Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote

      by

      This essay is part of a series exploring bold ideas to revitalize and renew the American experiment. Read more about this project in a note from Ezekiel Kweku, Opinion’s politics editor.

      .seriestext {
      width: 600px;
      margin: 0 auto 20px;
      max-width: calc(100% – 40px);
      font-family: nyt-imperial;
      line-height: 1.5;
      font-size: 20px;
      border-top: 0;
      padding-top: 0;
      border-bottom: 1px solid #e2e2e2;
      padding-bottom: 25px;
      font-style: italic;
      text-align: left;
      }

      section#endorsement-promotext {
      margin: 25px auto; max-width: calc(100% – 40px); } .seriestext a:link { text-decoration: underline; text-decoration-color: #ccc; color: inherit; } @media screen and (max-width: 720px){ .seriestext { font-size: 18px; line-height: 25px; max-width: calc(100% – 40px); } .seriestext br{ display:none; } }
      Washingtonians love to complain about taxation without representation. But for me and my fellow noncitizens, it is a fact of political life that we submit to unquestioningly year after year, primary after primary, presidential election after presidential election. Nearly 15 million people living legally in the United States, most of whom contribute as much as any natural-born American to this country’s civic, cultural and economic life, don’t have a say in matters of politics and policy because we — resident foreign nationals, or “aliens” as we are sometimes called — cannot vote.Considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision undermining voting rights, and Republicans’ efforts to suppress, redistrict and manipulate their way to electoral security, it’s time for Democrats to radically expand the electorate. Proposing federal legislation to give millions of young people and essential workers a clear road to citizenship is a good start. But there’s another measure that lawmakers both in Washington and state capitals should put in place: lifting voting restrictions on legal residents who aren’t citizens — people with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers.Expanding the franchise in this way would give American democracy new life, restore immigrants’ trust in government and send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world.It’s easy to assume that restricting the franchise to citizens is an age-old, nonnegotiable fact. But it’s actually a relatively recent convention and a political choice. Early in the United States’ history, voting was a function not of national citizenship but of gender, race and class. As a result, white male landowners of all nationalities were encouraged to play an active role in shaping American democracy, while women and poor, Indigenous and enslaved people could not. That wholesale discrimination is unquestionably worse than excluding resident foreigners from the polls, but the point is that history shows how readily voting laws can be altered — and that restrictive ones tend not to age well.Another misconception is that citizen voting rights have always been the prerogative of the federal government. In fact, states have largely decided who had a say in local, state and national elections. Arkansas was the last state to eliminate noncitizen voting in 1926, and it wasn’t until 1996 that Congress doubled down with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which made voting in federal elections while foreign — already not permitted because of state-level rules — a criminal, and deportable, offense. (This means that congressional Democrats working on immigration and election reform can reverse the 1996 sanctions the same way they voted them in.)The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires. The United States already has plenty of institutions that account for noncitizens: The census aims to reach all residents because it believes everyone, even aliens, matters. Corporations enjoy free speech and legal personhood — and they’re not even people. Would it be such a stretch to give a noncitizen resident a say in who gets elected to their state legislature, Congress or the White House?What’s more, allowing noncitizens to vote in federal, state and municipal elections would help revitalize American democracy at a time when enthusiasm and trust are lacking. While 2020 was considered a “high turnout” election, only about 65 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. Compare that to Germany, where turnout was 76 percent in the last general election.Democrats are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this change — at least at first. But it could have interesting ripple effects: Elected Republicans might be induced to appeal to a more diverse constituency, or perhaps to enthuse their constituents so deeply that they too start to vote in greater numbers.It’s also just good civics: Allowing people to vote gives them even more of a sense of investment in their towns, cities, communities and country. There’s a detachment that comes with not being able to vote in the place where you live. Concerns about mixed loyalties, meanwhile, are misplaced. The United States not only allows dual citizenship but also allows dual citizens to vote — and from abroad. Is there any reason to think resident foreigners should be less represented?Voting is, in a sense, a reward for becoming an American. But in truth, it’s often much harder to get a visa or green card than to then become a naturalized citizen. It took me 15 years and over $10,000 in legal fees (not to mention the cost of college) to obtain permanent residency. The citizenship test and oath feel comparatively like a piece of cake.It shouldn’t be this onerous to emigrate. But given that it is, it would make much more sense to make residents provide proof of voter registration as a requirement for naturalization, rather than the other way around. We will have more than “earned” it. And what better way to learn about American life than to play an active role in deciding its elections?In the absence of federal- or state-level action, local lawmakers are already free let noncitizens decide on things like garbage pickup, parking rules and potholes. Some do. Since 1992, Takoma Park, Md., has allowed all residents to vote, regardless of their citizenship. Nine additional Maryland towns, as well as districts in Vermont and Massachusetts, have voted to re-enfranchise noncitizens. The cities of Chicago, Washington and Portland are also considering the idea, and a bill that would give New York City’s authorized immigrants voting rights has a new supermajority in the City Council.I’ve lived in New York since 2004, but haven’t once had a chance to cast a ballot here. Last fall, I grew so frustrated that I started mailing ballots to my hometown in Switzerland. But voting in a place I haven’t lived in since I was a minor makes about as little sense as not voting in the city where I’ve lived my entire adult life.I’m looking forward to City Council giving me, and the other million or so friendly aliens living here, the right to vote for New York’s officials. But we should be able to vote for our representatives in Washington, too. I hope that Democrats seize their chance, and realize the power and the enthusiasm of their potential constituents. They — and we — will not regret it.Atossa Araxia Abrahamian (@atossaaraxia) is the author of “The Cosmopolites: The Coming Global Citizen.” She is working on a second book about weird jurisdictions.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.hed More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Ending Bitter 3-Month Standoff, Samoa’s Leader Concedes Election Defeat

      by

      Fiame Naomi Mata’afa is scheduled to take office as the Pacific Island nation’s first female prime minister.A three-month constitutional crisis that had convulsed the Pacific Island nation of Samoa ended on Monday as its long-serving leader finally conceded an election defeat, making way for the first female prime minister in the country’s 56-year history.The incoming leader, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, is scheduled to take office on Tuesday. The critical breakthrough in Samoa’s political stalemate came four days earlier, when the Court of Appeals ruled that a makeshift swearing-in ceremony that Ms. Fiame’s party had held in May after being locked out of Parliament was constitutional.“FAST here is the government,” the departing prime minister, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, said of Ms. Fiame’s party as he vowed to supporters on Monday that he would lead a worthy opposition. “We will be present in every Parliament sitting, so we can uphold the duties we were called to do by our constituencies.”Mr. Tuilaepa, 76, who has been the country’s leader for 22 years, had fought bitterly to hold on to his office since the April 9 election ended in a dead heat. After a final undecided lawmaker threw his support behind Ms. Fiame, giving her party a slim parliamentary majority, Mr. Tuilaepa refused to accept his loss, claiming that he had been “appointed by God” to lead the country.In the months of political back and forth that followed the election, both parties declared that a coup had taken place, dividing families and resulting in dozens of court challenges.At one point, the country’s election commission intervened, blocking the ascension of Ms. Fiame, paradoxically, by invoking a law meant to ensure greater female representation in Parliament.Under that law, women must hold at least 10 percent of the seats. The election had produced a count of 9.8 percent, and the commission refused to round up. So it appointed a female member of Mr. Tuilaepa’s party to Parliament, temporarily handing him a majority.The judiciary went on to deliver a series of victories to Ms. Fiame, reversing the election commission’s move and declaring her the winner. But the country’s head of state — who holds an ordinarily ceremonial position — absconded to a remote village rather than preside over her swearing-in ceremony. Ms. Fiame’s party held its own ceremony under a tent near the beehive-shaped Parliament.She took the oath of office as the sun descended, flanked by members of her party dressed in cardinal-red blazers and traditional men’s wraparound skirts known as ie faitaga.The departing prime minister, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, conceded defeat after fighting the election results for three months.Kevin Hagen/Associated PressMr. Tuilaepa emerged later that day, saying he would not recognize Ms. Fiame’s appointment and calling her swearing-in an act of “treason.”“Leave it to us to handle this situation,” he had said, promising action against what he called “the highest form of illegal conduct.”Samoa, a normally peaceful nation with no military of its own, has seldom known political volatility, albeit at the cost of being a virtual one-party state. Ms. Fiame, 64, formerly Mr. Tuilaepa’s deputy, was a well-established political figure in her own right before forming her own party last year.“We’ve never seen this kind of rift before in our country,” said Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson, a scholar and journalist based in Samoa. “I’ve never experienced this before in my whole life. Lines have been crossed. It’s very much akin to what happened in the U.S. with Trump.”After the months of political intrigue, analysts heralded the court’s ruling as a victory for the rule of law.“This situation has tested Samoa’s Constitution, its political system and especially the judiciary,” said Kerryn Baker, an expert on the region at the Australian National University. “I think Samoans will take heart in the fact that their systems are strong.”Ms. Fiame, making her first public appearance after the ruling, acknowledged the difficulty of the previous months.“It is a new day,” she said. “I offer my deepest gratitude to you, the people of Samoa, and in particular acknowledge the dignity with which you have waited with patience and forbearance, peacefully and respectfully, for the court process to be concluded.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Pulling Levers in Exile, Belarus Opposition Leader Works to Keep Her Influence Alive

      by

      As a crackdown widens in her country, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya is trying to build a broad phalanx of Western opposition to a dictatorship that she says is on its “last breaths.”VILNIUS, Lithuania — She has met Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and President Emmanuel Macron of France. Just this week, she was feted in Washington, where she was received by Secretary of State Antony Blinken.But while Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the unlikely pro-democracy leader from Belarus, may have little trouble getting a meeting, her high-flying company only underscores her predicament.It’s been almost a year since Ms. Tikhanovskaya was forced to flee Belarus after claiming victory in presidential elections. Now the challenge she faces is how to maintain influence in Belarus from abroad. The support of Western leaders may help, but goes only so far.Still, the meetings are part Ms. Tikhanovskaya’s strategy to build a broad Western phalanx against the Belarus dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, who has limited her ability to challenge him inside the country, where her return would mean certain imprisonment.Only months ago, hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets to demand that Mr. Lukashenko resign. It was a rare democratic outburst in an eastern European country — outside the European Union and NATO — that has carefully tried to maneuver between Russia and the West, but has turned to Moscow as a primary source of support.But now opposition figures are disappearing into prisons, and protests are dwindling.“Now it’s impossible to fight openly,” Ms. Tikhanovskaya said. “It’s difficult to ask people to go out for demonstrations because of a sense of fear. They see the brutality of the regime, that the most outstanding leaders and prominent figures are in jail. It’s really scary.”An opposition rally protesting the official presidential election results in Minsk, Belarus, in October, 2020.Associated PressUnable to encourage protests inside Belarus, and with Moscow supporting Mr. Lukashenko, Ms. Tikhanovskaya is using the primary tool available to her in exile: Western support.This week, she had meetings at the State Department, the White House, the Senate and attended the launch of the Friends of Belarus Caucus in the House of Representatives.“I asked the U.S. to be the guarantors of our independence,” she told the Voice of America on Tuesday after meeting with Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser.In a series of meetings, she sought more comprehensive sanctions on Belarus’s elites and businesses, to show them that it was “becoming more costly for them to support Lukashenko.”Though there were statements of support and admiration from members of Congress and the Washington elite, no new measures were announced.She and her team also sought to postpone a nearly $1 billion planned disbursement by the International Monetary Fund to Belarus, but have so far been unable to convince the institution to cancel the payment.Ms. Tikhanovskaya’s trip will continue in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, underscoring the value of Western support — and its limits.Her task, she said in an interview in Vilnius, Lithuania, where she and her team have made their base, was to convince her international supporters that change can come to Belarus with their assistance.“We can’t postpone this aim because we postpone freedom of our prisoners and we have to convince other countries in this as well,” she said before leaving for the United States.Supporters of Ms. Tikhanovskaya rallied in June in Warsaw, Poland, where they held up posters of prominent opposition bloggers who are in detention.Omar Marques/Getty Images“And with these detentions, with this violence, they show that they don’t have other methods of persuading people that they are strong, except violence,” she said. “It can’t last long, really. This is like the last breaths before death, because you can’t tighten the screws endlessly.”Some who support Ms. Tikhanovskaya’s movement worry about how it can remain relevant inside Belarus with its leader abroad.“When you are abroad in a safe situation, then all your calls to action will be very skeptically accepted in Belarus,” said Pavel Slunkin, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former Belarusian diplomat.Ms. Tikhanovskaya was clear that local actors make the decisions, and that when she sought funding, it was for supporters in Belarus. “When they are ready, it’s they who decide, not us,” she said.Mr. Slunkin acknowledged that Ms. Tikhanovskaya has been a tireless and effective advocate for her country internationally. Even so, the repression in Belarus is widening.This month, the Belarus Supreme Court sentenced Viktor Babariko, a former bank chief who was barred from running for president in elections last August, to 14 years in prison for bribery and money laundering in a verdict widely seen as politically motivated.On July 14, Belarusian law enforcement officers conducted what Amnesty International called an “unprecedented wave of searches and detentions,” raiding the offices of at least a dozen civil society and human rights organizations and opposition groups.In the past year, more than 35,000 people have been detained, according to the United Nations. Tens of thousands of Belarusians have fled abroad. The list of political prisoners kept by the human rights organization Viasna, itself raided recently, includes 577 individuals.In May, a European plane traveling through Belarus’ airspace was forced to land in Minsk, where Roman Protasevich, a prominent Belarusian dissident aboard, was seized.Belarus riot police detaining a demonstrator during an opposition rally in Minsk, Belarus, in 2020.Associated PressThe environment was “very dangerous,” Ms. Tikhanovskaya acknowledged, but she insisted she and her supporters could still be effective.“God bless the internet,” she said. “I am in constant dialogue with people who are on the ground. I don’t feel like I am in exile.”There are complications as she tries to coordinate the opposition from Lithuania, which borders Belarus and where she and her team were give special diplomatic status in early July.“The more time you spend abroad, the more time you are detached from the public you represent,” Artyom Shraibman, founder of Sense Analytics and a nonresident fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said by phone from his self-imposed exile from Belarus in Ukraine.“If we are honest, spending a year outside of the country where the society is changing and you have not been observing it — you are only communicating with the part of society that is as engaged as you are.”Many experts, like Mr. Slunkin, believe the key way to resolve the crisis is to increase the price of Russian support for Belarus. Ms. Tikhanovskaya has been careful not to criticize Moscow openly, but neither have they succeeded in reaching out to Russian officials.“She is being perceived by many as being pro-Western, and unacceptable to Moscow, which is true,” Mr. Shraibman said. “And this is not her choice.”President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus with his primary backer, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, in May.Pool photo by Sergei IlyinWith everything she does, Ms. Tikhanovskaya said, she is mindful of how her actions can affect people behind bars in Belarus, including her husband, Sergei Tikhanovsky, who ran a popular YouTube channel before announcing his own candidacy for president.He, like Mr. Babariko, and a prominent opposition politician, Valery Tsepkalo, was barred from running and jailed ahead of the ballot. Ms. Tikhanovskaya collected signatures for her candidacy and ran in the place of her husband.In detention since May 2020, he is currently on trial, accused of organizing riots and “inciting social hatred.”“I’m always keeping in mind that my husband is a hostage, the same as thousands of people,” Ms. Tikhanovskaya said.But she was adamant that she wants to keep the promise she campaigned on last August: new elections in which she is not necessarily on the ballot.“I’m the same woman, already with experience, already with more braveness than I had before. But look, I’m not I’m not making my career here. After elections, I will step away from all this with ease.” More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      America Has Too Many Elections

      by

      This essay is part of a series exploring bold ideas to revitalize and renew the American experiment. Read more about this project in a note from Ezekiel Kweku, Opinion’s politics editor.

      .seriestext {
      width: 600px;
      margin: 0 auto 20px;
      max-width: calc(100% – 40px);
      font-family: nyt-imperial;
      line-height: 1.5;
      font-size: 20px;
      border-top: 0;
      padding-top: 0;
      border-bottom: 1px solid #e2e2e2;
      padding-bottom: 25px;
      font-style: italic;
      text-align: left;
      }

      section#endorsement-promotext {
      margin: 25px auto; max-width: calc(100% – 40px); } .seriestext a:link { text-decoration: underline; text-decoration-color: #ccc; color: inherit; } @media screen and (max-width: 720px){ .seriestext { font-size: 18px; line-height: 25px; max-width: calc(100% – 40px); } .seriestext br{ display:none; } }
      The ability of the American political system to deliver major policies on urgent issues is hampered by features of our institutions that we take for granted and rarely think about. Take the Constitution’s requirement that House members serve for only two-year terms.Just a few months into a new administration, as the country grapples with issues of economic recovery and renewal, Congress’s actions are being shaped not by the merits of policy alone but also by the looming midterm elections. It’s not just the fall 2022 election; many incumbents are also calculating how best to position themselves to fend off potential primary challenges.In nearly all other democracies, this is not normal.The two-year House term has profound consequences for how effectively American government can perform — and too many of them are negative. A longer, four-year term would facilitate Congress’s ability to once again effectively address major issues that Americans care most about.For several decades, party leaders in Congress have come largely to view the first year of a new administration as the narrow window in which to pass big initiatives. In a midterm election year, leaders resist making members in competitive districts take tough votes. In addition, much of “policymaking” discussion in Congress — particularly when control of the House is closely divided — is about parties’ jockeying to capture the House in the next midterms.The president’s party nearly always loses House seats in the midterm elections. Since 1934, this has happened in all but two midterms. Yet it cannot be the case that all administrations have governed so poorly they deserve immediate electoral punishment.So why does it happen so regularly? Presidential candidates can make vague appeals that allow voters to see whatever they prefer to see. But governing requires concrete choices, and those decisions inevitably alienate some voters. In addition, 21 months (Jan. 20 to early November of the next year) is too little time for voters to be able to judge the effects of new programs.One of the most difficult aspects of designing democratic institutions is how to give governments incentives to act for the long term rather than the short term. The two-year term for House members does exactly the opposite.In nearly all other democracies, parliaments are in power for four to five years. Political scientists view voting as primarily the voters’ retrospective judgment on how well a government has performed. Four to five years provides plausible time for that. But the comparison with U.S. House members is even starker than focusing on the two-year term alone. In most democracies, members of parliaments do not have to compete in primary elections; the parties decide which candidates to put up for office. But since the advent of the primary system in the early 20th century, members of Congress often have to face two elections every two years.Moreover, in most democracies, candidates do not have to fund-raise all the time to run; governments typically provide public financing to the political parties. The two-year term, combined with primary elections and the constant need to raise funds individually, generates exceptional turbulence and short-term focus in our politics.When the Constitution was being drafted, many framers and others strongly pressed the view, as mentioned in Federalist 53, “that where annual elections end, tyranny begins.” At the time, most states had annual elections. Elbridge Gerry insisted that “the people of New England will never give up the point of annual elections.” James Madison urged a three-year term, arguing that annual elections had produced too much “instability” in the states. In the initial vote, the Constitutional Convention approved a three-year term, but with four states objecting, the convention eventually compromised on two years. The Federalist Papers then had to devote a good deal of energy fending off the demand for annual elections.If you think American politics is not chaotic enough, imagine if the Constitution had adopted annual House elections.One argument for the two-year term is that it provides an important check against exceptionally bad or dangerous administrations. (Certainly those who felt that way about the Trump administration were glad to have the opportunity to give Democrats control of the House in 2018.) Other democracies have found a different way to provide a safeguard against this possibility, even as their governments normally have four to five years to govern before voters are asked to judge their performance at the polls. The mechanism is a vote of no confidence; if a majority of a parliament votes no confidence in the government, a new election takes place, or a new government is formed.As interim checks on government, midterm elections and possible votes of no confidence differ dramatically. Votes of no confidence, when successful, function as an exceptional check on governments. Midterm elections are a much cruder tool; in addition to the political turbulence they bring, they routinely punish virtually all administrations. This is not to advocate a vote of no confidence, which would have vast implications for American government, but to highlight that a two-year legislative term is far from the only means to provide an interim check on elected governments.It’s unrealistic under current political conditions, but through a constitutional amendment, a four-year term for members of the House, corresponding with presidential terms, could be established. Longer terms might well facilitate greater capacity to forge difficult, bipartisan bills in the House, with members not constantly facing primary electorates. With one-third of the Senate still up for election in midterms, voters would retain some means for expressing dissatisfaction with an administration. Giving the minority party in the House greater power to initiate hearings and other measures would be another way to provide more effective interim oversight of an administration.In discussions of the Constitution’s structural elements that we might well not adopt today, the two-year term for the House is rarely noticed. (Attention is usually focused on the Electoral College, the Senate or life tenure for federal judges.)Yet as other democracies demonstrate, there is nothing inherently democratic about a two-year term. We do not recognize how distorting it is that soon after a president is elected, our politics are upended by the political calculations and maneuvering required by always looming midterm elections and their primaries.Richard H. Pildes, a professor at New York University’s School of Law, is the author of the casebook “The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process” and the editor of “The Future of the Voting Rights Act.”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.hed More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      German Candidates Fail to Find Footing in Flood Response

      by

      So far, none of the main contenders to replace Angela Merkel have come across as strong leaders in the aftermath of floods that killed 170 people and caused billions in damages.BERLIN — Floods have had a way of reshaping German politics.Helmut Schmidt made a name for himself responding to deadly floods in Hamburg in 1962, and went on to become chancellor in the 1970s. Images of Gerhard Schröder wading through muddy water along the Elbe River in 2002 are credited with helping him win another term.The floods that ravaged Germany last week — more severe than any in centuries — are already doing their work in this election year. But the striking thing they have revealed, political analysts say, is that none of the major candidates has been able to demonstrate the level of leadership in a crisis the public has grown accustomed to under Chancellor Angela Merkel.While the deadly flash floods have offered the candidates a chance to show their stuff, political experts said that each has struggled to communicate competence and reassurance. Voters seem to agree.The first poll since the flooding showed a drop in popularity for the two leading candidates — the conservative Armin Laschet and his Green party rival, Annalena Baerbock — after what political experts say have been lackluster performances by both this week.“This will not be an election in which the candidates play a deciding role,” said Uwe Jun, a professor of political science at the University of Trier. “None of the candidates have the kind of overwhelming charisma that is able to fully convince voters.”The floods have killed 170 people, with more than 150 still unaccounted for, the police said on Wednesday. The number of missing is significantly lower than figures announced last week, when downed communication networks and blocked roads rendered many people unreachable.In the latest polling, which was carried out from Tuesday to Sunday, Mr. Laschet’s leading Christian Democratic Union dipped below 30 percent support, to 28 percent, while their main rivals, the second-place Greens, held steady at 19 percent.When asked if they could vote for an individual candidate (Germans cast votes only for parties), which one would receive their endorsement, only 23 percent said Mr. Laschet, according to the survey by the Forsa polling group.On Saturday, Mr. Laschet came under fierce public criticism after he was caught on camera chatting and laughing with colleagues, while President Frank-Walter Steinmeier was giving a solemn statement to reporters after the two had met with flood victims in the city of Erftstadt.Mr. Laschet, 60, who is the governor of North Rhine-Westphalia, was forced to apologize. On Tuesday he visited another devastated town alongside the chancellor.Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party’s chancellor candidate, Armin Laschet, behind her, visiting the flood-ravaged city of Iversheim on Tuesday. The town is in North Rhine-Westphalia, where Mr. Laschet is governor.Pool photo by Wolfgang RattayIf there is one thing Ms. Merkel has learned in her four terms in offices, it is how to be calm in the face of calamity — whether pledging to keep Germans’ savings safe in 2008, or wading through the flooded streets of eastern Germany five years later.Standing beside her Tuesday after meeting with volunteers in the city of Bad Münstereifel, Mr. Laschet tried a more statesmanlike tone. He offered an open ear and a supportive clap on the shoulder to people cleaning the mud and debris from their homes, as well as condolences for victims.“Nothing we can do can bring them back, and we barely have words for the suffering of those who survived,” he said, pledging to double his state’s contribution to emergency aid. “So that we, too, are doing our part,” he said.Ms. Merkel’s government on Wednesday approved a 200 million euro, or $235 million, package of emergency assistance to be paid out to flood victims immediately. That figure will be matched by the affected states.An estimated 6 billion euros, $7 billion, will be needed to repair the infrastructure that has been damaged, including roads, bridges, homes and buildings.Much of that money will flow through the finance ministry run by Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, who is also running for chancellor. Getting financial aid to people quickly could give him an edge, but so far he has failed to translate his position into a political advantage, experts say.“If we need more money, then we will make it available,” Mr. Scholz, 63, told reporters in Berlin, “We will do what we have to do to help everyone who needs it.”Markus Söder, Bavaria’s governor, right, and Olaf Scholz, the country’s finance minister and another chancellor candidate, visited the municipality of Schoenau am Koenigssee on Sunday.Lukas Barth-Tuttas/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Scholz visited stricken communities in Rhineland-Palatinate last week and then headed to the southern state of Bavaria just days after the heavy rains stopped there. But he has failed to connect with voters in a meaningful way, experts said. His party gained only 1 percentage point in the most recent survey and Mr. Scholz’s personal popularity remained unchanged.“He is a candidate that people just can’t really warm up to,” Mr. Jun said.But if any party should be in a position to find a political advantage in the events of the past week, it should be the Greens, who have been pushing for Germany to speed up its transformation to a green economy for decades.Especially popular among the country’s younger voters, climate issues have helped the Greens to replace the Social Democrats as the second most popular party in recent years. But after their candidate for chancellor, Ms. Baerbock, 40, stumbled over accusations of plagiarism in a recently published book and inaccuracies on her résumé, even a deadly weather catastrophe appeared unable to lift the party’s standing significantly.The Greens remained firmly in second place, according to the most recent poll, with 19 percent support — enough to create a majority if they were to agree to join forces in a government led by Mr. Laschet’s conservatives, in a tie-up that many observers believe would be the most likely coalition.Making Ms. Baerbock’s position more difficult is the fact that she currently does not hold a political office that would give her the opportunity to make a public visit to the stricken regions, as do both of her competitors. Last week she decided against taking members of the news media with her when she visited communities in Rhineland-Palatinate afflicted by the severe weather.In several interviews afterward, Ms. Baerbock called for Germany to move more quickly on its exit from coal, currently planned for 2030, and to increase spending to better prepare communities for the dangers posed by extreme weather. She also laid out a three-point plan that included adapting to the changing climate, amid attempts to halt it.“This is not an either-or between climate precaution, climate adaptation and climate protection, but a triad that is actually decided in the same way in all the climate protection treaties worldwide,” Ms. Baerbock told ARD public television.In the wake of last week’s flooding, the Greens are no longer the only party making such calls, but as the images of devastation retreat from the headlines, her party remains in the strongest position to gain voters from the renewed focus on the threat posed by changes to the world’s climate.“I assume that the weather events will indeed raise the issue of climate change to the top of the electorate’s agenda, which will help the Greens,” said Ursula Münch, director of the Academy of Political Education in Tützing, but added that it would not be enough of an advantage to close the gap with the leading conservatives. “It still won’t help Ms. Baerbock into the chancellor’s office.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What You Need to Know About Germany’s National Election

      by

      Germans will vote on a new government in September, one without Angela Merkel, who will step down after 16 years in power.BERLIN — Germans will vote on a new government on Sept. 26 and for the first time since 2005, Angela Merkel is not running. After nearly 16 years in power, Ms. Merkel, 67, will leave control of Europe’s largest economy to a new chancellor.The race for the chancellery is wide open and in the wake of Brexit and the election of President Biden in the United States, the world will be watching to see which direction Germans take their country.What is at stake?Guiding Germany out of the coronavirus pandemic, with a focus on reviving the economy, remains a most pressing issue on the domestic front. Climate policies, which will be more urgent after recent floods, and greening of the country’s industrial sector are also on voters’ minds. And digitization and ensuring social equality and security have also featured in debates.Whoever takes power will decide how much to build on Ms. Merkel’s policies and how much to set the country on a new course. If her conservative party remains in power, there is likely to be more consistency than if the environmentalist Greens make history and take the chancellery for the first time.On the foreign policy front, the conservatives would largely seek continuity on Germany’s booming trade with China and its positioning on Russia, including the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that is expected to be completed later this year and would transport natural gas directly to Germany from Russia, circumventing Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. The Greens are against the pipeline.All political parties — except the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD — agree that Germany belongs firmly in the European Union. The Greens are pushing for a more ambitious revival of the European project, with tougher action against Hungary and other members that fail to uphold democratic principles.For years, Germany’s approach to China has been “change through trade,” but China’s repression of dissent at home and flexing of its muscles abroad have called that strategy into question. The United States has pressed reluctant allies to take a harder line on China.Unlike four years ago, when migration was still on the minds of many Germans and the anti-immigrant AfD first won seats in the Bundestag, Germany’s Parliament, it has struggled to attract new voters this year. The party has been polling around 10 percent and analysts say that it is weakened by deep inner divides and lack of a galvanizing issue.A restaurant in Berlin this month. Guiding Germany out of the coronavirus pandemic, with a focus on reviving the economy, remains a most pressing issue on the domestic front.Maja Hitij/Getty ImagesWho will be chancellor?Polls indicate that, as usual, no party will win a majority of seats in the Parliament, so the one that wins the most seats would be given first crack at forming a coalition government and choosing a chancellor.Each party names its candidate for chancellor before campaigning begins, although the public focuses more heavily on the candidates for the leading parties who have a realistic chance of winning.Traditionally, those have been the center-right Christian Democrats (Ms. Merkel’s party) and the center-left Social Democrats. But for the first time, the candidate for the environmentalist Greens is viewed as having a real shot at the chancellery.Here are the leading hopefuls for chancellor:The Greens: Annalena Baerbock, a co-leader of the Greens since 2018, is considered more pragmatic than many in her party, which has its roots in the environmental and student protest movements of the previous century. At 40, she is the youngest candidate, the only woman, and the only one who has not previously held an elected office.Annalena Baerbock, the co-head of the German Greens Party, in Berlin last month.Pool photo by Steffi LoosThe Christian Democrats: Armin Laschet leads the Christian Democratic Union and is the governor of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state. He is considered the choice of continuity, having largely agreed with Ms. Merkel on major policy decisions, including allowing some 1 million migrants into the country in 2015. But a public dispute for the chancellor candidacy with the leader of the Bavarian Christian Social Union — the two parties campaign and caucus together in Parliament — weakened him at the start of the race. And gaffes he has made in recent days after massive flooding hit Germany have not helped him.Armin Laschet, the Christian Democratic Union leader and candidate for Chancellery, second left, visited the flood-ravaged town of Bad Munstereifel with Chancellor Angela Merkel, center right, on Tuesday.Christof Stache/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe Social Democrats: Olaf Scholz, of the Social Democrats, Germany’s finance minister and vice chancellor since 2018, is considered the most experienced of the three. He served as labor minister in a previous government under Ms. Merkel and has years of experience at the state level in Hamburg. But his party has largely been polling in third place, behind the conservatives and the Greens, and Mr. Scholz has struggled to generate buzz around his campaign.Germany’s finance minister and vice chancellor Olaf Scholz, center, attending his Social Democratic party’s “Future Camp” in June in Berlin.Pool photo by Fabian SommerOther parties running for seats in Parliament are the free-market Free Democrats, the far-left Left Party and the AfD. Dozens of smaller parties, from the Anarchist Pogo Party to the Animal Protection Party or the Free Voters, are also on the ballot, but are not expected to cross the 5-percent hurdle necessary to earn representation in the Bundestag.Why does Germany matter?Within the European Union, Germany is often seen as a de facto leader. It has both the largest economy and the largest population, and together with France is widely viewed as a motor for policy and decision-making.Under Ms. Merkel, who became one of the most senior leaders within the 27-member bloc, that influence grew even further, although she failed to win a consensus among the member states on refugee policy and on preventing Hungary and Poland from democratic backsliding.Ms. Merkel also used her country’s weight as the world’s fourth-largest economy and a member of the Group of 7 industrialized nations to champion global climate policy and push for tough sanctions against Russia for its annexation of Crimea. Her successor will inherit thorny issues of how to deal with an increasingly powerful China and a push from some within Germany and the E.U. who are ready to restore trade with Moscow. The core relationship with the United States is only beginning to find its footing again after four destabilizing years of the Trump administration.During Ms. Merkel’s four terms in office, the nation of 83 million has undergone a generational shift, becoming more ethnically diverse, but also aging considerably — more than half of all eligible voters are 50 or older. Social norms have become more liberal, with a legal right to gay marriage and a nonbinary gender option on official documents. But a resurgent far right and a breakdown of political discourse at the local level have threatened the country’s cohesion.Ms. Merkel giving her last government declaration at the Bundestag in Berlin last month.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesWhat role will Chancellor Merkel play?Until a new government can be formed, a process that can take several weeks to several months, Ms. Merkel will remain in office as acting head of the government. Forming the government will depend on how the vote falls and how difficult it is for the winning party to reach agreement with smaller supporters to build a government.The chancellor gave up leadership of her party in December 2018, but remained as head of government until after the election, a position that has left her a lame duck, rendering her decision-making more difficult in the second year of the pandemic. She has vowed to stay out of the election campaign and has so far kept her focus instead on managing the coronavirus pandemic. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Pedro Castillo es declarado ganador en las elecciones presidenciales de Perú

      by

      El líder de izquierda, quien ha prometido renovar el sistema político y económico para abordar la pobreza y la desigualdad, derrotó por muy pocos votos a la hija de un expresidente encarcelado.LIMA, Perú — Sus padres eran campesinos que no aprendieron a leer. Cuando era niño, y antes de convertirse en maestro, caminaba durante horas para asistir a la escuela. Después, hace dos meses, irrumpió en la escena política de Perú como un candidato antisistema con un cautivador llamado a las urnas: “No más pobres en un país rico”.Y el lunes en la noche, casi un mes después de la segunda vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales, los funcionarios declararon a Pedro Castillo, de 51 años, como el próximo presidente de Perú. Con una votación muy cerrada, Castillo venció a Keiko Fujimori, la hija de un expresidente de derecha que se ha convertido en un símbolo prominente de la élite peruana.La victoria de Castillo, pese a haberse producido por un margen muy estrecho, es el repudio más claro a las clases dirigentes del país en 30 años. También fue la tercera derrota consecutiva para Fujimori.Castillo, un socialista, se convertirá en el primer presidente de izquierda de Perú en más de una generación, y el primero en haber vivido la mayor parte de su vida como campesino en una región andina pobre.En su discurso de victoria, desde un balcón en el centro de Lima mientras sus simpatizantes gritaban “sí se pudo”, Castillo prometió trabajar para todos los peruanos.“Llamo a la más amplia unidad del pueblo peruano, llamo a la unidad”, dijo Castillo. “Compartiremos juntos esta lucha, este emprendimiento y este esfuerzo para hacer un Perú más justo, más soberano, más digno, más humano y más unido”.Dirigiéndose a Keiko Fujimori, agregó: “No pongamos más barreras en esta travesía y no pongamos más obstáculos para sacar adelante este país”.El anuncio de su victoria se produjo después de un mes de esfuerzos por parte de Fujimori para anular unos 200.000 votos en áreas donde Castillo ganó de manera abrumadora, una medida que habría privado de sus derechos a muchos peruanos pobres e indígenas.Poco antes de que las autoridades declararan a Castillo como el presidente electo, Fujimori dijo en un discurso televisado el lunes por la noche que reconocería los resultados por respeto a la ley, pero calificó la proclamación de su contrincante como “ilegítima” e insistió de nuevo en que el partido de Castillo le había robado miles de votos.Hizo un llamado a sus simpatizantes para entrar en “una nueva etapa” en la que se mantendrán políticamente activos porque “el comunismo no llega al poder para soltarlo. Es por eso que quieren imponernos ahora una nueva Constitución”. Y añadió: “Me siento en la obligación de dejar claro que no podemos caer en ningún tipo de violencia. Tenemos derecho a movilizarnos, pero de manera pacífica”.Keiko Fujimori mientras subía al escenario poco antes de pronunciar su discurso televisado, el lunes por la noche.Sebastian Castaneda/ReutersFujimori acusó a los partidarios de Castillo de alterar las actas en todo el país. Pero en las semanas que siguieron a la votación, nadie se presentó para corroborar su afirmación central: que las identidades de cientos de trabajadores electorales habían sido robadas y sus firmas fueron falsificadas.La disputa llevó a miles de simpatizantes de los dos candidatos a las calles de Lima en un duelo de protestas cerca de la sede de la junta electoral. Muchos de los partidarios de Castillo de las regiones rurales pasaron semanas acampando para esperar su proclamación oficial como ganador.Al final, las autoridades electorales rechazaron todas las solicitudes del partido de Fujimori que exigía descontar las boletas de un recuento oficial que ubicaba a Castillo con una ventaja de 40.000 votos.“El voto del ciudadano que está en La Molina, en Miraflores, en San Isidro, tiene el mismo peso ciudadano y cívico que el pobre que está en el último rincón del país”, dijo Castillo a una multitud de simpatizantes el mes pasado, refiriéndose a distritos exclusivos de Lima.“Nunca se burlen de un hombre cuando viene con sombrero. No se burlen más de un campechano, no se burlen más de un obrero, de un rondero, de un maestro. Porque así se hace patria”, dijo Castillo. “Hoy tenemos que enseñar a la juventud, a la niñez, que todos somos iguales ante la ley”.Muchos simpatizantes de Castillo dijeron que votaron por él con la esperanza de que renueve el sistema económico neoliberal impuesto por el padre de Keiko Fujimori, Alberto Fujimori, un sistema que, según dijeron, condujo a avances iniciales en el pasado pero que al final fracasó en ayudar a millones de las personas más empobrecidas del país.Esa dolorosa disparidad se hizo más evidente cuando llegó el coronavirus. El virus ha devastado a Perú, que tiene la cifra per cápita de fallecimientos por COVID-19 más alta del mundo. Casi el 10 por ciento de su población ha caído en la pobreza en el último año.“Treinta años en los que los grandes capitalistas se han enriquecido más y en Perú hay más pobreza”, dijo Manuel Santiago, el dueño de 64 años de una tienda que votó por Castillo. “Estamos cansados de lo mismo”.Pero Castillo enfrentará enormes desafíos.Castillo mientras hablaba con sus simpatizantes desde su sede de campaña en Lima, el mes pasado.Harold Mejía/EPA vía ShutterstockEn los últimos años, la corrupción y las venganzas políticas han convulsionado al país que en un periodo de cinco años tuvo cuatro presidentes y dos congresos.Quizás de manera más significativa, Castillo, quien nunca ha ocupado un cargo público, carece de la experiencia política y del respaldo generalizado y organizado que tuvieron otros líderes de izquierda que llegaron al poder en Sudamérica.“Él como figura política representa problemas que abonarían a la inestabilidad”, dijo el politólogo peruano Mauricio Zavaleta.En la Bolivia de 2005, Evo Morales, quien se convirtió en el primer presidente indígena del país, “ganó en la primera vuelta con más del 50 por ciento del voto”, dijo Zavaleta. En Venezuela en 1998, Hugo Chávez “fue un vendaval electoral”. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, en Brasil en 2002, y Rafael Correa, en Ecuador en 2006, fueron figuras de la política tradicional que la primera vez que contendieron a la presidencia fueron elegidos con márgenes grandes.Castillo “no es de esos fenómenos”, dijo Zavaleta.Y agregó que es poco probable que Castillo cuente con el apoyo del Congreso, el ejército, los medios de comunicación, la élite o un movimiento político amplio. “Simplemente no tiene el músculo para llevar a cabo las reformas ambiciosas que ha propuesto”.Castillo había prometido reevaluar el sistema político y económico para reducir la pobreza y la desigualdad, y remplazar la Constitución vigente por una que incrementara el papel del Estado en la economía. Hizo campaña con un sombrero de campesino y, a veces, apareció a caballo o bailando con los votantes.“Es alguien que no tiene que ir a visitar un pueblo para estar en contacto con la gente y conocer sus problemas, porque viene de un pueblo”, dijo Cynthia Cienfuegos, especialista en asuntos políticos de Transparencia, una organización de la sociedad civil.“Su triunfo refleja una demanda de cambio que se ha pospuesto durante mucho tiempo”, dijo.Castillo creció en la zona montañosa del norte de Perú y, durante su juventud, limpiaba habitaciones de hotel en Lima. Después de asistir a la universidad en una ciudad en el norte del país decidió regresar a la misma provincia de las tierras altas donde creció para trabajar en una escuela sin agua corriente ni alcantarillado.Una simpatizante de Pedro Castillo en Lima, el mes pasado.Paolo Aguilar/EPA vía ShutterstockDespués de convertirse en representante sindical de los maestros, Castillo ayudó a liderar una huelga de 2017 en la que los educadores pidieron mejores salarios.Posteriormente, desapareció en buena medida del ojo público hasta este año cuando se unió a un partido marxista-leninista para postularse a la presidencia y emergió de manera sorpresiva como el líder —aunque por un estrecho margen— de la primera ronda de la contienda electoral.Durante la campaña viajó por todo el país para escuchar a los votantes, y a menudo cargaba un lápiz enorme bajo el brazo para recordarles su promesa de garantizar la igualdad de acceso a una educación de calidad.Difícilmente podría ser más distinto de Keiko Fujimori, quien tuvo una crianza privilegiada y se convirtió en la primera dama del país a los 19 años, luego de que sus padres se separaron.El padre de Keiko Fujimori, de manera similar a Castillo, llegó a la presidencia como una figura al margen de la política tradicional en uno de los momentos más complejos de la historia del país. Si bien al principio se le atribuyó a Fujimori el apaciguamiento de las violentas insurgencias de izquierda en la década de 1990, ahora muchos lo consideran como un autócrata corrupto.En una serie de juicios, Fujimori fue condenado por dirigir las actividades de un escuadrón de la muerte, por delitos de corrupción y otros crímenes. Está encarcelado desde 2007, con una breve interrupción.Su hija también se enfrenta a un proceso judicial, acusada de dirigir una organización criminal que traficaba con donaciones ilegales durante una campaña presidencial anterior. Ella niega los cargos. Si la encuentran culpable, podría ser condenada a 30 años de prisión.Castillo, quien asumirá el cargo el 28 de julio en el bicentenario de la Independencia de Perú de España, se ha presentado como un nuevo comienzo para un país con una larga historia de amiguismo y corrupción.Julie Turkewitz es jefa del buró de los Andes, que abarca Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Surinam y Guyana. Antes de mudarse a América del Sur, fue corresponsal de temas nacionales y cubrió el oeste de Estados Unidos. @julieturkewitz More