on his police escorts to shoot at nearby Arabs.A victory for Mr. Netanyahu would eliminate the already unlikely chance of resuming peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Throughout the campaign, he presented himself as a bulwark against the creation of a Palestinian state — the so-called two-state solution — while allies like Mr. Ben-Gvir advocated ending Palestinian autonomy altogether.But though Mr. Lapid supports a two-state solution, he would also be unlikely to push for peace if he remained in government. Mr. Lapid’s own bloc includes parties that also oppose a Palestinian state, while the Palestinian leadership is also divided and badly placed to resume peace talks.The effect of a victory for Mr. Netanyahu “cannot be minimized,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a Jerusalem-based research group.“If the exit polls hold true,” he said, “Israel is headed toward a governing coalition that could seek to fundamentally alter its current democratic order and weaken the country’s delicate system of checks and balances.”Reporting was contributed by Myra Noveck from Jerusalem; Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Tzur Hadassah, Israel; Gabby Sobelman from Rehovot, Israel; and Hiba Yazbek from Nazareth, Israel. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      If Oregon Turns Red, Whose Fault Will That Be?

      by

      PORTLAND, Ore. — An ad for one of the candidates for governor of Oregon begins with shots of trash and the tarp-covered tent encampments that line many of Portland’s streets. “Nobody in Oregon would say, ‘Let’s keep doing exactly what we’ve been doing,’” says the candidate. She continues, “I called for a homelessness state of emergency nearly three years ago, while Kate Brown” — the current Democratic governor — “did nothing.”It’s not a surprising message in a campaign in which homelessness and crime are central issues. What’s surprising is the messenger: Tina Kotek, the former Democratic speaker of the Oregon House, running to succeed Brown.Tina Kotek, the Democratic nominee for governor of Oregon. Amanda Lucier for The New York TimesKotek’s ad is a sign of the indefensibility of the status quo in one of the country’s most progressive cities, and of the unexpected political peril Oregon Democrats face as a result. Most polls show that her opponent, Christine Drazan, the former Republican minority leader in Oregon’s House, has a slight lead in the race. If Drazan wins, it will be a sign that no place is immune to the right’s message on public disorder, whose resonance is also making Gov. Kathy Hochul’s race to keep her post in New York uncomfortably close.A Republican hasn’t won the Oregon governor’s race in 40 years. And while progressive states electing G.O.P. governors is nothing new, Drazan — like New York’s Republican gubernatorial nominee, Lee Zeldin — is far more conservative than the Rockefeller-style Republicans who lead Massachusetts and Vermont. She has an A rating from the N.R.A. and an endorsement from Oregon Right to Life, meaning that just months after the end of Roe v. Wade, Oregon could end up with an abortion opponent in charge.Some Oregon Democrats argue that Drazan’s competitiveness is a fluke, a product of the well-funded spoiler campaign being run by Betsy Johnson, a centrist ex-Democrat who has received $3.75 million from the Nike co-founder Phil Knight. But that doesn’t explain why so many Democrats are willing to defect to Johnson in the first place. (FiveThirtyEight’s polling average has her getting 13.8 percent of the vote.) Nor does it explain why Democrats are struggling in congressional districts neighboring Portland. The Cook Political Report rates Oregon’s Sixth District, which went for Joe Biden by 13 points, a tossup, even though the Republican nominee is, like Georgia’s Herschel Walker, an abortion opponent who reportedly paid for the abortion of a woman he dated.Christine Drazan, the Republican nominee.Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty ImagesBetsy Johnson, an independent candidate with a deep-pocketed backer.Sara Cline/Associated Press“Four of our six House seats could end up in red territory,” Senator Jeff Merkley told me after a rally here with Kotek and Bernie Sanders. The fact that Sanders was in Oregon in the first place — Biden and Elizabeth Warren have also come through — is a sign of how shaky things are for Democrats in the formerly safely blue state.Part of the story here is about the national political environment, but it’s also about the catastrophe of homelessness in Portland, which, as in other West Coast cities, looks very different than on the East Coast. New York has a higher rate of homelessness than Oregon, but a larger percentage of people sleeping in shelters than on the streets. By contrast, in Multnomah County, which includes much of Portland, most people experiencing homelessness sleep either in tents or vehicles. The tents line streets and fill parking lots; they are a constant reminder that we’re living through a time of widespread social collapse.There is no reason to believe that Drazan has a viable plan to fix a hellishly complex problem. Most of her proposals, aside from repealing Measure 110, the drug decriminalization ballot initiative Portland passed in 2020, are vague. But the manifest failure of Democrats to make things better has created a runway for her and others like her. “Instead of enabling homelessness, we must balance our approach with a mind-set of both compassion and accountability,” Drazan told Oregon Public Broadcasting. It’s not surprising that this message is resonating.Homeless encampments are scattered throughout Portland.Amanda Lucier for The New York TimesKotek is thus in a tricky position: She has to convince voters that the crisis in Portland represents a technocratic rather than an ideological failure by Brown. “The two biggest issues right now are housing and homelessness, and mental health and addiction,” Kotek told me. “And I’ll be honest, she’s been absent on that topic. It’s not been a priority for her. And when you don’t make something a priority, agencies kind of flounder, money doesn’t move fast enough.”This might sound like a deflection, but administrative sclerosis has clearly contributed to Portland’s problems. Scott Kerman, executive director of Blanchet House, an organization that provides food, shelter and medical care to poor and homeless people in Portland’s Old Town neighborhood, scoffs at the idea that widespread street homelessness is “something that liberal hippie Portland has done to itself.” Certainly, street homelessness has always been a problem in Portland. But Kerman blames a confluence of disasters, including steeply rising housing costs, a lack of services to help addicts (one survey ranked Oregon last in the nation for access to drug treatment) and — perhaps most significantly — the pandemic for turning parts of downtown into what he called an “open-air psych ward.”“What we’re dealing with now,” said Kerman, is the byproduct of “inattention and inaction that occurred in the first six months to a year of the Covid crisis.”When the pandemic hit, Kerman said, many shelters and other services in the city closed. Blanchet House, which offers three free meals a day to anyone who wants them, stayed open, providing food to go. “And we very quickly went from 1,000 meals a day to 2,000 meals a day, because most locations around the city had shut down, especially on the East Side,” he said. “So everybody migrated here to Old Town. And for a good six months, it was deplorable. Outside, it reminded me of news footage of Sudanese refugee camps.”As Kerman points out, people without housing still have routines — they may spend their days in libraries, or social service organizations, or Starbucks. Suddenly, they had to be outside all the time. He described bureaucratic hurdles that made it impossible to get portable toilets and hand-washing stations, leading to “dehumanizing, almost ‘Mad Max’-like conditions.”Richard Winkowitsch, right, and Destiny Johnson waiting for a hot meal at Blanchet House in Portland.Amanda Lucier for The New York TimesThe trauma of such conditions accelerated people’s mental illnesses. Many sought relief in hard drugs. There’s a perception that people end up homeless because they’re addicts, but Kerman says that for many of those Blanchet House serves, it’s the other way around. “We’ve had sort of a vacuum of services, and what has filled that vacuum has been crime and violence and drug and sex trafficking,” he said.It’s likely that no leader could have entirely staved off this calamity, but Brown’s hands-off approach seems to have made it worse. Take, for instance, Measure 110, the drug decriminalization initiative. One reason Kotek argues against repealing it is that it funds $300 million in drug and alcohol treatment, including housing services, every two years. But bureaucratic delays meant that most of the funding didn’t go out until late September, and Kotek said service providers aren’t getting clarity from the state about whether they can count on funding in the future. “If you’re trying to hire up, you need certainty,” she said. “And the lack of operationalizing this from the state agency has been deplorable.”There are reasons to think that Kotek, who has a reputation as an indefatigable legislator, can do better. In an otherwise tentative endorsement, The Oregonian singled out the specificity of her housing plan, and her ability to execute it: “Her exacting standards bode well for oversight of state agencies that have failed repeatedly and inexcusably under Gov. Kate Brown.”The question is whether frustrated voters will be satisfied with the promise of better management rather than radical change. “We certainly don’t need a red state takeover to clean up the damn trash,” Kotek says in her ad. Let’s hope not.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Bolsonaro fue derrotado. ¿Brasil podrá volver a la cordura?

      by

      SÃO PAULO, Brasil — Cuatro años de locura están cerca de terminar. En una tensa segunda vuelta, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva se impuso sobre el presidente Jair Bolsonaro con el 50,9 por ciento de los votos. A menos que las cosas tomen un giro radical —el temido golpe de Estado que lleva meses cerniéndose sobre el país—, Da Silva será, el 1 de enero, presidente de Brasil.No fue fácil. El mes pasado ha sido una síntesis de la era Bolsonaro. La desinformación ha estado desenfrenada. (El comité de campaña de Da Silva tuvo que confirmar, a raíz de los rumores difundidos en las redes sociales, que “no ha hecho un pacto con el diablo, ni ha hablado nunca con Satán”). También ha habido amplios debates sobre canibalismo, de francmasonería y de la supuestamente deseable política de la época medieval. Y, por supuesto, ha estado presente la amenaza de la violencia política, con la aparente bendición de las altas instancias.Al menos, por el bien de nuestra salud mental colectiva, podemos decir que Bolsonaro ha sido derrotado. No es que el país esté demasiado en sintonía con Da Silva y la política de centroizquierda del Partido de los Trabajadores, que gobernó el país durante 13 años, hasta 2016. Se trata más bien de que los últimos 4 años con Bolsonaro nos han demostrado lo bajo que puede caer un país, y estamos desesperados por salir de la ciénaga del abatimiento político.Hay muchas cosas que no echaré de menos de este gobierno: su desatención asesina, su arraigada corrupción, su fanatismo. Uno de los grandes alivios es que ya no tendremos que hablar de cosas demenciales. Brasil, al menos, puede volver a algo parecido a la cordura.Es difícil creer lo mucho que ha cambiado el debate público. Hace 9 años, los brasileños salieron a la calle a manifestarse en defensa del transporte público gratuito. ¿Cuánto nos hemos alejado hoy de ese tipo de mentalidad cívica? Ahora nos pasamos buena parte del tiempo afirmando (cada vez con más exasperación) que la virología existe y que el cambio climático no es un bulo globalista.Nos da miedo salir a la calle a manifestarnos y que eso le dé al gobierno una excusa para intentar dar un golpe de Estado. Creemos que cualquier civil que pasa a nuestro lado en coche puede ir armado. Sabemos que vestir de color rojo se considerará una declaración política. (Hace poco, un cardenal católico brasileño fue criticado por su tradicional vestimenta roja, lo que demuestra que ni siquiera el clero está libre de sospechas). No nos atrevemos a comentar las noticias con nuestros vecinos, por temor a lo que puedan decir. Nunca hubo tanto silencio en los ascensores.Lo cierto es que en la sociedad brasileña siempre han dominado las fuerzas conservadoras. Ninguno de los avances de las dos últimas décadas se consiguió con facilidad: el programa de ayudas sociales Bolsa Família, la discriminación positiva en las universidades y el sector público o el matrimonio igualitario. Todos fueron objeto de burlas, si no de la franca indignación, de la mayoría de los conservadores. Pero estas batallas las libraron la centroizquierda y la centroderecha, que entonces eran lo bastante razonables para entablar un debate democrático. Eso cambió cuando llegó Bolsonaro a la escena nacional. Poco a poco al principio, y luego súbitamente, estalló una represa de extremismo derechista reprimido.Día tras día, la integridad del discurso público se ha ido diluyendo con las afirmaciones conspirativas, turbopropulsadas por las redes sociales y alentadas por Bolsonaro. Nos hemos visto obligados a perder el tiempo refutando públicamente la teoría de que las vacunas contienen nanorrobots, o que la selva amazónica “no se puede incendiar”, como dijo él. Toda esa energía, que se podría haber dedicado a exigir un mejor sistema de salud pública, o unas medidas más rotundas contra el cambio climático, se perdió en combatir espeluznantes sinsentidos.Pero Bolsonaro no nos dejó más remedio en ningún momento, hasta las elecciones. Existen pocas dudas de que él aspiraba a la autocracia y que aprovecharía cualquier oportunidad para mantenerse en el poder; la necesidad de derrotarlo se volvió absoluta, con prioridad sobre cualquier otra preocupación. Eso explica la amplitud de la coalición en torno a la candidatura de Da Silva, compuesta incluso por antiguos adversarios del centroderecha. La contienda electoral se redujo a una simple disyuntiva: a favor o en contra de Bolsonaro.En realidad, no es tan sencillo. Para empezar, no existe una solución tangible al problema de que las redes sociales parezcan empujar a los ciudadanos a posturas más extremas, agravando así la polarización. Después, los políticos avalados por Bolsonaro son hoy parte consolidada del paisaje político. Más de una docena de gobernadores pro-Bolsonaro, de los 27 del país, ganaron las elecciones, y su partido es el mayoritario en el Senado, tras obtener 8 de los 27 escaños que se disputaban. (Algunos de los nuevos senadores, que permanecerán en el poder los siguientes 8 años, son exministros del gobierno de Bolsonaro.)La extrema derecha también ha aumentado su influencia en el Congreso: el partido del presidente obtuvo 99 escaños en la Cámara Baja, compuesta por 513 miembros. Puede que Bolsonaro abandone su cargo, pero el bolsonarismo no está ni mucho menos acabado.Esto plantea graves desafíos para el gobierno entrante. No solo una derecha envalentonada será una molestia constante para Da Silva, sino que además lo obligará a depender de los partidos de centro, lo que despeja el camino al intercambio de favores —que con frecuencia genera corrupción— que ha perjudicado a la democracia brasileña desde su origen. Aun así, no se debe infravalorar esta oportunidad para emprender una nueva trayectoria política. Se podría desplazar a la extrema derecha de vuelta a los márgenes, tras haber ocupado la presidencia. Como mínimo, quizá tengamos un gobierno más preocupado por la creciente desigualdad y el hambre que por el número de seguidores en sus carreras en motocicleta. Eso por sí solo ya es un bálsamo.Y lo que es fundamental: los brasileños deberían poder volver a hablar de temas más urgentes, como el déficit de vivienda del país, la educación pública, la policía militar y el racismo. Tal vez podríamos incluso hablar de cosas que nos interesan y nos asombran, que nos resultan placenteras. (Tortugas y astronomía, ¿se apunta alguien?) Después de todo lo que hemos pasado, nos merecemos disfrutar de un cierto respiro de la locura.Vanessa Barbara es editora del sitio web literario A Hortaliça, autora de dos novelas y dos libros de no ficción en portugués y colaboradora de la sección de Opinión del Times. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Your Tuesday Briefing: Jair Bolsonaro Loses

      by

      But he has not conceded Brazil’s presidential election.Supporters of President Jair Bolsonaro watched as the results of Brazil’s presidential election were announced on Sunday.Dado Galdieri for The New York TimesLula defeats Bolsonaro in BrazilBrazilians elected Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a leftist former president, to lead the country. Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s divisive far-right leader, narrowly lost the election.Far-right lawmakers, conservative pundits and many of Bolsonaro’s supporters recognized his opponent’s victory, but Bolsonaro himself has yet to concede. Here are live updates.Lula, as the president-elect is known, made climate a cornerstone of his campaign and has vowed to protect the Amazon. Lula will likely work to undo Bolsonaro-era policies that accelerated the destruction of the rainforest, but congressional opposition will probably limit his agenda.Analysis: Bolsonaro’s silence is becoming increasingly worrying because he has been warning for months that he might not accept defeat. His efforts to undermine Brazil’s election system drew concern at home and abroad.Lula: The 77-year-old president-elect also led Brazil during its boom in the first decade of the century. He left office with an 80 percent approval rating but then was convicted on corruption charges and spent 580 days in prison. The convictions were annulled last year after Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that the judge in his cases was biased.Bolsonaro: His volatile term was marked by clashes with the courts, attacks on democratic institutions and a pandemic that killed more people than any other country but the U.S. Bolsonaro’s political immunity ends once he leaves office on Jan. 1, and he faces a variety of investigations that could gain steam.Some people tried to swim to the fallen structure and climb up its tangled netting. Others were swept away.Ajit Solanki/Associated PressA deadly Indian bridge collapseAt least 134 people died on Sunday — many of them schoolchildren on vacation during Diwali — when a historic bridge collapsed in the western Indian state of Gujarat.In the midst of India’s most festive season, pedestrians had packed the suspension bridge, which was built in the Victorian era and had newly reopened. The 755-foot-long bridge (about 230 meters) is a famous tourist destination because of its sensation of swaying; people had bought tickets for about 20 cents.The State of the WarGrain Deal: After accusing Ukraine of attacking its ships in Crimea, Russia withdrew from an agreement allowing the export of grain from Ukrainian ports. The move jeopardized a rare case of wartime coordination aimed at lowering global food prices and combating hunger.Turning the Tables: With powerful Western weapons and deadly homemade drones, Ukraine now has an artillery advantage over Russia in the southern Kherson region, erasing what had been a critical asset for Moscow.Fears of Escalation: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia repeated the unfounded claim that Ukraine was preparing to explode a so-called dirty bomb, as concerns rose in the West that the Kremlin was seeking a pretext to escalate the war.A Coalition Under Strain: President Biden is facing new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting Ukraine. The alliance has shown signs of fraying with the approach of the U.S. midterm elections and a cold European winter.After people grabbed the netting to make the bridge shimmy, as countless others had done before them, the cables suddenly snapped, spilling people into the river.Now, India is asking why its infrastructure has failed so calamitously once again. The bridge had been opened without a “fitness certificate” or the authorities’ permission, an official told local news media. The company running the bridge blamed the victims, but it is unclear why it allowed so many on the bridge at once.Politics: Gujarat is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state. An opposition leader said that leaders of his party — which has governed the state for more than two decades — announced the bridge’s opening as a “Diwali gift” to the people of the town without ensuring its safety.How Russia pays for its warWestern nations imposed sanctions on Russia after it invaded Ukraine. But the punishments may have only limited effect: The value of Russia’s exports actually grew after the invasion, a Times analysis shows.The volume of Russia’s imports has plunged as sanctions and trade limits went into effect, but a few countries have deepened their relationships with Russia since the war began. Imports from Turkey have increased by 113 percent, and Chinese imports have increased 24 percent.Russia remains one of the world’s most important producers of oil, gas and raw materials. Many countries have found living without Russian raw materials incredibly difficult, and the high price of oil and gas in the last year has offset revenue lost to sanctions. India and China have emerged as much bigger buyers of Russian crude, albeit at a discounted rate.Infrastructure: Russian strikes knocked out most of Kyiv’s water.Grain: After suspending its participation in a grain deal, Russia said it won’t guarantee security for any cargo vessels crossing the Black Sea. Some African countries face immediate pain from its suspension.THE LATEST NEWSThe Seoul CrushPeople came to a makeshift memorial for the victims in Seoul.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesOnly 137 police officers were in the area in Seoul where more than 150 people died in a Halloween crowd crush. For comparison, the police dispatched 1,300 officers for a BTS performance last month in Busan, which drew 55,000.The authorities also underestimated the size of the crowd, which swelled to 130,000. A politician in the opposition called it a “man-made disaster.”More than 100 of the dead were in their 20s.Asia PacificChina launched the third and final module of its Tiangong space station.Chinese stocks whipsawed yesterday. The volatility may reflect investors’ unease about Xi Jinping’s tightening grip on power as China’s leader.Gautam Adani is Asia’s richest man. His business decisions could help determine whether India helps the world avert a climate catastrophe.U.S. NewsThe Supreme Court heard arguments on college admissions policies, and the conservative majority seemed skeptical of affirmative action. Legal abortions fell around six percent in the two months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.The trial of Donald Trump’s company began in New York yesterday.“This case is about greed and cheating,” a prosecutor told jurors.Science TimesAn artist’s impression of a “planet killer” asteroid, which had been hidden by the sun’s glare.DOE FNAL / DECam / CTIO / NOIRLab / NSF / AURA /J. da Silva – Space EngineScientists have identified an asteroid that poses a distant threat to Earth.Cholera is spreading: Droughts, floods and wars have forced many around the world to live in unsanitary conditions.A new study found that large groups of insects can create an atmospheric electrical charge as strong as those created by thunderstorms.In 2020, an enormous telescope in Puerto Rico collapsed. There is no plan to rebuild it, and astronomers and islanders are in mourning.A Morning ReadFor 8-year-old Shaffan Muhammad Ghulam to leave Australia would most likely be a death sentence, his doctors say.David Dare Parker for The New York TimesAustralia is considered a world leader in health care. But the country, along with neighboring New Zealand, is among the very few to routinely reject potential migrants on the basis of medical needs. That can leave families with one ill or disabled member stuck in legal limbo.CHINA INSIGHTIn the minutes before Hu Jintao was led away, he appeared to be reaching for a document on the table.The New York Times; video by CNA, via ReutersWhat happened to Hu Jintao?Nothing unscripted happens at the Communist Party congress in China. Nothing unscripted is allowed to happen.But last week, Hu Jintao, who once led China and was seated next to Xi Jinping, was abruptly led out of the closing ceremony. His apparently reluctant departure was the lone disruption in the meeting, where China’s leaders are anointed twice a decade, and analysts have said the chaos of the moment suggested that it was not planned.The moment led to wild speculation: Was Hu, 79, suffering from poor health, as Chinese state media would later report? Or was he being purged in a dramatic show by Xi, China’s current leader, for the world to see?A Times video analysis offers a clue. Hu — who was historically the only person with the stature to challenge the leader — was all but ignored by Xi; Li Keqiang, China’s premier; and other top politicians as he was escorted away. After he left, only Xi remained in the spotlight, an empty chair beside him.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookMichael Kraus for The New York TimesWelsh rarebit is an easy, cheesy late-night snack.Real EstateIf you’ve got a spare $4.6 million, check out this abandoned-fort-turned-estate in Rajasthan, in northwest India.PhotographyBoris Mikhailov is Ukraine’s greatest artist, our critic writes.The World Through a LensThere’s a circus at sea.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Bit of tomfoolery (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. The U.S. tested the first hydrogen bomb 70 years ago in the Marshall Islands.“The Daily” is about Xi Jinping.You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. More