Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Enters Philippine Presidential Race

      by

      Ferdinand Marcos Jr. joins the former boxing champion Manny Pacquiao in seeking to succeed Rodrigo Duterte in next year’s election.MANILA — The son and namesake of the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos formally announced his plan to run for president of the Philippines on Tuesday, more than three decades after a popular uprising toppled his father’s brutal regime and restored democracy to the country.Ferdinand Marcos Jr. joins the former boxing champion Manny Pacquiao and Francisco Domagoso, the mayor of Manila, in seeking the presidency in next year’s election. Leni Robredo, the vice president, and Sara Duterte-Carpio, the mayor of Davao City and daughter of President Rodrigo Duterte, are also expected to enter the race.Mr. Marcos, 64, once served as a governor and a senator. He lost his bid as vice president to Ms. Robredo in 2016, and sought to overturn that vote by accusing her of cheating. In his announcement on Tuesday, Mr. Marcos said he would focus on helping the public overcome the coronavirus pandemic, and vowed to lift the economy out of crisis.“That is why I am announcing here today my intention to run for the presidency of the Philippines in the coming May 2022 elections,” Mr. Marcos said. “I will bring that form of unifying leadership back to our country. Join me in this noblest of causes and we will succeed.”He also took an oath as a member of the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, the political party he would be representing in the election. The party founded by his father, the New Society Movement, also recently endorsed him as a candidate.Ferdinand Marcos ruled the country with an iron fist for two decades. He was defeated by a popular uprising in 1986 and went into exile in Hawaii, where he died three years later. He was accused of stealing up to $10 billion from state coffers and leaving thousands of activists dead or missing.His widow, Imelda R. Marcos, and children were later allowed to return to the Philippines, where they worked to rehabilitate the family name. Mrs. Marcos was found guilty of corruption in 2018, but has eluded jail time.Mr. Duterte, who announced his retirement last week, often publicly thanked the Marcos family for backing his candidacy in the 2016 presidential election. Just months into office, he allowed the dictator’s remains to be transferred to a national cemetery in Manila.Judy Taguiwalo, an activist with the Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and Martial Law, said the announcement from Mr. Marcos was a “brazen show of disregard and contempt for the thousands of Filipinos killed, disappeared, tortured, displaced and violated” during his father’s brutal regime.“Bongbong Marcos and his family have long been seeking to reclaim the highest seat of power after they were kicked out of the country by the people,” she said, referring to Mr. Marcos by his nickname, “and today, their shameless gall to return to the highest office in government is in full display.”Mr. Marcos, she said, was “spitting on the graves of the dead.” More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Pillar of the European Order Has Collapsed

      by

      The drubbing inflicted on Germany’s Christian Democratic Union in the country’s recent elections is a sign that, alongside Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 16-year stint in power, something larger is coming to an end.Aside from NATO, the Christian Democratic Union is the most venerable postwar political institution in continental Europe. It has led Germany, usually in coalition, for all but 20 years of the country’s post-Nazi political history. Focused on economic growth, Christian traditions, anti-Communism and maintenance of the Atlantic alliance, the party was a guarantee to Germany’s allies that Europe’s largest, richest country would be stable and dependable. With the measly 24 percent of the vote that Ms. Merkel’s successor, Armin Laschet, managed to win, the C.D.U. can no longer play that role. A pillar of the European order has collapsed.The C.D.U.’s decline has been underway since at least the turn of the century. While Ms. Merkel managed to disguise it, she showed little aptitude for reversing it. In the five elections since 2005, when she took power, her party’s vote share fell in all but one.Perhaps not every country needs a “people’s party” of the center-right. Big gainers in this election included Greens worried about climate change and Free Democrats worried about supply chains — two preoccupations that didn’t exist at the time of the C.D.U.’s founding. But there has always been more at stake for the party than an up-to-date servicing to voter preferences. In light of Germany’s Nazi past, it fell to the C.D.U. to play a moderating role — to speak to the patriotic longings of ordinary Germans in a way that would dissuade them from drifting to the political fringes.This role was almost constitutional. Half a century ago, Franz Josef Strauss, leader of the C.D.U.’s Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, justified his own rock-ribbed conservatism by saying it came with a guarantee that “no legitimate political party” could exist to his party’s right. Many felt they could trust Mr. Strauss to police the country’s rightmost ideological boundary.But in electoral politics, or game theory, or whatever you want to call it, there is a fallacy in such an arrangement. Ms. Merkel was not slow in discovering it: If there really were no legitimate viewpoints to the right of the C.D.U., then the party’s optimal strategy would be to move ever leftward, which it could do with no fear of an alternative right-wing party ever outflanking it.And this is what Ms. Merkel did, whether out of idealism or calculation. In the wake of the Fukushima meltdown of 2011, she announced an exit from nuclear power, long sought by the Greens. In 2015, she joined Social Democrats in passing a minimum wage. In 2017, she secured a vote legalizing gay marriage (without voting for it herself). Most crucially, in 2015, she announced that Germany would welcome hundreds of thousands of migrants fleeing the war in Syria, creating a continentwide political crisis that, among other consequences, arguably drove Britain out of the European Union.The effect on German politics was unnerving. The Alternative for Germany party, up to that point a wonkish group obsessed with the European Union’s monetary policy, changed its focus to immigration in July 2015. The following March — eight months before Donald Trump’s election — the party harvested 13, 15 and 24 percent of the vote in state elections. In 2017, Alternative for Germany, now well-established on the C.D.U.’s right, not only sent nearly 100 members to the Bundestag, it also became the leading opposition party. It appeared that Ms. Merkel was heedlessly allowing votes to “drain” out of her own party into an American-style populism.Ms. Merkel, of course, is not the first conservative politician to poach voters from her progressive opponents. But certain problems come predictably with this strategy. The leader benefits more than the party’s rank and file, because the landscape of progressive issues is foreign territory to them. In last month’s rout, things that Christian Democrats might ordinarily have talked about and rallied kindred spirits around — Covid-19, migrants, the euro — were suddenly off limits. The rank and file fell silent. In last week’s rout, the C.D.U. lost half its voters from the previous election. Fewer than 3 percent defected to Alternative for Germany. The lion’s share went to the Social Democrats, the Free Democrats and the Greens.Now German politics has become less predictable. The Green delegation in the Bundestag has nearly doubled. Many of the newcomers are people who have never been in elected office before, giving them something in common with upstart European parties, like the Five Star Movement in Italy and LREM in France, and with Democrats in the United States on the arrival of their progressive wing after 2018. The Social Democrats are young, too. This year they took Ms. Merkel’s seat, which will go to Anna Kassautzki, a 27-year-old self-described feminist and environmentalist who wasn’t born when Ms. Merkel was first elected.Certainly some traditional German conservatives deplore Ms. Merkel’s legacy. But there was one sense in which she was mostly in continuity with her predecessors — her resistance to utopianism. Germany’s society, economy and (since Covid-19) health care system have lately performed more efficiently than those of its neighbors. The great achievement of Ms. Merkel was to understand that in the global economy, efficiency is often a synonym for vulnerability. Like a lot of its best machinery, Germany is both high-functioning and delicate.Many Germany watchers forget this. Ms. Merkel pushed her country’s relatively generous “social market economy” to do a lot more — to offer a reasonable minimum wage, to accept the burden of educating and assimilating millions of desperate immigrants from the Syrian war, and to do those things while promising to forgo the relatively cheap energy that nuclear power provides. She assented to the creation of European Union bonds — a perennial taboo in her party — to finance an emergency Covid-19 package.She was conservative mostly in what she did not do. She realized that Germany does not have the resources to do everything. It cannot underwrite the debts of other European countries, as many of Germany’s southern neighbors assume. It cannot dismantle its existing carbon-based energy system as quickly as Greens would wish — that would pose significant direct transitional costs and indirectly undermine the auto industry that is the linchpin of its manufacturing system. It cannot sever all contact with economies that American boycott enthusiasts deem boogeymen. It cannot say no to Nord Stream II (the pipeline that permits cheap energy from Russia) nor can it revisit its manufacturing arrangements with the “illiberal democracies” of Poland, Hungary and Slovakia.Overindulging a country’s virtues can be as dangerous as overindulging its vices. More than her predecessors Ms. Merkel ran the risk of exposing Germany to instability — in her case, to an American-style class conflict between the beneficiaries and the outcasts of the global economy. She avoided the worst. But she had some close calls, and the shrinking of Germany’s great, stabilizing bourgeois party is bound to reduce her successors’ room for error.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Skateboards, Climate Change and Freedom: Germany’s Next-Generation Parliament

      by

      A new generation of lawmakers is entering Germany’s Parliament. They felt ignored by the previous government, so they set out to change that by winning elections.BERLIN — Emilia Fester is 23 and has yet to finish college. Max Lucks is 24 and calls himself a militant cyclist. Ria Schröder is 29 and has the rainbow flag on her Twitter profile. Muhanad Al-Halak is 31 and came to Germany from Iraq when he was 11.And all of them are now in the German Parliament.The German election result was in many ways a muddle. The winners, the Social Democrats led by Olaf Scholz, barely won. No party got more than 25.7 percent. Voters spread their ballots evenly across candidates associated with the left and the right.But one thing is clear: Germans elected their youngest ever Parliament, and the two parties at the center of this generational shift, the Greens and the Free Democrats, will not just shape the next government but are also poised to help shape the future of the country.For now, the Greens, focused on climate change and social justice, and the Free Democrats, who campaigned on civil liberties and digital modernization, are kingmakers: Whoever becomes the next chancellor almost certainly needs both parties to form a government.“We will no longer leave politics to the older generation,” said Ms. Schröder, a newly minted lawmaker for the Free Democrats from Hamburg. “The world has changed around us. We want to take our country into the future — because it’s our future.”Ria Schröder, center, the chairwoman of the youth organization of the Free Democrats, listening to a speech at the party’s European Congress in 2019.Gregor Fischer/Picture Alliance, via Getty ImagesFor decades, Germany has been governed by two rival establishment parties, each run by older men, and, more recently, by a somewhat older woman. Indeed, when Chancellor Angela Merkel took office in 2005 at age 51, she was the youngest ever chancellor. Germany’s electorate still skews older, with one in four voters over 60, yet it was a younger vote, some of it angry, that lifted the two upstart parties.Fully 44 percent of voters under 25 cast their ballot for the Greens and the Free Democrats, compared with only 25 percent in that age range who voted for Ms. Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, the traditional center-left party.The most immediate effect will be felt in Parliament. Roughly one in seven lawmakers in the departing Parliament were under 40. Now the ratio is closer to one in three. (In the U.S. Congress, one in five members are 40 or younger. The average age in Congress is 58, compared with 47.5 for Germany’s new Parliament.)“We have a generational rift, a very stark polarization that didn’t exist before: It’s the under-30s vs. the over-50s,” said Klaus Hurrelmann, a sociologist who studies young people at the Hertie School in Berlin. “Young people want change and these two parties got the change vote.”The Greens finished in third place, while the Free Democrats came in fourth, both seeing their vote share rise. The split-screen quality of the race was unmistakable: Candidates for the two traditional parties campaigned for the status quo while the Free Democrats and Greens unabashedly campaigned for change.A polling station in Berlin during the election last Sunday.Lena Mucha for The New York Times“It mustn’t stay as it is,” read one Free Democrats campaign poster.The two parties are already signaling that they intend to change the old ways of doing business in German politics. Their leaders reached out to one another — an unprecedented step — before meeting with representatives of the bigger parties in advance of coalition negotiations, a process that began over the weekend.Rather than publicize their meeting with a leak to a newspaper or a public broadcaster, they posted a selfie of their four leaders on Instagram, causing a sensation in a country where political discussion has focused more on curbing social media than using it to reach new audiences.Many of the young lawmakers now moving to Berlin, like Mr. Lucks, say they will bike or — in the case of Ms. Fester — skateboard to work. Some are looking to rent communal housing. Others plan cross-party “beer pong” gatherings to meet one another. And all of them are in regular communication with their voters via social media.“What are your hopes and fears for a traffic light?” Mr. Lucks asked his followers on Instagram this week, referring to the green, yellow and red party colors of the most likely governing coalition of Greens and Free Democrats with the Social Democrats at the helm.Max Lucks, right, with Annalena Baerbock, the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, in Bochum, Germany, in August.Kay Nietfeld/Picture Alliance, via Getty ImagesWithin a couple of hours, Mr. Lucks, who was elected for the Greens, had received 200 comments. “Maintaining that direct line to my voters is really important to me,” he said. “Young people yearn to be heard. They’ve felt betrayed by politics — their issues were just not taken seriously by those in power.”The two issues that appeared to animate young voters most in the election were climate change and freedom, polls suggest.“There is no more important issue than climate change — it’s existential,” said Roberta Müller, a 20-year-old first-time voter in the Steglitz district of Berlin. “It doesn’t feel very democratic to me that older people get to decide on — and effectively destroy — our future.”The handling of the pandemic also played a big role. Schools were closed and college classes moved online, while billions of euros in aid flowed into the economy to keep businesses afloat and prevent widespread layoffs.“Hair salons were more important than education during the pandemic,” said Ms. Fester, of the Greens, who at 23 is the youngest of the 735 members of the new Parliament. “There were long discussions about how the hair salons could stay open, but universities and kindergartens remained closed.”The pandemic also put the spotlight on key workers who are often badly paid — and younger — while bringing to light how far behind Europe’s biggest economy is on developing the digital infrastructure needed to be competitive in the modern, globalized world.A younger cohort of lawmakers has also helped increase other kinds of diversity in what previously had been a mostly homogeneous chamber. There will be more women and lawmakers from ethnic minorities than ever before — and Germany’s first two transgender members of Parliament.At 31, Mr. Al-Halak, of the Free Democrats, could be considered one of the “older” new members of Parliament.Muhanad Al-Halak, who was born in Iraq before emigrating with his family to Germany, will represent a Lower Bavaria district in Parliament.Free DemocratsBorn in Iraq, he was 11 when he emigrated with his family to Germany, settling in a southern part of Lower Bavaria, which he will now represent in Parliament. He wants to serve as a voice for a new generation of Germans who were born elsewhere but have successfully learned the language and a trade — he worked at a wastewater facility — to become active members of society.“I wanted to be an example for other young people that you can get ahead as a working man, regardless of where you come from, what you look like or what religion you practice,” Mr. Al-Halak said.Despite having a woman as chancellor for 16 years, the percentage of women represented in Parliament only rose slightly from 31 percent in the previous legislature.“I know there are some people who are happy that we now have 34 percent women represented in Parliament, but I don’t think it is anything to celebrate,” said Ms. Fester, who included feminism as one of her campaign issues. “The predominance of old, white men is still very visible, not only in politics but in other areas where decisions are made and money flows.”Germany’s smaller parties have traditionally defined themselves by issues, rather than staking out broadly defined ideological stances. They also agree on several things; both parties want to legalize cannabis and lower the voting age to 16.“There are now other coordinates in the system, progressive and conservative, collectivist and individualist, that describe the differences much better than left and right,” Ms. Schröder said.Still, the two junior parties disagree on much. The Greens want to raise taxes on the rich, while the Free Democrats oppose a tax hike. The Greens believe the state is essential to address climate change and social issues, while the Free Democrats are counting on industry.A climate demonstration in Berlin last month.Markus Schreiber/Associated Press“The big question is: Will they paralyze each other or will they manage to build the novelty and innovation they represent into the next government?” said Mr. Hurrelmann, the sociologist. “The balancing act will be: You get climate, we get freedom.”This week, incoming freshman lawmakers went to the Parliament building, the Reichstag, to learn rules and procedures, as well as how to find their way around.“The first days were very exciting,” Ms. Fester said. “It was a bit like orientation week at university. You get your travel card and have to find your way around — only it is in the Reichstag.”Mr. Lucks said he still has to remind himself that it is all real.“It’s a great feeling,” he said, “but then it’s also kind of humbling: We have a big responsibility. Our generation campaigned for us and voted for us and they expect us to deliver. We can’t let them down.”Christopher F. Schuetze More

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Texas’ Redistricting Map Makes House Districts Redder

      by

      2020 presidential vote margin Current congressional districts Fort Worth San Antonio Proposed districts for this decade Fort Worth San Antonio 2020 presidential vote margin Current congressional districts Proposed districts for this decade Fort Worth Fort Worth San Antonio San Antonio Current congressional districts Proposed districts for this decade Fort Worth Fort Worth San Antonio San […] More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      When Is a ‘Majority’ Not Actually a Majority?

      by

      The problem in the American system for the principle of “one person, one vote” is that our institutions are not actually set up for political equality among citizens.Equal state representation in the Senate necessarily means that a citizen in a low-density state has greater representation — and therefore political power — than a citizen in a higher-density state. The Electoral College gives decisive political weight to the residents of the states where there is the most competition, irrespective of size or population. And the constitutional requirement that “each state shall have at least one representative” — when coupled with single-member districts and a cap on the overall size of the House — means a degree of malapportionment in the “popular” chamber as well.The upshot of all of this, I’ve written in the past, is that it is possible to elect a government that does not represent a majority of voters, much less a majority of citizens or residents. With just the right amount of geographic, educational and racial polarization in the electorate, a party could control the White House and a majority of seats in Congress without ever winning a majority of votes in either a presidential or a congressional election.I think that if you explained it way, many Americans would see this as a problem, even illegitimate. But there’s an argument that it is neither and that a party that held power under these conditions would have as much claim to legitimacy as one that held both power and a popular majority.I mention this because I recently read an interview in The Atlantic with Ryan Williams, the president of the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank with strong ties to Donald Trump and his movement, in which he makes the argument that minority rule is as legitimate as majority rule.I reject the premise that just because the popular vote isn’t won, you don’t possess a constitutional majority. We have an Electoral College system for a reason. Democracy, for the Founders, was a means to the end of the protection of rights. They set up a republic, not a democracy. The rule of pure numbers was never the touchstone of justice for the Founders.What caught my eye there is Williams’s use of the term “constitutional majority,” to refer to an electoral majority that does not represent a popular majority. Williams uses it to defend — even to extoll — the legitimacy of minority government, but what’s interesting is that it was first used, as far as I can tell, in defense of majority rule.Over the summer, I wrote about an unpublished 1834 letter from James Madison on the subject of “majority government.” It was a direct response to the nullification crisis of the early 1830s and the argument, made most trenchantly by Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina, that states had the right to nullify federal laws that abrogated their rights. In his letter, Madison argues that there’s no viable or impartial principle for self-government other than majority rule, especially in a nation of diverse, opposing interests: “The vital principle of republican government is the lex majoris partis, the will of the majority” and “if the will of a majority cannot be trusted where there are diversified and conflicting interests, it can be trusted nowhere.”Having said that, Madison concedes that in any system of elective government, there is the chance of choosing a government that does not represent a majority of the people. This, he says, is a problem, because the popular majority might feel oppressed by the minority in power. “That this departure from the rule of equality, creating a political and constitutional majority in contradistinction to a numerical majority of the people, may be abused in various degrees oppressive to the majority of the people is certain; and in modes and degrees so oppressive as to justify ultra- or anti-constitutional resorts to adequate relief is equally certain.”In other words, governments need popular consent for legitimacy, and when they do not have it, they run into trouble. Indeed, in Madison’s formulation, the “constitutional majority” is something of a problem to be solved, not an intended outcome of the process. And to that end, he believes the best solution to the problem of a minority government is to change the rules of the game.“Still,” he writes, “the constitutional majority must be acquiesced in by the constitutional minority whilst the Constitution exists. The moment that arrangement is successfully frustrated, the Constitution is at an end. The only remedy therefore for the oppressed minority is in the amendments of the Constitution, or a subversion of the Constitution — this inference is unavoidable. Whilst the Constitution is in force, the power created by it whether a popular minority or majority must be the legitimate power and obeyed.”If changes in population and the electorate have made it more likely than ever that Washington is dominated by “constitutional majorities” rather than popular majorities, then I think Madison would say it was high time to change the way we do elections and structure our institutions. Just because minority government is possible under a republican political system does not make it a desirable or intended outcome of the process.The “constitutional majority” is a real thing, but it’s no substitute for popular legitimacy.What I WroteMy Tuesday column was on the secession crisis of 1860 and why it is important not to dismiss the possibility of a black swan event:It’s almost as if, to the people with the power to act, the prospect of a Trumpified Republican Party with the will to subvert the next presidential election and the power to do it is one of those events that just seems a little too out there. And far from provoking action, the sheer magnitude of what it would mean has induced a kind of passivity, a hope that we can solve the crisis without bringing real power to bear.My Friday column was on majority rule in the Senate, with a big assist from Henry Cabot Lodge:Despite the great distance between his time and ours, Lodge’s argument cuts to the core of our current predicament. No, Democrats won’t get everything out of Congress that they want; their majorities are too slim and their coalition is too fractious. But they should be able to act on basic issues of governance and on points where the entire party agrees. To blame the filibuster or the parliamentarian or the reconciliation process is to avoid the truth: It is the majority that is responsible for the current state of affairs.Now ReadingRandall Kennedy on the right-wing attack on “critical race theory” in The American Prospect.Wesley Lowery on Will Smith in GQ.Chris Hayes on internet fame in The New Yorker .Ariel Ron on slavery and federal power in Slate .Sue Mi Terry on how North Korea finally got a nuclear weapon and why it won’t give it up, in Foreign Affairs.Feedback If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to your friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com. You can follow me on Twitter (@jbouie) and Instagram.Photo of the WeekJamelle BouieI always like a good sign, and this is a good sign.Now Eating: Stir-Fried Butternut Squash From Madhur Jaffrey’s ‘Vegetarian Indian’I’m a huge fan of butternut squash and this is one of my favorite preparations. It is very easy to put together and makes for a great addition to any meal, and not just an Indian one. (Although you won’t go wrong with this squash, a freshly made roti and a spinach raita.) Recipe comes from “Vegetarian Indian,” by Madhur Jaffrey.Ingredients2 tablespoons olive or peanut oil¼ teaspoon urad dal (or split red lentils if you have them; otherwise, you can consider this optional)¼ teaspoon whole brown mustard seeds1 to 2 dried hot red chiles1 small onion, peeled and chopped1 pound butternut squash, cut into a ½-inch dice¾ teaspoon salt1 tablespoon dark brown sugar1 teaspoon ground cuminfreshly ground black pepperDirectionsPut the oil into a medium nonstick frying pan and set over medium heat. When hot, add the urad dal (if using). As soon as it starts to change color, add the mustard seeds and the red chiles. When the mustard seeds start to pop and the chiles darken, a matter of seconds, add the onions. Stir and fry for 2 minutes. Add the squash, then stir and fry for about 4 minutes or until the squash and the onions start to brown.Add ¾ cup of water, the salt, brown sugar, cumin and black pepper. Mix well and bring to a boil. Cover, lower the heat and simmer gently for about 10 minutes or until the squash is soft enough to pierce easily with a knife. Taste for seasoning and make adjustments if needed. When you are getting ready to serve, boil away any water that remains, stirring as you do so. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Europe’s Social Democrats Show Signs of Life, but France Poses a Roadblock

      by

      Center-left parties have won a string of victories, capped by Olaf Scholz’s win in Germany. Yet, France’s struggling Socialists threaten hopes for a broader social democratic revival. PARIS — For France’s venerable Socialist Party, languishing at 4 percent support ahead of next year’s presidential elections, news of a surprise win last Sunday by its center-left counterpart in Germany offered a glimmer of hope.The slim victory by Olaf Scholz and Germany’s Social Democratic Party, along with the expected return to power of Norway’s Labor Party following a recent win, have underscored the recent success of Europe’s long-embattled social democrats. If Mr. Scholz succeeds in forming a government, social democrats in Europe’s most powerful nation will join center-left governments in Spain, Portugal and the Nordic nations of Sweden, Denmark and Finland, as well as Norway.Attention will then turn to France, where presidential elections are scheduled for next April. But in France, experts say, the social democrats’ hopes of a continent-wide revival are likely to dim.Socialist Party officials were nevertheless quick to seize on the German results as a sign that Europe’s political tides may be turning.“Never assume the battle’s already lost,’’ the Socialists’ leader, Olivier Faure, said in a Twitter post. The party’s presidential candidate, Anne Hidalgo, noted that Mr. Scholz “had beaten the odds’’ thanks to policies common to both social democratic parties.But it will take more than that to reverse the fortunes of a party that not so long ago utterly dominated French politics.After months of hinting that she would run for president, Ms. Hidalgo, 62, the second-term mayor of Paris, finally announced her candidacy in mid-September. But instead of getting an expected bounce in the polls, her approval ratings have drifted lower.Her polling is now far below not only the two favorites to meet in a showdown — President Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, of the far-right National Rally — but also well below candidates from the center-right and Éric Zemmour, a writer and TV star known for his far-right views, who is not yet an official candidate.Ms. Hidalgo and President Emmanuel Macron of France in Paris this month. Mr. Macron has tried to draw voters from the left, weakening the Socialists’ position. Pool photo by Ludovic MarinOn the other side of the political spectrum, she trails the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon and is neck and neck with the newly designated presidential candidate of the Greens, Yannick Jadot, polls show.The Socialists’ collapse is even more noteworthy because, less than a decade ago under the Socialist President François Hollande, the party controlled the Élysée Palace, both chambers of Parliament, a majority of big cities and nearly all the regions.“Nine years ago, this party held all the cards,’’ said Pascal Delwit, a political scientist specializing in social democracy at the Free University of Brussels. “Nine years later, it has none.’’In what became a symbol of its fall, the Socialist Party had to abandon its longtime headquarters, in one of the toniest neighborhoods of Paris, for cheaper real estate in a suburb, or banlieue, that many members never bothered visiting.Alain Bergounioux, a historian who is an expert on the Socialist Party, said that beyond crumbling at the ballot box, Socialists seem to have lost the ability to push forward their ideas and themes in a fast-moving political landscape.“They really don’t influence the national debate any longer, as public opinion has shifted to the right,’’ Mr. Bergounioux said.He added, “If it was premature to say that social democracy was dead, it would be overstating it to say that there is a renaissance.’’Seven months before the presidential elections, issues dear to the right — like immigration, crime and national identity — are dominating the political discourse. While Mr. Macron ran as a centrist in 2017, he has tacked right in a bid for the biggest slice of the electorate.The focus on these themes has only increased in recent weeks, with the intense news media attention on a possible candidacy by Mr. Zemmour. Styling himself as a Trump-like populist outsider, he has been visiting different regions on a book tour that has doubled as a campaign. A poll released this week showed that his support among potential voters in the first round of the elections has kept climbing, to 13 percent, or just three percentage points below Ms. Le Pen.Marine Le Pen at a National Rally event in Frejus in September.Daniel Cole/Associated PressFrance is an extreme, though revealing, example of the problems afflicting social democratic parties across Europe, experts say.While social democratic parties have lost support nearly everywhere amid the political fragmentation on the continent, France’s Socialist Party was also decimated by Mr. Macron’s successful creation of his centrist La République en Marche party. Some Socialist leaders abandoned their old party to join Mr. Macron, who had served as Mr. Hollande’s economy minister. In forming his government, Mr. Macron also poached from the center-right, which was less weakened than the center-left and remains a force in French politics.For decades, social democratic parties appealed to a core base of unionized, industrial workers and urban professionals with a vision of social justice and an equitable economy.But many longtime French supporters felt betrayed by Mr. Hollande’s business-friendly policies as French Socialists, like their counterparts elsewhere, were unable to protect their traditional base from globalization.While French Socialists hark back to their traditional values and now emphasize their commitment to the environment, their vision for society lacks a “strong spine,’’ Mr. Bergounioux said. In France, like elsewhere, the constituencies supporting social democratic parties tend to be made up of “aging, loyal voters who have voted for them their entire lives,’’ Mr. Delwit said.In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, the recent success of social democratic parties rested on successful jockeying — and not on the attraction of a fresh social democratic vision, experts said.Ernst Stetter, a member of the Social Democratic Party in Germany and former secretary general of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies, an umbrella group of social democratic think tanks across the continent, said the party’s victory last Sunday was “first and foremost a strategic victory” by Mr. Scholz.As vice chancellor and finance minister in the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Scholz offered “change in continuity by offering a little bit more social programs, a little bit more on the environment and continuity in European and international affairs,’’ said Mr. Stetter, who is also an analyst at the Fondation Jean-Jaurès research institute in Paris.Narrow as it was, Mr. Scholz’s victory represented “the center of the Social Democratic Party, not the left,’’ said Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a French-German politician and former Green member of the European Parliament.Olaf Scholz and Ms. Hidalgo at a campaign event for Germany’s Social Democratic Party in  Cologne, Germany, this month. The French Socialists have been reassured by Mr. Scholz’s victory in last month’s election, but their chances of matching his victory appear slim.Uta Wagner/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSocialists in Spain, Portugal and the Nordic nations also owed their success to responding to local needs, not a common vision of social democracy, Mr. Cohn-Bendit said.“On immigration policy, social democrats in Denmark are to the right of many centrist parties,’’ Mr. Cohn-Bendit said, referring to a series of hard-line immigration measures adopted by Denmark’s Social Democrats.Following years of a rise in right-wing parties, social democrats now lead governments in Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and are poised to do so in Norway. But their hold on power is far more tenuous than in the past.In Norway, the Labor Party, led by Jonas Gahr Stoere, came in first in last month’s parliamentary election, but won only a little over a quarter of the total seats, one of the party’s lowest scores on record. After talks to form a broad center-left coalition failed in recent days, Mr. Stoere is now expected to become prime minister of a minority government.“There isn’t a new definition yet of what social democracy could be in today’s world,’’ Mr. Cohn-Bendit said.Mr. Stetter said he, too, was skeptical of a broad revival of social democracy. Over the past decade, social democrats had worked unsuccessfully for a revival under the banner of the “Next Left,’’ he said.Still, Mr. Stetter said he hoped that last Sunday’s election results in Germany could presage positive developments for social democrats in Europe.“If Scholz succeeds in forming a government as a social democratic chancellor, there would be a dynamic force at the heart of Europe, and that could give energy to the French Socialist Party in the campaign period before the presidential elections in April,’’ Mr. Stetter. “We have to remain optimistic.’’Members of Jeunes Socialistes, the youth organisation of the Socialist Party, at an event in August. European socialist parties tend to rely heavily on aging voters, putting them on the wrong side of the demographic tide.Andrea Mantovani for The New York Times More

    • 88 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ex-President Sarkozy Convicted for Campaign Spending Violations

      by

      Nicolas Sarkozy was found guilty of illegally financing his 2012 presidential bid by exceeding France’s strict electoral rules and sentenced to a year of house arrest. He said he would appeal.PARIS — A French court on Thursday sentenced Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president, to a year of house arrest for illegally financing his failed 2012 re-election campaign by wildly exceeding France’s strict electoral spending limits.Mr. Sarkozy, 66, was president from 2007 to 2012. Though he is no longer active in politics and continues to be dogged by multiple legal entanglements, he is still an influential voice on the French right. Shortly after the verdict, his lawyer announced that Mr. Sarkozy would appeal the conviction, which puts the sentence on hold and leaves him free.“President Sarkozy never asked to be treated better than anyone else, but there is no reason he should be treated any worse,” the lawyer, Thierry Herzog, told reporters outside the courtroom in Paris.It was the second of several legal cases pending for Mr. Sarkozy to end with a conviction in recent months, and the first time he was convicted for actions that he undertook while in office, further threatening to tarnish his legacy.In March, he became the first former president in France’s recent history to be sentenced to actual jail time after he was convicted on charges of corruption and influence peddling for trying to illegally obtain information from a judge on a legal case against him.Mr. Sarkozy has appealed that conviction as well, and he is unlikely to spend time behind bars in the near future. Appeals could take years to go through the courts, and even if Thursday’s sentence is upheld, the court that convicted Mr. Sarkozy said he would be able to serve it at home with an electronic monitoring bracelet.Still, Mr. Sarkozy is now only the second former president in France’s modern history to be convicted of a crime — Jacques Chirac was found guilty in 2011 of embezzling and misusing public funds when he was mayor of Paris.The verdict against Mr. Sarkozy on Thursday came after a yearslong investigation and a trial in May and June, both of which focused on his 2012 re-election campaign and on France’s stringent electoral rules.Under French law, spending on electoral campaigns is capped to ensure candidates compete on a level playing field. In 2012, the limit for presidential campaigns, per candidate, was about €16.8 million, or about $19.7 million, in the first round of the elections, and about €5.7 million, or about $6.7 million, on top of that in the second round for the two top vote-getters, who included Mr. Sarkozy.But suspicions that his campaign had exceeded those limits arose after the election. Prosecutors began an investigation in 2014, causing turmoil within Mr. Sarkozy’s political party.Ultimately, prosecutors determined that the campaign had spent at least €42 million, or about $50 million — almost twice the legal limit.The case became known as the Bygmalion affair, named for the public relations and event planning company suspected of issuing false invoices to Mr. Sarkozy’s political party for rallies that were actually for Mr. Sarkozy’s presidential campaign. Prosecutors argued that the goal of the fraud was to hide the overspending from the electoral authorities.The former head of the Bygmalion subsidiary Event & Cie, Franck Attal, at the Paris courthouse on Thursday.Yoan Valat/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Sarkozy has denied being aware of any false billing, and he was not charged with wrongdoing in that regard. Instead, the charges of illegal campaign financing relate only to the overspending, for which he has already paid a fine.During the trial, Mr. Sarkozy rejected the prosecution’s portrayal of a lavish campaign, suggesting that the false invoices had been used instead to enrich Bygmalion — led at the time by close friends of Jean-François Copé, the president of Mr. Sarkozy’s party and one of the former leader’s political rivals.Mr. Sarkozy also claimed that in 2012 he had been extremely busy with his presidential duties and had barely been involved with the campaign’s budgeting and logistics.“I was president, head of the Group of 20, and in the campaign, I was directing political strategy,” Mr. Sarkozy told the court in June. “Organizing rallies, the sound systems, the lighting — I had better things to do.”But prosecutors asserted — and the court agreed — that Mr. Sarkozy had neglected warnings from his aides, especially over a profusion of campaign events, some of them expensive, large-scale rallies. As a veteran politician with years of experience, they argued, he could not have ignored signs that spending was out of control.“This was not his first electoral campaign,” the court noted in its ruling.Jerome Lavrilleux, the deputy director of Mr. Sarkozy’s 2012 campaign, on Thursday at the courthouse in Paris.Stephane Mahe/ReutersThirteen other people were also accused of involvement in the fraud, including former campaign staff members, party officials, aides close to Mr. Sarkozy and former executives at Bygmalion.All were convicted on Thursday and handed prison sentences ranging from two years to three and a half years — some of that time suspended and some of it under house arrest. Several of the accused also received fines.But prosecutors concluded that there was not enough evidence to determine who had masterminded the false billing scheme in the first place.Mr. Sarkozy has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the web of legal cases that has plagued him since he left office. Some of them have been dropped, including one in which he was accused of manipulating the heiress to the L’Oréal cosmetics fortune into financing his 2007 presidential run.But Mr. Sarkozy is still dogged by accusations that his campaign received illegal financing from the government of the Libyan strongman Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who died in 2011. The investigation into those accusations, the most serious one against him to date, is still continuing.Despite a failed comeback attempt in 2016, Mr. Sarkozy is still popular with the base of his conservative party, Les Républicains, which has yet to settle on a candidate for the 2022 presidential elections. Mr. Sarkozy’s endorsement is coveted by many of those jockeying for the position.Christian Jacob, the head of Les Républicains, called the conviction “shocking” and said Mr. Sarkozy had his party’s full support.“I want to express, in my name and in the name of Les Républicains, our affection, our support for Nicolas Sarkozy and our immense pride of having had him as President of the Republic,” Mr. Jacob said on Twitter.Constant Méheut More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Who Is Fumio Kishida, Japan's Likely Next Prime Minister?

      by

      Though Fumio Kishida, a ruling-party stalwart, has sought to distinguish himself from the unpopular departing prime minister, he’s struggled to connect with the public.Fumio Kishida, a former foreign minister, addressed supporters after being elected as the Liberal Democratic Party’s choice for Japan’s next prime minister. Japan’s Parliament will hold a special session next week to officially select the new prime minster.Kyodo News, via Associated PressThe man all but assured of becoming Japan’s next prime minister, Fumio Kishida, is an establishment pick who has sought to portray himself as more than just another colorless bureaucrat.Mr. Kishida, 64, has called for economic policies that would distribute more wealth to the middle class, and written that spending part of his childhood in the United States instilled in him the ideals of justice and diversity.His message has not resonated with much of the Japanese public, but it was enough to win him leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party on Wednesday, virtually guaranteeing that he will become Japan’s next prime minister, a role for which he has been preparing for decades.Mr. Kishida’s father and grandfather both served as members of Japan’s House of Representatives. In 1993, he successfully ran for the parliamentary seat from Hiroshima that his father had held.Fumio Kishida at the headquarters of the Liberal Democratic Party. Next month, when Japan’s Parliament holds a special session to select the next prime minister, his appointment is essentially guaranteed.Pool photo by Du XiaoyiMr. Kishida would go on to become a stalwart of Japan’s ruling party and the longest-serving foreign minister in the country’s post-World War II history.He has been widely described as an uncontroversial moderate who holds the trust of party grandees. Still, in a political system that rewards conformity, Mr. Kishida has sought to distinguish himself from the unpopular departing prime minister, Yoshihide Suga.On the campaign trail, Mr. Kishida carried around a series of notebooks in which he said he wrote down notes and observations from people he met while traveling the country, calling the notebooks “my biggest treasures.”He has said that he feels a strong sense of justice, developed in part during a childhood stay in the United States.In 1963, his father, then a government trade official, was appointed to a post in New York. The family relocated, and Mr. Kishida, at age 6, enrolled at public schools, including P.S. 13 in the Elmhurst section of Queens, where he attended second and third grade. In a 1965 class photo, he is seen wearing a bow tie, standing in front of a giant American flag.Fumio Kishida, second from the right in the back row, in a class photo at the elementary school he attended in Elmhurst, Queens.The Office of Fumio Kishida.His classmates included children of many backgrounds — white, Korean, Indian and Native American — but he sometimes felt the sting of racial discrimination. In his book “Kishida Vision,” published last year, Mr. Kishida described a time in 1965 when a white classmate refused to hold his hand as instructed by a teacher on a field trip.Still, he came to admire the United States, finding it remarkable that students of varied backgrounds “respected the national flag and sang the anthem together in the morning.”“The U.S. was an enemy of Japan during the war and the nation that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima,” he wrote. “But I was young, and to me, the U.S. was nothing but a country that was generous-hearted and filled with diversity.”A baseball fan — he supports the Hiroshima Carp, his hometown team — he was an infielder on his high school team and an average student, failing a law school entrance exam three times. When he said he was interested in politics, his father tried to push him down another path, warning that “there’s nothing sweet about the political world.” But after a stint in banking, Mr. Kishida got his first political job, as his father’s secretary.Once in office, Mr. Kishida rose steadily, eventually being appointed foreign minister by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2012. His term was defined by two notable achievements: helping to arrange then-President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima in 2016, and finalizing an agreement with South Korea in which Japan compensated “comfort women,” the term for those taken as sex slaves by Japanese soldiers during World War II.He also courted his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, forging a bond over their shared fondness for whisky and sake as he sought to improve a relationship that has foundered on a territorial dispute over islands seized by the Soviet Union after World War II.Unlike the teetotal Mr. Abe, Mr. Kishida is known inside the party as an enthusiastic drinker. One year, Mr. Kishida wrote, he planned a birthday party for Mr. Lavrov and presented the Russian diplomat with a bottle of 21-year-old Hibiki whisky. In return, Mr. Lavrov gave Mr. Kishida an ornately bound book. Mr. Kishida opened it to find a bottle of vodka inside.“If we’re drinking, we’re friends,” Mr. Kishida wrote. “The relationship in which both sides can talk straightforwardly is the first step to international peace.”But Mr. Kishida has struggled to connect with voters. Last year, during the race to succeed Mr. Abe, Mr. Kishida suffered embarrassment when he tweeted a photo of his wife bringing him dinner at home. The image, which showed him seated in a suit and tie and his wife standing, wearing an apron, was widely mocked as out of touch and misogynistic.In this year’s race, Mr. Kishida appeared to acknowledge public dissatisfaction as he promised to introduce a “new capitalism” and encourage companies to distribute more of their profits to middle-class workers. Neither the public nor rank-and-file party members had shown much support for Mr. Kishida. But the conservative wing of the party, which dominates Parliament, opted for a safe pair of hands.Makiko Inoue and Motoko Rich contributed reporting.Taro Kono, the cabinet minister in charge of vaccinations, left, with Mr. Kishida before a debate in Tokyo this month.Pool photo by Eugene Hoshiko More