More stories

  • in

    In Two Elections, North and South, Boris Johnson Risks a Sharp Rebuke

    Scandals, economic pain and an uproar over lockdown parties have left Britain’s Conservatives at risk of losing both recent advances and old strongholds.WAKEFIELD, England — Prime Minister Boris Johnson has yet to campaign in the stately but faded city of Wakefield in West Yorkshire, even though his Conservative Party is at risk of losing a highly symbolic seat in a parliamentary election there on Thursday. But that doesn’t mean he’s not on people’s minds — or tongues.“Boris Johnson has been convicted of breaking the law. He held parties in the place where they make the laws. It’s massive hypocrisy,” said Jordan Rendle, 31, who was getting his hair cut by a local barber, Andrew Prust.“We’re all human — 99.9 percent of the country didn’t stick to the rules,” Mr. Prust replied, his shrug reflected in the mirror.“OK, stop the haircut now!” Mr. Rendle spluttered in mock outrage, as he realized his barber backed the prime minister.“Boris Johnson has been convicted of breaking the law,” said Jordan Rendle, getting his hair cut, adding: “It’s massive hypocrisy.”Andrew Testa for The New York TimesEven in races where Mr. Johnson is not on the ballot, he manages to be an all-consuming, often polarizing figure. While this election, along with one in southwestern England, is to fill seats vacated by two lawmakers whose careers were ruined by their own scandals, the races are also a referendum of sorts on the scandal-scarred prime minister.How badly has he been damaged by the uproar over illicit parties held in Downing Street during the pandemic?Were the Conservatives to lose both seats, which is conceivable, it would do fresh damage to the record of electoral success that has helped Mr. Johnson survive the kind of turmoil — including a no-confidence vote by his own party — that would have sunk most politicians. A double defeat could trigger another mutiny among the 148 rebel Tory members of Parliament who voted to oust him only two weeks ago.“If those elections were to be lost quite badly, I can’t see why a good proportion of those M.P.s wouldn’t be demanding another no-confidence vote,” said Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. “By-elections have a nasty habit of making a generalized problem acute.”For all the high stakes, campaigning in Wakefield has been muted.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesPolls suggest the Conservatives are on track to lose Wakefield to the main opposition Labour Party, less than three years after they won it in Mr. Johnson’s 2019 election landslide. That would give Labour back a seat it held for nearly 90 years and restore a brick to the party’s “red wall” — areas in England’s equivalent of the rust belt, former industrial cities and towns that were once Labour strongholds.The election in Tiverton and Honiton, in the rural Tory heartlands to the south, is more of a tossup. There, the centrist Liberal Democrats are hoping to evict the Conservatives from a seat they held since the district was created in 1997, and won with a hefty margin in 2019.The incumbent, Neil Parish, resigned in April after he admitted watching pornography on his phone while sitting in the House of Commons. In Wakefield, the Conservative, Imran Ahmad Khan, was jailed after being convicted of sexually assaulting a teenage boy.Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain speaking in 2019 during his Conservative Party’s final election campaign rally in London.Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated PressThe lurid circumstances that required these off-year elections makes the Conservative Party especially vulnerable. It adds to the perception of what critics call “Tory sleaze.” But there is deeper disillusionment with politics in Wakefield, where a strike at one of the bus companies has depressed business at shops and restaurants.“Politicians always make promises and then they always break them,” said Christine Lee, 82, a retired dress designer, as she browsed in one of Wakefield’s mostly deserted outdoor shopping malls. She said she did not plan to vote on Thursday because neither the Labour nor the Conservative candidate would make a difference.Given its high stakes, the campaign has been surprisingly muted. The Labour candidate, Simon Lightwood, who is comfortably ahead in the polls, has avoided making waves. His Tory opponent, Nadeem Ahmed, has gone quiet since he gave an ill-fated interview to The Daily Telegraph last week, in which he described his predecessor, Mr. Khan, as a “one bad apple,” who should not cause voters to turn against all Conservatives.A Labour stronghold in Wakefield. The party lost the seat in 2019, but has been ahead in polls there.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesDavid Herdson, who is running for the independent Yorkshire Party, left the Conservatives because of Mr. Johnson’s “reckless strategy” on Brexit.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesMr. Ahmed likened the case to that of Harold Shipman, a notorious English doctor and serial killer who is believed to have murdered 250 of his patients as a general practitioner before killing himself in prison in Wakefield in 2004. “Have we stopped trusting G.P.s?” Mr. Ahmed said to the Telegraph. “No, we still trust G.P.s and we know that he was one bad apple in there.”Mr. Johnson has so far kept his distance. On Friday, he skipped a conference of northern Conservative lawmakers in the nearby city of Doncaster, instead making a repeat visit to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, where he met President Volodymyr Zelensky.To some local politicians, that was a telling sign.“Conservatives don’t think it’s worth fighting for,” said David Herdson, who is running for the seat as the candidate of the independent Yorkshire Party. “Labour thinks the election is in the bag, and they don’t want to make any mistakes.”Mr. Herdson, 48, who left the Conservative Party because of what he called Mr. Johnson’s “reckless strategy” in leaving the European Union, is emphasizing local concerns like affordable housing and better public transportation. He hopes for a respectable finish in the top five of a 15-candidate field. But in knocking on doors, he says he has encountered a “massive cynicism toward the political class in general.”A Labour Party spokeswoman, Phoebe Plomer, said Mr. Lightwood would spend the final days of the campaign telling voters that by defeating the Tories in Wakefield, they had a chance to force Mr. Johnson out of power. Under the rules of the Conservative Party, Mr. Johnson is not subject to another no-confidence vote for at least a year, though the rules can always be changed.A discount store in Wakefield, where a bus strike has emptied the town center.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesEither way, a loss in Wakefield would carry great symbolism. In 2019, the Conservatives pierced the red wall on the strength of Mr. Johnson’s promise to “get Brexit done.” That message appealed to disillusioned Labour voters, many of whom voted to leave the European Union in 2016. It was hailed as one of the most significant political realignments in British politics since the free-market revolution engineered by one of his Conservative predecessors, Margaret Thatcher.But instead of being revolutionary, Mr. Johnson’s leadership has been chaotic. In the wake of the no-confidence vote, his ethics adviser quit in despair last week, and Parliament is still scrutinizing whether the prime minister lied to lawmakers. On top of all that is a cost-of-living squeeze and a potential recession in the coming months.“There is this conventional thinking that Boris is this Heineken politician who can appeal to Labour voters,” Mr. Bale said, alluding to British ads in which a lager brand promised that it “refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach.”“But his appeal is actually kind of limited,” Mr. Bale said, “and he has become more of a liability then an asset.”Shoppers at an outdoor food market in Wakefield.Andrew Testa for The New York TimesGeoff Hayes, 72, who once worked in the now-defunct coal mines that ring Wakefield, said Mr. Johnson had sold many Labour voters on the promise that Brexit would liberate Britain from the regulatory shackles of the European Union. Now, however, they were realizing that the reality was trucks lined up for miles at ports on the English Channel, where they faced delays because of bureaucratic customs paperwork.“A lot of people thought Brexit was going to change everything,” said Mr. Hayes, as he gazed at peregrine falcons nesting in the steeple of Wakefield’s cathedral. “But in the end,” he said, “the Tories only care about the mega rich.” More

  • in

    ¿Qué prometió Gustavo Petro?

    Durante su campaña, el candiato de izquierda Gustavo Petro propuso importantes reformas. Después de ganar las elecciones del domingo tendrá que demostrar que es capaz de implementar esos cambios.BOGOTÁ — En un estadio repleto de Bogotá, en medio de una explosión de confeti y debajo de un cartel que decía “Colombia ganó”, Gustavo Petro celebró el domingo su victoria como el primer presidente de izquierda que ha sido elegido en Colombia.“Llegó el gobierno de la esperanza”, dijo el exguerrillero y veterano senador, en medio de una cascada de aplausos y vítores.Durante décadas, Colombia ha sido uno de los países más conservadores de América Latina, donde la izquierda se ha asociado con una insurgencia violenta y algunos candidatos presidenciales de izquierda anteriores fueron asesinados durante sus campañas electorales.En ese contexto, la victoria de Petro fue histórica, una señal de la frustración de los votantes con el establecimiento político de derecha que, según muchos, no logró atender los problemas de generaciones que vivieron en condiciones de pobreza y desigualdad que solo empeoraron durante la pandemia.El hecho de que Petro eligiera como compañera de fórmula a Francia Márquez, una activista ambiental que será la primera vicepresidenta negra del país, hizo que la victoria fuese aún más excepcional. Algunas de las tasas de participación electoral más altas se registraron en varias zonas de las regiones más pobres y abandonadas del país, lo que sugiere que muchas personas se identificaron con los llamados repetidos de Márquez a la inclusión, la justicia social y la protección del medioambiente.Como candidato, Petro prometió cambiar algunos de los sectores más importantes de la sociedad colombiana en una nación que se encuentra entre las más desiguales de América Latina.Pero ahora que ocupará el palacio presidencial, pronto tendrá que convertir esas promesas, algunas de las cuales los críticos califican como radicales, en acciones.“Hay un programa de transformaciones muy profundas”, dijo Yann Basset, profesor de ciencias políticas en la Universidad del Rosario en Bogotá. “En todos esos temas va a necesitar de un apoyo importante del Congreso, lo que promete ser bastante difícil”.Simpatizantes de Petro en Bucaramanga, Colombia, el domingo.Nathalia Angarita para The New York TimesPetro ha prometido ampliar los programas sociales, proporcionar un subsidio significativo para las madres solteras, garantizar trabajo y un ingreso para las personas desempleadas, reforzar el acceso a la educación superior, aumentar la ayuda alimentaria, cambiar el país a un sistema de salud controlado públicamente y rehacer el sistema de pensiones.Dice que los fondos para esos cambios, en parte, se obtendrán de aumentar los impuestos a las 4000 familias más ricas del país, eliminando algunos beneficios fiscales corporativos, aumentando algunos aranceles de importación y atacando a los evasores de impuestos.Una parte central de su plataforma es un plan para pasar de lo que él define como la “vieja economía extractivista” de Colombia, basada en el petróleo y el carbón, a una enfocada en otras industrias, en parte para luchar contra el cambio climático.Algunas de las políticas de Petro podrían causar tensión con Estados Unidos que ha invertido durante las últimas dos décadas miles de millones de dólares en Colombia para ayudar a sus gobiernos a detener la producción y exportación de cocaína, con poco éxito. Petro ha prometido rehacer la estrategia del país contra las drogas, alejándose de la erradicación de los cultivos de coca, el producto base de la cocaína, para enfatizar el desarrollo rural.Washington ya ha comenzado a moverse en la dirección de priorizar el desarrollo, pero Petro podría chocar con los funcionarios estadounidenses por su visión precisa sobre ese tema.Petro también se ha comprometido a implementar por completo el acuerdo de paz de 2016 con el grupo rebelde más grande del país, las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, o FARC, y a frenar la destrucción de la Amazonía colombiana, donde la deforestación ha alcanzado nuevos máximos en los últimos años.Uno de los mayores desafíos de Petro será financiar su ambiciosa agenda, especialmente encontrar nuevos ingresos para compensar la pérdida de dinero del petróleo y el carbón mientras se expanden los programas sociales.Recientemente, otros dos políticos de izquierda, Gabriel Boric en Chile y Pedro Castillo en Perú, asumieron la presidencia con promesas de extender los programas sociales, pero su popularidad se desplomó, entre otros factores, en medio de la creciente inflación.Colombia recauda menos impuestos en proporción de su producto interno bruto en comparación con casi todos los demás países de la región.El país ya tiene un déficit elevado, y el año pasado, cuando el presidente actual, Iván Duque, intentó impulsar un plan fiscal para ayudar a bajarlo, cientos de miles de personas salieron a las calles a protestar.“Las cifras presupuestarias simplemente no cuadran”, escribió James Bosworth, fundador de Hxagon, una firma de consultoría de riesgo político en Bogotá, en un boletín enviado el lunes. “Es probable que los costos de los programas sociales propuestos por Petro consuman el presupuesto y dejen un déficit que crecerá con rapidez”.“Para el segundo o tercer año de su gobierno”, continuó Bosworth, “tendrá que tomar decisiones difíciles debido a las restricciones financieras y eso terminará molestando a una parte de la coalición que lo eligió”.Mauricio Cárdenas, exministro de Hacienda, dijo que el primer paso que debe dar Petro es anunciar un ministro de Hacienda con experiencia que pueda sosegar los temores del mercado y de los inversionistas al asegurarle a la gente que no incentivará un gasto descontrolado o una intervención gubernamental excesiva.Otro reto importante podría ser trabajar con el Congreso. La coalición de Petro, Pacto Histórico, tiene la mayor cantidad de integrantes en la legislatura. Pero no tiene una mayoría, que necesitará para impulsar su agenda. Ya se ha acercado a líderes políticos fuera de su coalición, pero no está claro cuánto apoyo obtendrá y si la formación de nuevas alianzas lo obligará a renunciar a algunas de sus propuestas.“Yo creo que tendrá que abandonar ciertas partes de este programa”, dijo Basset. “De todos modos, yo creo que no tiene una mayoría para implementar todo lo que ha prometido”.Petro también heredará una sociedad profundamente polarizada, dividida por clase, raza, región y etnicidad y marcada por años de violencia y conflicto.Durante décadas, el gobierno de Colombia luchó contra las FARC, y el conflicto armado se convirtió en un enfrentamiento intrincado entre grupos guerrilleros de izquierda, paramilitares de derecha y militares, todos los cuales han sido acusados de abusos contra los derechos humanos.A pesar del acuerdo de paz de 2016 con las FARC, muchas de las líneas divisorias del conflicto continúan, y han sido amplificadas por las redes sociales, que permitieron que los rumores y la desinformación circularan.Las encuestas previas a las elecciones mostraban una desconfianza en aumento en casi todas las instituciones importantes.“En mi opinión, esta elección es, por mucho, la más polarizada que hemos visto en Colombia en muchos años”, dijo Arlene B. Tickner, politóloga de la Universidad de Rosario. “Creo que será un desafío clave el solo hecho de calmar las aguas y hablarle en particular a los votantes y sectores de la sociedad colombiana que no votaron por él y que tienen temores considerables sobre la presidencia de Petro”.Una de las tareas más difíciles de Petro podría ser abordar la violencia en el campo.A pesar del acuerdo de paz, los grupos armados han seguido creciendo, especialmente en áreas rurales, alimentándose del narcotráfico, la industria ganadera, el tráfico de personas y otras actividades.Los homicidios, las masacres y los asesinatos de líderes sociales aumentaron en los últimos años, y el desplazamiento interno sigue siendo alto: 147.000 personas fueron obligadas a huir de sus hogares el año pasado, según datos del gobierno.Muchas personas afectadas por esta violencia votaron por Petro y Márquez, quien nació en el Cauca, una de las zonas más afectadas de Colombia.El plan de Petro para enfrentar la violencia incluye una reforma agraria que desalentaría con impuestos la propiedad de grandes parcelas de tierra y otorgaría títulos de propiedad a los pobres, cuya falta de recursos a menudo los obliga a unirse a grupos armados.Pero, presidencia tras presidencia, los intentos de emprender una reforma agraria han sido obstaculizados, y Petro admitió en una entrevista de este año que puede ser “lo más duro” de cumplir de sus promesas de campaña.“Es alrededor del tema en el que en Colombia se han hecho las guerras”, dijo.Megan Janetsky More

  • in

    Las democracias no siempre se comportan de manera democrática

    Cuando los líderes políticos se enfrentan a una crisis constitucional, como la del 6 de enero en EE. UU., el proceso de decidir colectivamente cómo responder puede ser desordenado, arbitrario y, a veces, cambiar la naturaleza del propio sistema.Cuando buscamos casos similares en el mundo al momento del año pasado en el que el entonces vicepresidente Mike Pence se negó a ceder ante la presión del presidente Donald Trump para ayudarlo a revertir su derrota electoral, algo queda claro casi de inmediato.Este tipo de crisis, en las que el destino de la democracia queda en manos de un puñado de funcionarios, rara vez se resuelven únicamente sobre la base de principios legales o constitucionales, aunque luego sean citados como justificación.En su lugar, por lo general la resolución está determinada por las élites políticas que logran formar rápidamente una masa crítica a favor de un resultado. Y esos funcionarios pueden seguir cualquier motivación —principios, antipatía partidista, interés propio— que los movilice.En conjunto, la historia de las crisis constitucionales modernas destaca algunas duras verdades sobre la democracia. Las normas supuestamente fundamentales, como elecciones libres o el Estado de derecho, aunque se presenten como si estuvieran cimentadas de manera irreversible en las bases de la nación, en realidad solo son tan sólidas como el compromiso de quienes estén en el poder. Y si bien una crisis puede ser una oportunidad para que los líderes refuercen las normas democráticas, también puede ser una oportunidad para revisarlas o revocarlas por completo.Por ejemplo, en medio de las elecciones de Yugoslavia de 2000, la oposición declaró que había obtenido suficientes votos para destronar al presidente Slobodan Milosevic, cuyo gobierno aseguró falsamente que la oposición se había quedado corta.Ambas partes apelaron a los principios constitucionales, los procedimientos legales y, con furiosas protestas, a la voluntad del pueblo. Al final, una masa crítica de funcionarios del gobierno y de la policía, incluidos algunos en puestos necesarios para certificar el resultado, señalaron que, por razones que variaban de persona a persona, tratarían a Milosevic como el perdedor de las elecciones. Posteriormente, el nuevo gobierno lo extraditó para enfrentar cargos por crímenes de guerra en La Haya, en los Países Bajos.Slobodan Milosevic, expresidente de Yugoslavia, aplaudiendo durante una ceremonia en la academia militar de Belgrado, en 2000. Milosevic fue declarado perdedor de unas disputadas elecciones y posteriormente extraditado para ser acusado de crímenes de guerra en La Haya.Agence France-PresseLos estadounidenses parecieran tener más cosas en común con Perú. Allí, en 1992, el entonces presidente Alberto Fujimori disolvió el Congreso controlado por la oposición, que estaba haciendo gestiones para destituirlo. Los legisladores de todo el espectro votaron rápidamente para remplazar a Fujimori con su propio vicepresidente, quien se había opuesto al abuso de poder presidencial.Ambos bandos aseveraron estar defendiendo la democracia de la amenaza que representaba el otro. Ambos apelaron a las fuerzas militares de Perú, que tradicionalmente había desempeñado un rol de árbitro final, de forma casi similar al de una corte suprema. El pueblo, profundamente polarizado, se dividió. Los militares también se dividieron en dos bandos.En el momento más crítico, una cantidad suficiente de élites políticas y militares indicó su apoyo a Fujimori y logró que prevaleciera. Se juntaron de manera informal, cada uno reaccionando a los eventos de manera individual. Muchos apelaron a diferentes fines, como la agenda económica de Fujimori, la sensación de estabilidad o la posibilidad de que su partido prevaleciera bajo el nuevo orden.Perú cayó en un cuasi-autoritarismo, con derechos políticos restringidos y elecciones celebradas, pero bajo términos que favorecían a Fujimori, hasta que fue destituido de su cargo en 2000 por acusaciones de corrupción. El año pasado, su hija se postuló para la presidencia como una populista de derecha y perdió por menos de 50.000 votos.La América Latina moderna ha enfrentado repetidamente este tipo de crisis. Esto, según muchos académicos, no se debe tanto a rasgos culturales compartidos, sino más a una historia de intromisión de Guerra Fría que debilitó las normas democráticas. También surge de sistemas presidenciales de estilo estadounidense y de la profunda polarización social que allana el camino para el combate político extremo.Las democracias presidenciales, al dividir el poder entre ramas en competencia, crean más oportunidades para que cargos rivales se enfrenten, incluso hasta el punto de usurparse unos a otros los poderes. Dichos sistemas también enturbian las preguntas sobre quién está al mando, lo que obliga a sus ramas o poderes a resolver disputas de manera informal, sobre la marcha y, en ocasiones, por la fuerza.Venezuela, que solía ser la democracia más antigua de la región, sufrió una serie de crisis constitucionales cuando el entonces presidente Hugo Chávez se enfrentó con jueces y otros órganos gubernamentales que bloquearon su agenda. Cada vez, Chávez —y luego su sucesor, Nicolás Maduro— apeló a los principios legales y democráticos para justificar el debilitamiento de esas instituciones hasta que, con el tiempo, las acciones de los líderes, en apariencia para salvar la democracia, prácticamente las destriparon.Hugo Chávez, expresidente de Venezuela, llegando a la Asamblea Nacional para su discurso anual sobre el estado de la nación en Caracas, en 2012. Él y su sucesor apelaron a los principios legales y democráticos para justificar su debilitamiento de las instituciones democráticas.Ariana Cubillos/Associated PressLas presidencias no son comunes en las democracias occidentales. Una de las pocas, en Francia, experimentó su propia crisis constitucional en 1958, año en el que se evitó un intento de golpe militar cuando el líder Charles de Gaulle se otorgó poderes de emergencia para establecer un gobierno de unidad que satisficiera a los líderes civiles y militares.Si bien otros tipos de sistemas pueden caer en grandes crisis, a menudo se debe a que, al igual que en una democracia presidencial, los centros de poder en rivalidad chocan hasta el punto de intentar invadir al otro.Aun así, algunos académicos argumentan que los estadounidenses que esperan comprender la trayectoria de su país no deberían mirar a Europa, sino a América Latina.Ecuador estuvo cerca del precipicio en 2018 debido al esfuerzo del entonces presidente Rafael Correa de extender sus propios límites de mandato. Pero cuando los votantes y la élite política se opusieron, Correa dejó el cargo de manera voluntaria.En 2019, Bolivia se sumió en el caos en medio de una elección disputada. Aunque la opinión pública estuvo dividida, las élites políticas y militares señalaron que creían que el líder de izquierda en funciones en aquel momento, Evo Morales, debía dejar el cargo y prácticamente lo obligaron a hacerlo.Sin embargo, cuando el remplazo de derecha de Morales no pudo evitar meses de inestabilidad y turbulencia y luego se dispuso a posponer las elecciones, muchas de esas mismas élites presionaron para que estas se realizaran rápidamente, lo que benefició al sucesor elegido por Morales.Evo Morales, expresidente de Bolivia, hablando con la prensa el día de las elecciones en La Paz, en octubre de 2019. El país se sumió en el caos tras las elecciones, que fueron objeto de controversia.Martin Alipaz/EPA vía ShutterstockLa frase “élites políticas” puede evocar imágenes de poderosos que fuman puros y se reúnen en secreto para mover los hilos de la sociedad. En realidad, los académicos usan el término para describir a legisladores, jueces, burócratas, autoridades policiales y militares, funcionarios locales, líderes empresariales y figuras culturales, la mayoría de los cuales nunca coordinarían directamente, muchos menos acordarían qué es lo mejor para el país.Aun así, son esas élites las que, en colectivo, preservan la democracia día a día. Del mismo modo en que el papel moneda solo tiene valor porque todos lo tratamos como valioso, las elecciones y las leyes solo tienen poder porque las élites se despiertan cada mañana y las consideran primordiales. Es una especie de pacto, en el que los poderosos se vinculan voluntariamente a un sistema que también los restringe.“Una democracia organizada y en buen funcionamiento no nos exige pensar activamente en qué la sostiene”, me dijo Tom Pepinsky, politólogo de la Universidad Cornell, poco después de los disturbios en el Capitolio, el 6 de enero de 2021. “Es un equilibrio; todos están motivados a participar como si continuara”.Pero en una enorme crisis constitucional, cuando las normas y reglas destinadas a guiar la democracia se ponen en duda o se dejan de lado por completo, esas élites, súbitamente, se enfrentan a la pregunta de cómo —o si se debe— mantener su pacto democrático.No siempre estarán de acuerdo sobre cuál es el mejor camino para la democracia, para el país o para ellos mismos. En ocasiones, el impacto de ver la vulnerabilidad de la democracia los llevará a redoblar su compromiso con ella. En otras, a deshacerse de ese sistema en parte o en su totalidad.El resultado, a menudo, es una lucha de élites que se presionan entre sí directamente, como lo hicieron muchos republicanos de alto rango y asesores de la Casa Blanca durante el 6 de enero, o mediante declaraciones públicas dirigidas a los miles de funcionarios que operan la maquinaria del gobierno.Los académicos denominan esto como un “juego de coordinación”, en el que todos esos actores intentan comprender o influir en la manera en que otros responderán, hasta que surja un consenso mínimamente viable. Puede no parecerse tanto a una trama bien definida, sino más bien a una manada de animales asustados, por lo que el resultado puede ser difícil de predecir.Antes del 6 de enero, no había muchas razones para cuestionar el compromiso de los legisladores con la democracia. “No se había cuestionado si apoyaban o no la democracia en un sentido interno real; eso nunca había estado en juego”, afirmó Pepinsky.Ahora, una crisis los había obligado a decidir si anular las elecciones, y eso demostró que no todos esos legisladores, de tener esa opción, votarían para defender la democracia. “Me ha sorprendido demasiado cuánto de esto en realidad depende de 535 personas”, confesó Pepinsky, refiriéndose a la cantidad de legisladores en el Congreso.Max Fisher es reportero y columnista de temas internacionales con sede en Nueva York. Ha reportado sobre conflictos, diplomacia y cambio social desde cinco continentes. Es autor de The Interpreter, una columna que explora las ideas y el contexto detrás de los principales eventos mundiales de actualidad. @Max_Fisher • Facebook More

  • in

    He Promised to Transform Colombia as President. Can He Fulfill That Vow?

    During his campaign, Gustavo Petro proposed major reforms if he was elected. After winning Sunday’s presidential election, he’ll now have to prove he can carry out those changes.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — In a packed arena in Bogotá on Sunday, amid a burst of confetti and below a sign that read “Colombia won,” Gustavo Petro celebrated his victory as the first leftist ever elected president of Colombia.“The government of hope has arrived,” said the former rebel and longtime legislator, to a cascade of cheers.For decades, Colombia has been one of the most conservative countries in Latin America, where the left has long been associated with a violent insurgency and past leftist presidential candidates have been assassinated on the campaign trail.Against that backdrop, Mr. Petro’s win was historic, signaling voters’ frustration with a right-wing establishment that many said had failed to address generations of poverty and inequality that have only worsened during the pandemic.Mr. Petro’s choice for running mate, Francia Márquez, an environmental activist who will be the country’s first Black vice president, made the victory all the more exceptional. Some of the highest voter turnout rates were recorded in some of the poorest and most neglected parts of the country, suggesting that many people identified with her prominent and repeated calls for inclusion, social justice and environmental protection.As a candidate, Mr. Petro promised to reshape some of the most important sectors of Colombian society in a nation that is among the most unequal in Latin America.But now that he will occupy the presidential palace, he will soon have to turn those pledges — some of which critics call radical — into action.“This is a program of very deep transformations,” said Yann Basset, a political science professor at Rosario University in Bogotá. “On all these issues he is going to need significant support from Congress, which promises to be quite difficult.”Supporters of Mr. Petro on Sunday in Bucaramanga, Colombia.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesMr. Petro has vowed to vastly expand social programs, providing a significant subsidy to single mothers, guaranteeing work and a wage to unemployed people, bolstering access to higher education, increasing food aid, shifting the country to a publicly controlled health care system and remaking the pension system.He will pay for this, in part, he says, by raising taxes on the 4,000 wealthiest families, removing some corporate tax benefits, raising some import tariffs and targeting tax evaders.A core part of his platform is a plan to shift from what he calls Colombia’s “old extractive economy,” based on oil and coal, to one focused on other industries, in part to fight climate change.Some of Mr. Petro’s policies could cause tension with the United States, which has poured billions of dollars into Colombia in the last two decades to help its governments halt the production and export of cocaine, to little effect. Mr. Petro has promised to remake the country’s strategy on drugs, shifting away from the eradication of the coca crop, the base product in cocaine, to emphasizing rural development.Washington has already begun moving in the direction of prioritizing development, but Mr. Petro could clash with U.S. officials on precisely what this looks like.Mr. Petro has also pledged to fully implement the 2016 peace deal with the country’s largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and to slow the destruction of the Colombian Amazon, where deforestation has risen to new highs in recent years.One of Mr. Petro’s biggest challenges will be paying for his ambitious agenda, in particular finding new revenue to compensate for lost oil and coal money while expanding social programs.Two other leftists, Gabriel Boric in Chile and Pedro Castillo in Peru, have taken office recently with ambitious promises to expand social programs, only to have their popularity plummet amid rising inflation, among other issues.Colombia collects less in taxes as a proportion of its gross domestic product compared with almost every other country in the region.The country already has a high deficit, and last year, when the current president, Iván Duque, attempted to pursue a tax plan to help lower it, hundreds of thousands of people took to the street in protest.“The budget numbers just don’t add up,” James Bosworth, the founder of Hxagon, a political risk consulting firm in Bogotá, wrote in a newsletter on Monday. “The costs on Petro’s proposed social programs are likely to burn through the budget and leave a rapidly widening deficit.”“By year two or three of his administration,” Mr. Bosworth continued, “he’s going to have to make tough choices due to financial restrictions and that will end up angering some portion of the coalition that elected him.”Mauricio Cárdenas, a former finance minister, said that the first step Mr. Petro should take is to announce an experienced finance minister who can calm market and investor fears by assuring the public that he will not be engaging in runaway spending or excessive government intervention.Another major challenge could be working with Congress. Mr. Petro’s coalition, called the Historic Pact, has the largest number of lawmakers in the legislature. But he does not have a majority, which he will need to push through his agenda. He has already reached out to political leaders outside his coalition, but it’s unclear how much support he will gain — and whether forming new alliances will force him to give up some of his proposals. “I think he is going to have to abandon certain parts of this program,” Mr. Basset said. “In any case, I believe that he does not have a majority to implement everything he has promised.”Mr. Petro will also inherit a deeply polarized society, divided by class, race, region and ethnicity and scarred by years of violence and war.For decades, Colombia’s government fought the FARC, and the war grew into a complex battle among left-wing guerrilla groups, right-wing paramilitaries and the military, all of which have been accused of human rights abuses.Despite the 2016 peace accord with the FARC, many of the fault lines of the conflict remain, which has been supercharged by social media, allowing rumor and misinformation to fly.Polls before the election showed growing distrust in almost all major institutions.“This election in my mind is by far the most polarized that we’ve seen in Colombia in many years,” said Arlene B. Tickner, a political scientist at Rosario University. “So simply calming the waters and speaking to in particular those voters and those sectors of Colombian society that did not choose him, and that have significant fears about a Petro presidency, I think is going to be a key challenge.”One of Mr. Petro’s most difficult tasks could be addressing violence in the countryside.Despite the peace deal, armed groups have continued to flourish, mostly in rural areas, feeding off the drug trade, the cattle industry, human trafficking and other activities.Homicides, massacres and the killings of social leaders are all up in recent years, and internal displacement remains high, with 147,000 people forced to flee their homes last year, according to government data.Many people affected by this violence voted for Mr. Petro and Ms. Márquez, who was born in Cauca, one of the hardest hit parts of Colombia.Mr. Petro’s plan to address the violence includes a land reform that would discourage the ownership of large land parcels through taxation and give land titles to poor people whose lack of resources often indentures them to armed groups.But land reform has stymied president after president, and Mr. Petro admitted in an interview this year that it may be “the hardest” part of his campaign pledges to fulfill.“Because it’s this topic that has caused Colombia’s wars,” he said.Megan Janetsky contributed reporting. More

  • in

    Israel’s Government Collapses, Setting Up 5th Election in 3 Years

    The governing coalition decided to dissolve Parliament, plunging the country back into paralysis and throwing a political lifeline to Benjamin Netanyahu.JERUSALEM — Israel’s governing coalition will dissolve Parliament before the end of the month, bringing down the government and sending the country to a fifth election in three years, the prime minister said on Monday.The decision plunged Israel back into paralysis and threw a political lifeline to Benjamin Netanyahu, the right-wing prime minister who left office just one year ago upon the formation of the current government. Mr. Netanyahu is currently standing trial on corruption charges but has refused to leave politics, and his Likud party is leading in the polls.Once Parliament formally votes to dissolve itself, it will bring down the curtain on one of the most ambitious political projects in Israeli history: an unwieldy eight-party coalition that united political opponents from the right, left and center, and included the first independent Arab party to join an Israeli governing coalition.But that ideological diversity was also its undoing.Differences between the coalition’s two ideological wings, compounded by unrelenting pressure from Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance, led two right-wing lawmakers to defect — removing the coalition’s majority in Parliament. When several left-wing and Arab lawmakers also rebelled on key votes, the coalition found it impossible to govern.The final straw was the government’s inability last week to muster enough votes to extend a two-tier legal system in the West Bank, which has differentiated between Israeli settlers and Palestinians since Israel occupied the territory in 1967.Several Arab members of the coalition declined to vote for the system, which must be extended every five years. That prevented the bill’s passage and prompted Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, a former settler leader, to collapse the government and thereby delay a final vote until after another election.“We did everything we possibly could to preserve this government, whose survival we see as a national interest,” Mr. Bennett, 50, said in a televised speech. “To my regret, our efforts did not succeed,” he added.Expected to be held in the fall, the snap election will be Israel’s fifth since April 2019. It comes at an already delicate time for the country, after a rise in Palestinian attacks on Israelis and an escalation in a clandestine war between Israel and Iran. It also complicates diplomacy with Israel’s most important ally, the United States, as the new political crisis arose less than a month before President Joseph R. Biden’s first visit to the Middle East as a head of state.Mr. Biden will be welcomed by a caretaker prime minister, Yair Lapid, the current foreign minister. The terms of the coalition agreement dictated that if the government collapsed because of right-wing defections, Mr. Lapid, a centrist former broadcaster, would take over as interim leader from Mr. Bennett.Mr. Lapid will lead the government for at least several months, through the election campaign and the protracted coalition negotiations likely to follow.Former premier Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the press at the Knesset on Monday.Oren Ben Hakoon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn a show of unity on Monday night, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lapid gave consecutive speeches from the same stage, both hailing the successes of an unlikely government that many analysts did not expect to last even for a year.The fractious alliance was formed last June after four inconclusive elections in two years had left Israel without a state budget or a functional government.The coalition’s members agreed to team up to end this paralysis, and because of their shared desire to oust Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu’s refusal to resign despite standing trial on corruption charges had alienated many of his natural allies on the right, leading some of them to ally with their ideological opponents to remove him from office.The coalition was cohesive enough to pass a new budget, Israel’s first in more than three years, and to make key administrative appointments. It steadied Israel’s relationship with the Biden administration and deepened its emerging ties with key Arab states.Its leaders and supporters also hailed it for showing that compromise and civility were still possible in a society deeply divided along political, religious and ethnic lines.“We formed a government which many believed was an impossible one — we formed it in order to stop the terrible tailspin Israel was in the midst of,” Mr. Bennett said in his speech.“Together we were able to pull Israel out from the hole,” he added.Nevertheless, the government was ultimately unable to overcome its contradictions.Its members clashed regularly over the rights of Israel’s Arab minority, the relationship between religion and state, and settlement policy in the occupied West Bank — clashes that ultimately led two key members to defect, and others to vote against government bills.The new election offers Mr. Netanyahu another chance to win enough votes to form his own majority coalition. But his path back to power is far from clear.Polls suggest that his party, Likud, will easily be the largest in the next Parliament, but its allies may not have enough seats to let Mr. Netanyahu assemble a parliamentary majority. Some parties may also only agree to work with Likud if Mr. Netanyahu steps down as party leader.The opening of the summer session of the Knesset last month.Maya Alleruzzo/Associated PressThis dynamic may lead to months of protracted coalition negotiations, returning Israel to the stasis it fell into before Mr. Netanyahu’s departure, when his government lacked the cohesion to enact a national budget or fill important positions in the civil service, and the country held four elections in two years. Through it all, Mr. Netanyahu is expected to remain on trial, a yearslong process that is unaffected by a new election, and which will likely only end if he either accepts a plea deal, is found guilty or innocent, or if prosecutors withdraw their charges. Despite the promises of some coalition members, the outgoing government failed to pass legislation to bar a candidate charged with criminal offenses from becoming prime minister.Critics fear Mr. Netanyahu will use a return to office to pass laws that might obstruct the prosecution, an accusation that he has denied.Understand the Collapse of Israel’s GovernmentCard 1 of 4A fragile coalition. More

  • in

    Fears of Gridlock in France After Macron Is Left With Fragmented Parliament

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