Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Are Democrats Bungling Their Outreach to Voters?

      by

      More from our inbox:Republican Outrage Over the Raid at Mar-a-Lago‘Willful Ignorance’ and the Alex Jones Case Seb AgrestiTo the Editor:Re “Fed Up With Democratic Emails? You’re Not the Only One,” by Lara Putnam and Micah L. Sifry (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Aug. 1):The on-the-ground organizing the writers favor is admirable. But in deriding letters to voters, they are far off the mark. The science is clear: Large-scale randomized controlled trials over multiple election cycles have shown that Vote Forward’s partially handwritten letters significantly boost voter turnout.A peer-reviewed research study of our 2020 program “The Big Send” found that it was among the highest impact voter turnout programs ever measured in a presidential election. Vote Forward rigorously vets volunteers and encourages personal, heartfelt messages that reach beyond their bubbles — an authentic approach that works.Letter writing is a scalable, accessible activity doable year round from anywhere. It is an enjoyable entry point to electoral activism for many volunteers who later engage in deeper community organizing. And letters can be stockpiled to send at the optimal time, leaving space for other voter contact activities like canvassing and phone banking.Letters to voters are the kind of thoughtful, sustainable approach to volunteer engagement in elections that should be encouraged if we hope to build a strong civic fabric.Scott FormanOakland, Calif.The writer is the founder and executive director of Vote Forward, a nonprofit that encourages citizens to vote.To the Editor:Lara Putnam and Micah L. Sifry nailed it in their guest essay on the serious shortcomings of Democratic Party reliance on “churn and burn” email fund-raising with apocalyptic messaging. My inbox has been swamped this year with emails from Democratic PACs and candidates around the country desperately begging for money to salvage the party’s chances in the coming election. Nancy Pelosi was sending me more than an email a day, many of which had that dispiriting tone.On May 19, I finally unsubscribed to her Nancy Pelosi for Congress PAC, and sent her an email setting forth my reasons: Too much hyperbole (for example, “I critically need 3,372 gifts before midnight” was a constant refrain; there didn’t seem to be a midnight that went by that wasn’t a crucial financing deadline); too much emotion (she was shocked, disgusted, devastated); and, most troubling, too desperate.As I explained in my email, that sense of desperation “signals likely failure and has discouraged me from devoting my time and financial resources in the Democratic midterm election effort.”By contrast, the fund-raising emails I have received from President Biden have been more upbeat, and I have responded by making contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Democrats need to shift quickly from their current desperation-tinged tone to a more confident approach, with emphasis on the president’s and the party’s positive accomplishments.Allan HubbardEverett, Wash.To the Editor:The grass isn’t any greener on the other side of the aisle. My spam folder is full of similarly apocalyptic visions of what the “Biden/Pelosi/Schumer” troika will inflict on America should Republicans not sweep to congressional power in November. It’s easy enough to just hit “delete.”What is more concerning (for both red and blue voters) is that none of these desperate and destructive pleas are for anything other than money. No information on how to get more involved in the process. No links to more dispassionate discussions of the issues. Just unwarranted demonization of some of our fellow citizens via bolded adjectives and lots of exclamation marks. We can do better.Peter J. PittsNew YorkTo the Editor:Buried in the unfortunate tone of the guest essay are many points that we can agree on. Locally led conversations about elections are extremely powerful and strengthen our democracy. It is, however, a false dichotomy to say we must choose between these important local efforts and the participation of other activists in remote voter mobilization techniques. We can and must do both.Lara Putnam and Micah L. Sifry cherry-pick a study reporting a negative impact of sending postcards to voters. However, many more studies show a positive impact of between 0.4 and 2 percent. While these are small impacts, they are sufficient to make a difference in close elections.Campaigns generally do not have the capacity to knock on every door, especially in rural areas. Not all voters will be home when a canvasser shows up, and not all will answer a phone call. An all-of-the-above approach helps ensure that as many people as possible participate in our democracy.Ronnie CohenBerkeley, Calif.The writer is executive director of Activate America.Republican Outrage Over the Raid at Mar-a-LagoF.B.I. agents reportedly searched former President Donald J. Trump’s residence and office, as a well as a storage unit, at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Simmering Feud Peaks in a Search of Trump’s Home” (front page, Aug. 10):Surely if former President Barack Obama had left the White House and taken with him government documents, some of which may have been classified and all of which should have been delivered to the National Archives, the Republicans would have raised holy hell. But, of course, when a Republican former president does the same they sing a different tune.As that former president often says, “so sad.”Samuel A. OppenheimFranklin, Mass.To the Editor:Republican politicians and Fox News are outraged over the Justice Department raid of Donald Trump’s home and are demanding that the department explain why it did this. What they fail to mention is that Mr. Trump received a copy of the search warrant and an inventory of what was taken. If this was an outrageous intrusion, Mr. Trump could disclose the purpose of the search warrant and what was taken.Mr. Trump has already turned over 15 boxes that were wrongfully removed from the White House, implicitly indicating that this was all he originally removed. If the dozen or so boxes that were seized on Monday should have been turned over earlier, this is a clear indication that Mr. Trump knowingly broke the law.Charles W. MurdockChicagoThe writer is a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.‘Willful Ignorance’ and the Alex Jones Case Pool photo by Briana SanchezTo the Editor:As a longtime Newtown resident and the husband of a retired Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher, I followed the defamation suit against Alex Jones closely. I largely agree with the sentiments expressed in “Jones Got His Comeuppance, but Don’t Expect an End to the Lies” (front page, Aug. 7).Throughout history, groups have proved their allegiance to a political/cultural movement by adhering to bizarre and clearly false claims of their leaders. Blood libels. AIDS as a bioweapon. Pizzagate.Individuals adhering to the ideology of a political/cultural/fringe group will knowingly embrace outright falsehoods to further prove their allegiance. The wilder the conspiracy, the greater the sense of belonging. Willful ignorance: the team jersey of today.Steven TenenbaumNewtown, Conn. More

    • 38 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Two Trump Scenarios

      by

      What should you make of the F.B.I.’s search of Donald Trump’s home? We offer a guide.Perhaps the central question about the F.B.I.’s search of Donald Trump’s Florida home is whether it is a relatively narrow attempt to recover classified documents — or much more than that.Either scenario is plausible at this point. The Justice Department has long been aggressive about investigating former officials whom it suspects of improperly handling classified material, including Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus. If the F.B.I. search merely leads to a legalistic debate about what’s classified, it probably will not damage Trump’s political future.But it also seems possible that the search is a sign of a major new legal problem for him. People familiar with the search told The Times that it was not related to the Justice Department’s investigation into the Jan. 6 attack and Trump’s role in it. And it’s unlikely that Merrick Garland, the attorney general, would have allowed the search-warrant request — or that a federal judge would have approved it, as was required — unless it involved something important.“I don’t think you get a judge to sign off on a search warrant for an ex-president’s house lightly,” Charlie Savage, a Times reporter who has been covering legal issues since the George W. Bush administration, said. “I think the world looks pretty different today than it did 48 hours ago.” (It’s even possible that Trump could be prosecuted over classified documents alone, although that might not keep him from holding office again.)Support for Trump outside Mar-a-Lago yesterday.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesAs Charlie emphasizes, there is still much more that’s unknown about the search than known. That probably won’t change until the Justice Department gets much closer to making a decision about how to conclude its investigation. “A central tenet of the way in which the Justice Department investigates and a central tenet of the rule of law is that we do not do our investigations in public,” Garland recently said.But at least two big points seem clear. First, even though Garland has said that nobody is above the law, the Justice Department will not treat Trump like any other citizen. The bar for filing criminal charges against him will be higher, given that he is a former president who may run again — against the current president.“The considerations when you’re talking about a political leader are certainly different and harder,” Andrew Goldstein, a former federal prosecutor who investigated Trump’s ties to Russia, recently told The Times. “You have the very clear and important rule that the Department of Justice should try in every way possible not to interfere with elections, to not take steps using the criminal process that could end up affecting the political process.”Still, some legal experts who previously criticized Garland for moving too timidly in investigating Trump said they were encouraged by the Justice Department’s recent signs of boldness, including the Mar-a-Lago search. Andrew Weissmann, another former prosecutor who previously investigated Trump, is one of those experts (as he explained in this New Yorker interview). Quinta Jurecic, a senior editor at Lawfare, is another. “At what point does not investigating and not prosecuting a former president itself indicate that the rule of law is being undermined because it sends a signal that this person is above the law?” Jurecic told us.She added: “That doesn’t mean that this is going to translate to an indictment of the president.”The second point is that Trump appears to be a subject of multiple criminal investigations — and prosecutors may decide that his violations of the law were so significant as to deserve prosecution. One of those investigations is by state prosecutors in Georgia, who may not be as cautious about charging a former president as Garland seems likely to be.Either way, the answer will probably become clear well before November 2024. Prosecutors — especially at the Justice Department — generally try to avoid making announcements about investigations into political candidates during a campaign. (James Comey’s decision to ignore that tradition and announce he had reopened an investigation into Clinton late in the 2016 campaign was a notable exception, and many experts believe he erred in doing so.)The rest of today’s newsletter summarizes the latest Times reporting about the F.B.I. search of Mar-a-Lago — and also gives you a quick overview of the multiple investigations Trump is facing.The latestBefore the raid, Justice Department officials had grown concerned that Trump had kept some documents, despite returning others.If convicted, could Trump be barred from holding office? A relevant law is untested.The Justice Department did not give the White House advance notice of the search, President Biden’s press secretary said.Representative Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican who pushed to overturn Trump’s loss, said the F.B.I. had seized his cellphone.The Trump investigationsProsecutors in Georgia are investigating efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn his 2020 election loss there, including a phone call in which Trump asked an election official to “find” additional votes. The Times’s Annie Karni explains the possible charges.The Justice Department is also questioning witnesses before a grand jury about Trump’s efforts to reverse his election loss. And federal prosecutors are examining his allies’ plan to submit fake electors from key states to disrupt certification of Biden’s win.Trump faces a few other investigations, some of which could result in civil but not criminal penalties. The main exception is a criminal inquiry into his business by the Manhattan district attorney, but that seems to have unraveled.Trump will face questioning under oath today by the New York attorney general’s office, which is investigating his business practices.THE LATEST NEWSPrimary NightTim Michels at his election party.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesTim Michels, a Trump-endorsed construction magnate, will face Gov. Tony Evers in Wisconsin in November. The race will determine voting and abortion access.Minnesota Republicans nominated a 2020 election skeptic for secretary of state.Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Washington Republican who voted to impeach Trump over Jan. 6, conceded her primary.Representative Ilhan Omar survived a primary challenge from a more moderate Minnesota Democrat.War in UkraineSmoke near a Russian air base in Crimea.ReutersExplosions at a Russian air base in Crimea were evidently the result of a Ukrainian strike. Ukraine has rarely hit so deep in Russian-occupied territory.Russia controls large sections of eastern and southern Ukraine. It also occupies some of the cyberspace.Serena WilliamsSerena Williams at the 2018 U.S. Open.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesSerena Williams, 40, plans to retire from tennis after this year’s U.S. Open.In Vogue, Williams explained that she was retiring in part to grow her family. “If I were a guy, I wouldn’t be writing this.”Williams has 23 Grand Slam titles — one short of the record. She’s still the sport’s most dominant figure.Williams helped redefine how to be a superstar athlete.Other Big StoriesThe police in Albuquerque detained a suspect in the recent killings of four Muslim men.The U.N. agency for sustainable development has joined with oil companies, pushing drilling sites in poor countries over residents’ objections.Iran is weighing what the European Union calls its “final” offer to restore the 2015 nuclear deal.A grand jury in Mississippi declined to indict Carolyn Bryant Donham, 88, whose accusation led to the 1955 murder of Emmett Till.OpinionsFor Naomi Jackson, carrying cash is a safeguard against the dangers of being a Black woman.“Yellowstone” is a conservative fantasy that liberals should watch, Tressie McMillan Cottom writes.The Democrats’ climate bill is a profound accomplishment, Paul Krugman says.MORNING READSOlivia Newton-John in the “Physical” music video.Everett CollectionAn appraisal: Olivia Newton-John’s transformation “unlocked something new that shot her to the top of pop’s Olympus.”A preppy classic: Customized L.L. Bean tote bags have become blank canvases.A Times classic: Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.Advice from Wirecutter: Swimsuit-washing tips.Lives Lived: Clients of Bert Fields, the entertainment lawyer and master dealmaker, included Tom Cruise, Madonna and the Beatles. Fields died at 93.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICRoger Goodell makes his case: Yesterday, the N.F.L. commissioner said the league appealed Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson’s proposed six-game suspension because evidence clearly showed Watson engaged in “predatory behavior.” If the suspension lands closer to a full season, as Goodell prefers, there’s a case for Cleveland to bring in Jimmy Garoppolo.LIV golfers take an L: A judge upheld a ban for three PGA Tour defectors to LIV Golf who were seeking to compete in the FedEx Cup playoffs — which start today — in part, because they have been compensated so well by the rebel series. Whoops.Kevin Durant’s lack of leverage: The 33-year-old N.B.A. superstar might not have strong enough cards to force his way off the Brooklyn Nets in the wake of his latest demands. This is getting interesting.ARTS AND IDEAS The role of L.G.B.T.Q. museumsWhen putting together Queer Britain, England’s first L.G.B.T.Q. museum, organizers grappled with a question: Should they focus on celebrating history, aimed at a mainstream audience, or on reckoning with debates within the community?It’s a choice all L.G.B.T.Q. museums must make, Tom Faber writes in The Times. Berlin’s Schwules Museum, which opened in 1985, is overtly political; its latest exhibits address biases in the museum’s own history. Queer Britain has opted for a more mainstream approach, spotlighting artifacts from history — such as notes from the first parliamentary AIDS meeting — and notable Britons like Ian McKellen, Elton John and Virginia Woolf.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookRyan Liebe for The New York TimesFish sticks and green peas are childhood classics.What to ReadIn “Retail Gangster,” Gary Weiss explores the sketchy business practices of Eddie Antar.ComedyThe standup Jo Koy’s film “Easter Sunday” focuses on Filipino family themes dear to him.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was viaduct. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Hair braid (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. “I let them talk”: Rick Rojas, a Times national correspondent, on how he covered the devastation of Kentucky’s floods.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about the F.B.I. search on Mar-a-Lago. On “The Argument,” state legislatures are remaking America.Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Marcos Family Gets Star Treatment in a New Philippines Film

      by

      A big-budget production depicts the family as victims of a political vendetta, a popular narrative during the recent presidential election in the Philippines.MANILA — Even before its opening night last week, “Maid in Malacanang” was shaping up to be the most talked-about film of the year in the Philippines.The almost two-hour drama portrays the Marcos family’s last days in the presidential palace before being forced into exile by a pro-democracy revolt in 1986.“We did everything for this country after World War II, only to be destroyed by the people who yearn for power,” a sobbing Imelda R. Marcos tells her son, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in one scene. “Remember this, we will never be able to return after we leave. They will do everything so the Filipino people will hate us.”A teary-eyed Mr. Marcos, played by the young actor Diego Loyzaga, consoles his mother as he replies, “I promise, I don’t know how or when, but we will return.”The Marcoses returned to the Philippines in the 1990s, but the family’s biggest comeback happened in May, when Mr. Marcos, the son and namesake of the former dictator, was elected president in the most consequential race in three decades. The release of “Maid in Malacanang,” a big-budget production starring two famous actors, is seen as a sort of victory lap for the new president and his family.Ruffa Gutierrez, who plays former first lady Imelda R. Marcos, shooting a scene on the set of the movie “Maid in Malacanang.”Viva Films“This is a work of truth,” Imee Marcos said at the movie’s premiere. One of Mr. Marcos’s sisters, she was the movie’s creative producer and executive producer. “We waited 36 years for this story to come out.”Despite the corruption and tax evasion cases against the family, many Filipinos consider the Marcoses something like royalty, an idea that the film plays on while furthering the myth that they were victims of a political vendetta.More than 30 million people voted for Mr. Marcos in May, allowing him to clinch the presidency with the largest vote margin in more than 30 years. Nearly half the country believes the family was unjustly forced to flee.But many of Mr. Marcos’s detractors say he won the election because of a yearslong campaign to rewrite Marcos family history and the legacy of the father’s brutal dictatorship. “Maid in Malacanang,” they say, is just the latest attempt to rewrite the narrative.The movie is told through the eyes of three maids who worked for the Marcoses during the years leading up the 1986 People Power revolution, when hundreds of thousands of people marched through the streets of Manila to protest against a family that they saw as corrupt.Imelda R. Marcos, left, arriving in Hawaii on Feb. 26, 1986, the day after the Marcos family’s departure into exile from the Philippines.Carl Viti/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe film portrays the former dictator, Ferdinand E. Marcos, who ruled the Philippines for over two decades, as a soft leader incapable of violence — a popular talking point among Marcos family supporters online. The movie also portrays the Marcoses as ordinary people who love simple food, even as they surround themselves with designer bags and jewelry.What the film does not mention: the widespread public anger over the family’s excesses, such as Imelda Marcos’s 1,060 pairs of shoes. Also missing is any mention of the tens of thousands of people who were tortured during martial law.“I was not alive during the term of president Marcos, but I was surprised to see a different story, different from what I heard from other people,” said Maricar Amores Faypon-Sicat, a moviegoer who saw the film on opening night.“I did not know that he wanted to avoid bloodshed, and until the last minute, he was thinking of the Filipino people,” said Ms. Amores Faypon-Sicat, 29.Darryl Yap, the director, said the decision to make the film came only after the presidential election, though he had done some preliminary work ahead of that time. He said the landslide win for Mr. Marcos was “an overwhelming testament that the Filipino people are ready to hear the side of the Marcoses.”Speaking to a select audience at the July 29 premiere, Mr. Yap said the film was the first time that viewers were given an opportunity to watch a film about the Marcos family that was not based on the opposition’s narrative.Supporters of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. at his campaign headquarters during the presidential election in May. Mr. Marcos’s landslide win was “an overwhelming testament that the Filipino people are ready to hear the side of the Marcoses,” according to Darryl Yap, the director of the movie.Jes Aznar for The New York TimesNot everyone has been receptive.Members of the Roman Catholic clergy condemned the depiction of Corazon Aquino, the leader of the opposition, playing mahjong with nuns from the Carmelite monastery in Cebu Province at the height of the protests. One leader of the church has called for a boycott of the movie.Sister Mary Melanie Costillas, the head of the monastery, said the truth was that the nuns were praying and fasting during the demonstrations, fearful that the elder Mr. Marcos would find Mrs. Aquino, who was sheltering at the monastery to avoid being detained. At that time, there were reports that Mr. Marcos had issued a shoot-to-kill order against Mrs. Aquino.“The attempt to distort history is reprehensible,” Sister Costillas said in a statement. She said that the mahjong scene “would trivialize whatever contribution we had to democracy.”The actress playing Irene Marcos, the Marcoses’ youngest child, fueled outrage after she likened the accusations against the family and the details of the father’s human rights abuses to “gossip.”Corazon Aquino, right, a leader of the opposition, during a rally in February 1986. Members of the clergy have condemned how she and the nuns who sheltered her are portrayed in the movie.Romeo Gacad/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesHistorians and artists say the movie has opened up a new front in the battle against misinformation in the Philippines, taking something that was once mostly online and bringing it into a new domain.“I now feel that the struggle has shifted to the cultural sphere,” said Bonifacio Ilagan, 71, a renowned playwright. He said that the movie mainly targets the younger generation who never experienced martial law. “They are vulnerable to disinformation. They are the market of the film because they lack historical sense.”Mr. Ilagan, who was tortured during the Marcos years, has teamed up with Joel Lamangan, a well-known movie director, to make a film to counter the narrative of “Maid in Malacanang.” Mr. Lamangan was the first member of the local directors guild to publicly denounce the Marcos-backed film as “pure nonsense,” which he said resulted in death threats.They expect financing their project to be a challenge. “It will be an uphill climb because we have no producer and we have no money,” said Mr. Lamangan, 69, who is also a martial law victim. “But we are trying to do crowdfunding.”The Wall of Remembrance at the martial law museum in Manila. The museum honors those who struggled against the dictatorship of Ferdinand E. Marcos.Ezra Acayan for The New York Times“Maid in Malacanang” was bankrolled by a major local film production company known for producing blockbusters in the Philippines.The underlying narrative of the film is centered on the legacy of the elder Mr. Marcos and how people will remember him. In one scene, a wistful Mr. Marcos asks Irene as she begs him to leave the palace: “How will I face my grandchildren? Their grandfather is a soldier, but he retreated from war.”A weeping Irene responds: “I will make sure that the truth will come out and history will tell your grandkids who you really are.”Mr. Marcos tells his daughter that the opposition was “mad at us because we come from the province. They are mad at us because the people love us. But still, I can’t make myself get angry at them.”At the premiere, the audience applauded. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Voting Is Over in Kenya’s Election. Here’s What Comes Next

      by

      The two front-runners for the presidency — one making his fifth attempt — said victory was within reach. But a dispute over the results seems inevitable, and the next phase could be turbulent.NAIROBI, Kenya — A wave of relief tinged with jubilation washed across Kenya on Tuesday as its hotly contested presidential election passed largely peacefully after months of bitter jostling and mud slinging. Supporters feted one of the front-runners, Raila Odinga, at his Nairobi stronghold, while his rival, William Ruto, praised the majesty of democracy after casting his ballot before dawn.But as the voting ended, a new battle was likely beginning.The close of polls saw Kenya’s election shift into a new and unpredictable phase that, if previous polls are a guide, could be rocky. Past elections have been followed by accusations of vote-rigging, protracted courtroom wrangling, bouts of street violence and, in 2017, a shocking murder mystery.It could take weeks, even months, before a new president is sworn in.“People just don’t trust the system,” Charles Owuiti, a factory manager, said as he waited to cast his ballot in Nairobi, the line snaking through a crowded schoolyard.Still, the corrosive ethnic politics that framed previous electoral contests have been dialed down. In the Rift Valley, the scene of prior electoral clashes, fewer people than in the previous years fled their homes fearing they might be attacked.A large crowd filled the streets in support of Raila Odinga as he cast his ballot in Kenya’s presidential election.Daniel Irungu/EPA, via ShutterstockInstead, Kenyans streamed into polling stations across the country, some in the predawn darkness, to choose not just their president, but also parliamentarians and local leaders. Among the four candidates for president, the vast majority of voters opted for either Mr. Odinga, a 77-year-old opposition leader running for the fifth time, or Mr. Ruto, the outgoing vice president and self-declared champion of Kenya’s “hustler nation” — its frustrated youth.“Baba! Baba!” yelled young men who crushed around Mr. Odinga’s vehicle in Kibera, on the outskirts of Nairobi and said to be Africa’s largest slum. They used his nickname, which means “father.” The septuagenarian leader struggled to keep his feet as he was swept into a polling station.Mr. Ruto made a show of apparent humility while casting his vote. “Moments like this is when the mighty and the powerful come to the realization that the simple and ordinary eventually make the choice,” he told reporters.But for many Kenyans, that wasn’t a choice worth making. The electoral commission estimated voter turnout at 60 percent of the country’s 22 million voters — a huge drop from the 80 percent turnout of the 2017 election, and a sign that many Kenyans, perhaps stung by economic hardship or jaded by endemic corruption, preferred to stay home.“Either way, there’s no hope,” said Zena Atitala, an unemployed tech worker, outside a voting station in Kibera. “Of the two candidates, we are choosing the better thief.”Anger at the soaring cost of living was palpable. Battered by the double-punch of the pandemic and the Ukraine war, Kenya’s economy has reeled under rising prices of food and fuel this year. The departing government, led by President Uhuru Kenyatta, sought to ease the hardship with flour and gasoline subsidies. But it can barely afford them, given Kenya’s huge debt to external lenders like China.No matter who wins this election, economists say, they will face harsh economic headwinds.William Ruto, the current vice president who is making a run for the top job, greeting supporters on Tuesday after voting in Sugoi, about 200 miles northwest of Nairobi.Brian Inganga/Associated PressThe critical question in the coming days, however, is not only who won the race, but whether the loser will accept defeat.It can get murky.Days before the last vote, in 2017, a senior electoral official, Chris Msando, was brutally murdered, his tortured body dumped in a forest outside Nairobi alongside his girlfriend, Carol Ngumbu. A post-mortem found they had been strangled.The death of Mr. Msando, who was in charge of the results transmission system, immediately aroused suspicion of a link to vote rigging. Weeks later when Mr. Odinga challenged the election result in court, he claimed that the electoral commission’s server had been hacked by people using Mr. Msando’s credentials.The election was eventually rerun — Mr. Kenyatta won — but the killings were never solved.The nadir of Kenyan elections, though, came in 2007 when a dispute over results plunged the country into a maelstrom of ethnic violence that went on for months, killing over 1,200 people and, some analysts said, nearly tipped the country into an all-out civil war.In one notorious episode, a mob set fire to a church outside the town of Eldoret, burning to death the women, children and older people hiding inside.Maasai waiting to vote outside a polling station at Niserian Primary School, in Kajiado County, Kenya, on Tuesday.Ben Curtis/Associated PressThe trauma of those days still scars voters like Jane Njoki, who woke up on Tuesday in Nakuru, 100 miles northwest of Nairobi, with mixed feelings about casting her vote.Her family lost everything in 2007 after mobs of machete-wielding men descended on their town in the Rift Valley, torching their house and killing Ms. Njoki’s brother and uncle, she said. Since then, each election season has been a reminder of how her family held hasty funerals in case the attackers returned.“Elections are always trouble,” she said.That bloodshed drew the attention of the International Criminal Court which tried, unsuccessfully, to prosecute senior politicians including Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ruto on charges of inciting violence.But the crisis also led Kenyans to adopt a new constitution in 2010 that devolved some powers to the local level and helped stabilize a democracy that, for all its flaws, is today considered among the strongest in the region.Waiting to vote early in the morning at St. Stephen School in the informal settlement of Mathare in Nairobi, on Tuesday.Luis Tato/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“Post-conflict societies rarely earn the right lessons, but I think Kenya did,” said Murithi Mutiga, Africa Program Director at the International Crisis Group. “It adopted a new constitution with a relatively independent judiciary that led to a more constrained presidency. The rest of the region could learn from it.”On Tuesday, unofficial results from the vote flowed in. The election commission posted tallies from polling stations to its website as they became available, allowing newspapers, political parties and other groups to compile the unofficial results.By midnight, the election commission website showed that 81 percent of 46,229 polling stations had submitted their results electronically. But those results had not been tabulated or verified against the paper originals, which analysts say could take a few days.The winning candidate needs over 50 percent of the vote, as well as one quarter of the vote in 24 of Kenya’s 47 counties. Failure to meet that bar means a runoff within 30 days.That could happen if a third candidate, George Wajackoyah — who is campaigning on a platform of marijuana legalization and, more unusually, the sale to China of hyena testicles, said to be of medicinal value — can convert his sliver of support into votes, denying the main candidates a majority.But the most likely outcome in the coming days, analysts say, is a court challenge.Any citizen or group can challenge the results at the Supreme Court within seven days. If the results are challenged, the court must deliver its decision within two weeks. If judges nullify the results, as they did in 2017, a fresh vote must be held within 60 days.In recent weeks, both Mr. Odinga and Mr. Ruto have accused the election commission and other state bodies of bias, apparently sowing the ground for a legal challenge — only, of course, if they lose.Both of the main candidates have previously been accused of using street power to influence elections.But most Kenyans desperately hope that the trauma of 2007 — or the grisly murder mystery of 2017 — are far behind them.Whatever happens in the coming days or weeks, many say they hope it will be resolved in the courts, not on the streets.Declan Walsh More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      William Ruto: Self-Proclaimed Champion of Kenya’s ‘Hustler Nation’

      by

      William Ruto loves to tell of his humble origins — his barefoot childhood in the Rift Valley; his first pair of shoes at age 15; the time he scraped by selling chickens and ground nuts on the side of a busy highway.That story is at the heart of Mr. Ruto’s electoral pitch to what he calls the “hustler nation” — hard-working and ambitious young people who, like him once, deserve a better deal. “If you listen to Joe Biden, he’s speaking the same language,” Mr. Ruto said in an interview. “How do we bring the majority to the table, where their talents, energies and ideas are also part of the making of the nation?”But it’s not quite that simple. Although Mr. Ruto slams the outgoing government, he has been part of it for the past nine years — as Kenya’s vice president. And his days of penury are far behind: His vast business interests, acquired during his time in politics, include a 2,500-acre farm, a luxury hotel and a giant poultry plant.These days Mr. Ruto, 55, is more likely to travel by helicopter than in a “matatu,” the crowded minibuses used by the average Kenyan “hustler.”Contradictions abound on all sides in this mold-breaking election, and Mr. Ruto has brought a hard-charging, upstart energy to the country’s moribund elite politics.Even detractors concede that he is charismatic, hard-working and full of new ideas. His promises of “bottom-up” economics resonate with poor Kenyans who are still reeling from the pandemic and now grappling with soaring food and fuel prices.And he has promised to sweep away Kenya’s old political dynasties — embodied by his opponent, Raila Odinga, 77, and his political nemesis (and former boss), the departing president, Uhuru Kenyatta.“There is no doubt that William Ruto’s presidential campaign has wrong-footed Kenya’s political establishment,” David Ndii, an influential economist who is backing Mr. Ruto, wrote on the eve of Tuesday’s vote. “They did not see a mere hustler leading a reimagining of our politics.”Still, Mr. Ruto’s enmity with Mr. Kenyatta, a singular focus of his most vehement attacks on the campaign trail, has the feel of a vendetta. Critics point to that as an example of a ruthless style, if Mr. Ruto came to power, that could turn into authoritarian rule.Mr. Ruto dismisses those concerns, as well as the controversy over his indictment by the International Criminal Court, in 2011, on charges of stoking election violence four years earlier. The case collapsed in 2016 after Kenya’s government stopped cooperating with prosecutors.“The whole thing was a political charade,” Mr. Ruto said.His biggest challenge now might be apathy. A voter-registration drive earlier this year had a disappointing turnout, especially among young Kenyans who are at the core of Mr. Ruto’s campaign.So if he is to emerge victorious, analysts say, he needs his supporters to do more than hustle. They need to get out and vote.Abdi Latif Dahir More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Will 5th Time Be the Charm for Raila Odinga in Kenya’s Election?

      by

      Raila Odinga, the smiling eminence of Kenyan politics, has an admirable record of contesting national elections and a miserable record of winning them. Since his first presidential run 30 years ago, Mr. Odinga, 77, has been at the center of nearly every election, mostly as the aggrieved loser claiming to have been cheated of his rightful victory.Could this time be different? With the most recent polls showing Mr. Odinga in the lead over his rival, William Ruto, the big prize seems to be within his grasp. But Kenyan elections can be messy, unpredictable affairs, with few certainties — a lesson Mr. Odinga knows better than most.High office is in his blood. The son of Kenya’s first vice-president, and an avowed leftist, Mr. Odinga entered politics soon after returning to Kenya from his engineering studies in communist East Germany in the 1960s.He was detained without trial for six years after an unsuccessful coup attempt against Daniel arap Moi, Kenya’s longest-serving ruler, in 1982 — and arrested twice after. Once finally released, he led protests that culminated in Kenya’s first multiparty election in 1992 — although the first truly free vote would take another decade.He first ran for the presidency in 1997, and again in 2007, when a disputed result led to widespread violence that killed over 1,200 people. He tried again in 2013 and 2017, both times losing to Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s outgoing president.Through it all, Mr. Odinga has remained defiantly present — the outsider who could command newspaper front pages; the rabble-rouser who cast himself as the champion of the marginalized; the loser who crowned himself as the “People’s President” after losing the 2017 vote.If he can win this time, victory will be more than a personal vindication; it will make him the first leader of Kenya to come from outside the Kikuyu and Kalenjin ethnic groups that have dominated power since independence in 1963. Mr. Odinga is from the fourth largest group — the Luo — who have long resented being excluded from power.An Odinga presidency would also make history through his running mate, Martha Karua, who would become Kenya’s first female vice president.But if Mr. Odinga, the perennial outsider, is finally on the verge of achieving his dream, he is doing it as an insider thanks to the so-called “handshake,” his contentious 2018 pact with President Kenyatta that ensured him the president’s backing in this race.Supposedly an initiative to heal Kenya’s political divisions, the deal was widely criticized as yet another elite pact. One of its major provisions, a plan to amend the Constitution, was struck down by the courts in March.Even so, in this election the “handshake” has earned Mr. Odinga precious votes from some of Mr. Kenyatta’s supporters, putting him one major step closer to the job he has coveted for decades. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Chad’s Military Junta and Rebels Sign a Deal, but a Main Player Is Missing

      by

      The accord paves the way for national reconciliation talks and democratic elections. However, it was snubbed by the main rebel group responsible for the death of Chad’s previous leader.DAKAR, Senegal — Chad’s military government and more than 40 rebel groups signed a cease-fire agreement on Monday in Qatar, paving the way for reconciliation talks later this month as the Central African nation seeks a way out of a troubled political transition.But the signing of the agreement, after five months of negotiations, was overshadowed by the absence of Chad’s most powerful armed group, which refused to to join in the accord, making any prospects for a return to stability all the more uncertain.After Chad’s longtime autocratic ruler, Idriss Déby, died while fighting against rebels in April last year, his son Gen. Mahamat Idriss Déby seized power and vowed to lead the country through an 18-month transition period.With less than two months left in that transition period, Mr. Déby’s military government and rebel groups have been negotiating in Doha, Qatar, what comes next. On Monday after nearly five months of talks, they agreed to hold national reconciliation talks later this month in Chad’s capital, N’Djamena, which would then pave the way to democratic elections.But the absence among the signatories of one of Chad’s main rebel groups, the Front for Change and Concord in Chad (F.A.C.T., by its French acronym), threw the outcome of the coming talks into question. It was while visiting troops fighting against the F.A.C.T. that Mr. Déby was killed last year, according to the Chadian military authorities.On Sunday, the group’s spokesman said the accord didn’t respect key requests such as the immediate release of prisoners and parity between the government and opposition groups during the coming reconciliation talks.Thus the agreement may bring some temporary stability, but any lasting peace is unlikely, said Remadji Hoinathy, a Chadian political analyst based in N’Djamena.Chadian soldiers parading through N’Djamena after battling rebel forces last May.Djimet Wiche/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“Some protagonists have long understood that the only way to have a frank discussion in Chad is to go through armed rebellion,” said Mr. Hoinathy, an analyst with the Institute for Security Studies.Even as a broad mix of political parties, rebel groups and the military government are set to convene in N’Djamena this month, Mr. Hoinathy said, “Those who didn’t sign the accord may as well invite themselves to the conversation — but through weapons.”Mamadou Djimtebaye, a Chadian political journalist, said that scenario could have been true years ago, but is not anymore. “That’s an old framework — people won’t let it happen,” he said. “They want elections, and both the government and F.A.C.T. have understood that.”Issa Ahmat, the spokesman for F.A.C.T., said any resolutions from the reconciliation talks would likely be biased in favor of the government. But he said that violence wasn’t on the table. “We haven’t closed the door to dialogue,” Mr. Ahmat said in a telephone interview.The presence of myriad groups in Doha — more than 50, with nearly 10 of them rejecting the accord — highlighted the key role they have played in Chad since the country’s independence from France in 1960. The country’s history has been characterized by military dictatorship and repeated attempts to seize power by such groups, often operating from neighboring Libya or Sudan.Besides the cease-fire, the agreement signed on Monday includes a disarmament program; amnesty and the safe return of rebels outside Chad; the end of recruitment by rebel groups; and the release of prisoners on both sides.The Union of Resistance Forces, which tried to oust the elder Mr. Déby in 2019 by sending a column of fighters in 50 pickup trucks from Libya — only to be beaten back by French airstrikes — signed the agreement. But another powerful group, the Military Command Council for the Salvation of the Republic, rejected the pledge.Now, as the transition period is likely to exceed its 18-month term, Chadians have been increasingly frustrated with the junta.In May, supporters of the country’s main political opposition group, Wakit Tama, were arrested following protests against the military government. They also denounced France’s presence in the country and its support for the military leaders, echoing a rising anti-French sentiment in former French colonies.France has long considered Chad, a nation of 17 million, a strategic partner in the Sahel region. France’s counterterrorism operation, Operation Barkhane, has been headquartered in N’Djamena since its launch in 2014.But critics have pointed to a double standard by France. In Mali, it has been unflinching with military leaders who seized power in a coup last year, yet it has been more accommodating toward Chad’s government, even though Mr. Déby’s takeover following his father’s death was also unconstitutional.Human rights organizations have also criticized Mr. Déby for a broad crackdown on peaceful protests and the arrests of hundreds of members and supporters of the opposition.“Chad’s significant military commitments in the fight against terror have meant that the international community has felt comfortable to turn a blind eye to the serious human rights violations in country,” Human Right Watch’s director for Central Africa, Lewis Mudge, wrote in April.Chad’s troubled history has been marked by several peace agreements similar to those signed on Monday, which Mr. Hoinathy said had often brought limited results.Jérôme Tubiana, an independent expert on Chad, said “Key groups are missing, but the government’s plan may not have been to have all those groups as signatories.” He continued, “Instead, it may have tried to avoid negotiations between the government on one side, and all the groups together on the other.”“If the government had a divide-and-rule strategy, then it won.” More