Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Late-Night Proclamation Blocks a Woman From Leading Samoa

      by

      Fiame Naomi Mata’afa was set to be sworn in Monday as the country’s first new prime minister in 22 years, until the head of state suspended Parliament.AUCKLAND, New Zealand — The Pacific island nation of Samoa hurtled toward a constitutional crisis on Saturday, when the country’s head of state announced that he was suspending Parliament just two days before it was scheduled to swear in the country’s first new prime minister in more than two decades.In a single-page letter posted to Facebook, Va’aletoa Sualauvi II, Samoa’s appointed head of state, announced that Parliament would be suspended “until such time as to be announced and for reasons that I will make known in due course.”Samoa’s Parliament had been scheduled to officially reopen on Monday, fulfilling a constitutional requirement to convene within a 45-day window of the April 9 election. Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, the leader of the newcomer party FAST, was to be sworn in as prime minister, ending Prime Minister Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi’s 22-year tenure.Speaking by phone from Samoa early Sunday, Ms. Mata’afa said the proclamation was an attempt to prevent her party from taking power. “This is a coup,” she said. Mr. Tuilaepa could not be reached for comment.Ms. Mata’afa and her party, which campaigned on a platform of upholding the rule of law, have not yet given up hope of a legal resolution. Anticipating a roadblock before the proclamation was issued, the party’s lawyers had prepared paperwork to challenge it. They want the country’s Supreme Court to issue a ruling that would allow Parliament to convene on Monday as scheduled.“They’re going to have a meeting with the chief justice tomorrow,” Ms. Mata’afa said. “We’ll be filing for the revoking of this new proclamation.”It is unclear whether Mr. Sualauvi, whose role is ordinarily ceremonial, has the legal authority to suspend Parliament indefinitely or prevent it from meeting within the 45 day window. The latest uproar comes after weeks of breakneck events. A surprise dead heat in the electoral contest resulted in more than 20 legal challenges, including an attempt to block Ms. Mata’afa’s appointment by using a law meant to ensure that more women serve in Parliament.To comply with the law, Mr. Tuilaepa had argued, Parliament needed to add another seat, appointing an additional woman from his party, an act that would have given his party enough seats to hold onto the premiership. The argument and a call for a second election were ultimately rejected by the courts.Elections in Samoa, a country of 200,000 people, are not generally so explosive. Over the past four decades, Mr. Tuilaepa’s Human Rights Protection Party has consistently won a comfortable majority, helped by legal changes that have made dissent increasingly difficult and have blocked fledgling opposition parties from gaining traction.Prime Minister Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi in 2018.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesBut this year has been different. Three highly divisive bills that were widely seen as overreach on the part of the government led to Ms. Mata’afa’s defection from the Human Rights Protection Party last year.A seasoned and well-liked politician, Ms. Mata’afa has been in politics for more than 30 years and is the daughter of Samoa’s first prime minister. Her defection to FAST helped propel it to electoral success, eventually inspiring an influential independent candidate to throw his weight behind the party, breaking a tie.“Everything about this election — people have talked about it being unprecedented, but now we’re entering a truly unprecedented state,” said Kerryn Baker, an expert on the region at the Australian National University. “Things could be sorted out through alternate channels, but we’re essentially beyond the Constitution now.”Mr. Tuilaepa has made it clear that he will not vacate his position without a fight. Despite Ms. Mata’afa’s party holding 26 of the 51 available seats, Mr. Tuilaepa and his party had rejected multiple calls to concede.“They do not want to relinquish power,” said Patricia O’Brien, an expert on autocracy in the Pacific at the Australian National University. “Before, it was a veneer of democracy, but now, this is real democracy in action — where power has to be relinquished and where the voice of the people is not to Tuilaepa’s liking. He’s not doing what he should be doing, and that’s conceding.”Addressing the country in a live Facebook broadcast late Saturday, a serene but tired-looking Ms. Mata’afa urged Samoans to keep the peace. “We just need to try and find a rational way to get through this, and keep people calm,” she said afterward. “There are still some sensible people around, and we can work through this.”But she acknowledged that Mr. Tuilaepa and his supporters could still resist the transition of power: “We had been expecting that some other effort would be made, and I expect even more to come along.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Florida Republican Byron Donalds on Election Integrity and Trump’s Fraud Claims

      by

      Byron Donalds, a newly elected congressman, says Republicans are trying to secure elections, not suppress votes. And he disputes Donald Trump’s influence on trust.In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, Republicans have pushed sweeping changes to voting laws across the country, using false claims of voter fraud as their justification. Even in Florida, a state Donald J. Trump won easily, Republicans enacted a more targeted overhaul of elections law in lock step with Mr. Trump’s allegations. Several voting rights groups have sued the state, claiming that the new measures disenfranchise voters in the name of appeasing the former president.Representative Byron Donalds, a newly elected Florida Republican, believes the reaction to the new law is misguided and overblown. In an interview with The New York Times, he sought to explain Republican actions as distinct from Mr. Trump’s false claims, and in line with voter concerns. He argued that his state’s new law, and similar ones across the country, would inspire renewed confidence in the election process.Mr. Donalds won his House seat after serving in the Florida Legislature. He grew up in Brooklyn and worked in finance and banking before entering politics.The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.What did you think of how the 2020 election went in Florida? Did you think it was administered properly, with no evidence of fraud?It was administered very properly. We had the best election laws in the country. Our secretary of state or local officials follow the law, as you know, as it’s written, to a T, and we were pretty much done by 10 o’clock that night.Do you believe the false claims by former President Trump that the 2020 election was rigged?I think what happened is that in several key counties and key states, election law was not followed. That’s clear. It’s crystal clear. You have a federal judge in Michigan that said as much. You have two counties in Wisconsin where the local election officials chose not to follow election laws and cited Covid-19 as the reason. You have a State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that did not follow election law written by the state legislature there. You had the issues in Arizona, you had the consent decree in Georgia — that’s clear violations of the Constitution.Do you think, as former President Trump states, this amounts to widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election?When you violate election law, and you have other bodies or other positions in our governmental apparatus that do not follow the written law, that leads to problems.So I just want to make sure I have this straight. You think that those problems happened elsewhere in the country, but not in Florida?Because in Florida, we followed our law.The Florida Legislature, where you once served, just passed an election reform measure. Why was that necessary if there was no fraud?The right to vote is sacrosanct. We all believe that. And the security of that ballot is also sacrosanct.And there should not be some other party that comes in between the voter casting their ballot and the election officer receiving that ballot and counting it. So I think getting rid of ballot harvesting is a great thing that we did. The other thing was that we tightened up the process of our people getting mail-in ballots.You know, I think the process we have now going forward in our state is actually a good one. Everybody’s free to request their ballot. They prove who they are, that’s a good thing. They receive their ballot, they vote. It’s all about security.Ballot harvesting was already outlawed in parts of the state. And new lawsuits claim that the real impact of the identification measures will be another barrier suppressing Black and Latino voters. What’s your response to that?I don’t pay any attention to those claims. I think the state will win in court. Voter ID claims — about how it disenfranchises minority communities — have been widely debunked. It is actually quite simple to get an ID. You’re talking to somebody who’s had a photo ID since he was 13 years old, when I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. It’s not the issue that it’s always made up to be, you know, by my friends on the other side of the aisle.In Florida, Republicans have taken advantage of things like ballot harvesting. They’ve made inroads with Black and Latino voters to win elections. Is there any risk this new law hurts your own party?No, I haven’t heard that.It was Republicans who brought back ballot harvesting in Florida under former Governor Bush and embraced widespread mail-in voting. What changed from then to now?I mean, OK, but that doesn’t mean I have to support it.I understand. I’m interested in what you think changed in the party from then to now, for a whole community of Republicans to say that’s something that they don’t support?I think the premise of your question is wrong. It’s not about what changed in the party. Political parties are made up of people, individuals who vote and politicians and candidates who run for office. That’s the basis of a political party. There’s no monolithic line of thinking that shifts every two to four years. That’s not the case. I can’t speak to what happened when former people were elected. I can speak to myself and what I’ve done..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Do you think that those laws would have happened without the false claims from former President Trump about a rigged election? It does seem to stretch belief to say none of these new laws are related to politics and Trump. Is that what we’re saying?Looking at our election process is something, specifically in Florida, we continuously do. We passed an election law before 2020. We passed it in 2018 and 2019. We have reforms, I believe, in 2014 or 2015. So Florida, we’ve always been looking at our election laws, doing everything we can to make sure it’s a better law going forward.So as the supposition of your question, that we anticipated what Donald Trump might say, in the winter of 2020. And that’s why we made election law changes in 2019 and 2018. Come on, seriously?Have you followed any of the new election laws in other states?Yes, I think Georgia actually has a very good law. And frankly, it’s sad and, in my view, disgusting that the president referred to it as Jim Crow. It cheapens the history in our country with respect to actual Jim Crow, a disgusting relic of our past. And to try to equate that to what Georgia did, to me, is just completely illogical. It reeks of just the nastiest politics that you could ever want to bring up, to try to divide Americans and divide Georgians.How can you be so sure that these laws are strong enough to stop voter fraud but weak enough to not create new barriers for communities who have had it hard to vote?Those are not on the same playing field, they simply are not.When it comes to these extended lines that have happened in the past in Georgia — I’ve watched the news, too — you have to go look at the local official, what did they do and what did they not do to prepare for people wanting to cast ballots. The one thing we have to acknowledge, and you have to be honest about this, you have seen a rise in Black voting in our country in the last 15 years. And that is a great thing — as a Black man, I’m 100 percent behind that. But it is the responsibility of local officials to make sure that they have the additional polling places they need or that their equipment is sound. And I will tell you, Georgia’s law, or Florida’s law, provides so much access to the ballots, far more than in the state of New York, far more than the state of Delaware.You’re framing these new measures as a way to restore confidence in the democratic process and system. But what I don’t hear you saying — or any Republican, really — is that they think the former president impacted trust in that system. Do you think that his words have negatively impacted trust in the democratic system?No. No, I don’t. I think if you look at what the president has talked about, the president has talked about wanting to make sure that the elections are secure. That’s what he’s talked about more than anything else.I think we both know the former president has said a lot more than that.Four years ago, this time, what were we talking about? About how the Russians tamper with our elections, and that went on for two and a half years. I don’t have a problem with these political debates. Let’s have them. That’s great. But all I’m saying is, let’s — let’s understand the entire history.I was asking about Trump’s impact on trust.All that matters: Is it easier for white people or Black people, whether they are rich, middle income or poor, to cast ballots in the state of Georgia? And Florida? Yes or no? Is it easier? The answer is yes. Is it less easy for them to cast the same ballot in Delaware or New York? The answer is yes.Last question: Do you see the former president’s rhetoric as at least connected to the events that happened on January 6, even if you don’t see them affecting trust in the democratic system overall?No, I don’t. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Daniel Ortega impedirá elecciones libres en Nicaragua

      by

      MANAGUA — Los procesos electorales en América Latina se dan de manera más o menos imperfecta, pero se dan; y, salvo pocas excepciones, los votos de los ciudadanos se cuentan de manera transparente. Son sistemas democráticos que aún no logran resolver problemas de fondo en nuestras sociedades, y en algunos países la credibilidad de las instituciones se ha deteriorado, pero los electores pueden corregir el rumbo. No es el caso de Nicaragua.En noviembre de este año se celebran elecciones para presidente y vicepresidente, y para renovar el total de los asientos de la Asamblea Nacional. La decisión cerrada de Daniel Ortega, quien llegó por segunda vez a la presidencia en 2007, es reelegirse una vez más, junto con su esposa, la vicepresidenta Rosario Murillo. Así alcanzaría veinte años consecutivos de mando, sin contar los diez que gobernó en el periodo de la revolución en los años ochenta, con lo que superaría con creces a cualquier miembro de la familia Somoza, que gobernó el país directa o indirectamente entre 1937 y 1979.En las últimas semanas, el plan maestro fraguado para impedir unas elecciones democráticas se ha echado a andar, y sus resultados empiezan a ser palpables.¿Se puede hablar de elecciones justas, libres y transparentes en Nicaragua? Los hechos lo niegan.La rebelión cívica iniciada en abril de 2018, con un saldo de al menos 328 asesinados, principalmente jóvenes, fue dominada por medio de la represión violenta, de acuerdo con la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Ahora toca el turno de actuar a la maquinaria política. Estas elecciones están orquestadas para anular la participación de las fuerzas que representen un riesgo real de cambio político, apartar a los candidatos que verdaderamente sean un desafío a la continuidad de Ortega e impedir el derecho de la ciudadanía al voto libre y secreto.La Asamblea Nacional, dominada por la aplanadora orteguista, aprobó en enero una reforma a la Constitución que impone la cadena perpetua por “delitos de odio”. Pero no busca castigar el odio racial o contra las minorías, sino a quienes adversan al régimen. También una ley de ciberdelitos, destinada a mantener bajo control a las redes sociales, y otra que impide presentarse como candidatos a cargos públicos a quienes caigan bajo la calificación de “agentes extranjeros”. Las causales son tantas, que resulta imposible librarse de algunas de ellas.La Ley de Defensa de los Derechos del Pueblo a la Independencia, la Soberanía y Autodeterminación para la Paz, pena con cárcel y despoja del derecho de ejercer cargos públicos a quienes, entre otros delitos antipatrióticos, “exalten y aplaudan sanciones contra el Estado de Nicaragua”. Es la única ley en el mundo que castiga los aplausos.Una de las protestas de 2018, en ManaguaEsteban Biba/Epa-Efe vía RexEn diciembre de 2018, la policía allanó las oficinas de El ConfidencialMeridith Kohut para The New York TimesEn octubre del año pasado, una resolución votada por la Asamblea General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos advierte que deben darse negociaciones “incluyentes y oportunas” entre el gobierno y la oposición para acordar reformas electorales “significativas y coherentes con las normas internacionales”; modernización y reestructuración del Consejo Supremo Electoral para garantizar que funcione de manera “totalmente independiente, transparente y responsable”; actualización del registro de votantes; y, entre otras medidas, observación electoral nacional e internacional.Hace pocas semanas, al abrirse formalmente el periodo electoral, Ortega hizo todo lo contrario: copó la totalidad de los cargos de magistrados del Consejo Supremo Electoral con leales partidarios suyos; e introdujo una serie de reformas a la Ley Electoral que establecen aún mayores restricciones a los partidos. En estas decisiones no hubo ninguna clase de negociación con las fuerzas de la oposición.Muy recientemente, fue despojado de su personería jurídica el Partido de Restauración Democrática, bajo cuya bandera participaría una amplia gama de organizaciones de oposición agrupadas en la Coalición Nacional, varias de ellas formadas a raíz de los sucesos de abril de 2018. Igual pasó con el Partido Conservador.Ahora mismo, el Ministerio Público, obediente también, levanta cargos de lavado de dinero, bienes y activos en contra de Cristiana Chamorro Barrios, hasta hace poco presidenta de la Fundación Violeta Barrios, que lleva el nombre de su madre, expresidenta de Nicaragua. A la cabeza de las encuestas entre los candidatos presidenciales, la acusación contra Chamorro Barrios busca inhabilitarla.Al mismo tiempo, esta semana los estudios de grabación de los programas de televisión de su hermano, el periodista Carlos Fernando Chamorro, que se transmiten a través de las redes sociales, fueron allanados por segunda vez por la policía, y sus equipos y archivos confiscados. Nada parece indicar que la persecución contra los medios independientes de comunicación vaya a detenerse.En medio de estas condiciones adversas, que tienden a empeorar, permanece en la contienda la Alianza Ciudadanos por la Libertad, hasta ahora con su personería en regla. Aún debe escoger a sus candidatos, pero Ortega se ha arrogado, mediante diversos mecanismos y estratagemas, una especie de derecho de veto sobre quienes pueden competir contra él, y quienes no.El aparato electoral es fiel a Ortega en sus distintos niveles, y en las mesas de votación, las papeletas y las actas estarán bajo el control mayoritario de sus partidarios. No existe a la fecha ningún organismo independiente, nacional o internacional, involucrado en la observación electoral.En una protesta de 2018, una manifestante llevó una pancarta con los rostros de Daniel Ortega y Anastasio Somoza.ReutersBajo un estado policial como el presente, no es posible imaginar ninguna actividad proselitista electoral en plazas o calles. El régimen no las permitirá, porque teme un desborde popular como el de hace tres años. Y la policía impide a los candidatos, de manera arbitraria, salir de sus domicilios. Se tratará entonces de unas elecciones donde, por lo visto, la campaña electoral se haría desde la cárcel, o con la casa por cárcel.Una resolución del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas en marzo manda que se deje de acosar y asediar a los opositores y disidentes políticos en Nicaragua, y que cesen las detenciones arbitrarias, las amenazas y otras formas de intimidación como método para reprimir la crítica; y pide, además, “liberar a todos aquellos arrestados ilegal o arbitrariamente”. Pero todas las demandas y censuras de los organismos internaciones son papel mojado para Ortega. Más de cien prisioneros políticos permanecen en las cárceles.Mientras algún partido esté dispuesto a apañar el fraude, aceptando los escaños que le asignen como segunda fuerza en la Asamblea Nacional; y mientras su reelección sea reconocida diplomáticamente por los países occidentales una vez consumada, considerará que tiene la legitimidad que necesita.Y como en las viejas historias de los dictadores latinoamericanos, algún subalterno le preguntará antes de abrir las urnas: ¿Con cuántos votos quiere ganar, Su Excelencia?Sergio Ramírez es novelista y ensayista. Fue vicepresidente de Nicaragua entre 1985 y 1990. En 2017 fue galardonado con el premio Cervantes. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Samoa Is Set to Have Its First Female Leader

      by

      A dead-heat election was followed by uncertainty and intrigue. But barring further surprises, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa will become prime minister on Monday.While its island neighbors in the Pacific weathered military coups and internal volatility, Samoa long followed a predictable political course, keeping the same leader in power for more than two decades.But as the country is set to usher in its first female prime minister, that status quo has been dramatically upended. The incoming leader, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, represents a sharp break from what she describes as a worrying slide away from the rule of law, and she has vowed to scrap a major infrastructure project backed by China, her country’s largest creditor.And her ascension itself, after a dizzying seven-week period of uncertainty and intrigue that followed the April 9 election, has sent a rare charge through Samoan politics.First, there was a dead heat at the polls. Ms. Mata’afa’s upstart party won as many seats in Parliament as the one led by the swaggering prime minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi. An independent candidate took the remaining seat, making him a kingmaker.That set off feverish courting of that candidate by both parties. But the election commission intervened — paradoxically, blocking the rise of Ms. Mata’afa with the use of a law meant to ensure that more women served in Parliament.Under that law, women must hold at least 10 percent of the seats. The April election produced a count of 9.8 percent, which the electoral commission deemed insufficient. So it appointed another female member of Parliament — one representing Mr. Tuilaepa’s party. That handed him a majority, and a path to remaining in office.It didn’t last long. The independent candidate soon threw his weight behind Ms. Mata’afa’s party, and Samoa’s judiciary later tossed the additional female member out of Parliament, putting Ms. Mata’afa’s party in the majority. Although Mr. Tuilaepa has yet to concede, Ms. Mata’afa is scheduled to be sworn in as prime minister on Monday.Perhaps Samoa can then catch its breath.Apia, the capital of Samoa. Under Samoan law, women must hold at least 10 percent of the seats in Parliament. Matthew Abbott for The New York TimesMs. Mata’afa’s climb to the top job in Samoa — a country that was called Western Samoa until 1997 to distinguish it from American Samoa — is more than four decades in the making. Ms. Mata’afa, 64, a high chief who holds the title fiame, was propelled into political leadership after her father, the country’s first prime minister, died when she was 18. Not long after, she became the matai, or head of her family — an unusually early rise.“As an 18-year-old, I was looking forward to going to university, getting a degree, getting a job, maybe getting married,” she said by telephone on Friday. Always interested in politics, she had expected to move into the field over time. “But things were sped up unexpectedly. Sometimes life doesn’t work out necessarily how you thought it might.”She had long been expected to become prime minister one day — but as Mr. Tuilaepa’s successor, not his opponent, said Iati Iati, a political scientist at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.Ms. Mata’afa spent three decades in Mr. Tuilaepa’s party, the Human Rights Protection Party, eventually becoming its deputy leader. But she left it in November over what she saw as a slide toward autocracy, including legislation that threatened to change the structure of the Samoan judiciary.“It wasn’t a difficult decision to make,” Ms. Mata’afa said. “What really led me to make the decision to step away was the dismantling of essentially the rule of law.”“Because of that huge majority that the H.R.P.P. had,” she added, “it became a lot more rampant, even the internal checks weren’t there — I was getting to feel a bit like the lone voice. If you can’t do it from the inside, you have to step outside.”She became the leader of a new opposition party, known as FAST, which drew a number of other H.R.P.P. defectors.Ballots from Samoa’s April 9 election, which ended in a dead heat. Samoa Electoral Commission, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“She’s such a strong, powerful, well-respected political leader, and she’s really probably the only politician in Samoa at the moment who can counter Tuilaepa,” said Kerryn Baker, a researcher at the Australian National University who is an expert on parliamentary gender quotas in the region.Ms. Mata’afa has already pledged to take one significant step away from Mr. Tuilaepa, 76, the second-longest-serving prime minister in the world.On Thursday, she announced that she would cancel a $100 million wharf development backed by China, saying that her small country of 200,000 people did not need such a large infrastructure project. China is Samoa’s largest creditor, accounting for about 40 percent, or some $160 million, of its external debts.Mr. Tuilaepa has been a staunch ally of Beijing for decades. While Ms. Mata’afa said she wanted to preserve relations with China, her pledge to shelve the wharf project has raised questions about the future of those ties, Dr. Iati said.“What is Samoa’s position in relation to China, what is the Pacific’s position in relation to China?” he said. “It’s got people examining China’s role in the country and in the region as a whole.”Ms. Mata’afa has also promised to focus on sustainable development as Pacific nations suffer from the effects of climate change, and to work to ensure women’s continued participation in politics.One of Samoa’s first female members of Parliament, Ms. Mata’afa has been a fierce defender of the parliamentary gender quota. She characterizes it not as a way to increase women’s participation, but as “legislation to ensure that it does not fall below this level.”Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi had yet to concede as of Friday.Brittainy Newman/The New York TimesSamoa’s welfare system, unlike those of more developed nations, is still largely family-based, “and therefore women still carry a lot of that responsibility and burden,” Ms. Mata’afa added. “Women have to see politics as an area where they’ve seen other women be able to achieve in it, so it’s not something that is insurmountable.”“My goal for women is that they fulfill their potential, that we remove any barriers that might be there for women, to enable them to make that contribution,” she said. But with more than 20 legal challenges to her election still pending, some worry that Ms. Mata’afa may yet be barred from assuming the top office.“The H.R.P.P. and Prime Minister Tuilaepa — they’re not done,” said Patricia O’Brien, an expert on the region at the Australian National University. “They’re going to cast doubt on the results, they’re going to cast doubt on the court cases, they’re trying to do things to muddy the waters and to disrupt an orderly transition of power.”Mr. Tuilaepa offered a hint of how he saw his place in Samoa this month as he responded to a protest of about 100 people calling on him to concede.“I am appointed by God,” he told local news media. “They should go to a church and pray instead of protesting in front of the courthouse.”Ms. Mata’afa, for her part, said she just wanted to get on with the job.“It’s a free world; he can talk about anything he likes,” she said. “I just like to spend my energy talking about things that need to be addressed.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Israel Is Falling Apart, Because the Conflict Controls Us

      by

      Our politics are stalled. Our democracy is in tatters. Blame it on the occupation.TEL AVIV — For a few days in early May, Israel appeared close to establishing a new government. After four elections in two years that failed to produce a decisive result, the country was poised for a surprising partnership of ideologically diverse parties including, for the first time, an independent Arab party — Raam. Such a government would have been fraught, even shaky, but it would have ended the two years of political chaos and replaced Israel’s right-wing prime minister, a man currently standing trial for corruption.What happened instead followed a grim pattern: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict flared yet again. Within days of the start of the military escalation between Hamas and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu that was sparked in Jerusalem and compounded by Jewish and Palestinian violence in Israeli cities, the crisis had put political change on hold.Although many Israelis scoff at the left-wing tendency to blame the occupation for the country’s problems, and Mr. Netanyahu has insisted for years that the conflict doesn’t control our lives, reality says otherwise. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominates Israeli politics, muscling out sound policymaking in other critical areas of life. The conflict is suffocating liberal values, eroding Israel’s democratic institutions. Israeli leadership at large is collapsing under its weight.It is time to accept that it’s not just that Israel controls Palestinians in the conflict. Palestine also controls Israel. The occupation and the festering political conflict since 1948 have permeated every part of our society, political and social institutions, and well-being. If Israel and its supporters can view the situation in this light, they might reach different conclusions about what’s best for the country.The political system is a key starting point. In Israel, left, center or right-wing ideology is grounded in attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: support for or opposition to a two-state solution; support for expanding or dismantling settlements and/or land concessions. These attitudes and levels of (Jewish) religious observance strongly predict which ideological camp a voter will choose.In Israeli elections, it is nearly impossible to woo a significant number of voters across the main ideological political camps with shared problems such as economic concerns, investment in education, L.G.B.T.Q. rights or even the highly emotional question of disentangling religion and state. While the elections in March demonstrated that some centrists voted for the right-wing parties, right-wing voters in particular almost never move to the left.There is nothing wrong with voting for parties that reflect one’s ideology. But right-wing parties, especially under Mr. Netanyahu, have a longstanding pact with religious parties that share their ideology regarding the conflict. The religious parties block other urgently needed changes in Israeli society, such as laws proposing an end to the longstanding exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jews from conscription, which is required for all other citizens; civil marriage, which is not available in Israel (sending many Israelis abroad to tie the knot); and widespread access to public transportation on the Sabbath. Ordinary Israelis have been angry for decades about inequality of army service, about Sabbath privileges for those who own cars and about religious authority over family law, which is a bitter source of gender inequality.At times, Israel has appeared to lay the groundwork for a more a liberal democratic society, which would advance broader progressive values. In the early 1990s, Israel passed two new Basic Laws, guaranteeing a series of basic individual rights and protections. These became a stand-in for a Bill of Rights since Israel has no formal one. An increasingly activist Supreme Court advanced some human rights protections and individual freedoms.For example, in 1993 Israel repealed its restriction on gay men serving openly in certain defense forces positions, and the next year the Supreme Court issued its first ruling against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1998, Israel passed its first dedicated law against sexual harassment.Yitzhak Rabin’s government sought to redress discrimination against Palestinian citizens and signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. When Mr. Rabin was assassinated in 1995 for his nascent efforts to end the conflict, progressive change on certain social issues continued, but liberal interpretations of the law and the Supreme Court itself would eventually come under intense attacks from the Israeli right wing.The failure of another peace process in 2000 gave way to a violent second intifada, pushing Israeli society farther to the right and paving the road for Mr. Netanyahu’s return to power in 2009. Mr. Netanyahu has worked assiduously to undermine a two-state solution. And he and other right-wing nationalists and populist leaders set about undermining the institutions of Israeli democracy itself.Since 2009, Mr. Netanyahu’s governments have passed discriminatory legislation against Palestinian citizens, laws targeting left-wing political activities and laws constraining civil society. These laws have roots in the conflict over national identity or occupation. They elevate the status of Jews over Palestinians, or they are tailored to constrain criticism of the occupation.The motive for this effort is no mystery: It is aimed at ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish-dominated state, with minimal political opposition. Both would be essential if Israel were to advance West Bank annexation, which would alter the state’s demographic makeup and spark challenges to the character of the state and its undemocratic governance of Palestinians.The Israeli right’s most ambitious campaign for about a decade has been a sustained attack on the judiciary. Right-wing leaders speak of correcting the balance of power among the branches of government and restoring sovereignty to “the people,” rather than the elites, referring to judges — especially Supreme Court justices. The chief proponents of this cause are overwhelmingly committed to settlements and annexation. Naftali Bennett, leader of the right-wing Yamina party and a former defense and education minister, once served as head of the Yesha settlers’ council. Ayelet Shaked, justice minister from 2015 to 2019, is outspoken in favor of both aims. Simcha Rothman, a firebrand anti-Supreme Court crusader and a settler from deep inside the West Bank, entered the Knesset in 2021 with the Jewish-ultranationalist Religious Zionist party.Undermining the judiciary has nothing to do with repairing institutions; it will assist what right-wing leaders call “governability” — a word that also appears in the name of the organization Mr. Rothman founded. The term is a euphemism, and a mantra, for government power unrestrained by courts, which enables both continuing rule over the Palestinian territories and an increasingly undemocratic Israel.Last, the conflict is directly tied to Israel’s chaos of leadership. Mr. Netanyahu retains stable support from nearly one-quarter of voters, largely because of his image as the man who won’t make concessions to “Arabs” (many right-wing Israelis avoid the word “Palestinian”). He used the most recent escalation with Hamas to burnish his image as the master of security. The crisis also persuaded Mr. Bennett of the Yamina party to withdraw from negotiations to join the would-be alternative government and revive the option of yet another Netanyahu coalition.Once again, with help from the conflict, Israel has normalized a leader standing trial for corruption charges in three cases, who refuses to resign. (He has pleaded not guilty). Since a sufficient number of parties over the past two years have refused to join a government led by Mr. Netanyahu, his recalcitrance is the reason Israel has had no permanent government despite four elections. He has also opportunistically joined the attacks on Israel’s judiciary in an effort to undermine the court cases against him.Decades of Palestinian suffering should have brought Israel’s occupation to an end by now. But the folly of territorial conquest and international realpolitik has been stronger.Perhaps a cleareyed view of how the conflict is suffocating Israel can add urgency. There is certainly no easy or ideal solution. But the “stand back” approach, or any “not now” complacency, is definitely the wrong one.Dahlia Scheindlin is a political strategist and a public opinion expert who has advised eight national campaigns in Israel and worked in 15 other countries. She is also a policy fellow at the Century Foundation.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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Case Throws Abortion Into 2022 Election Picture

      by

      Supporters and opponents of abortion rights say a major ruling just before the midterm elections could upend political calculations for the two parties.WASHINGTON — Within hours of the Supreme Court accepting a case that could lead it to overturn or scale back a landmark abortion rights ruling, Senator Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat facing re-election next year, issued a dire warning to supporters: The fate of Roe v Wade is on the line.“We cannot move backwards,” Mr. Bennet said in a campaign statement. “Colorado was a leader in legalizing abortion — six years before Roe v Wade. I will always fight for reproductive justice and to ensure everyone has safe and legal access to the health care they need.”His declaration was among the first in a quickly intensifying clash over abortion, long a defining issue to many voters but one likely to gain additional prominence as the court weighs the possibility of rolling back the constitutional protections it provided to abortion rights in Roe 48 years ago.Motivated in part by a belief that the Supreme Court will give them new latitude to restrict access, Republican-dominated states continue to adopt strict new legislation, with Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signing into law on Wednesday a prohibition on abortions after as early as six weeks. The law, sure to face legal challenges, is one of more than 60 new state-level restrictions enacted this year, with many more pending.With the Supreme Court ruling likely to come next year — less than six months before midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and the future of President Biden’s agenda — the court’s expanded conservative majority has injected new volatility into an already turbulent political atmosphere, leaving both parties to game out the potential consequences.Republicans had already shown that they intended to take aim at Democrats over social issues, and abortion will only amplify the culture wars.Nearly all agree that the latest fight over Roe, which has been building for years, is certain to have significant political repercussions. Conservative voters are traditionally more energized than liberals about the abortion debate, and for many of them it has been the single issue spurring voter turnout.But Democrats, likely to be on the defensive given their current hold on the White House and Congress, say a ruling broadly restricting abortion rights by a court whose ideological makeup has been altered by three Trump-era appointees could backfire on Republicans and galvanize women.“Outlawing Roe would create a backlash that would have critical unintended consequences for those who would like to repeal it,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire and a leading voice in Congress for abortion rights. “The women of the country would be very upset, particularly young women, that there would be such a deliberate effort to limit women’s access to reproductive choices.”Those on the right, already anticipating a favorable ruling given the conservative tilt of the 6-3 court, say they expect liberals to seize on the issue to try to “scare” voters. But they believe they can make a case for “reasonable” abortion limits.“This is clearly going to invigorate people on both sides of the debate, but this is a winning issue for pro-life candidates,” said Mallory Quigley, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony List, a conservative nonprofit.She said she did not expect conservative voting enthusiasm to ebb if the right triumphed at the Supreme Court, an outcome that would bring to fruition years of emphasis on electing anti-abortion lawmakers at the federal and state levels and working aggressively to confirm conservative judges.“What happened on Monday is evidence that elections have consequences,” Ms. Quigley said, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to take a case about a Mississippi law that seeks to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — about two months earlier than Roe and subsequent decisions allow.Anti-abortion activists in the Texas State Capitol in Austin in March.  Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed into law one of the country’s most restrictive abortion measures.Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated PressThe Supreme Court action may have political ramifications before next year. The case is likely to be argued weeks before Virginia voters head to the polls in November to elect a new governor in a race often seen as a midterm bellwether. Terry McAuliffe, a former governor and most likely the Democratic nominee, is eager for another political battle over abortion rights, rattling off his record protecting clinics in the state and vetoing legislation that would impose restrictions.“This is going to be a huge motivator,” he said in an interview. “In 2013, I promised women I would be a brick wall to protect their rights. And I will be a brick wall again.”Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, downplayed the potential effect of the court ruling, though he said that as an abortion opponent he welcomed the court taking up the case. But Mr. Scott said he believed voters would be more persuaded by what he described as the Biden administration’s failings on issues such as immigration, the economy, taxes, inflation and more.While the lines have always been starkly drawn on abortion into the pro and anti camps, public opinion has proved more nuanced, with a clear majority backing Roe but majorities also favoring some limits. How the Supreme Court comes down on the fine points of abortion law could determine how the issue plays in the elections.“Considering the decision will likely be made five months ahead of the election, and depending on the decision itself, it’s too early to measure its ultimate impact on the midterms,” said Nathan Gonzales, the editor of the nonpartisan Inside Elections. Mr. Gonazales said it could conceivably energize Republicans but also pay benefits for Democrats — a view shared by others.President Donald J. Trump helped inspire record turnout last year from Democratic voters, who were eager to reject his administration. With Mr. Trump no longer on the ballot, many Democrats say the Supreme Court case could provide crucial midterm motivation, particularly for suburban women in swing districts who were instrumental in Democratic wins last year.Katie Paris, the founder of Red, Wine and Blue, a group focused on organizing suburban female voters for Democrats across the country, said the Supreme Court news immediately touched off alarm on the Facebook groups and other social media channels run by her organization.“When the news came out that this was going to be taken up, it was like, ‘Everybody get ready. This is real,’” she said. “We know what this court could do, and if they do it, the backlash will be severe.”Tresa Undem, a pollster who specializes in surveys on gender issues, said that abortion rights would continue to be an effective cause for Democrats because voters link it to larger concerns about power and control that motivated female voters during the Trump administration.“Democrats and independents have felt a loss of control and power from people at the top,” said Ms. Undem, who has conducted polling for several abortion rights organizations. “Now you have six individuals who are going to make these decisions about your body in this personal area that will affect the rest of your life.”Mr. Bennet said he could not predict the political implications of the court taking on abortion, but he wanted to alert his supporters that something of consequence was at hand.“There are a lot of people who have worked for a long time to overturn Roe v. Wade, and that is what is at stake,” he said. “I think people needed to hear that in the wake of the Supreme Court taking this case from Mississippi.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      La lección de Zapatero o cómo no negociar con Maduro

      by

      MADRID — La determinación diplomática de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero en Venezuela es inversamente proporcional a sus logros. Tras 40 viajes y seis años de misión, el expresidente español no está más cerca de frenar la deriva autoritaria del régimen o de aliviar la situación de los venezolanos. Tampoco le queda ya crédito mediador. Llegó el momento de agradecerle los servicios prestados y pedirle que dé un paso a un lado.No hay motivo para dudar de la sinceridad de Zapatero en su propósito de recuperar la convivencia democrática en Venezuela. Pero tampoco los hay para creer que haya regresado de sus viajes con nada salvo una valiosa lección sobre cómo no negociar con el autoritarismo. Su estrategia de apaciguamiento y diplomacia cándida ha ofrecido a Nicolas Maduro legitimidad sin apenas contraprestaciones, una combinación conveniente para un líder decidido a perpetuarse en el poder.Más allá de las simpatías y rechazos que genera, Zapatero es un político tolerante que impulsó importantes derechos sociales en España y ha mantenido una respetuosa distancia con la política doméstica tras su paso por el poder. Pero su legado internacional como estadista —el nacional quedó dañado por su gestión de los primeros años de la Gran Recesión— ha sido malogrado por la falta de neutralidad en la búsqueda de soluciones. No supo ver la fina línea que separa, al tratar con un autócrata, la utilidad de ser utilizado.El último viaje del expresidente español a Venezuela, a principios de mes, tenía el propósito de fomentar el deshielo entre Maduro y el gobierno estadounidense de Joe Biden, en un intento de reducir las sanciones internacionales. El líder chavista, enfundado en el disfraz de líder conciliador, se muestra dispuesto, de un tiempo a esta parte, a dialogar con quienes declaró sus enemigos, fuera y dentro del país. Entre sus guiños se incluye la designación de un nuevo Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) con presencia no mayoritaria de la oposición y la medida de casa por cárcel otorgada a seis exejecutivos de Citgo —cinco de ellos ciudadanos estadounidenses—, filial de PDVSA en Estados Unidos. Todo sería más creíble si cesara el asalto a las instituciones, la perversión de las reglas democráticas y la persecución de los críticos, confirmada la semana pasada con el embargo de la sede del diario El Nacional.Frente a quienes desconfían de Maduro está la posición de Zapatero, favorable a concederle el beneficio de la duda las veces que haga falta. El político español ha legitimado en el pasado las elecciones ganadas con ventajismo autoritario por el chavismo e interpreta el conflicto desde una falsa equidistancia entre el régimen y quienes lo padecen. Entre sus logros quedan las liberaciones puntuales de presos políticos, que no detuvieron la represión ni fueron seguidas de una apertura sincera.Zapatero dinamitó en estos seis años su credibilidad ante los actores clave del conflicto venezolano, incluidos Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y su propio país, España, cuyo gobierno se ha distanciado en varias ocasiones de lo que considera iniciativas personales. La desconfianza es aún mayor en la oposición venezolana, donde el expresidente español hace tiempo que es visto como un obstáculo para la democracia en Venezuela. “Zapatero intenta blanquear la dictadura”, decía en una entrevista reciente Juan Guaidó.El líder opositor exagera al darle esa intencionalidad a las acciones de Zapatero. Y, sin embargo, el político socialista comparte responsabilidad en que sea percibido más como el ministro de Exteriores de Maduro que como un mediador neutral. Pudo aprovechar su acceso al régimen para hacer entender a sus dirigentes que debían ganarse con hechos la creación de un escenario de diálogo internacional. No lo logró y Guaidó ha delegado ahora en mediadores noruegos, más creíbles e independientes, la interlocución con Maduro.Cualquier concesión al régimen debe condicionarse al establecimiento de una ruta democrática y verificable, cuyo primer paso sería la convocatoria de elecciones libres. El nuevo CNE, que organizará los comicios regionales y locales del 21 de noviembre, sigue teniendo una mayoría de miembros chavistas: creer en su independencia exige un incondicional acto de fe. Lo cierto es que, con las principales instituciones del país bajo control gubernamental, incluido el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Maduro no está en condiciones de ofrecer garantías democráticas. La única alternativa viable es poner el sistema electoral venezolano, de forma temporal, en manos de un organismo internacional independiente.Varias entidades de las Naciones Unidas ofrecen esa posibilidad a los Estados donde los adversarios políticos son incapaces de reconocer un resultado. En 1999, asistí en Timor Oriental a una de esas votaciones, que tienen la ventaja de ofrecer resultados vinculantes e indisputables. Ante la incapacidad de Indonesia de organizar un referéndum por la independencia con las mínimas garantías, funcionarios de la ONU se hicieron cargo de todos los pasos, desde la impresión de las papeletas al recuento.Maduro podría ofrecer una oportunidad a la ONU para hacer creíble su promesa de respetar la voluntad popular. Es pronto para saber si la nueva actitud conciliadora del líder chavista es una trampa o un intento sincero de cambio. Lo seguro es que la segunda opción pasa irremediablemente por una acción diplomática coordinada, coherente y decidida de la comunidad internacional, con Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea al frente. En ese nuevo escenario, y una vez aprendidas las lecciones de los últimos años, Zapatero debería aceptar que su etapa venezolana se agotó. La mejor ayuda que podría prestar es hacerse a un lado.David Jiménez (@DavidJimenezTW) es escritor y periodista de España. Su libro más reciente es El director. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Chile: los progresistas ganaron en grande

      by

      El fin de semana, el pueblo chileno votó en unas elecciones históricas para elegir a los miembros de un organismo encargado de redactar una nueva Constitución que sustituya a la actual, redactada en 1980 durante la dictadura del general Augusto Pinochet.El recuento final supuso un golpe duro para los pinochetistas, algunos de quienes forman parte de Chile Vamos —la coalición de derecha y centroderecha respaldada por el actual presidente, Sebastián Piñera—, que solo obtuvo 37 de los 155 escaños para la Convención Constitucional. Los chilenos, en especial los jóvenes, también rechazaron a los partidos tradicionales de centroizquierda por considerar insuficiente su respuesta al anhelo de la gente de una sociedad más igualitaria, además de estar demasiado comprometidos con el statu quo.Los vencedores fueron un grupo de partidos de una nueva coalición de izquierda, Apruebo Dignidad, que tendrá a 28 representantes, y numerosos candidatos independientes que habían participado activamente durante años en protestas para exigir reformas a la educación, la salud y las pensiones, así como el fin del modelo económico neoliberal que ha dominado a Chile a lo largo de casi medio siglo. Los candidatos independientes, de izquierda y de centroizquierda obtuvieron un total de 101 escaños, más de dos tercios de la Convención Constitucional. Tendrán suficiente poder para proponer amplias reformas económicas a los derechos sobre la tierra y el agua, el sistema de pensiones y la recuperación soberana de los recursos naturales. Chile es uno de los países más desiguales de las economías avanzadas.Todo indica que el documento fundacional que redactarán consagrará principios de participación ciudadana, justicia, igualdad de género y derechos de los pueblos originarios, urgencias que durante mucho tiempo han eludido a esta nación sudamericana.Los resultados de las elecciones constituyen un giro sorprendente que nadie podría haber anticipado cuando un movimiento masivo de protesta sacudió al gobierno conservador de Piñera en octubre de 2019.A medida que el estallido se hacía más gigantesco y obstinado, una demanda principal unía a sus heterogéneos participantes: la necesidad de remplazar la fraudulenta Constitución aprobada durante la letal dictadura de Pinochet, una necesidad que respondía a una crisis existencial más profunda que desde hace décadas se gestaba en la sociedad chilena corroída por una terrible desigualdad.Incluso después de que Pinochet se vio obligado a dejar la presidencia en 1990, su Constitución siguió funcionando como una camisa de fuerza que permitió a una minoría de legisladores de derecha y a una oligarquía despiadada coartar los intentos radicales de forjar una sociedad más equitativa y menos represiva.La revuelta de octubre de 2019 aterró a la coalición gobernante de políticos conservadores, quienes llegaron a un acuerdo con los partidos de centroizquierda, que tenían mayoría en el Congreso, a fin de convocar un plebiscito en el que se preguntara a la nación si deseaba una nueva Constitución. Los líderes derechistas pensaron que sería una manera de salvar las instituciones del país y garantizar una salida pacífica a las demandas populares.Para asegurarse de que tendrían un veto sobre los procedimientos, un grupo de pinochetistas en el Senado y el Congreso exigieron que el documento final de la Convención Constitucional tendría que ser aprobado por una mayoría de dos tercios. Según sus cálculos, iban a poder controlar a más de un tercio de los integrantes de la Convención.Calcularon mal, ya que Chile Vamos, a pesar de una enorme ventaja de financiamiento, perdió de manera abrumadora frente a los candidatos independientes y de la oposición, quedando así al margen de la toma de decisiones en lo que respecta a la nueva Carta Magna. La derrota llama aún más la atención porque la coalición también perdió la mayoría de las elecciones simultáneas para alcaldes y gobernadores.La presencia de coaliciones antisistema en el organismo que redactará la nueva Constitución garantiza que habrá una serie de modificaciones drásticas en la manera en que Chile sueña con su futuro. Ya el mismo proceso electoral adelantaba con dos proposiciones cómo serían estas modificaciones.Una estipula la paridad de género en el reparto de los 155 constituyentes, de modo que las mujeres no sean excesivamente superadas por los hombres en poderío e influencia. Una mayoría significativa de las 77 mujeres elegidas —con apoyo de aliados hombres— ahora pueden luchar por los derechos reproductivos en un país donde por tradición el aborto se ha restringido y criminalizado.Una escuela en Santiago funcionó como un centro de votación.Alberto Valdés/EPA vía ShutterstockLa otra disposición reserva 17 de los escaños de la Convención para los pueblos indígenas, que constituyen el nueve por ciento de los 19 millones de habitantes de Chile. A partir de ahora, Chile puede proclamarse una república plurinacional y multilingüe. Es un triunfo histórico para los habitantes originarios de esa tierra, como los mapuches, quienes han sufrido una incesante opresión desde la conquista española en el siglo XVI. Los conflictos con los mapuches, centrados especialmente en disputas en torno a los derechos ancestrales sobre la tierra, han provocado una serie de enfrentamientos, a menudo violentos, en el sur del país.Otras reformas parecen probables: frenar la violencia policial; una reformulación de los derechos económicos y sociales que reduzca el dominio de una élite obscenamente rica; una feroz protección del medioambiente; la eliminación de la corrupción endémica, y el fin de la discriminación contra las comunidades LGBT.Igual de fundamental es el vigoroso diálogo nacional que se avecina, abierto a la ciudadanía y atento a los aportes de aquellos que encabezaron la revuelta. No se aceptará un retorno al Chile en el que las ganancias de unos cuantos importaban más que el bienestar de la mayoría.Existen, sin embargo, algunas señales inquietantes. Solo el 43 por ciento de la población votó en esta elección, a diferencia de más del 50 por ciento de los electores que lo hicieron el año pasado para aprobar la creación de una nueva Constitución.Este ausentismo puede atribuirse en parte a la pandemia (que también evitó que mi esposa y yo viajáramos a Chile para emitir nuestro voto), y en parte a la apatía generalizada de enormes sectores del electorado, en especial entre las familias más pobres. Encontrar maneras de entusiasmar a quienes no confían en que los cambios los beneficien es un reto que hay que afrontar.Electores esperan su turno para votar en la elección el sábado.Pablo Sanhueza/ReutersEl otro problema es que, aunque casi el 75 por ciento de los constituyentes está a favor de una agenda progresista, están fragmentados y desunidos, descalificándose entre sí, lo que hace difícil llegar a un consenso sobre hasta dónde llevar las reformas que Chile requiere.Nada de esto impide celebrar el mensaje y el ejemplo alentador que Chile envía al mundo en un momento en que la tentación del autoritarismo va creciendo: en estos tiempos en que la humanidad enfrenta su propia terrible crisis existencial, lo que necesitamos no es menos democracia, sino más democracia, más participación, más personas que se atrevan a creer que otro mundo es posible.Ariel Dorfman es un escritor chileno-estadounidense, autor de la obra de teatro La muerte y la doncella y, hace poco, de la novela, Allegro, y del ensayo, Chile: juventud rebelde. Es profesor emérito de la Universidad de Duke. More