Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      La economía de mercado irá a las urnas en Perú

      by

      LIMA — El domingo 6 de junio los peruanos iremos nuevamente a las urnas para elegir entre Pedro Castillo, un profesor de escuela rural y dirigente sindical que postuló con Perú Libre —un partido de extrema izquierda—, y Keiko Fujimori por Fuerza Popular, la hija del expresidente autoritario Alberto Fujimori, cuyo gobierno y principal legado, la Constitución de 1993, ha reivindicado en su campaña.Las últimas encuestas publicadas muestran un virtual empate entre ambos candidatos. La elección del domingo es también una suerte de referéndum en torno a la continuidad del modelo económico neoliberal que ha reinado en Perú en las últimas tres décadas, pero que llega agotado y golpeado por la pandemia a este proceso.No es la primera elección que pone en el banquillo a las políticas de libre mercado que se adoptaron en los años noventa, pero esta vez la posibilidad de que Perú gire drásticamente hacia la izquierda es concreta, y pondría fin a un periodo de bonanza y continuo crecimiento económico que, si bien tuvo límites, alcanzó logros muy notorios que vale destacar y defender.Lo que entendemos como modelo económico neoliberal nunca fue antagónico al Estado, pero el establecimiento ortodoxo fue dogmático y miope frente a la realidad, y ahora se juega la vida en esta elección. El triunfo de Castillo implicaría un retorno a políticas estatistas y anacrónicas que han encontrado eco entre un sector amplio de la población que no ha gozado los frutos del crecimiento económico y la globalización.La disyuntiva no es nueva. En 2006, en el contexto de la firma del Tratado de Libre Comercio con Estados Unidos, un Ollanta Humala en la órbita chavista hizo campaña prometiendo cambio constitucional, políticas nacionalistas y un mayor rol del Estado en la economía. De haber triunfado, Perú habría sido parte del giro a la izquierda que fue casi hegemónico en América Latina en ese momento. Cinco años después, un Humala moderado y más próximo al Brasil de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva que a la Venezuela de Hugo Chávez, terminó alcanzando la presidencia. Salvo un mayor énfasis en políticas sociales, poco del modelo se vio alterado.Tras un respiro en 2016, donde dos candidaturas de derecha pasaron a segunda vuelta, las encuestas de esta elección no advirtieron hasta la última semana la arremetida final de Castillo, quien pasó en primer lugar a la segunda vuelta pero con menos del 20 por ciento de los votos válidos.Si bien tras críticas de diversos sectores, Castillo presentó una nueva versión de su plan de gobierno (el original era un ideario firmado por el fundador de Perú Libre, Vladimir Cerrón, médico formado en Cuba, que reivindica el carácter marxista del partido), sus propuestas insisten en devolverle un rol protagónico al Estado e incluyen sacrilegios a la ortodoxia económica reinante como la revisión de los tratados de libre comercio y la prohibición de importaciones, entre otras medidas populistas y obsoletas.Aunque las vías para implementar sus políticas, que incluyen convocar a una Asamblea Constituyente dirigida a reemplazar a la vigente, no están libres de obstáculos (Perú Libre tiene solo 37 congresistas de 130 en el parlamento), lo cierto es que en la segunda vuelta Castillo abandonó algunas de sus promesas más extremas, como la pena de muerte para los corruptos y el desmantelamiento de la Defensoría del Pueblo, y se comprometió a respetar el Estado de derecho, pero solo ha matizado su discurso y sus propuestas económicas.Y, a pesar de su negativa a buscar el centro, el apoyo a Castillo se ha mantenido en las encuestas, que ha liderado prácticamente hasta este fin de semana. Una encuesta de principios de mayo de IPSOS revelaba que un 54 por ciento de peruanos quiere cambios moderados al modelo económico, y un 32 por ciento, cambios radicales. Solo el 11 por ciento apuesta por la continuidad.Las elecciones de 2006 y 2011 eran indicios de un sentimiento similar, pero sin duda la pandemia catalizó la crisis del modelo económico.Un afiche de Pedro Castillo, en Puna, promete una nueva Constitución.Martin Mejia/Associated PressAunque las reformas de mercado que se adoptaron en el gobierno de Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) han tenido éxito en términos de estabilidad macroeconómica y prosperidad, la pandemia provocó un retroceso de diez años en la lucha contra la pobreza, merced a la cual más de 3 millones de personas cayeron nuevamente en ella.Hasta poco antes de la pandemia, el progreso económico era tangible, aunque venía perdiendo ímpetu. Entre 2002 y 2013, Perú fue uno de los países que más creció en América Latina, a un promedio de 6,1 por ciento anual. El ritmo decreció a 3 por ciento entre 2014 y 2019, pero igual contribuyó a que la pobreza bajará de 52,2 por ciento en 2005 hasta el 20,2 por ciento en 2019, y que la extrema pobreza rural se redujera hasta menos del 10 por ciento en el mismo periodo.El crecimiento económico y la reducción de la pobreza coincidieron con un superciclo de materias primas, el cual Perú, como uno de los principales exportadores de minerales en el mundo, supo aprovechar muy bien gracias a una economía ordenada y abierta al mercado. Esa estrategia incluyó también una agresiva promoción de agroexportaciones que permitió al país convertir su desértica franja costera en una de las principales fuentes de uvas, espárragos, arándanos y otros cultivos a nivel global.Esta historia de éxito, no obstante, contrasta con la suerte de un amplio sector de la población que quedó relegada. Como en otras partes del mundo, la globalización dividió a la sociedad en ganadores y perdedores. Los ganadores de esas reformas han defendido y sostenido el modelo año tras año y en cada elección. El impacto de la pandemia debilitó ese bastión de defensa y facilitó el ascenso de un candidato radical como Castillo.La pandemia también acentuó la desigualdad. En el mismo periodo que 3 millones de peruanos caían debajo de la línea de la pobreza, cuatro nuevos peruanos se convirtieron en multimillonarios, y entre los seis identificados por Forbes acumulan una fortuna estimada en más de 11,4 trillones de dólares.La estrategia del modelo económico peruano ha sido positiva, como lo muestran los números, pero deficiente: 3 de cada 4 trabajadores son informales en Perú, y bajo el eufemismo de clase media vulnerable escondimos muy bajos niveles de ingresos que se evaporaron con un shock externo como la pandemia.Para evitar que el modelo se agote, como ha sucedido en Chile, se tiene que adaptar. Lamentablemente, ante intentos desde el Estado de extender la receta agroexportadora a otros sectores, la respuesta fue vehemente en defensa de la llamada “mano invisible” del mercado, cuando fue muy visible a la hora de elegir ganadores entre los agricultores costeros, con rotundo éxito.Si el modelo sobrevive al 6 de junio, requerirá de una actualización urgente. No se puede soslayar el malestar y las demandas de cambio, ni justificarlas por los estragos únicos de la pandemia. Hace dos décadas que sabemos esto pero la complacencia y la ideología nos ganó.Es necesario que el Estado acompañe la expansión del modelo, con inversión en capital humano e impulso a la productividad, por nombrar dos medidas, para que más peruanos sean parte de sectores ganadores y no vean atractivas ideas y políticas probadamente fallidas en el Perú y en la región.Omar Awapara es politólogo y director de ciencias políticas en la Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC), Lima. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      As Israelis Await Netanyahu’s Fate, Palestinians Seize a Moment of Unity

      by

      Seeing little hope for major change from a new Israeli government, Palestinians are focused on an internal generational shift toward a campaign for rights and justice.JERUSALEM — When Israelis opened their newspapers and news websites on Tuesday, they encountered a barrage of reports and commentary about the possible downfall of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving leader.When Palestinians in the occupied West Bank unfolded the territory’s highest-circulation broadsheet, Al-Quds, they found no mention about Mr. Netanyahu’s fate until Page 7.Mr. Netanyahu’s political future hung in the balance on Tuesday night, as opposition leaders struggled to agree on a fragile coalition government that would finally remove him from office for the first time in 12 years. The deadlock set the stage for a dramatic last day of negotiations, which the opposition must conclude by Wednesday at midnight or risk sending the country to another round of early elections.To Israelis, Mr. Netanyahu’s possible departure constitutes an epochal moment — the toppling of a man who has left a deeper imprint on Israeli society than most other politicians in Israeli history.But for many Palestinians, his putative removal has prompted little more than a shrug and a resurgence of bitter memories.During his current 12-year term, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process fizzled, as both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships accused each other of obstructing the process, and Mr. Netanyahu expressed increasing ambivalence about the possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state.But to many Palestinians, his likely replacement as prime minister, Naftali Bennett, would be no improvement. Mr. Bennett is Mr. Netanyahu’s former chief of staff, and a former settler leader who outright rejects Palestinian statehood.Instead, many Palestinians are consumed by their own political moment, which some activists and campaigners have framed as the most pivotal in decades.The Palestinian polity has long been physically and politically fragmented between the American-backed Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank; its archrival, Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza; a Palestinian minority inside Israel whose votes have increasingly counted for making or breaking an Israeli government; and a sprawling diaspora.Yet alongside last month’s deadly 11-day war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and the worst bout of intercommunal Arab-Jewish violence to have convulsed Israel in decades, these disparate parts suddenly came together in a seemingly leaderless eruption of shared identity and purpose.In a rare display of unity, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians observed a general strike on May 12 across Gaza, the West Bank, the refugee camps of Lebanon and inside Israel itself.“I don’t think whoever is in charge in Israel will make a great deal of difference to the Palestinians,” said Ahmad Aweidah, the former head of the Palestinian stock exchange. “There might be slight differences and nuances but all mainstream Israeli parties, with slight exceptions on the extreme left, share pretty much the same ideology.”But the strike in mid-May, Mr. Aweidah said, “showed that we are united no matter what the Israelis have tried to do for 73 years, categorizing us into Israeli Arabs, West Bankers, Jerusalemites, Gazans, refugees and diaspora. None of that has worked. We are back to square one.”A pro-Palestinian rally last week in the Queens borough of New York City.Stephanie Keith/Getty ImagesThe hard-right presence within the would-be Israeli coalition — a fragile marriage between up to seven poorly compatible parties — is hardly reassuring, said Ahmad Majdalani, a minister in the Palestinian Authority, which exerts limited autonomy in slightly less than 40 percent of the occupied West Bank.“But there are other forces and parties who have compromise programs,” Mr. Majdalani said. “We will see what happens. We do not want to prejudge, and we will decide how we will deal with this government after we see its program.”Among the Arab minority in Israel, many of whom define themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel, the prospect of a new government has divided opinion. While the government would be led by Mr. Bennett, and packed with lawmakers who oppose a Palestinian state, some hoped the presence of three centrist and leftist parties in the coalition, coupled with the likely tacit support of Raam, an Arab Islamist party, might moderate Mr. Bennett’s approach.“It’s complicated,” said Basha’er Fahoum-Jayoussi, the co-chairwoman of the board of the Abraham Initiatives, a nongovernmental group that promotes equality between Arabs and Jews. “There are cons and pros. The biggest pro is getting rid of Netanyahu. But it’s a huge bullet to bite in order to achieve that.”The cabinet is expected to include at least one Arab, Esawi Frej, of the left-wing Meretz party. Raam’s leader, Mansour Abbas, has said he will support the new government only if it grants more resources and attention to the Arab minority. And the likely appointment of a center-left minister to oversee the police force might encourage officers to take a more restrained approach to Palestinians in East Jerusalem, where clashes between the police and protesters played a major role in the buildup to the recent war in Gaza.But others doubted much could be achieved in that regard.“It doesn’t matter who the minister for police is,” said Sawsan Zaher, the deputy general director of Adalah, a campaign group that promotes minority rights in Israel. Police behavior is “embedded within the police as an institution, and not a decision by Minister X or Minister Y.”Palestinian Muslim worshipers praying outside Damascus Gate at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 2017, as they protested the metal detectors placed at the entrances to the mosque.Gali Tibbon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOf far more consequence for many Palestinians inside and outside Israel is a generational shift within Palestinian society, which has posed a new challenge to an already weak and divided Palestinian old guard and jolted the traditional paradigms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Among younger Palestinians, the discourse has changed from discussion of possible borders of a putative Palestinian ministate bordering Israel, which few now believe will come about, to a broad and loose agenda for the pursuit of rights, freedom and justice inside both the occupied territories and Israel itself.“I think the key to what has changed is Palestinian agency,” said Fadi Quran, campaigns director at Avaaz, a nonprofit that promotes people-powered change, and a West Bank-based community organizer.“In the past, when Palestinians were interviewed on television, the key line was ‘When is the international community coming in to save us, when will Israel be held accountable, or when will the Arab countries come and rescue us?’” Mr. Quran said. “Now the discourse of the young is, ‘We’ve got this, basically. We can do it together.’”The generational shift is partly a response to the failures of the Palestinian old guard to make good on the promise of the 1990s, when the signing of diplomatic agreements known as the Oslo Accords appeared to put a Palestinian state within reach. But Palestinian and Israeli negotiators failed to seal a final deal, and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, once considered temporary, is now more than a half-century old.In recent years, Palestinian gloom deepened because of the policies of the Trump administration, which favored Israel and helped entrench its hold.Mr. Trump’s administration helped broker a series of historic normalization agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, which bypassed the Palestinians and ruptured decades of professed Arab unity around the Palestinian cause.Inside Israel, Arab citizens, who make up a fifth of the population, have suffered decades of neglect and discrimination in state budgets and housing and land policies. They were further humiliated by the passage of an incendiary Nation State Law in 2018 that enshrined the right of national self-determination as being “unique to the Jewish people,” rather than to all Israeli citizens, and downgrading Arabic from an official language to one with a special status.More recently, far-rightists entered Israel’s Parliament with the help of Mr. Netanyahu, who had legitimized them as potential coalition partners.The Palestinians have been aided by the international awakening and momentum of movements like Black Lives Matter, speaking the language of rights and historical justice, according to experts.Torah scrolls, on which Jewish holy scriptures are written, are removed from a synagogue that was torched during a spasm of intercommunal violence between Arabs and Jews in the Israeli city of Lod, on May 12.Ronen Zvulun/ReutersAt the same time, the official Palestinian structures have been crumbling. The once monolithic Fatah party led by the founders of the Palestinian national cause, and the dominant force in the Palestinian Authority, splintered into three competing factions ahead of a long-awaited Palestinian general election that had been scheduled for May 22.In a measure of the popular excitement about what would have been the first ballot in the occupied territories since 2006, more than 93 percent of eligible Palestinians had registered to vote, and 36 parties with about 1,400 candidates planned to compete for 132 seats in the Palestinian assembly. Nearly 40 percent of the candidates were 40 or younger, according to the Palestinian Central Elections Commission.Then Mr. Abbas postponed the election indefinitely, depriving the Palestinians of expressing their democratic choice.All this helped spur a wave of grass roots protests in East Jerusalem that grabbed world attention, the general strike by Palestinians across the region and a burst of online support from international celebrities.Some analysts say they doubt that this recent flash of Palestinian unity will have any immediate, profound impact on the Palestinian reality. But others argue that after years of stagnation, the Palestinian cause is back with a new sense of energy, connectivity, solidarity and activism.The events of the last few weeks were “like an earthquake,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a seasoned Palestinian leader and former senior official. “We are part of the global conversation on rights, justice, freedom, and Israel cannot close it down or censor it.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Voting Rights Bill Falters in Congress as States Race Ahead

      by

      Opposition from Republicans and some of their own senators has left Democrats struggling to determine whether they should try to nix the filibuster to save a top priority.WASHINGTON — In the national struggle over voting rights, Democrats have rested their hopes for turning back a wave of new restrictions in Republican-led states and expanding ballot access on their narrow majorities in Congress. Failure, they have repeatedly insisted, “is not an option.”But as Republican efforts to clamp down on voting prevail across the country, the drive to enact the most sweeping elections overhaul in generations is faltering in the Senate. With a self-imposed Labor Day deadline for action, Democrats are struggling to unite around a strategy to overcome solid Republican opposition and an almost certain filibuster.Republicans in Congress have dug in against the measure, with even the most moderate dismissing it as bloated and overly prescriptive. That leaves Democrats no option for passing it other than to try to force the bill through by destroying the filibuster rule — which requires 60 votes to put aside any senator’s objection — to pass it on a simple majority, party-line vote.But Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the Democrats’ decisive swing vote, has repeatedly pledged to protect the filibuster and is refusing to sign on to the voting rights bill. He calls the legislation “too darn broad” and too partisan, despite endorsing such proposals in past sessions. Other Democrats also remain uneasy about some of its core provisions.Navigating the 800-page For the People Act, or Senate Bill 1, through an evenly split chamber was never going to be an easy task, even after it passed the House with only Democratic votes. But the Democrats’ strategy for moving the measure increasingly hinges on the longest of long shots: persuading Mr. Manchin and the other 49 Democrats to support both the bill and the gutting of the filibuster.“We ought to be able to pass it — it really would be transformative,” Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, said recently. “But if we have several members of our caucus who have just point-blank said, ‘I will not break the filibuster,’ then what are we even doing?”Summarizing the party’s challenge, another Democratic senator who asked to remain anonymous to discuss strategy summed it up this way: The path to passage is as narrow as it is rocky, but Democrats have no choice but to die trying to get across.The hand-wringing is likely to only intensify in the coming weeks. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, vowed to force a floor debate in late June, testing Mr. Manchin’s opposition and laying the groundwork to justify scrapping the filibuster rule.“Hopefully, we can get bipartisan support,” Mr. Schumer said. “So far, we have not seen any glimmers on S. 1, and if not, everything is on the table.”The stakes, both politically and for the nation’s election systems, are enormous.The bill’s failure would allow the enactment of restrictive new voting measures in Republican-led states such as Georgia, Florida and Montana to take effect without legislative challenge. Democrats fear that would empower the Republican Party to pursue a strategy of marginalizing Black and young voters based on former President Donald J. Trump’s false claims of election fraud.Demonstrators in the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta protested restrictive voting measures under consideration in March.Megan Varner/Getty ImagesIf the measure passed, Democrats could effectively overpower the states by putting in place new national mandates that they set up automatic voter registration, hold regular no-excuse early and mail-in voting, and restore the franchise to felons who have served their terms. The legislation would also end partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, restructure the Federal Election Commission and require super PACs to disclose their big donors.A legion of advocacy groups and civil rights veterans argue that the fight is just starting.“This game isn’t done — we are just gearing up for a floor fight,” said Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United and Let America Vote, which are spending millions of dollars on television ads in states like West Virginia. “At the end of the day, every single senator is going to have to make a choice if they are going to vote to uphold the right to vote or uphold an arcane Senate rule. That is the situation that creates the pressure to act.”Proponents of the overhaul on and off Capitol Hill have focused their attention for weeks on Mr. Manchin, a centrist who has expressed deep concerns about the consequences of pushing through voting legislation with the support of only one party. So far, they have taken a deliberately hands-off approach, betting that the senator will realize that there is no real compromise to be had with Republicans.There is little sign that he has come to that conclusion on his own. Democrats huddled last week in a large conference room atop a Senate office building to discuss the bill, making sure Mr. Manchin was there for an elaborate presentation about why it was vital. Mr. Schumer invited Marc E. Elias, the well-known Democratic election lawyer, to explain in detail the extent of the restrictions being pushed through Republican statehouses around the country. Senators as ideologically diverse as Raphael Warnock of Georgia, a progressive, and Jon Tester of Montana, a centrist, warned what might happen if the party did not act.Mr. Manchin listened silently and emerged saying his position had not changed.“I’m learning,” he told reporters. “Basically, we’re going to be talking and negotiating, talking and negotiating, and talking and negotiating.”Senators Rob Portman of Ohio, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Gary Peters of Michigan this month in the Capitol. Ms. Sinema is a co-sponsor of the election overhaul, but she has also pledged not to change the filibuster.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesDespite the intense focus on him, Mr. Manchin is not the only hurdle. Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, is a co-sponsor of the election overhaul, but she has also pledged not to change the filibuster. A handful of other Democrats have shied away from definitive statements but are no less eager to do away with the rule.“I’m not to that point yet,” Mr. Tester said. He also signaled he might be more comfortable modifying the bill, saying he “wouldn’t lose any sleep” if Democrats dropped a provision that would create a new public campaign financing system for congressional candidates. Republicans have pilloried it.“First of all, we have to figure out if we have all the Democrats on board. Then we have to figure out if we have any Republicans on board,” Mr. Tester said. “Then we can answer that question.”Republicans are hoping that by banding together, they can doom the measure’s prospects. They succeeded in deadlocking a key committee considering the legislation, though their opposition did not bar it from advancing to the full Senate. They accuse Democrats of using the voting rights provisions to distract from other provisions in the bill, which they argue are designed to give Democrats lasting political advantages. If they can prevent Mr. Manchin and others from changing their minds on keeping the filibuster, they will have thwarted the entire endeavor..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;}“I don’t think they can convince 50 of their members this is the right thing to do,” said Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. “I think it would be hard to explain giving government money to politicians, the partisan F.E.C.”In the meantime, Mr. Manchin is pushing the party to embrace what he sees as a more palatable alternative: legislation named after Representative John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights icon who died last year, that would restore a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the Supreme Court struck down in 2013.That measure would revive a mandate that states and localities with patterns of discrimination clear election law changes with the federal government in advance, a requirement Mr. Manchin has suggested should be applied nationwide.The senator has said he prefers the approach because it would restore a practice that was the law of the land for decades and enjoyed broad bipartisan support of the kind necessary to ensure the public’s trust in election law.In reality, though, that bill has no better chance of becoming law without getting rid of the filibuster. Since the 2013 decision, when the justices asked Congress to send them an updated pre-clearance formula for reinstatement, Republicans have shown little interest in doing so.Only one, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, supports legislation reinstating the voting rights provision in the Senate. Asked recently about the prospect of building more Republican support, Ms. Murkowski pointed out that she had been unable to attract another co-sponsor from her party in the six years since the bill was first introduced.Complicating matters, it has yet to actually be reintroduced this term and may not be for months. Because any new enforcement provision would have to pass muster with the courts, Democrats are proceeding cautiously with a series of public hearings.All that has created an enormous time crunch. Election lawyers have advised Democrats that they have until Labor Day to make changes for the 2022 elections. Beyond that, they could easily lose control of the House and Senate.“The time clock for this is running out as we approach a midterm election when we face losing the Senate and even the House,” said Representative Terri A. Sewell, a Democrat who represents the so-called Civil Rights Belt of Alabama and is the lead sponsor of the bill named for Mr. Lewis.“If the vote and protecting the rights of all Americans to exercise that most precious right isn’t worth overcoming a procedural filibuster,” she said, “then what is?”Luke Broadwater More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Israel on Edge as Politicians Wrangle Over Coalition to Oust Netanyahu

      by

      Opposition politicians spent Monday locked in last-minute negotiations to form a bloc to force out Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader.JERUSALEM — Israel’s political class was locked in frenzied horse trading on Monday, as opposition politicians struggled to strike a coalition deal to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who in turn was waging a last-ditch effort to cling to power.The bartering put a spotlight on the fragmentation of the Israeli political system, in which the short-term fate of the Israeli state — nearly paralyzed after four elections in two years, unsettled by a recent war and civil unrest, bruised by the pandemic and constrained by the lack of a state budget — was in the hands of a panoply of small political parties haggling over control of minor government offices like the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.The granular nature of the discussions belied their dramatic implication: Mr. Netanyahu — Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, and the man who has shaped contemporary Israel more than any other citizen — has never been so close to losing office. And yet, with just two days remaining for the opposition to secure a deal, his departure is still far from a foregone conclusion.“It’s not over till it’s over,” said Rachel Azaria, a centrist former lawmaker and author of a recent book about social change in Israel. “There’s a joke now on WhatsApp and Twitter and Facebook: The rest of the world is still stuck in Covid. We’re four tragedies later.”“We had the war and we had the riots, and we don’t have a budget,” Ms. Azaria added. “And people are kind of like: ‘Just find a way to make it work.’”The door was opened on Sunday, when Naftali Bennett, an ultranationalist power broker, made an 11th-hour decision to join forces with an anti-Netanyahu bloc of parties, significantly raising the chances of ousting Mr. Netanyahu by a Wednesday night deadline.Mr. Bennett leads a small hard-right party with just seven seats in Parliament. But he holds the balance of power, since Mr. Netanyahu, whom he once served as chief of staff, cannot be replaced without his support.Since an inconclusive general election in March, the fourth since April 2019, Mr. Bennett had avoided throwing in his lot with the opposition, whose ideologies range from the far-right to the left — largely because he was wary of joining a government of such ideological diversity.Naftali Bennett leads the hard-right Yemina party and would become prime minister of the new government coalition if it succeeds in finalizing a deal.Pool photo by Yonatan SindelBut on Sunday, he announced his willingness to thrash out a coalition deal with the leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, declaring that the danger of prolonging the political stasis outweighed the ideological cost of joining a unity government. If they reach an agreement, Mr. Bennett would become prime minister until 2023, at which point Mr. Lapid, a centrist former television host, would take over.But the deal was not yet done by Monday night.Three parties, including Mr. Bennett’s, had not formally signed an agreement. Among other last-minute disputes, two parties were wrangling over who would run the agriculture ministry, while a third was still pushing for a place on a pivotal committee that decides judicial appointments, according to a person involved in the negotiations.And a small Arab Islamist party, Raam, had still yet to declare whether it would support the new coalition — either informally by voting for it during the confirmation vote in Parliament, or by formally joining the government itself — and in the process become the first party run by Palestinian citizens of Israel to back a right-leaning Israeli government.And Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, was still piling pressure onto wavering right-wing opposition lawmakers, calling on them to abandon the anti-Netanyahu bloc and likely force the country to yet another election that might end more favorably for Mr. Netanyahu.An official of New Hope, a small right-wing party that had yet to formally join the coalition bloc, said that its six lawmakers had received a constant barrage of phone calls and messages throughout Monday from Likud members, who were pushing them to abandon negotiations.Pro-Netanyahu protesters gathered outside the homes of Mr. Bennett and his ally Ayelet Shaked, urging them to reverse course. Both were assigned security details by the police amid concerns they might become the target of political violence. And on the airwaves, Likud lawmakers heightened their criticisms of Mr. Bennett and Ms. Shaked, in a last-gasp effort to jolt them away from Mr. Lapid.Miri Regev, a Likud minister, told a broadcaster on Monday night: “I still hope we will manage to form a right-wing government and that Bennett, who is the Madoff of Israeli politics, who deceived and lied to his voters, his clients, will come to his senses and come back home.”The protracted nature of the negotiations is partly rooted in the nature of the Israeli electoral system, which allocates parliamentary seats according to each party’s share of the vote, making it easier for smaller parties to enter Parliament, and harder for larger parties to form majority governments.But it is also down to the divisiveness of Mr. Netanyahu himself.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Parliament on Sunday.Pool photo by Yonatan SindelHis decision to remain in office while standing trial for corruption split his supporters. In turn, that division exacerbated the political stalemate that has seen Israel crash through four inconclusive general elections in two years. Neither Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc nor his opponents had enough votes to win office outright, allowing Mr. Netanyahu to stay in office, mostly as caretaker prime minister, but not completely in power.Three of the parties likely to form part of the new coalition are led by former allies of Mr. Netanyahu, including Mr. Bennett.“It’s almost like a Greek tragedy,” said Ms. Azaria, the centrist former lawmaker. “There’s the king, and he loses the faith of everyone that was loyal. He backstabs them, they backstab him.”Because of the protracted nature of the coalition negotiations, and the ideological differences between its constituent parties, the coalition is not expected to pursue contentious issues such as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or judicial reform. Instead it will likely focus on more straight-ahead policies, such as creating a new state budget, restoring the post-pandemic economy and improving infrastructure.If the new government is formed, it would be led by a former settler leader, Mr. Bennett, who opposes Palestinian statehood and wants to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank. But it would likely contain more supporters of a two-state resolution to the conflict than Mr. Netanyahu’s current government.To remain in office, the government might also need to retain the parliamentary support of Raam, the Arab Islamist party, which is seeking greater rights and resources for Palestinian citizens of Israel, who form about 20 percent of the population.For some, the leftist, centrist and Arab constituents of the putative new alliance would have only a limited effect on Mr. Bennett and other right-wing members.“They’re all fig leaves,” said Diana Buttu, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and a former legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization. “We may see a softer, gentler outward face. But I’m fairly certain that the policies are going to remain the same, if not worse, under Bennett.”Others were more hopeful that an equilibrium would be maintained. Some said the likely appointment of a center-left minister to oversee the police force might encourage officers to exercise more restraint, following several controversial police actions in recent months that contributed to rising unrest in Jerusalem.For ultra-Orthodox Israelis, or Haredim, the putative new coalition is troublesome because it would be formed without the involvement of either of the two main Haredi parties, which have participated in most coalition governments this century.But for others, that was cause for qualified celebration.Anat Hoffman, a campaigner for a more pluralistic approach to Judaism in Israel, did not expect the coalition to last its full term, nor for it to significantly weaken the control over religious affairs currently exerted by Orthodox rabbis. But she hoped it might create a more tolerant atmosphere that would show “there is more than one way to be Jewish, and more than one way to be an Israeli, and more than one way to be an Israeli patriot.”“This is a huge thing for us,” said Ms. Hoffman, the executive director of the Israel Religious Action Center, a group that advocates religious pluralism. “To have a normal government without, every day, one of the government members coming up with a more extreme sweeping initiative that rocks our whole country.”Others argued that the new heterogenous political leadership might allow for warmer ties with parts of the Jewish diaspora, and for a reset with the Democratic Party in the United States — two relationships that became strained under Mr. Netanyahu.And the diverse nature of the coalition, though problematic and unworkable in many respects, might also make the government a better reflection of Israeli society, said Ofer Zalzberg, director of the Middle East Program at the Herbert C. Kelman Institute, a Jerusalem-based research group.“It’s a very unique combination of interests and identities,” Mr. Zalzberg said. “There have been many places where Israeli society has been perhaps more advanced than Israeli politics has allowed Israel to be. This coalition will allow pre-existing societal trends to come to the fore politically.”Adam Rasgon and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting. More

    • 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