Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Israel Moves Toward Coalition Deal That Could Sideline Netanyahu

      by

      Naftali Bennett, an ultranationalist, and Yair Lapid, a centrist, have moved closer to forming a fragile coalition government that would oust the longtime prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.JERUSALEM — The longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history, Benjamin Netanyahu, faced the most potent threat yet to his grip on power Sunday after an ultranationalist power-broker, Naftali Bennett, said his party would work with opposition leaders to build an alternative government to force Mr. Netanyahu from office.If the maneuvering leads to a formal coalition agreement, it would be an uneasy alliance between eight relatively small parties with a diffuse range of ideologies. The prime minister’s post would rotate between two unlikely partners: Mr. Bennett, a former settler leader who rejects the concept of a sovereign Palestinian state and champions the religious right — and Yair Lapid, a former television host who is considered a voice of secular centrists.“I will work with all my power to form a national unity government together with my friend Yair Lapid,” Mr. Bennett said in a speech Sunday night.He added, “If we succeed, we will be doing something huge for the state of Israel.”Mr. Bennett’s announcement came shortly after an armed conflict with Palestinians in Gaza that many thought had improved Mr. Netanyahu’s chances of hanging on to his post.Because of the profound ideological differences within the emerging coalition, which would include both leftist and far-right members, its leaders have indicated their government would initially avoid pursuing initiatives that could exacerbate their political incompatibility, such as those related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and focus instead on infrastructure and economic policy.If forced from office, Mr. Netanyahu is unlikely to leave politics. Either way, however, he has left a lasting legacy. He shifted the fulcrum of Israeli politics firmly to the right — Mr. Bennett’s prominence being a prime example — and presided over the dismantling of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, all while scoring groundbreaking diplomatic agreements with four Arab states, subverting conventional wisdom about Israeli-Arab relations.By frequently attacking the judiciary and remaining in office while on trial for corruption, Mr. Netanyahu also stands accused of undermining central tenets of liberal democracy.And he is not going without a fight: Immediately after Mr. Bennett’s announcement, Mr. Netanyahu responded with a speech of his own, calling on right-wing lawmakers within the opposition alliance to abandon Mr. Bennett for his own right-wing bloc.“This is not unity, healing or democracy,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “This is an opportunistic government. A government of capitulation, a government of fraud, a government of inertia. A government like this must not be formed.”Ideological differences between the opposition parties were the main reason Mr. Bennett waited for so long since a general election in March to throw his lot in with Mr. Lapid. He was under pressure from his own party not to break with Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious alliance, a factor he hinted at in his speech on Sunday.“This is the most complex decision I’ve made in my life, but I am at peace with it,” said Mr. Bennett.Any agreement reached in the coming days would need to be formally presented to Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, by Wednesday night. It would still then need to be endorsed by a vote in the Knesset, the Hebrew name for the Israeli Parliament.Under the deal being discussed, Mr. Bennett would lead the government first, probably until the fall of 2023, while Mr. Lapid would most likely serve as foreign minister, according to two people involved in the negotiations. The pair would then swap roles until a new general election in 2025. Mr. Bennett’s party won fewer seats than Mr. Lapid’s in a March election, but he holds significant leverage during the negotiations because no government can be formed without him.Their government would rely on the support of a small Arab Islamist party, Raam, to give it the 61 seats needed to control the 120-seat Parliament. Raam is not likely to play a formal role in the coalition, but is expected to support the new government at the Knesset confidence vote.Mr. Netanyahu would remain as caretaker prime minister until the parliamentary vote.The negotiations for this coalition were almost derailed by the recent conflict with Hamas, the Palestinian group that controls the Gaza Strip. That made Mr. Bennett leery of forming a government reliant on Raam, which has roots in the same religious stream as the Gaza militants.If approved, the deal would mark the end of the Netanyahu era — at least for now. Supporters of the proposed coalition hope it could break the deadlock that has stymied government action for more than two years.Mr. Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing Likud party, has been in office since 2009, following an earlier stint between 1996 and 1999. His 15 years in power make him Israel’s longest-serving leader; it is one year longer than the combined terms of Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion.Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesNear the end of Mr. Netanyahu’s tenure, he secured a major diplomatic prize with a set of eye-catching normalization agreements between Israel and four Arab states. They shattered assumptions that Israel would stabilize its relationship with the Arab world only once it made peace with the Palestinians.Under Mr. Netanyahu, Israel also scored diplomatic victories with the United States: The Trump administration moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem, closed its consulate for Palestinian affairs, shut down the Palestinian mission in the United States, and took a more combative line against Israel’s enemy Iran.But the Israeli-Palestinian peace process collapsed under Mr. Netanyahu’s watch, with formal negotiations petering out seven years ago. And tensions with Israel’s Arab minority increased, leading to widespread Arab-Jewish mob violence during the recent conflict.His government also enacted a law in 2018 that downgraded the status of the Arabic language in Israel and said that only Jews had the right to determine the nature of the Israeli state.Through an electoral agreement with far-right politicians, which ultimately allowed them to enter Parliament, Mr. Netanyahu also contributed to a rise in far-right influence on public discourse.And by clinging to power while standing trial on corruption charges, critics said, he undercut the rule of law and undermined democratic norms — all while being unable to give his full attention to governing, distracted as he was by such a serious court case.Mr. Netanyahu has denied the charges and defended his right to clear his name without leaving office.The case, and the polarizing effect it has had on the Israeli electorate, played a major role in Israel’s political instability over the past four years.Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to stay in office divided voters less by political belief than by their attitude toward him. In particular, it split the Israeli right, and made it harder for both Mr. Netanyahu and his opponents to form a working majority.That led to four inconclusive elections in two years, each of which ended with no faction being big enough to win power alone. The deadlock left the country without a state budget, among other problems.A desire to avoid a fifth election was a primary reason behind Mr. Bennett’s decision, he said. “It is either a fifth election or a unity government,” he said.After the first two elections in 2019, Mr. Netanyahu was left in charge as a caretaker prime minister. Following the third vote, in March 2020, he formed a government of national unity with his main rival, Benny Gantz, a shaky deal that collapsed last December when the two factions failed to agree on a state budget.Election billboards in Tel Aviv in February 2020. A government of national unity Mr. Netanyahu formed with his rival Benny Gantz, pictured far left, collapsed in December.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesA similar deadlock initially emerged after the most recent election in April. Mr. Rivlin, the president, granted Mr. Netanyahu, whose party finished first, an initial mandate to try to form a governing coalition. But he failed after a far-right group refused to enter a coalition reliant on Raam, which holds the balance of power.That gave Mr. Lapid — whose centrist party, Yesh Atid, or There Is a Future, came in second — the chance to form a government instead. His efforts were initially stymied by the outbreak of fighting between Israel and the Palestinians, which prompted his likely coalition partner, Mr. Bennett, to back out of coalition talks.But a cease-fire made it easier for the pair to restart negotiations, leading to the move on Sunday.Mr. Lapid, 57, is a former broadcaster who entered politics in 2012 and served as finance minister under Mr. Netanyahu in 2013.He was best known for moves to reshape a welfare system that gives money to devout Jewish men who study religious texts instead of seeking paid employment. Subsequent administrations reversed most of Mr. Lapid’s changes.During the campaign, Mr. Lapid, 57, pledged to preserve checks and balances and to protect the judiciary.Mr. Bennett, 49, is a former Israeli Army commando and software entrepreneur. He lives in Israel, but once led the Yesha Council, an umbrella group representing Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank.Until January, his party was in a formal alliance with Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right leader. Mr. Bennett opposes Palestinian statehood and favors formally annexing large parts of the West Bank.Isabel Kershner and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela: el largo retorno a la negociación

      by

      Con la designación de nuevas autoridades electorales, Venezuela inicia, otra vez, la posibilidad de una negociación para salir de la crisis.Los planes opositores —desde la imposición de un gobierno interino hasta una supuesta implosión dentro del sector militar, pasando por la fantasía de una invasión desde Estados Unidos comandada por Donald Trump— fracasaron rotundamente. Y las maniobras del chavismo por conseguir alguna mínima legitimidad internacional y por lograr eliminar las sanciones internacionales al régimen no han tenido ningún éxito. Ambos bandos, nuevamente, están obligados a regresar a lo que detestan: reconocerse y tratar de llegar a un acuerdo.Las dudas, entonces, vuelven a dar vueltas en el aire: ¿Es posible, acaso, confiar en el chavismo, que ha desarrollado un modelo autoritario y ha demostrado que solo usa la negociación para ganar tiempo y buscar legitimidad? ¿Es posible confiar en una oposición dividida, con planes muy diversos, que ya ha demostrado que no es capaz de negociar ni siquiera consigo misma? En ambos casos, la respuesta es no.Quizás ninguno de los dos lados entiende algo indispensable: sobre la mesa de negociación no están las intenciones. La confianza no se debe poner en lo que piensa o en lo que desea cada bando sino en los acuerdos concretos que se establezcan para mejorar, aunque sea poco, las condiciones de los venezolanos; y en los procedimientos y en las garantías que haya para que estos acuerdos se cumplan. No es lo ideal. Es lo posible.Una de las consecuencias más peligrosas y nefastas de la polarización política es el purismo moral: el proceso que sacraliza la propia opción política convirtiendo cualquier postura diferente en una suerte de pecado ético, de enfermedad social. Tanto el chavismo como la oposición hablan desde el “lado correcto de la historia”, se proclaman y declaran como estandartes de verdades inamovibles, como destinos religiosos. Desde estas perspectivas, obviamente, cualquier tipo de acuerdo con un adversario solo es una forma de traición.Pensar que la única negociación posible implica la salida de Nicolás Maduro de la presidencia y la renuncia del chavismo a todas sus cuotas de poder es tan ingenuo e irreal como, del otro lado, proponer como condiciones para la negociación el levantamiento inmediato de las sanciones sobre Venezuela y el reconocimiento internacional de los poderes ilegalmente constituidos. Hay que comenzar por cambiar el punto de partida. “Todavía ninguna de las partes quiere terminar de aceptar que la negociación no es una opción sino que es la única opción verdadera”, ha dicho el experto en políticas públicas Michael Penfold.La tragedia del país en tan enorme como compleja: abarca una crisis política que mantiene dos gobiernos paralelos, dos asambleas y un proyecto en marcha de un parlamento comunal; una debacle económica casi absoluta, con cifras récord de inflación y un aparato productivo destruido. La situación social es alarmante, a nivel de emergencia humanitaria, agravada además por las sanciones y la pandemia. Y a esto habría que sumarle los problemas con el crimen organizado, con el narcotráfico, con la guerrilla colombiana, con la minería ilegal en el Amazonas venezolano…El empleo sistemático de la represión y de la censura estatal, la persecución institucional de cualquier disidencia, el ataque a medios de comunicación y organizaciones no gubernamentales, han permitido al chavismo consolidar una dictadura eficaz, que garantice su permanencia en el poder. Pero sigue siendo gobierno pésimo, corrupto y negligente, incapaz de resolver los problemas del país. El chavismo puede administrar el caos pero no puede conjurarlo ni solucionarlo.Este país inviable forma parte del dilema interno del chavismo y también de cualquier posible negociación. La situación de la gran mayoría de la población, sometida por la pobreza y con el riesgo de la pandemia, es cada vez más crítica. Durante un tiempo, tanto el chavismo como la oposición usaron esta realidad como elemento de presión. Por fin, ahora el primer punto del acuerdo parece estar centrado en la atención a la urgente necesidad de atención médica y alimenticia de los venezolanos. Un programa de vacunación masiva solo debe ser el inicio de un plan conjunto, que reúna a todos los sectores de la sociedad alrededor de esa prioridad.Nada garantiza que estos esfuerzos, sin embargo, signifiquen el inicio del camino hacia la reinstitucionalización o hacia la vuelta a la democracia en el país. Venezuela no parece estar cerca de una transición. Pero ciertamente hay un cambio importante en el escenario político. Aunque el chavismo se encuentre más consolidado internamente en su modelo autoritario, sigue sin poder resolver su problema con la comunidad internacional. Eso lo obliga a negociar.La oposición está en una posición menos ventajosa. Necesita negociar para, entre otras cosas, reinventarse. Y tal vez debería empezar por dar la cara ante la ciudadanía, por ofrecer una disculpa y un argumento que haga más digerible el salto que va del “cese de la usurpación” a la “mesa de negociación”. El largo retorno al verbo negociar supone un cambio profundo en el ánimo colectivo y demanda una explicación.La designación de las nuevas autoridades del Consejo Nacional Electoral, aun teniendo una mayoría chavista, abre la posibilidad de garantizar unas elecciones más equilibradas y transparentes, confiables, con observación internacional; permite retomar el camino de la política y del voto. También vuelve a abrir un viejo dilema: La negociación con el chavismo y la participación de la oposición en un proceso electoral ¿legitiman la dictadura? Sí, probablemente. Pero también permiten conquistar otros espacios, crear y establecer otras relaciones, interactuar de otra manera con la sociedad civil organizada, generar una comunicación distinta y directa con la población. No solo es un tema de estrategia sino de redefinición del proceso, de la acción política. Como dice la politóloga Maryhen Jiménez: “Si la democracia es el destino, la democracia también tiene que ser la ruta hacia ella”.Una mesa de negociación no es una fiesta. Es una reunión forzada, donde además intervienen muchos otros actores, donde existen distintos niveles de interacción y debate. ¿Hasta dónde está dispuesto a ceder y a perder el chavismo? Es muy difícil saberlo. De entrada, de seguro solo intenta eliminar las sanciones sin arriesgar su control autoritario en el país. La oposición y la ciudadanía pueden enfrentar esto negociando y presionando.No hay otra manera de hacer política que la impureza. La única forma de intervenir en la historia es contaminándose con ella. No existe otra alternativa.Alberto Barrera Tyszka (@Barreratyszka) es escritor venezolano. Su libro más reciente es la novela Mujeres que matan. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Iran Clears Way for Hard-line Judiciary Chief to Become President

      by

      Potential rivals to Ebrahim Raisi, Ayatollah Khamenei’s favored choice, were barred from the June 18 election, and the remaining candidates do not present a serious challenge.Candidates in Iran’s presidential elections have always been strictly vetted, and those deemed insufficiently loyal to the Islamic Revolution were disqualified. Within those limits, contenders held differing views on easing domestic restrictions or dealing with the West, and sometimes the victor was even a surprise.Now even minor differences that give voters some semblance of a choice appear to have been erased.The candidates in the election scheduled for June 18 either espouse deeply conservative positions aligned with those of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or are little known, with no voter base and no chance to win.And one candidate in particular is leading: Ebrahim Raisi, the current judiciary chief, appointed by Mr. Khamenei, who has a long history of involvement in human rights abuses, and who lost in 2013 in a surprise victory by the outgoing president, Hassan Rouhani.With no credible challenger, Mr. Raisi is expected to win this time. Any serious competition has been winnowed from the race. Even some members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, known for their strong hostility to any political dissent, described the election as anti-democratic.The Guardian Council, a 12-person body responsible for approving candidates, disqualified anyone who might shift the vote against Mr. Raisi, who, as a prosecutor and as a judge, has overseen the executions of minors and dissidents.On Thursday, Mr. Khamenei publicly endorsed the Guardian Council’s final decision. He said council members had conducted their duty and called on the public to “not listen to anyone saying it’s useless, don’t go to the election polls, we won’t go.”Ebrahim Raisi, the current judiciary chief, is expected to win the race.Arash Khamooshi for The New York TimesThe council’s decision and Mr. Khamenei’s endorsement of it have rattled political circles. The reformist party announced for the first time that it has no candidate in the race.Analysts say Mr. Raisi’s presidency would finalize a plan years in the making for conservatives to consolidate power, take over all branches of the government, marginalize any reform faction and severely restrict the internal power fights within the Islamic Republic.“Today we are witnessing an unabashed attack on any semblance of republican principles in favor of the absolute power of the supreme leader,” said Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University.The appearance of an engineered victory for Mr. Raisi, 60, has prompted louder and wider calls for an election boycott and increased voter apathy among ordinary Iranians. Polls predict a low turnout. The most recent survey conducted this week by the Student Polling Agency, ISPA, showed only 37 percent of voters want to cast ballots.With Mr. Khamenei’s allies already in control of the Parliament and judiciary, the takeover of the presidency could reshape the current negotiations on how to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement.President Donald Trump renounced the pact three years ago, in what he called a “maximum pressure” campaign to squeeze more concessions from Iran, but his policy appears to have only strengthened the hard-liners.President Biden wants to seek a wider agreement with Iran that would constrain not only its nuclear program, but also its missile development and its involvement in conflicts around the region. But Mr. Raisi and his faction oppose making concessions to the West.What particularly astonished political circles in Iran was the Guardian Council’s disqualification of prominent political figures such as Ali Larijani, a centrist conservative and former speaker of the Parliament, and the current vice president, Eshaq Jahangiri, considered a reformist most closely aligned with Mr. Rouhani.Centrist conservative Ali Larijani, center, registering in Tehran.Arash Khamooshi for The New York TimesMr. Larijani belongs to a very prominent political family, and was appointed by Mr. Khamenei to lead negotiations for a 25-year economic deal between Iran and China. Mr. Larijani was seen as a candidate who could attract reformist votes.While a former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a former government minister, Mostafa Tajzadeh, the leading reformist candidate, were also disqualified, their removal from the race came as little surprise. Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was once considered close to Mr. Khamenei, has increasingly taken the posture of an eccentric opposition figure. Mr. Tajzadeh, who was imprisoned for several years for his political activism, had called for a revision of the Constitution.“This is an election coup,” Mr. Tajzadeh said on Wednesday in a virtual town hall he hosted on the Clubhouse communal chat site, attended by at least 12,000 Iranians. “We must all speak up and say people will not accept the legitimacy of the result. People will not participate in this theater.”Mr. Ahmadinejad has also said he will not vote and has denounced the Guardian Council. “Why don’t you just take out the Republic altogether and say this regime is all ours and nobody has the right to even protest?” said Mr. Ahmadinejad in a live Instagram talk he hosted on Wednesday with an audience of thousands.Even Mr. Raisi voiced some concern and said that he had lobbied with the Guardian Council to reinstate some of the candidates so that elections would be more competitive.Officials registering presidential candidates in Tehran.Arash Khamooshi for The New York TimesThe council has not made public its reasons for disqualifying candidates and has only said that it approved those deemed suitable to lead the country in the current circumstances.In early May the council announced new eligibility requirements to narrow the race, excluding anyone who holds dual citizenship, is younger than 40 or older than 75, has a detention record or lacks governing experience.Kian Abdullahi, the editor in chief of the Tasnim News Agency, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, criticized the Council’s final list of candidates on Twitter, a striking note of discord from a group that has long symbolized Iran’s power base.He said candidates must be acceptable to the public and that “the people must decide.”Elections in the Islamic Republic have never been considered democratic by Western definition. Government opponents cannot run, and the process of vetting candidates and counting ballots is not transparent. In 2009, the election result was widely seen as rigged and led to months of anti-government unrest.But even so, in elections past candidates representing different factions and policies were on the ballot, and the victor was not a foregone conclusion — rivals campaigned and competed vigorously. The public was engaged. Celebrities and pop stars were even enlisted to endorse contenders.The months leading to presidential elections in Iran typically brought a party-like atmosphere to cities where young people rallied in the streets at night carrying posters, chanting slogans and waving flags of their favorite candidate. The security apparatus tolerated these fleeting moments of open civic discourse, partly because they gave the appearance of a population that endorsed the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy and participated in its elections.Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressing supporters in Tehran in May. Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was disqualified from running again, said he would not vote and slammed the Guardian Council.Arash Khamooshi for The New York TimesThis time around, election fever appears extremely subdued — partly because of the pandemic but also from an underlying apathy. Tehran and most cities are quiet, campaign posters are scarce and rallies and town halls are held online. Iranians have struggled through a year of pandemic mismanagement, slow vaccine enrollment, a collapsing economy and social oppression.“I don’t know anyone around me who is voting,” said Aliyar, a 44-year-old engineer who asked that his full name not be used for fear of retribution. “Because it has proved over and over to us that nothing will change with us voting. It’s hopeless.”Besides Mr. Raisi, the other candidates are Mohsen Rezaee, former commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards; Abdolnasser Hemmati, the governor of Iran’s central bank; Mohsen Mehralizadeh, a former governor of Isfahan Province; Amirhossein Ghazizadeh-Hashemi, a hard-line lawmaker; Alireza Zakani, a former hard-line lawmaker; and Saeed Jalili, a hard-line conservative and former nuclear negotiator.Mr. Raisi, Mr. Rezaee and Mr. Jalili have run unsuccessfully for the presidency before. The other candidates are not widely known.Abdullah Momeni, a Tehran-based political activist aligned with the reform faction, said the final list showed that the hard-line conservatives had strengthened power.The Islamic Republic, he said, had “displayed a total disregard for public opinion and it’s doing it without paying any cost and crushing all potential chances of dissent.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      México y la decadencia de la política

      by

      La política cayó al terreno del freak show en México. El mercado electoral del país es un espectáculo que nada más parece necesitar los personajes rimbombantes de Federico Fellini.Ahí está Lucía Pino, una modelo apodada la Grosera, que promete implantes de senos si la eligen diputada. O Samuel García, un muchacho que dice haber sufrido la mano dura de su padre cuando lo despertaba de madrugada para ir al campo de golf y ahora ha reclutado a roqueros avejentados para que oficien de claque musical de su candidatura a gobernador del estado de Nuevo León. Y luego está el Tinieblas, el luchador de la máscara dorada, otro ejemplo del ridículo normalizado. Su partido, Redes Sociales Progresistas, el mismo que promueve a La Grosera, dice defender los derechos de las minorías, pero cuando le preguntaron cómo integraría a la comunidad LGTBIQ+ a su gobierno en la delegación Venustiano Carranza de Ciudad de México, el Tinieblas no supo qué responder. Después de que le repitieron la pregunta, dijo que protegería a las mujeres.Una panoplia de outsiders —actores, luchadores, cantantes o influencers en las listas de candidatos— se ofrece en las elecciones del 6 de junio en México como alternativa a la omnipotencia del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador y a una oposición sospechosa de casi todo. Ese circo prefigura un futuro desastroso para México. El nihilismo, combinado con la dinámica de las redes sociales, está creando un escenario desalentador y degradante. Más que democracia, vodevil electoral.Internet ha permitido la movilización de causas loables como el activismo de justicia racial, pero también, como decía Umberto Eco, le dio una audiencia a idiotas e imbéciles, y al vecino enojado. Su impulso a la rabia social y apatía general podría alimentar un voto suicida: elegir a quien sea con tal de acabar con la clase política tradicional.Estas candidaturas silvestres, posibles en buena medida por las redes —dice mucho que un partido se llame Redes Sociales Progresistas— han banalizado la política cuando más se necesita vigilancia democrática, debates programáticos y planes concretos para resolver los problemas de fondo de México.Claro, si esa oferta electoral está ahí es porque alguien ha sospechado —quizás con certeza— que el absurdo suma votos. No hay nada consolador en eso: México se apresta a definir una elección crítica —que dé la mayoría absoluta a AMLO en el Congreso o introduzca resistencia a su determinación hegemónica— con votantes agobiados de una clase política decadente y una degradación general de la discusión pública. La campaña electoral mexicana, además de sangrienta e insegura (han sido asesinados más de una decena de candidatos) es un programa de televisión de variedades largo y malo. Y mientras la política del show atrae la atención y el morbo, López Obrador avanza sus ataques contra sus críticos y los organismos de control.La mismísima política creó las condiciones para que la antipolítica se apropie de la política. Partidos que por décadas abusaron del poder para entronizar una casta autorrenovable (el PRI), formaciones incapaces de ofrecer un cambio sostenible (el PAN) y opositores que fracasaron en crear una vía progresista (el PRD), lanzaron al electorado hacia Morena, un movimiento personalista creado por López Obrador, quien cree ser un padre fundador.Suele suceder: cuando la oferta electoral tradicional defrauda sin cesar, las sociedades se corren al margen, y hasta 2018, AMLO era el outsider. Pero cuando también falla esa opción limítrofe, la gente puede saltar los límites. Entonces brota el freak show de la Grosera y su oferta de cirugías, golfistas roqueros, luchadores desinformados. Poco se discute de ideas. La conversación gira alrededor de lo estrambótico y febril; estéril para el debate pero productivo para la distracción.El Tinieblas, un luchador que está en la contienda por la alcaldía de la delegación Venustiano Carranza en Ciudad de MéxicoMario Guzman/EPA vía ShutterstockEl nihilismo preinternet se agotaba en las discusiones de los cafés, pero ahora las redes sociales le han dado un amplificador inigualable. No las demonizaré, porque sus costados positivos son significativos, pero Twitter, Facebook e Instagram han facilitado tanto la aparición de figuras escasas de planes y motivadas por los likes como la propagación del ciudadano desencantado, ese elector al que le da igual votar a cualquiera nuevo porque lo viejo está podrido.No es nuevo. En 2001, miles de indignados desafiaron a la clase política en Argentina con su grito “Que se vayan todos”. Pero el fenómeno es todavía más antiguo. En los años cuarenta del siglo pasado, el periodista romano Guglielmo Giannini creó la publicación L’Uomo Qualunque (El hombre común), una usina contra las élites políticas. Su lenguaje era sencillo y su eslogan, un canto al nihilismo: “Abajo todos”. El movimiento que engendró el semanario de Giannini legó un término que se sigue usando, el qualunquismo, que se convirtió en sinónimo de apatía política.La apatía y el enojo siempre buscan un camino y cuando no hay canales, se hará uno. Las candidaturas más o menos espontáneas son buenas para vehiculizar el hartazgo del momento pero no para resolver la gestión de la cosa pública. Candidatos milagreros siempre hubo; hoy son más porque la crisis de representatividad es extendida y son más visibles porque la posibilidad de hacerse oír es ubicua gracias a internet.Es una situación arriesgada. Manejar un Estado requiere burocracias entrenadas y capacidad de generar consensos. El qualunquista no ofrece eso; nada más acabar con lo conocido. Un eslogan, no un plan. Implantes, rocanrol, máscaras vacías.Cacarear en las redes para obtener votos no es difícil, pero ofrecerse como candidato antisistema, ganar y luego decepcionar en el poder por incapacidad o conveniencia —siendo cooptado o absorbido por las viejas dinámicas sistémicas— llevará la desazón social mucho más lejos. Si los candidatos outsiders potencializados por las redes sociales, como la Grosera, el Tinieblas o García, representan ya saltarse los márgenes del sistema, ¿qué queda?: ¿Autócratas francos? ¿Militares? ¿O una vuelta a partidos renovados?México no tiene una salida fácil en la elección de junio. La apatía política y el voto suicida llevados al extremo con el freak show de la política del espectáculo no es la solución a la rabia de los ciudadanos. Es apenas un escalón más para un “que se vayan todos” aún más nocivo.Diego Fonseca (@DiegoFonsecaDF) es escritor y editor. Es director del Seminario Iberoamericano de Periodismo Emprendedor en CIDE-México y maestro de la Fundación Gabo. Voyeur es su libro más reciente. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Qué pasa en Bielorrusia? Una guía básica

      by

      Un avión que no llegó a su destino planeado, un periodista disidente detenido y todo lo que pasó antes del “secuestro de Estado” del que todos hablan.El aterrizaje forzoso de un vuelo comercial el domingo, considerado por varios países como un secuestro de Estado, ha puesto a Bielorrusia y a su presidente, Alexander Lukashenko, de nuevo en primer plano a nivel mundial.Se produjo a menos de un año de que los bielorrusos se enfrentaron a una violenta represión policial al protestar por los resultados de unas elecciones que muchos gobiernos occidentales tacharon de farsa.Según los gobiernos occidentales, el vuelo de Ryanair procedente de Atenas y con destino a Vilna, Lituania, fue desviado a Minsk con la excusa de una amenaza de bomba, con el objetivo de detener a Roman Protasevich, un periodista disidente de 26 años. En un video publicado por el gobierno, confesó haber participado en la organización de “disturbios masivos” el año pasado, pero sus amigos dicen que la confesión se hizo bajo amenaza.Para quienes intentan ponerse al día, he aquí el contexto que los ayudará a seguir a la par de la historia en curso. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      What’s Happening in Belarus? Here Are the Basics.

      by

      For those trying to catch up on the “state hijacking” of an airplane, the arrest of a dissident and what preceded it.The forced landing of a commercial flight on Sunday, seen by several countries as a state hijacking, has put Belarus and its strongman president, Alexander G. Lukashenko, in a new global spotlight.It came less than a year after Belarusians were met with a violent police crackdown when they protested the results of an election that many Western governments derided as a sham.The Ryanair flight from Athens to Vilnius, Lithuania, was diverted to Minsk using the ruse of a bomb threat, according to Western governments, with the goal of detaining Roman Protasevich, a 26-year-old dissident journalist. In a video released by the government, he confessed to taking part in organizing “mass unrest” last year, but friends say the confession was made under duress.For those trying to catch up, here’s the background that will help you follow along with the ongoing story. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      She Was Supposed to Become Prime Minister but Was Locked Out of Parliament

      by

      A constitutional crisis deepened in the Pacific Island nation of Samoa, which now has two competing governments and two claimants to the prime ministership.Fiame Naomi Mata’afa walked toward Samoa’s beehive-shaped Parliament House on Monday morning intending to be sworn in as the first female prime minister in the Pacific Island nation’s 56-year history.What she and her fellow party members found instead were locked doors. The speaker of Parliament had issued orders to keep them out. And so deepened a constitutional crisis that has convulsed this long-stable nation and thrown into doubt whether Ms. Mata’afa, whose party won the April 9 election, would actually take office.Still shut out of Parliament by Monday evening, Ms. Mata’afa’s party held its own swearing-in under a tent erected right outside. As the sun set, she took the oath of office, flanked by members of her party dressed in cardinal-red blazers and traditional men’s wraparound skirts known as ie faitaga.With the party’s defiant act, the country now has two competing governments and two claimants to the prime ministership. Each side has accused the other of carrying out a coup.The incumbent prime minister, Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, who has led Samoa for 23 years, and members of his political party were nowhere in sight during Ms. Mata’afa’s ceremony. He emerged afterward, delivering a speech in which he said he would not recognize her appointment and called her swearing-in an act of “treason.”“Leave it to us to handle this situation,” he said, vowing to take action against what he called “the highest form of illegal conduct.”The turmoil is a stark departure from Samoa’s ordinarily peaceful political history. Mr. Tuilaepa, 76, has been leader since 1998, and his party has held power for nearly four uninterrupted decades.While its neighbor Fiji has been rocked by a series of coups since the 1980s, Samoa — a country of about 200,000 people with no military and a largely unarmed police force — has had stability, although at the cost of being a virtual one-party state. Samoa’s incumbent prime minister, Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, right, has refused to resign, preventing the peaceful transition of power.Kena Betancur/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThose costs have become clear as Mr. Tuilaepa has made no secret of the fact that he would not recognize a government led by Ms. Mata’afa and her party, known as FAST. The party was formed last year in response to what it saw as the erosion of rule of law under Mr. Tuilaepa, the world’s second-longest-serving prime minister.A tortuous seven weeks have followed the April election as Ms. Mata’afa has grappled with Mr. Tuilaepa, the leader of the Human Rights Protection Party.A coalition led by FAST won 26 of the 51 seats in the election. After a legal challenge appeared to give the H.R.P.P. an additional seat, leaving both parties with 26, the appointed head of state called for a rerun. The judiciary rejected the request and ejected the 26th H.R.P.P. member of Parliament. Some 28 legal challenges to the election result have yet to be determined.Over the weekend, the machinations reached a head. Late on Saturday night, the head of state, an ordinarily ceremonial position, issued a proclamation suspending Parliament “until such time as to be announced and for reasons that I will make known in due course.”The proclamation, Ms. Mata’afa, 64, told The New York Times, was tantamount to a coup.The suspension would have made it impossible for Parliament to convene within a mandated 45-day window after the election. But Samoa’s Supreme Court, in an extraordinary session on Sunday, dismissed the proclamation as unlawful and cleared the way for Parliament to convene. That was followed by a notice from the Parliament speaker, who said he would not abide by the court’s ruling.On Monday morning, Ms. Mata’afa and her party members approached Parliament House as police officers stood outside. The clerk of Parliament refused to open the doors, leaving them stranded and preventing the peaceful transition of power. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, dressed in his red robe and powdered wig, also walked to the Parliament building, confirming with a pull on the door that it was locked.The ceremony held on Monday was a last-ditch attempt to comply with the 45-day constitutional requirement. It was a high-stakes gamble, said Michael Field, a journalist and expert on the region, warning that the ultimate loser risked going to jail. “It’s winner takes all,” he wrote on Twitter.Samoa’s chief justice, Satiu Simativa Perese, arriving at Parliament in Apia on Monday to find the doors closed.Keni Lesa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA statement issued on Monday evening by the country’s attorney general seemed to bear out that assessment. The official, Savalenoa Mareva Betham Annandale, an ally of Mr. Tuilaepa’s, declared the swearing-in unlawful and said everyone involved was subject to civil and criminal prosecution.The delays could put Mr. Tuilaepa closer to his goal of a return to the polls.“A second election would be an absolute farce,” said Patricia O’Brien, an expert on the region at the Australian National University. “You can’t trust any of these officials anymore to run a clean election because Tuilaepa wants a foregone conclusion — which is that he wins.”For Samoans on either side of the political divide, seeing Ms. Mata’afa, a respected veteran of Samoan politics, locked outside Parliament House was a highly emotional moment, said Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson, a scholar and journalist based in Samoa. Feelings ran especially high as people there began to sing historical Samoan protest songs, she said.“People were singing songs about our Mau movement,” she said, referring to Samoa’s peaceful movement for independence. “One of the leaders of the Mau movement was Fiame’s grandfather. No matter which side you’re on, that is just a very, very emotional thing to witness.”For the most part, she said, supporters of both parties have remained loyal to their side throughout the process, though some H.R.P.P. voters appeared to be deterred by what seemed to many to be a power grab by Mr. Tuilaepa.Around the region, governments encouraged Samoan officials to follow the will of the people.Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand voiced her support for Samoa’s judiciary. “Here in New Zealand, we have complete faith in Samoa’s institutions, and that includes its judiciary,” she told reporters. “Our call would be to maintain and uphold the rule of law and that democratic outcome.”In a Twitter post, Australia’s foreign minister, Marise Payne, echoed her sentiments. “Australia values our close friendship with Samoa,” she wrote. “It is important that all parties respect the rule of law and democratic processes. We have faith in Samoa’s institutions including the judiciary.” More