More stories

  • in

    ¿Cuál castigo a López Obrador?

    CIUDAD DE MÉXICO — Con casi medio millón de muertes en exceso por la pandemia, un estimado de hasta 10 millones de pobres adicionales, pocos avances tangibles en la lucha anticorrupción y una violencia criminal que no cede, la elección intermedia de México debiera haber sido un fuerte golpe a Morena, el partido del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador. No lo fue.Los primeros conteos rápidos —que aún son preliminares— muestran que, si bien la coalición de Morena no tendrá los diputados necesarios para cambiar la Constitución (más de 333), continuará teniendo la mayoría absoluta para cambiar la legislación en el Congreso. Su coalición perderá curules (de tener 308 curules, que había ganado en la elección de 2018, ahora solo tendrá 279). Sin embargo, esta reducción es mucho menor que el promedio de 47 escaños que típicamente pierde el partido en la presidencia en una contienda intermedia.Incluso, Morena, como partido independiente, aumentará sus curules con respecto a la elección de 2018. Entonces logró obtener 191 escaños y ahorase estima que gane entre 190 y 203. Por lo tanto, probablemente Morena tenga más diputados que antes. Ningún partido en el poder en la historia democrática de México ha logrado aumentar su número de curules en una intermedia.Es por ello que, la principal lección de estos comicios es muy clara y es para los partidos de la oposición: esta es una victoria muy magra comparada con la que se debió haber tenido. Y esto se debe, en buena medida, a que la oposición ha creado una plataforma cuya única propuesta tangible es combatir a López Obrador.Pero estas elecciones son también un fuerte llamado de atención para Morena: el electorado está decepcionado de los errores de López Obrador y su partido ahora dependerá de sus aliados para aprobar modificaciones a la Constitución y perdió apoyo en Ciudad de México, uno de los grandes bastiones del obradorismo. Los votantes no les están dando un cheque en blanco.Esto, sin embargo, no debe ser motivo de triunfalismo para los grandes partidos tradicionales (PRI y PAN), que están capitalizando menos los fallos del gobierno de lo que debieran. Y la razón es una tremenda falta de propuestas.México necesita una oposición coherente, con propuestas específicas para empezar a solucionar los problemas de fondo que siguen sin solucionarse. Si en los próximos tres años que le quedan a López Obrador no lo consiguen, aumentará el malestar social que impera y no habrá ningún partido o candidatos que aprovechen los errores del gobierno de la llamada cuarta transformación. México quedará, de nuevo, sin alternativas de representación que nos ayuden a corregir el rumbo de uno de los países más desiguales y violentos del mundo.La oposición es necesaria en cualquier democracia. Y más aún con un gobierno, como el de López Obrador, que se ha mostrado muy poco abierto a hacer concesiones y a cambiar estrategias que no han funcionado (como el plan de seguridad o sus medidas económicas). Con una oposición socialmente sensible, este sexenio mejoraría: lo forzaría a gobernar para todos los mexicanos, lo obligaría a institucionalizar sus políticas y a debatir sus puntos de vista.Así que es indispensable que la oposición esté a la altura de las circunstancias. Quienes la lideren deben eliminar dejos racistas y clasistas de sus programas y agendas. Sus integrantes deben hacer política más allá de las élites y los grupos empresariales. Los resultados muestran que para que exista esa oposición, los partidos deben dejar de pretender que el votante tiene amnesia y votará por cualquier partido que se oponga a López Obrador por el simple hecho de hacerlo.Pedro Pardo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersLa prueba de que solo aliarse contra López Obrador no funciona es el fracaso de la alianza PRI-PAN-PRD en los estados. La alianza contendió en 10 de 15 estados bajo el argumento de que solo uniendo fuerzas se podría derrotar a Morena. Fue exactamente al revés. Según la información preliminar, Morena derrotó a la alianza en los estados en los que esta contendió.Este rechazo a la alianza debería ser una señal para que los partidos eviten formar coaliciones desdibujadas en asociaciones sin fundamentos programáticos o ideológicos. De hecho, fue una alianza similar a la del PRI-PAN-PRD, la alianza del Pacto por México durante el sexenio de Enrique Peña Nieto, la que en parte originó el surgimiento de Morena. El movimiento de López Obrador se consolidó en rechazo a esa unión para la aprobación de las reformas estructurales del peñanietismo, diluyendo sus posiciones ideológicas.Otra prueba fehaciente de que la alianza PRI-PAN-PRD no puede tener por estrategia solo el rechazo a López Obrador es la gran fuerza que están cobrando los partidos considerados pequeños. Todo parece indicar que Movimiento Ciudadano gobernará en Nuevo León y el Partido Verde en San Luis Potosí.Estos partidos están logrando posicionarse precisamente porque proponen tanto una alternativa a Morena como al PRI-PAN.Independientemente de lo anterior, un aspecto prometendor de esta contienda ha sido el aumento de liderazgos de mujeres en la política. Hasta antes de esta elección solo había habido ocho gobernadoras en la historia de México. Todo parece indicar que esta elección nos dejará con entre cuatro y seis más, un incremento notable en tan solo un año. Es un avance importante porque muestra que la razón por la que no había más gobernadoras en México no era que el electorado no tuviera interés en votar por ellas, sino que los partidos no les daban oportunidad. Este año, la oportunidad se dio porque el Instituto Nacional Electoral exigió que cada partido registrara al menos siete candidatas a gobernadora.Es tiempo de nuevos liderazgos en México, de más mujeres y más políticos jóvenes, de más personas con una agenda social pero con una plataforma clara y no solo reducida a la confrontación con Morena y el presidente. Ese atajo de la oposición, comprobamos ahora, no es suficientemente efectivo. Los partidos políticos deben ponerse a trabajar más seriamente y de maneras más creativas. Es hora.Viri Ríos (@Viri_Rios) es analista política. More

  • in

    German Conservatives Appear to Lead in Last State Election Before National Vote

    The contest in an eastern state, a stronghold of the Alternative for Germany, had been closely watched for signs of the far-right party’s appeal.BERLIN — Voters in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt appeared in a Sunday vote to support a return of the ruling conservatives, which made strong gains in a contest that had been closely watched for signs of a far-right party’s strength months ahead of a national election.Initial partial returns suggested that the conservative Christian Democratic Union were poised to break a losing streak in state ballots and expand their past margins over the nationalist Alternative for Germany, or AfD.Although Saxony-Anhalt is one of the country’s smallest states, with only 1.8 million people eligible to cast ballots, many Germans were looking to Sunday’s vote for indications about the national election for a new Parliament on Sept. 26.The outcome on Sunday could bolster the campaign of Armin Laschet, the current leader of the Christian Democrats, who is hoping to replace Angela Merkel. She is stepping down after 16 years in office as chancellor.Mr. Laschet, 60, the governor of North Rhine-Westphalia, has struggled to gain traction across the country, especially in the states of the former East Germany, and the strong showing for his party in the last regional election before the national ballot could give his contest a boost.“Today is a clear win for the Christian Democrats,” said Volker Bouffier, the governor of the western state of Hesse and a senior member of the conservative party. “But the fight is still at the beginning, the fight for the democratic center.”Despite the conservatives’ apparent ability to attract more support, the early partial returns suggested that AfD remained firmly the second most popular party in the state, a position it won five years ago when it received nearly a quarter of votes in the Saxony-Anhalt state election, shocking the country and propelling the party from the far-right nationalist fringe onto the national stage.The following year, the AfD won more than 12 percent in the national election, becoming the largest opposition party in the national Parliament, with 88 seats.A polling place at an art history museum in Magdeburg, the capital of Saxony-Anhalt, on Sunday.John Macdougall/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSince then, Alternative for Germany has struggled to contend with a more extremist wing that has pulled the party branch in Saxony-Anhalt even further to the right, capturing the attention of the country’s domestic intelligence service. The state’s leaders in the party, along with those from the branches in Brandenburg and Thuringia, are under official scrutiny for their anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim statements. Whether the AfD at the national level will also be placed under observation is on hold, pending the outcome of a legal challenge.While much about the Saxony-Anhalt contest is unique to the region, heavily focused on local issues like schools and economic restructuring, a majority of voters told pollsters with infratest.dimap on Sunday they were satisfied with the work of their governor, Reiner Haseloff, a member of the Christian Democrats who sought to clearly distance his party from the AfD.“I am thankful that our image remains, we have a reputation of democracy here in Saxony-Anhalt that we upheld tonight,” Mr. Haseloff said after initial projections had shown his party the clear winner of the evening.Mr. Haseloff has been a strong champion of the states in eastern Germany, home to many regions that are still struggling with the fallout from economic restructuring more than 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.The persistent lack of jobs and economic infrastructure in those states, and a feeling that traditional parties do not take their concerns seriously, were other key factors that led many voters to shift their support to the AfD five years ago. That result forced Mr. Haseloff to form a coalition government across a wide political spectrum, including the center-left Social Democrats as well as the environmentalist Greens, in an effort to keep the far-right in the opposition.On Sunday, the Social Democrats suffered one of their worst showings in a state election, while the Greens were able to gain marginal support in the region, where they have traditionally struggled to attract voters.The other winner of the state ballot, along with the conservatives, appeared to be the pro-business Free Democratic Party, which voters returned to the statehouse for the first time in a decade. More

  • in

    Elecciones en Perú: un modelo económico en disputa

    En la segunda vuelta por la presidencia, la izquierda postula a un exmaestro sin experiencia de gobierno y la derecha a la hija de un exmandatario encarcelado.LIMA, Perú — En el papel, los candidatos en la boleta presidencial en Perú el domingo son un exmaestro de escuela de izquierda sin experiencia de gobierno y la hija de derecha de un expresidente encarcelado que dirigió el país con mano de hierro.Sin embargo, los votantes de Perú se enfrentan a una elección aún más elemental: seguir o no con el modelo económico neoliberal que ha dominado el país durante las últimas tres décadas, con algunos éxitos anteriores, pero que en última instancia, según los críticos, no ha proporcionado un apoyo significativo a millones de peruanos durante la pandemia.“El modelo ha fallado a un montón de gente”, dijo Cesia Caballero, de 24 años, una productora de video. La pandemia, dijo, “ha sido la gotita que rebosó el vaso”.Perú ha tenido la peor contracción económica de la región durante la pandemia, empujando a casi el diez por ciento de su población a la pobreza. El lunes, el país anunció que el número de muertos por el virus era casi el triple de lo que se había informado anteriormente, lo que elevó repentinamente su tasa de mortalidad per cápita a la más alta del mundo. Millones de personas se quedaron sin trabajo y muchas otras sin hogar.El candidato de izquierda, Pedro Castillo, de 51 años, activista sindical, promete modificar el sistema político y económico para hacer frente a la pobreza y la desigualdad, al sustituir la actual constitución por otra que otorgue al Estado un mayor papel en la economía.Su contrincante, Keiko Fujimori, de 46 años, promete mantener el modelo de libre mercado construido por su padre, Alberto Fujimori, a quien se le atribuyó inicialmente el mérito de haber hecho retroceder a las violentas insurgencias izquierdistas en la década de 1990, pero que ahora es despreciado por muchos como un autócrata corrupto.Keiko Fujimori y Pedro Castillo al final del debate la semana pasada en Arequipa.Sebastian Castaneda/ReutersLas encuestas muestran que los candidatos están casi empatados. Pero muchos votantes están frustrados por sus opciones.Castillo, quien nunca ha ocupado un cargo, se asoció con un exgobernador radical condenado por corrupción para lanzar su candidatura. Fujimori ha sido encarcelada tres veces en una investigación de lavado de dinero y se enfrenta a 30 años de prisión, acusada de dirigir una organización criminal que traficaba con donaciones ilegales de campaña durante una anterior candidatura presidencial. Ella niega los cargos.“Estamos entre el precipicio y el abismo”, dijo Augusto Chávez, de 60 años, un joyero artesanal de Lima que se inclina por votar nulo, una manera de protesta. El voto en Perú es obligatorio. “Los extremos hacen daño al país. Y son dos extremos”.Castillo y Fujimori obtuvieron cada uno menos del 20 por ciento de los votos en una saturada primera vuelta en abril que forzó la segunda vuelta del domingo.La elección sigue a un periodo de cinco años en el que el país ha pasado por cuatro presidentes y dos congresos. Y se produce en un momento en que la pandemia ha llevado el descontento de los votantes a nuevos niveles, poniendo de manifiesto la ira por la desigualdad en el acceso a los servicios públicos y la creciente frustración con los políticos señalados de escándalos de corrupción que parecen interminables y ajustes de cuentas políticos.El sistema hospitalario se ha visto tan afectado por la pandemia que muchas personas han muerto por falta de oxígeno, mientras que otras han pagado a los médicos para conseguir un lugar en las unidades de cuidados intensivos, solo para ser rechazadas en agonía.Cilindros de oxígeno vacíos en las afueras de Lima. El sistema hospitalario se ha visto tan afectado por la pandemia que muchos pacientes han muerto por falta de oxígeno.Marco Garro para The New York TimesGane quien gane el domingo, dijo la socióloga peruana Lucía Dammert, “el futuro del Perú es un futuro muy turbulento”.“Se han despertado las profundas inequidades y las profundas frustraciones de la población, y no hay una organización o un actor, llamémoslo empresa privada, Estado, sindicatos, alguien que puede darle voz a eso”.Cuando el padre de Fujimori llegó al poder en 1990 como un populista al margen de la política tradicional, no tardó en incumplir su promesa de no imponer las políticas de “choque” del libre mercado propuestas por su rival y economistas occidentales.Las medidas que aplicó —desregulación, recortes del gasto público, privatización de la industria— contribuyeron a poner fin a años de hiperinflación y recesión. La Constitución que promulgó en 1993 limitaba la capacidad del Estado para participar en actividades empresariales y acabar con los monopolios, reforzaba la autonomía del banco central y protegía las inversiones extranjeras.Los gobiernos posteriores firmaron más de una docena de acuerdos de libre comercio, y las políticas proempresariales de Perú fueron declaradas un éxito, y se les atribuyó la reducción récord de la pobreza en el país durante el auge de las materias primas de este siglo.Pero poco se hizo para solucionar la dependencia de Perú de las exportaciones de materias primas y las antiguas desigualdades sociales, o para garantizar la atención a la salud, la educación y los servicios públicos para su población.La pandemia expuso la debilidad burocrática de Perú. El país solo tenía una pequeña fracción de las camas de las unidades de cuidados intensivos que tenían sus pares, y el gobierno era lento e inconsistente a la hora de proporcionar incluso una pequeña ayuda en efectivo a los necesitados. Los trabajadores informales se quedaron sin red de seguridad, lo que llevó a muchos a recurrir a préstamos con altos intereses de bancos privados.Personas hacen fila frente a un banco en Lima. Perú ha sufrido la peor contracción económica en la región durante la pandemia, lo que ha llevado a casi el 10 por ciento de su población a la pobreza.Angela Ponce para The New York Times“La pandemia ha mostrado que el problema de fondo fue el orden de prioridades”, dijo David Rivera, economista y politólogo peruano. “Supuestamente habíamos ahorrado mucho tiempo para poder usarlo cuando hubiese crisis, y lo que hemos visto en el manejo de la pandemia… es que la prioridad seguía en lo macroeconómico y no en evitar que la gente muera y pase hambre”.Keiko Fujimori ha culpado de los problemas del país no a su modelo económico, sino a la forma en que los anteriores presidentes y otros líderes lo han utilizado. Aun así, asegura, se necesitan algunos ajustes, como aumentar el salario mínimo y los pagos de pensión para los pobres.Enmarcó su campaña contra Castillo como una batalla entre la democracia y el comunismo, y usó a veces como ejemplo al gobierno de Venezuela, de inspiración socialista, un país ahora inmerso en una crisis. Castillo, quien es de la sierra norte de Perú, se ganó el reconocimiento nacional al liderar una huelga sindical de maestros en 2017. Hace campaña con el sombrero de ala ancha de los campesinos andinos, y ha aparecido montando a caballo y bailando con sus partidarios.Keiko Fujimori en un acto de campaña. La candidata enfrenta 30 años de prisión por cargos de corrupción.John Reyes/EPA vía Shutterstock“Para nosotros que vivimos en el campo, queremos alguien que sabe lo que es trabajar en la chacra”, dijo Demóstenes Reátegui.Cuando comenzó la pandemia, Reátegui, de 29 años, fue uno de los miles de peruanos que caminaron y pidieron aventón desde Lima hasta la casa de su familia en el campo, después de que un confinamiento ordenado por el gobierno expulsó de sus puestos de trabajo a los trabajadores migrantes como él.Le llevó 28 días.Castillo ha revelado poco sobre cómo cumplir con las vagas promesas de garantizar que los recursos de cobre, oro y gas natural del país beneficien a los peruanos en general. Ha prometido no embargar los activos de las empresas, sino renegociar los contratos.Ha dicho que quiere detener las importaciones de productos agrícolas para apoyar a los agricultores locales, una política que los economistas han advertido que llevaría a un aumento de los precios de los alimentos.Pedro Castillo se dirige a sus seguidores en su último evento de campaña el jueves en Lima, Perú.Liz Tasa/ReutersSi gana, será el más claro repudio a la élite política del país desde que Alberto Fujimori asumió el poder en 1990.“¿Por qué tanta desigualdad? ¿No les indigna?”, dijo Castillo en un mitin celebrado hace poco en el sur de Perú, refiriéndose a las élites del país.“No nos pueden engañar más. El pueblo se ha despertado”, dijo. “¡Podemos recuperar el país!”.Julie Turkewitz es jefa del buró de los Andes, que cubre 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

  • in

    Despite It All, López Obrador Has My Vote

    MEXICO CITY — There seem to be just two types of people in Mexico: those who hate their president and those who love him.Even Andrés Manuel López Obrador himself seems to be fascinated by the division he inspires, fueling the polarization by casting Mexicans as either for the “Fourth Transformation” — the set of administrative, economic and social reforms that he promotes — or against it, with no room for nuance. Every morning the president turns his daily news conferences into a battlefield, singling out adversaries and laying the groundwork for the next 24 hours of verbal attacks.But this polarization is not new. Mexico stopped being one society a long time ago, splitting into two countries, so to speak, that struggle to coexist where they overlap. Both sides are genuinely convinced that their approach for ​​Mexico is the one that best suits the country. And they are both correct, except that they are talking about two different countries.In this Sunday’s midterm elections, these competing visions will face off in what is also a kind of plebiscite three years into the López Obrador administration. Although his Morena party appears to lead in the polls, it’s still unclear whether he can achieve a qualified majority in the legislative branch, which would allow him to modify the Constitution without negotiating with the opposition.Some believe that granting even more power to a president they consider authoritarian would endanger Mexican democracy. His supporters, for their part, are convinced that controlling Congress is necessary to undo the years of economic policies that have prevented poor Mexicans from prospering.Although I disagree with Mr. López Obrador’s personalist leadership style and some of his authoritarian actions, I believe his political aims are a legitimate attempt to afford greater representation to the Mexicans who have been left behind, many of them living in underdeveloped rural areas. More than three decades of an economic model that increased inequality has led to the fragmented and unequal Mexican society that we see today. Given that the opposition has thus far been unable to offer an alternative to this model, I am convinced that Mr. López Obrador is our only viable option.According to the National Institute of Statistics, 56 percent of Mexicans work in the informal sector and lack social security, and not by choice. Mr. López Obrador has enacted social programs that have benefited more than 20 million Mexicans, although it’s not enough for the estimated 52 million who live in poverty.So it’s no surprise that he has significant support among much of the population. That support is even easier to understand when you consider one of the milestones of contemporary Mexico: In 1992, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, betting that privatizing the economy and relying on market forces would modernize and grow the country.But something went awry in the calculations. Over the past 30 years, Mexico’s G.D.P. has grown at an average annual rate of only 2.2 percent, and there are enormous internal inequalities. The 10 richest people have the same wealth as the poorest half of the country, according to a 2018 Oxfam report.Mr. Salinas was unable or unwilling to rein in the elites who benefited from a system of protected monopolies, kickbacks and extraordinary profit margins derived from corruption and inefficiency.Mexico has also modernized its electoral system and built democratic institutions to promote competition, transparency and the balance of power. To the many Mexicans who saw that these supposedly democratic and transparent norms were applied selectively, the changes did not amount to much. Again, modernization seemed to pan out for some Mexicans, but had little effect for those who couldn’t take advantage of it — a majority of the population in need. For many, “democracy” is nothing but a word wielded in elections and in the discourse of leaders who have made themselves rich at the expense of the treasury. According to Latinobarómetro, a regional polling organization, just 15.7 percent of Mexicans said they were satisfied with their country’s form of democracy, making Mexico one of the countries in Latin America with the lowest levels of confidence in government.In 2018, when Mr. López Obrador ran for the presidency for a third time, the indignation and rage of those left behind had reached a boiling point. The signs of discontent were visible: historically low approval of government performance and communities that were willing to take justice into their own hands. Mr. López Obrador offered a political pathway to dissipate this tension and won the election with more than 50 percent of the vote.Since then he has radically increased the minimum wage; established about $33 billion in annual direct transfers and handouts to disadvantaged groups; and begun ambitious projects, like the Mayan train and the Dos Bocas refinery, in regions traditionally overlooked by central governments. Mr. López Obrador’s administration’s financial policy is practically neoliberal, with its aversion to indebtedness; inflation control; austerity and balance in public spending; and rejection of private sector expropriations. During the pandemic, he has been harshly criticized across the political spectrum for his refusal to expand fiscal spending to counteract its disproportionate impact on people, especially those who did not benefit from direct Covid relief.Many describe Mr. López Obrador’s style of governance and his social and economic projects as populist in nature. In attempts to fend off criticism, he’s gone as far as attacking the independent press and anti-corruption groups. The small portion of the population that prospered these past decades has good reason to be irritated and concerned.But in short, Mr. López Obrador is a less radical politician than he’s accused of being and is more prudent with his management of government than he’s given credit for.It’s understandable how the 61 percent of the population that backs him, people belonging to groups that have the most reason to be dissatisfied with the system, assumes that the president is on their side. Mr. López Obrador is not a threat to Mexico, as his adversaries claim. The real threat is the social discontent that made him president.A failure to resolve this issue puts everyone at risk. The two Mexicos must come together. Right now, despite it all, only Mr. López Obrador is in a position to make that possible for his fellow citizens. On Sunday we will know how many of them concur.Jorge Zepeda Patterson (@jorgezepedap) is a Mexican economist and sociologist. He founded the digital daily SinEmbargo and is the author of “Los amos de México,” among other books. This essay was translated from the Spanish by Erin Goodman.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

  • in

    Elecciones en México y Perú: qué está en juego

    El TimesElecciones del 6 de junio: México y Perú van a las urnasLabores previas a la elección del 6 de junio en el Instituto Estatal Electoral de Chihuahua en Ciudad Juárez, MéxicoJose Luis Gonzalez/ReutersLas dos jornadas electorales han sido percibidas como referendos sobre el manejo de la pandemia y un modelo económico que parece incapaz de mitigar la desigualdad.Las elecciones de hoy, domingo 6 de junio, serán cruciales para millones de latinoamericanos que acudirán a las urnas en México y Perú. América Latina es una de las regiones más afectadas por la pandemia de COVID-19: alrededor de una tercera parte de las muertes causadas por el virus en el mundo se han registrado en países latinoamericanos, a pesar de que solo el 8 por ciento de la población mundial vive ahí. El impacto regional del virus al sur del río Bravo es notable si se considera que, mientras Estados Unidos se prepara para volver a la normalidad pospandémica, países como Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica y Uruguay atraviesan su peor brote.Mexicanos y peruanos no son los únicos que han votado desde que inició la pandemia. En total, entre 2020 y 2022, se celebran 9 comicios presidenciales a lo largo de 25 meses en América Latina.Ecuador eligió en abril a un exbanquero conservador como su presidente después de una campaña que fue crucial para el movimiento indígena. En noviembre, Honduras y Nicaragua tendrán elecciones presidenciales.Además, este año, los chilenos aprobaron en un plebiscito reescribir su Constitución y Argentina irá a las urnas en octubre para las legislativas de medio término.¿Qué está en juego en las elecciones de hoy? Aquí tenemos las claves. México a elecciones de medio términoLa votación será una prueba de la popularidad del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador, quien busca consolidar la mayoría que hoy tiene su partido en el Congreso para avanzar en su proyecto político en los tres años restantes de su sexenio. Para alcanzar una supermayoría en la Cámara baja (334 escaños) el partido de López Obrador, Morena, ha formado coaliciones con el Partido Verde y el Partido del Trabajo.La jornada del domingo será el ejercicio electoral más grande de la historia: 93 millones de mexicanos están convocados a las urnas para decidir sobre unos 20.000 cargos, entre ellos los 500 asientos de la Cámara de Diputados, 15 gubernaturas y miles de puestos locales.López Obrador, quien gobierna el país desde 2018, ha emprendido lo que llama “la cuarta transformación” del país con la promesa de combatir la corrupción y la violencia y redistribuir la riqueza entre los más vulnerables. La austeridad es parte clave de su mandato.Los críticos del presidente han señalado que hasta ahora no ha cumplido con sus promesas electorales y señalan que, en materia de migración, cedió a las demandas del expresidente Donald Trump. Sin embargo, López Obrador llega la mitad de su mandato con altos índices de popularidad.México ha sufrido los embates del coronavirus sin cerrar fronteras ni suspender actividades como muchos de sus vecinos con un manejo muy cuestionado de la emergencia sanitaria. El brote ha infectado a 2,3 millones de mexicanos y ha cobrado la vida de más de 221.695 personas.Los resultados comenzarán a darse a conocer la tarde del domingo y el Instituto Nacional Electoral hará un anuncio hacia las 11 p. m., hora del centro de México, en cadena nacional. Perú en segunda vueltaLos peruanos elegirán a su próximo presidente en un balotaje entre Pedro Castillo, un exmaestro rural y dirigente sindical que postula con un partido de extrema izquierda, y Keiko Fujimori, heredera del legado del exmandatario encarcelado Alberto Fujimori y ella misma acusada por crimen organizado. Ninguno de los dos era el favorito en primera vuelta, cuando se presentaron 18 candidatos.La votación en segunda vuelta se ha convertido en una suerte de referéndum sobre el modelo económico del país, que en los últimos 20 años ha logrado un crecimiento ejemplar en la región pero no ha conseguido eliminar la desigualdad. El Congreso, definido en la primera vuelta, estará dominado por Perú Libre (37 escaños de 130), el partido de Castillo; Fuerza Popular, el partido de Fujimori, tendrá 24 congresistas en la nueva legislatura.Perú ha tenido cuatro presidentes en el último quinquenio: Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, el último mandatario electo en contienda regular, renunció en 2018 después de varios intentos del Congreso por destituirlo; su vicepresidente y sucesor, Martín Vizcarra, quien gozaba de aprobación incluso en los primeros meses de la pandemia, tuvo el mismo destino. La turbulencia política del último quinquenio ha estado marcada por escándalos de corrupción y un creciente descontento popular con la clase gobernante. Tres expresidentes de Perú han estado investigados por casos de corrupción y uno más, Alan García, se suicidó cuando las autoridades estaban a punto de arrestarlo. A pesar de las rápidas medidas para contener el avance del coronavirus, el país ha sido uno de los más afectados por la pandemia a nivel mundial. Recientemente las autoridades sanitarias reconocieron que la cantidad de fallecimientos por COVID-19 era de más de 180.764, casi el triple de lo reflejado en el registro oficial.Los resultados empezarán a darse a conocer en el sitio del Jurado Nacional de Elecciones conforme vayan cerrando las mesas de votación la tarde del domingo. More

  • in

    Left and Right Clash in Peru Election, With an Economic Model at Stake

    A leftist former schoolteacher with no governing experience and the right-wing daughter of a jailed ex-president face off for president on Sunday.LIMA, Peru — On paper, the candidates on the presidential ballot in Peru on Sunday are a leftist former schoolteacher with no governing experience and the right-wing daughter of a jailed ex-president who ran the country with an iron fist.Yet voters in Peru face an even more elemental choice: whether to stick with the neoliberal economic model that has dominated the country for the past three decades, delivering some earlier successes but ultimately failing, critics say, to provide meaningful support to millions of Peruvians during the pandemic.“The model has failed a lot of people,” said Cesia Caballero, 24, a video producer. The virus, she said, “has been the last drop that tipped the glass.”Peru has endured the worst economic contraction in the region during the pandemic, pushing nearly 10 percent of its population back into poverty. On Monday, the country announced that its virus death toll was nearly triple what had been previously reported, suddenly raising its per capita mortality rate to the highest in the world. Millions have been left jobless, and many others evicted.The leftist candidate, Pedro Castillo, 51, a union activist, has promised to overhaul the political and economic system to address poverty and inequality, replacing the current constitution with one that will grant the state a larger role in the economy.His opponent, Keiko Fujimori, 46, has vowed to uphold the free-market model built by her father, Alberto Fujimori, who was initially credited with beating back violent leftist insurgencies in the 1990s, but who is now scorned by many as a corrupt autocrat.Keiko Fujimori and Pedro Castillo at the end of a debate last week in Arequipa.Sebastian Castaneda/ReutersPolls show the candidates in a near tie. But many voters are frustrated by their options.Mr. Castillo, who has never held office before, partnered with a radical former governor convicted of corruption to launch his bid. Ms. Fujimori has been jailed three times in a money laundering investigation and faces 30 years in prison, accused of running a criminal organization that trafficked in illegal campaign donations during a previous presidential bid. She denies the charges.“We’re between a precipice and the abyss,” said Augusto Chávez, 60, an artisanal jeweler in Lima who said he might cast a defaced ballot as a form of protest. Voting is mandatory in Peru. “I think extremes are bad for a country. And they represent two extremes.”Mr. Castillo and Ms. Fujimori each won less than 20 percent of votes in a crowded first-round race in April that forced Sunday’s runoff election.The election follows a rocky five-year period in which the country cycled through four presidents and two Congresses. And it comes as the pandemic has pushed voter discontent to new levels, fueling anger over unequal access to public services and growing frustration with politicians ensnared in seemingly endless corruption scandals and political score settling.The hospital system has been so strained by the pandemic that many have died from lack of oxygen, while others have paid off doctors for spots in intensive care units — only to be turned away in agony.Empty oxygen cylinders on the outskirts of Lima. The hospital system has been so strained by the pandemic that many patients have died from lack of oxygen.Marco Garro for The New York TimesWhoever wins on Sunday, said Peruvian sociologist Lucía Dammert, “the future of Peru is a very turbulent future.”“The deep inequities and profound frustrations of the people have stirred, and there’s no organization or actor, whether private companies, the state, unions, to give voice to that.”When Ms. Fujimori’s father swept to power in 1990 as a populist outsider, he quickly reneged on a campaign promise not to impose free-market “shock” policies pushed by his rival and Western economists.The measures he used — deregulation, government spending cuts, privatization of industry — helped end years of hyperinflation and recession. The constitution he ushered through in 1993 limited the state’s ability to take part in business activities and break up monopolies, strengthened the autonomy of the central bank and protected foreign investments.Subsequent centrist and right-wing governments signed more than a dozen free trade agreements, and Peru’s pro-business policies were declared a success, credited with Peru’s record poverty reduction during the commodities boom of this century.But little was done to address Peru’s reliance on commodity exports and longstanding social inequalities, or to ensure health care, education and public services for its people.The pandemic exposed the weakness of Peru’s bureaucracy and the underfunding of its public health system. The country had just a small fraction of the intensive care unit beds its peers had, and the government was slow and inconsistent in providing even small cash assistance to the needy. Informal workers were left with no safety net, leading many to turn to high-interest loans from private banks.People lining up outside a bank in Lima. Peru has endured the worst economic contraction in the region during the pandemic, pushing nearly 10 percent of its population back into poverty.Angela Ponce for The New York Times“The pandemic showed that the underlying problem was the order of priorities,” said David Rivera, a Peruvian economist and political scientist. “Supposedly we’d been saving money for so long to use in a crisis, and what we saw during the pandemic was that the priority continued to be macroeconomic stability, and not keeping people from dying and going hungry.”Ms. Fujimori has blamed the country’s problems not on its economic model, but on the way past presidents and other leaders have used it. Even so, she says, some adjustments are needed, like raising the minimum wage and pension payments for the poor.She framed her campaign against Mr. Castillo as a battle between democracy and communism, sometimes using Venezuela’s socialist-inspired government, now mired in crisis, as a foil. Mr. Castillo, who is from Peru’s northern highlands, gained national recognition by leading a teachers union strike in 2017. He campaigns wearing the wide-brimmed hat of Andean farmers, and has appeared on horseback and dancing with supporters.Keiko Fujimori at a campaign event. She faces 30 years in prison on corruption charges.John Reyes/EPA, via Shutterstock“For us in the countryside, we want someone who knows what it’s like to work the fields,” said Demóstenes Reátegui.When the pandemic began, Mr. Reátegui, 29, was one of thousands of Peruvians who trekked and hitchhiked his way from Lima to his rural family home after a government lockdown pushed migrant workers like him out of their jobs.It took him 28 days.Mr. Castillo has revealed little about how to make good on vague promises to ensure the country’s copper, gold and natural gas resources benefit Peruvians more broadly. He has promised not to seize companies’ assets, but to renegotiate contracts instead.He has said he wants to restrict imports of agricultural products to support local farmers, a policy that economists have warned would lead to higher food prices.Pedro Castillo addressing supporters at a final campaign event on Thursday in Lima, Peru. Liz Tasa/ReutersIf he wins, it will be the clearest repudiation of the country’s political elite since Mr. Fujimori took office in 1990.“Why do we have so much inequality? Does it not outrage them?” Mr. Castillo said at a rally in southern Peru recently, referring to the country’s elites.“They can’t lie to us anymore. The people have woken up,” he said. “We can take this country back!” More

  • in

    Meadows Pressed Justice Dept. to Investigate Election Fraud Claims

    Emails show the increasingly urgent efforts by President Trump and his allies during his last days in office to find some way to undermine, or even nullify, the election results.WASHINGTON — In Donald J. Trump’s final weeks in office, Mark Meadows, his chief of staff, repeatedly pushed the Justice Department to investigate unfounded conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election, according to newly uncovered emails provided to Congress, portions of which were reviewed by The New York Times.In five emails sent during the last week of December and early January, Mr. Meadows asked Jeffrey A. Rosen, then the acting attorney general, to examine debunked claims of election fraud in New Mexico and an array of baseless conspiracies that held that Mr. Trump had been the actual victor. That included a fantastical theory that people in Italy had used military technology and satellites to remotely tamper with voting machines in the United States and switch votes for Mr. Trump to votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.None of the emails show Mr. Rosen agreeing to open the investigations suggested by Mr. Meadows, and former officials and people close to him said that he did not do so. An email to another Justice Department official indicated that Mr. Rosen had refused to broker a meeting between the F.B.I. and a man who had posted videos online promoting the Italy conspiracy theory, known as Italygate.But the communications between Mr. Meadows and Mr. Rosen, which have not previously been reported, show the increasingly urgent efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies during his last days in office to find some way to undermine, or even nullify, the election results while he still had control of the government.Mr. Trump chose Mr. Meadows, an ultraconservative congressman from North Carolina, to serve as his fourth and final chief of staff last March. A founder of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, Mr. Meadows was among Mr. Trump’s most loyal and vocal defenders on Capitol Hill, and had been a fierce critic of the Russia investigation.Mr. Meadows’s involvement in the former president’s attack on the election results was broadly known at the time.In the days before Christmas, as Mr. Trump pressed the lead investigator for Georgia’s secretary of state to find “dishonesty,” Mr. Meadows made a surprise visit to Cobb County, Ga., to view an election audit in process. Local officials called it a stunt that “smelled of desperation,” as investigations had not found evidence of widespread fraud.Mr. Meadows also joined the phone call that Mr. Trump made on Jan. 2 to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, in which Mr. Trump repeatedly urged the state’s top elections official to alter the outcome of the presidential vote.Yet the newly unearthed messages show how Mr. Meadows’s private efforts veered into the realm of the outlandish, and sought official validation for misinformation that was circulating rampantly among Mr. Trump’s supporters. Italygate was among several unfounded conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 elections that caught fire on the internet before the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Those theories fueled the belief among many of the rioters, stoked by Mr. Trump, that the election had been stolen from him and have prompted several Republican-led states to pass or propose new barriers to voting.The emails were discovered this year as part of a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into whether Justice Department officials were involved in efforts to reverse Mr. Trump’s election loss.“This new evidence underscores the depths of the White House’s efforts to co-opt the department and influence the electoral vote certification,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the committee, said in a statement. “I will demand all evidence of Trump’s efforts to weaponize the Justice Department in his election subversion scheme.”A spokesman for Mr. Meadows declined to comment, as did the Justice Department. Mr. Rosen did not respond to a request for comment.The requests by Mr. Meadows reflect Mr. Trump’s belief that he could use the Justice Department to advance his personal agenda.On Dec. 15, the day after it was announced that Mr. Rosen would serve as acting attorney general, Mr. Trump summoned him to the Oval Office to push the Justice Department to support lawsuits that sought to overturn his election loss. Mr. Trump also urged Mr. Rosen to appoint a special counsel to investigate Dominion Voting Systems, an election technology company.During the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 attack, Mr. Trump continued to push Mr. Rosen to do more to help him undermine the election and even considered replacing him as acting attorney general with a Justice Department official who seemed more amenable to using the department to violate the Constitution and change the election result.None of the emails show Jeffrey Rosen, then the acting attorney general, agreeing to open investigations suggested by Mr. Meadows, and former officials and people close to him said that he did not do so.Ting Shen for The New York TimesThroughout those weeks, Mr. Rosen privately told Mr. Trump that he would prefer not to take those actions, reiterating a public statement made by his predecessor, William P. Barr, that the Justice Department had “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”Mr. Meadows’s outreach to Mr. Rosen was audacious in part because it violated longstanding guidelines that essentially forbid almost all White House personnel, including the chief of staff, from contacting the Justice Department about investigations or other enforcement actions.“The Justice Department’s enforcement mechanisms should not be used for political purpose or for the personal benefit of the president. That’s the key idea that gave rise to these policies,” said W. Neil Eggleston, who served as President Barack Obama’s White House counsel. “If the White House is involved in an investigation, there is at least a sense that there is a political angle to it.”Nevertheless, Mr. Meadows emailed Mr. Rosen multiple times in the end of December and on New Year’s Day.On Jan. 1, Mr. Meadows wrote that he wanted the Justice Department to open an investigation into a discredited theory, pushed by the Trump campaign, that anomalies with signature matches in Georgia’s Fulton County had been widespread enough to change the results in Mr. Trump’s favor.Mr. Meadows had previously forwarded Mr. Rosen an email about possible fraud in Georgia that had been written by Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who worked with the Trump campaign. Two days after that email was sent to Mr. Rosen, Ms. Mitchell participated in the Jan. 2 phone call, during which she and Mr. Trump pushed Mr. Raffensperger to reconsider his findings that there had not been widespread voter fraud and that Mr. Biden had won. During the call, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Raffensperger to “find” him the votes necessary to declare victory in Georgia.Mr. Meadows also sent Mr. Rosen a list of allegations of possible election wrongdoing in New Mexico, a state that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani had said in November was rife with fraud. A spokesman for New Mexico’s secretary of state said at the time that its elections were secure. To confirm the accuracy of the vote, auditors in the state hand-counted random precincts.And in his request that the Justice Department investigate the Italy conspiracy theory, Mr. Meadows sent Mr. Rosen a YouTube link to a video of Brad Johnson, a former C.I.A. employee who had been pushing the theory in videos and statements that he posted online. After receiving the video, Mr. Rosen said in an email to another Justice Department official that he had been asked to set up a meeting between Mr. Johnson and the F.B.I., had refused, and had then been asked to reconsider.The Senate Judiciary Committee is one of three entities looking into aspects of the White House’s efforts to overturn the election in the waning days of the Trump administration. The House Oversight Committee and the Justice Department’s inspector general are doing so as well.Mr. Rosen is in talks with the oversight panel about speaking with investigators about any pressure the Justice Department faced to investigate election fraud, as well as the department’s response to the Jan. 6 attack, according to people familiar with the investigation.He is also negotiating with the Justice Department about what he can disclose to Congress and to the inspector general given his obligation to protect the department’s interests and not interfere with current investigations, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Mr. Rosen said last month during a hearing before the oversight committee that he could not answer several questions because the department did not permit him to discuss issues covered by executive privilege.Mr. Durbin opened his inquiry in response to a Times article documenting how Jeffrey Clark, a top Justice Department official who had found favor with Mr. Trump, had pushed the Justice Department to investigate unfounded election fraud claims. The effort almost ended in Mr. Rosen’s ouster.Last month, Mr. Durbin asked the National Archives for any communications involving White House officials, and between the White House and any person at the Justice Department, concerning efforts to subvert the election, according to a letter obtained by The Times. He also asked for records related to meetings between White House and department employees.The National Archives stores correspondence and documents generated by past administrations. More

  • in

    State Election Officials Are Under Attack. We Will Defend Them.

    Tucked into many of the election laws Republicans are pushing or enacting in states around the country are pernicious provisions threatening punishment of elections officials and workers for just doing their jobs.Laws like those already passed in Republican-controlled states like Georgia and Iowa, no matter their stated intent, will be used as a weapon of intimidation aimed at the people, many of them volunteers, charged with running fair elections at the local and state levels. By subjecting them to invasive, politically motivated control by a state legislative majority, these provisions shift the last word in elections from the pros to the pols. This is a serious attack on the crucial norm that our elections should be run on a professional, nonpartisan basis — and it is deeply wrong.It is so wrong that having once worked together across the partisan divide as co-chairs of the 2013-14 Presidential Commission on Election Administration, we have decided to come together again to mobilize the defense of election officials who may come under siege from these new laws.Bear in mind that this is happening after the 2020 election, run in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic, went off much better than expected. Voter turnout was the highest since 1900. A senior official in the Trump administration pronounced it the “most secure election in American history,” with “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.” Multiple recounts, contests and court cases brought by former President Donald Trump and his allies failed to persuade any courts or state officials to overturn the results of any election.The new laws establish civil penalties for technical infractions and subject officials to threats of suspension and even criminal prosecution. Iowa state election officials are now subject to fines of $10,000 and suspension for any actions that “hinder or disregard the object of the law.” They are also subject to criminal penalties when seeking to address disruptive conduct by partisan poll watchers. In Georgia, an election official threatened with suspension may appeal, but the law restricts state-financed support for the individual’s legal defense. The Georgia secretary of state, the chief election official, has been removed from the chairmanship of the State Elections Board, demoted to nonvoting ex officio status.Other states are considering laws containing similar threats to the impartial administration of elections. It can be no surprise that officials around the country are also experiencing threats and harassment ranging from physical confrontation to social media postings of personal information from their Facebook pages. And this dangerous behavior is spreading throughout the electoral process. Last month, election officials in Anchorage, Alaska, issued a report describing the “unprecedented harassment of election officials” during the conduct of a mayoral runoff election.The partisan efforts to control election outcomes will result in the corruption of our system of government, which is rooted in fair, free elections. We say this as longtime election lawyers from opposing political parties. In jointly leading the presidential commission, we worked with numerous local and state elections officials. We saw firsthand the dedication and professionalism they brought to their jobs. They work hard with inadequate resources and are rarely praised for what goes well and are quickly blamed for what goes wrong.In 2020, after the pandemic struck, these officials performed the near-impossible task of locating replacements for thousands of poll workers, reconfiguring polling places to offer safe voting spaces for voters and poll workers and ramping up effective mail voting where allowed under state law.Now their nonpartisan performance of their duties is under attack — even to the point of being criminalized. So we are committed to providing these officials a defense against these attacks and threats by recruiting lawyers around the country, Democrats and Republicans, to establish a network that would provide free legal support to election officials who face threats, fines or suspensions for doing their jobs. This national network will monitor new threats as they develop and publicly report on what it learns.The defense of the electoral process is not a partisan cause, even where there may be reasonable disagreements between the parties about specific voting rules and procedures. The presidential commission we led concluded that “election administration is public administration” and that whenever possible, “the responsible department or agency in every state should have on staff individuals who are chosen and serve solely on the basis of their experience and expertise.” To serve voters, those officials would require independence from partisan political pressures, threats and retaliatory attacks.These state laws, and the blind rage against our election officials that they encourage or reinforce, will corrode our electoral systems and democracy. They will add to the recent lamentable trend of experienced officials’ retiring from their active and vitally needed service — clearing the way for others less qualified and more easily managed by partisans. Early surveys show that in our nation’s larger jurisdictions, up to a quarter of experienced election officials are planning to leave their jobs. A primary reason they cite: “the political environment.”No requirement of our electoral process — of our democracy — is more critical than the commitment to nonpartisanship in the administration of our system for casting and counting of ballots now being degraded by these state laws. This challenge must be strongly and forcefully met in every possible way by Democrats and Republicans alike.Bob Bauer, a former senior adviser to the Biden campaign, is a professor at New York University School of Law and a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.” Ben Ginsberg practiced election law for 38 years representing Republican candidates and parties.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