Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      I Know What It Takes to Defeat Narendra Modi

      by

      KOLKATA, India — I am a member of the Indian Parliament, and on Sunday, the political party I belong to, the All India Trinamool Congress, defeated the party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in elections for the West Bengal State legislature. Our party and my leader, Mamata Banerjee, the only female chief minister of a state in India today, showed what it takes to defeat Mr. Modi’s divisive, misogynist politics.Out of the 292 seats in West Bengal’s state legislature, Mr. Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party won 77. We won 213 seats. But we weren’t simply fighting to form a state government. We were fighting to stop Mr. Modi’s centralizing, authoritarian juggernaut, which seeks to destroy India’s federalism and its secular character, and transform our country into an autocratic Hindu state.Mr. Modi and Amit Shah, India’s home minister, have systematically hollowed out the institutions that India held sacred and trusted. During the course of the West Bengal election, I witnessed how they reduced the once-respected Election Commission of India, a supposedly independent body that conducts state and national elections, to an errand boy serving their political agenda.On Feb. 26, when the second wave of Covid-19 was rising in India, the commission announced that elections in West Bengal would be conducted in eight phases staggered from March 27 to April 29. Four other Indian states were also going to polls, but the commission restricted them to one or two phases.By scheduling the West Bengal election in this way, the commission made it possible for Mr. Modi to campaign extensively in West Bengal. Indian elections are energetic, festive and crowded affairs. Our party protested and petitioned the commission to limit the election to fewer phases, as a dangerous second wave of Covid-19 had set in. The commission refused to listen.Mr. Modi and Mr. Shah, whose ministry is responsible for disaster management in the country, held numerous public meetings in West Bengal. Both men often appeared unmasked in the public rallies, setting a terrible example for the tens of thousands who attended and the millions who watched the widely televised events.Mr. Modi’s government did absolutely nothing to prevent religious gatherings such as the Kumbh Mela, a festival in Haridwar in the northern state of Uttarakhand, where millions of Hindus gathered for a dip in the Ganges River.On April 17, when India was reporting more than 250,000 new Covid-19 cases, Mr. Modi made a mild and vague appeal to the pilgrims at the Kumbh Mela, asking them to consider going home, and suggested that the festival should be “symbolic.” Yet by late afternoon on that day, Mr. Modi attended a public meeting of over 50,000 people in West Bengal. “Wherever I look, I just see people,” he gloated.The election was turning out to be a super spreader of coronavirus infections. The commission continued ignoring us while the second wave was battering India’s health care systems. The craven dereliction of duty compelled the Madras High Court to remark that the commission “should be put up on murder charges probably!”Mr. Modi prioritized pursuit of political power above Indian lives. The vital first three weeks of April, when the prime minister and his cabinet should have been working on ramping up critical health infrastructure and coordinating with state governments to prevent our catastrophic situation, were lost.India’s women will also remember Mr. Modi’s campaign in West Bengal for its brazen misogyny and toxic masculinity. On April 1, while at a public rally at Uluberia, a city in the state’s Howrah district, Mr. Modi referred to Ms. Banerjee, the leader of my party and the chief minister of West Bengal known affectionately as Didi, as “Didi Ooo Didi!” — to stupendous applause from crowds of men. He continued using that tone and phrase in other public rallies.To my ears, the tone and phrase were ominously close to what a neighborhood cat-caller may call out to girls walking past. To the Bengali middle class, the prospect of handing over the reins of the state to someone who openly endorsed a practice so much at odds with their sensibilities was frightening. Female voters in West Bengal, who make up 49.1 percent of the state’s electorate, cringed. A majority of women voted for our party. They did not allow such misogynist politics to win the day.A supporter of Mamata Banerjee, the leader of the All India Trinamool Congress, which supports a secular, inclusive ideology.Rupak De Chowdhuri/ReutersAnd culture matters. Mr. Modi and his B.J.P. hoped they would win by equating Bengali identity with Hindu culture. They failed to understand that Bengali culture is not a monolith; it combines secularism with non-vegetarianism and a strong contrarian instinct.We joke that laid-back middle-class Bengalis are content with three things: educating our children, the matinee on Saturday (“shoni bar e matinee”) and a mutton curry on Sunday (“robi baar e mangsho”).At the very least, the Bengalis reject anyone who wants to control what we eat, whom we love and what we wear.The Bengal experience has demonstrated that the B.J.P. is not invincible, that all Indians are not attracted to the idea of a majoritarian Hindu state and that Mr. Modi and Mr. Shah are not the master election strategists they are made out to be. Despite their huge financial resources, their misuse of federal investigative agencies to target opponents and accusations that they have been buying off opposition politicians, the B.J.P. can still be defeated by a focused regional party that stays true to its grass roots and a secular, inclusive ideology.It took a catastrophic pandemic for even Mr. Modi’s supporters to see they need oxygen cylinders more than they need a Hindu state. And it took the Bengal election for the rest of India to realize they don’t need toxic machismo. What India needs in a leader is a heart and a spine.Mahua Moitra is a member of the Indian Parliament from the All Indian Trinamool Congress.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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Who Is Yair Lapid, Israel’s Would-Be Prime Minister?

      by

      Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the former television host and centrist opposition leader as a lightweight. Now Mr. Lapid has a chance to oust him.JERUSALEM — Yair Lapid, the centrist politician and former media celebrity whose party took second place in Israel’s March election, had pledged to forgo the premiership if that’s what it would take to form a coalition of diverse parties that could oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power.The unusual exercise in political humility stemmed not from modesty, but from the difficulties he knew he would face in mustering enough parliamentary support to form an alternative government.Now, after Mr. Netanyahu failed to form a viable coalition by Tuesday’s midnight deadline, Mr. Lapid’s political skills and sincerity will be put to the test. The president, Reuven Rivlin, has given him the next shot at cobbling together a government that might send Mr. Netanyahu into the opposition and end Israel’s political gridlock.Mr. Lapid’s party, Yesh Atid (There is a Future), won 17 seats in the inconclusive election, Israel’s fourth in two years. But its path to power is hampered by the disparate nature of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, which is made up of numerous small parties with clashing agendas. Some of its right-wing elements view Mr. Lapid as too left-wing to lead an alternative government.Mr. Netanyahu had cast his own campaign as a head-to-head contest against Mr. Lapid, dismissing him as a lightweight.Mr. Lapid ran a quiet campaign calling for preserving liberal democracy and thwarting Mr. Netanyahu’s stated goal of forming a government made up of right-wing and religious parties, reliant on ultra-Orthodox rabbis and ultranationalist extremists.Mr. Lapid last month in Tel Aviv.Amir Cohen/ReutersMr. Lapid has also called to protect the judiciary from Mr. Netanyahu, who is standing trial on corruption charges and who, together with his right-wing and religious allies, intended to curb the powers of the Supreme Court and possibly seek some kind of immunity from prosecution.Speaking to party activists before the election, Mr. Lapid described the coalition that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to form as “an extremist, homophobic, chauvinistic, racist and anti-democratic government,” and said, “it’s a government where nobody represents working people, the people who pay taxes and believe in the rule of law.”As a former finance minister in the Netanyahu-led government formed in 2013, Mr. Lapid instituted reforms meant to share the national burden more equally between mainstream Israelis and ultra-Orthodox men who choose full-time Torah study over work and army service, and depend on charity and welfare payouts. Most of his policies were undone by succeeding governments.In three elections in 2019 and 2020, Mr. Lapid’s Yesh Atid ran in a three-party, centrist alliance called Blue and White, led by Benny Gantz, a former army chief of staff. Mr. Lapid parted ways with Blue and White after Mr. Gantz reneged on a main election promise and joined forces with Mr. Netanyahu to form an uneasy — and short-lived — unity government after last year’s election.After a highly successful career as a journalist and popular television host, Mr. Lapid was the surprise of the 2013 election when, as a political novice, his party surpassed expectations and placed second, turning him into the chief power broker in the formation of the coalition.His father, Yosef Lapid, a Holocaust survivor and an antireligious politician, once also headed a centrist party and served as justice minister. His mother, Shulamit Lapid, is a well-known novelist.An amateur boxer known for his casual-chic black clothing, Mr. Lapid launched his political career on the back of the social justice protests of 2011, giving voice to Israel’s struggling middle class. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he has stuck to the middle ground, presenting safe positions within the Israeli Jewish consensus. He has said that he supports a two-state solution but opposes any division of Jerusalem, which the Palestinians envision as their future capital. More

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Isabel Díaz Ayuso Wins Madrid's Regional Election

      by

      Isabel Díaz Ayuso, a conservative politician dubbed a “Trumpista” by her opponents, won the Madrid regional election by a landslide after she refused to shut down the capital’s bars and shops.MADRID — She is a conservative who campaigned on a slogan that came down to one word: Freedom. She offered herself as a champion of small business and scoffed at national coronavirus restrictions.Her critics called her a “Trumpista.” But Isabel Díaz Ayuso is now a rising force in Spanish politics. Voters rewarded the right-wing leader of the Madrid region with a landslide victory on Tuesday after she defied the central government by keeping the capital’s bars and shops open throughout much of the pandemic.She suggested that her victory showed that pandemic fatigue and economic distress had left Spaniards unwilling to endure more of the measures favored by the left-wing national government led by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.“Madrid is freedom — and they don’t understand our way of living,” she told her supporters about her left-wing opponents who suffered a crushing loss in the vote.Ms. Ayuso’s Popular Party more than doubled its number of seats in Madrid’s regional assembly, trouncing other parties, including Mr. Sánchez’s Socialists. Her party fell just short of an absolute majority but will hold onto power with support from the far-right Vox party.She is the most talked-about politician in Spain right now. But with nationwide elections not planned for another two years, analysts are divided over whether she could make the leap to the national political stage, or would even want to.Even so, Ms. Ayuso’s victory, could signal that a shift to the right is underway more broadly as the country struggles to emerge from the ravages of the pandemic.Ms. Ayuso, 42, stuck to a simple and clear message that connected with voters who have endured more than a year of pandemic, said Lluís Orriols, a professor of politics at the Carlos III University in Madrid.“Maintaining Madrid open and economically active was something visible to all, while demonstrating that lockdown measures really help keep people healthy is something harder to do,” Mr. Orriols said.Madrid was the epicenter of Spain’s pandemic in the spring of 2020, when its hospitals overflowed with Covid-19 patients. But after the central government lifted a nationwide state of emergency last June, Ms. Ayuso ensured that the city was one of the most bustling in Europe, even when its Covid-19 infection rate crept back up after Easter.This week, Covid-19 patients are filling 44 percent of the beds in Madrid’s intensive care units, which is about double the national average.Ms. Ayuso’s handling of the pandemic provoked tensions even within her administration. After resigning last year as the head of Madrid’s regional health services, Dr. Yolanda Fuentes, recently attacked Ms. Ayuso’s campaign slogan on Twitter.“To understand that freedom means to do whatever you want during a pandemic, when intensive care units are above capacity and colleagues feel defeated, seems to me indecent, to say the least,” Dr. Fuentes said.A busy restaurant in Madrid in March. Despite the pandemic, eateries and shops remained open at the direction of Ms. Ayuso.Susana Vera/ReutersOutside the headquarters of the Popular Party on Tuesday evening, a crowd of supporters danced to the sound of a D.J. Several of them said they were celebrating Ms. Ayuso’s personal victory, rather than that of her party and its national leader, Pablo Casado.“She’s totally a pop icon and a mass phenomenon,” Mariola Vicario, a 25-year-old student, said of Ms. Ayuso. “I don’t consider Casado to have her strength.”In terms of handling the pandemic, Ms. Vicario said that Ms. Ayuso “took measures when needed, but what she did not do is let people starve to death” by keeping Madrid’s economy shut down as long as that of other cities.Madrid’s vote was a resounding defeat for left-wing parties, but it also showed that Ms. Ayuso can keep conservative votes that might have gone to Vox.Mr. Casado has sought to distance his party from Vox, notably last year when he refused to back a thwarted attempt by Vox to oust Prime Minister Sánchez in a parliamentary vote of no confidence.In contrast, Ms. Ayuso said during her campaign that the Popular Party differed on specific issues from Vox, but also suggested that the two had enough common ground to work together in Madrid if needed.Outside the Vox party headquarters in Madrid. The Popular Party’s lead over Vox in Madrid widened significantly compared with 2019.Manu Fernandez/Associated PressEven in the midst of the pandemic, turnout in Madrid reached a record 76 percent on Tuesday, 12 percentage points higher than in the 2019 vote. It was also significantly higher than most other elections recently in Europe, where voters have been reluctant to turn out amid the health concerns.In her closing campaign speech on May 2, which was a public holiday in Madrid that commemorates the city’s fight against the occupation of Napoleon’s troops, Ms. Ayuso made a thinly veiled comparison between the 1808 resistance against the French and her own stance against the central government during the pandemic.Ms. Ayuso, who studied journalism, was a second-tier politician when Mr. Casado unexpectedly handpicked her in early 2019 to be his party’s lead candidate ahead of an election in the Madrid region.She then took charge of the capital region, which the Popular Party has run since 1996, but was forced to govern with the support of a center-right party, Ciudadanos. Tensions between the partners mounted earlier this year, and Ms. Ayuso called a snap election.On Tuesday, Ciudadanos failed to pick up enough votes to even hold a single seat within Madrid’s regional assembly — votes that likely benefited Ms. Ayuso’s party instead.The election ended the political career of Pablo Iglesias, the founder of the far-left Unidas Podemos party. He had unexpectedly abandoned his post as deputy prime minister of Spain to run in the Madrid regional election.In a farewell address to his supporters, Mr. Iglesias said he was sorry to witness “the impressive success of the Trumpist right that Ayuso represents.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.K. Elections Likely to Favor Boris Johnson, and Scottish Separatists

      by

      The prime minister’s Conservative Party stands to gain at the polls on Thursday, despite ethical accusations against him. But growth in support for the Scottish Nationalist Party could create turmoil.LONDON — For an ordinary politician, heading into midterm elections on an unsavory plume of scandal over cellphone contacts with billionaires and a suspiciously funded apartment makeover might seem like the recipe for a thumping. But Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain is not an ordinary politician.As voters in the country go to the polls on Thursday for regional and local elections that have been swollen by races postponed from last year because of the pandemic, Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party stands to make gains against a Labour Party that has struggled to make the ethical accusations against him stick.Far from humbling a wayward prime minister, the elections could extend a realignment in British politics that began in 2019 when the Conservative Party won a landslide general election victory. That would put the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, on the back foot and ratify Mr. Johnson’s status as a kind of political unicorn.“No politician in the democratic West can escape the consequences of political gravity forever, but Boris Johnson has shown a greater capacity to do it than most,” said Tony Travers, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics. “People see his behavior as evidence of his authenticity.”Yet there is peril as well as promise for Mr. Johnson in the elections, which will decide thousands of seats, including that of London’s mayor, and which the British press has perhaps inevitably nicknamed “Super Thursday.”In Scotland, the Scottish National Party could win a clear majority in Scotland’s Parliament that the nationalists would brandish as a powerful mandate to demand another referendum on independence from the United Kingdom after an earlier one was defeated in 2014.Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, left, with a supporter in Edinburgh last week.Pool photo by Russell CheyneIn that event, Mr. Johnson could emerge in a stronger position in Westminster only to find that he will spend the next few years scrambling to avert a breakup of the union. That could make the tempest over his WhatsApp texting and who paid for the wallpaper in his Downing Street apartment look quaint.“The test of the Johnson premiership is going to be the integrity of the union — not Covid, not Brexit, not Europe, not sleaze,” said Mujtaba Rahman, an analyst with the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.Whether the Scottish National Party wins an outright majority or is forced to enter a coalition with the pro-independence Scottish Greens, pollsters said, was still unclear. But the numbers are less important than the direction, which is expected to be emphatically behind a new campaign for Scottish independence.In the English elections, the big prize is Hartlepool, a struggling northern port city and Labour bastion where a new poll suggests that the Conservatives could win a bellwether seat in a parliamentary by-election. The Tories could make further inroads in other Labour cities and towns in the industrial Midlands and North, where they picked off dozens of seats in 2019, running on Mr. Johnson’s promise to “Get Brexit Done.”The prime minister did get Brexit done, as of last January. Yet while the split with the European Union brought predicted chaos in shipments of British seafood and higher customs fees on European goods, its effects have been eclipsed by the pandemic — a twist that ended up working to the government’s benefit.Although the pandemic began as a negative story for Mr. Johnson, with a dilatory response to the first wave of infections that left Britain with the highest death toll in Europe, it turned around with the nation’s rapid rollout of vaccines.Customers at a London pub after England began lifting pandemic lockdown restrictions last month.Mary Turner for The New York TimesAs new cases, hospitalizations and deaths have plunged, voters have rediscovered their affection for Mr. Johnson. His poll numbers rebounded from their lows last fall and show little damage from the charges and countercharges about his conduct, even though those have riveted London’s political circles.More important, Mr. Johnson’s message of “leveling up” the economically blighted Midlands and North with the more prosperous south still seems to resonate with people, including many who traditionally voted for Labour. And the government’s free-spending response to the pandemic has pulled the Conservative Party even further from its roots as the party of fiscal austerity.“The party of Margaret Thatcher is becoming the party of a big state and higher taxes, which can quite easily become the party of economic nationalism and ‘Buy British,’” said Mr. Travers, the London School of Economics professor.For Mr. Starmer, the Labour leader, this shape shifting has been confounding. A disciplined former prosecutor who lacks Mr. Johnson’s raffish manner, he has found it difficult to attack the government on its pandemic response, particularly the vaccine rollout, which is the largest peacetime mobilization in British history.Instead, Mr. Starmer has grilled Mr. Johnson in Parliament weekly about who picked up the initial bill for the upgrade of his apartment and why he was texting the billionaire James Dyson about the tax status of his employees, when the two were discussing a plan for Mr. Dyson’s company to manufacture ventilators.But there is little evidence that voters are particularly surprised or concerned that Mr. Johnson does not play by the rules. As political commentators have taken to saying this week, the prime minister’s behavior is “priced in.”The Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, has grilled the prime minister about ethical issues but has struggled to attack the government’s recent pandemic response.Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA, via ShutterstockThe same is not true of Scottish independence. Analysts say Mr. Johnson’s government is not prepared for the wall of pressure it will face if the Scottish National Party wins a majority. The last time the party achieved that, in 2011, Britain’s then-prime minister, David Cameron, yielded to demands for a referendum. In 2014, Scots voted against leaving Britain by 55 percent to 44 percent.Polls now put the split at roughly 50-50, after a stretch in which the pro-independence vote was solidly above 50 percent. Analysts attribute the slight softening of support to both the vaccine rollout, which showed the merits of staying in the union, as well as an ugly political dispute within Scottish nationalist ranks.Mr. Johnson holds a trump card of sorts. To be legally binding, an independence referendum would almost certainly have to gain the assent of the British government, so the prime minister can simply say no and hope the problem goes away. But that strategy can work for only so long before becoming untenable.“I don’t see any way in the world that Boris Johnson turns around the day after the election and says, ‘OK, you can have a referendum,’” said Nicola McEwen, a professor of politics at the University of Edinburgh.And yet the calls could only grow. “If they manage to peel off a single-party majority,” she said, “it does put pressure on the U.K. to answer the question, ‘If a democratic vote isn’t a mandate for independence, then what is?’” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Fails to Form New Israeli Government, Prolonging Deadlock

      by

      The prime minister’s opponents may now get a chance to oust him from power. But it is too soon to write off Benjamin Netanyahu, a political survivor.JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel failed to form a new government by the midnight Tuesday deadline, putting his political future in jeopardy as he stands trial on corruption charges and prolonging a political deadlock that has only worsened after four elections in two years.Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, may now give a rival, eclectic camp of anti-Netanyahu parties a chance to form a government, which could oust Mr. Netanyahu from power after 12 consecutive years in office.Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party is by far the largest on Israel’s fractured political scene, having won 30 seats in a general election in March. Despite that, he was not able to muster enough coalition partners to command a majority of at least 61 seats in the 120-member Parliament.His hopes for a right-wing and religious coalition ultimately fell short because his far-right allies refused to join a government supported by a small Islamist Arab party. The Arab party, Raam, was willing to back a Netanyahu administration in return for benefits for Israel’s Arab minority.Mr. Netanyahu also failed in a last-gasp effort to persuade a right-wing rival, Naftali Bennett, to join him in a power-sharing agreement that would have seen the pair take turns as prime minister.Mr. Bennett had dismissed the offer, saying that even with his support Mr. Netanyahu could not muster a majority.Three minutes before midnight, Likud issued a terse statement blaming Mr. Bennett for foiling Mr. Netanyahu’s chances by refusing to commit to a right-wing government, “which would certainly have led to the formation of a government joined by additional members of Parliament.”Mr. Rivlin may now ask one of Mr. Netanyahu’s rivals — representing a disparate group of parties ranging from the pro-settlement right to the secular left — to try to cobble together a governing coalition that would send the prime minister into the opposition. Or Mr. Rivlin could ask Parliament to put forward a candidate.He has three days to make that decision. His office said that he would restart the process on Wednesday morning by contacting each of the political parties represented in Parliament.Mr. Netanyahu would still remain in power as a caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed. If no one can form a government, Israel will be heading to a fifth election.But with his failure to build a majority coalition, Mr. Netanyahu may have lost his best chance of gaining some kind of legal immunity from criminal prosecution. Charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust, he has denied wrongdoing and insists the cases against him will collapse in court.A protest against Mr. Netanyahu outside his residence in Jerusalem last month. Sebastian Scheiner/Associated PressSome of his political allies had pledged to make moves or advance legislation that could put his trial on hold until he leaves office. A new Netanyahu government could also have appointed a more sympathetic attorney general to replace the current one, whose term is up early next year.The failure to create a new government could also prolong a political stalemate that has left Israel without a state budget for two consecutive years in the middle of a pandemic, and has delayed appointments to several key administrative and judicial posts.The largest party challenging Likud, and the runner-up in the election, is Yesh Atid, a centrist group that won 17 seats. But its leader, Yair Lapid, a former finance minister, does not have an easy path to forming a government either.The bloc opposing Mr. Netanyahu is made up of numerous other small parties with clashing agendas. The smaller right-wing parties in the bloc view Mr. Lapid as too left-wing to lead the government.Instead, discussions in Mr. Lapid’s bloc have centered around the possibility of Mr. Lapid sharing power with another candidate, such as Mr. Bennett, the leader of Yamina, a right-wing party that won just seven seats. Under such an agreement, Mr. Bennett might lead the country for a year, before handing the prime ministry to Mr. Lapid.Mr. Lapid’s party has championed taxpaying middle-class Israelis and called for limits on the autonomy afforded to Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community — many of whom are exempted from military service, and study religious texts instead of entering the work force. That has made him an enemy of the ultra-Orthodox parties that have long kept Mr. Netanyahu in power.Mr. Lapid pledged during the election campaign to put his ego aside and concede the premiership if that was what it took to unseat Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.Yair Lapid, center, the leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party, pledged during the election campaign to concede the premiership if that’s what it took to unseat Mr. Netanyahu.Amir Levy/Getty ImagesTo make up a majority, this bloc would also need to rely on the support of an Arab party, something they have been reluctant to do in the past. Even if they succeed in forming a government with the limited goal of steadying the country after a long period of political chaos, many analysts believe its heterogeneity would make it short lived.Mr. Bennett is also seeking a chance to try to form the next government. He has said that his preference is to build a right-wing coalition including Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud and the religious parties but, failing that, he would work to form a more diverse “unity” government including parties from the anti-Netanyahu bloc.If no government has been formed within the allotted time — 28 days for a lawmaker other than Mr. Netanyahu, or up to five weeks for a candidate nominated by Parliament — the assembly will automatically dissolve itself and Israelis will head back to the ballot box for the fifth time since the spring of 2019.Aside from the country’s usual tensions between secular and religious, right-wing and left-wing, and Jewish and Arab, Israelis have become increasingly divided about Mr. Netanyahu himself. Those on the ideological right are now split between pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps.Mr. Netanyahu had the solid support of only 52 lawmakers, from his own Likud, two loyal ultra-Orthodox parties and a far-right alliance. Three right-wing parties ultimately chose not to return him to government.In total, 13 parties entered Parliament, all but Likud and Yesh Atid with seats in the single digits.Any government that is formed is likely to be unstable and dependent on the demands and whims of small parties with disproportionate power.This latest failure to form a government is a severe blow to Mr. Netanyahu. He campaigned hard for the March election and had staked his fortunes on Israel’s successful vaccination drive, which had allowed the economy and cultural life to reopen just in time for the ballot.But commentators say it is still too early to write him off.He similarly failed to form a government after two elections in 2019. But when his rivals also failed to cement a coalition, he remained in place as a caretaker prime minister. An election in April 2020 produced an ill-fated unity government that collapsed after seven months of political and administrative paralysis.Some analysts say that Mr. Netanyahu, a political survivor, is happy to function as a caretaker prime minister, riding the wave of electoral turmoil from one transitional government to another, as long as he remains in office. And if the latest imbroglio ends in a fifth election, he is likely to run again. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Netanyahu Offers Rival a Year in Office, in Last-Minute Bid for Government

      by

      With a deadline fast approaching, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is still pushing to form a new coalition.JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said on Monday that he would be willing to hand over leadership for one year to a longtime right-wing rival, Naftali Bennett, in a last-ditch effort to cobble together a new government.Mr. Netanyahu, who has spent the last 12 years in office and is now standing trial on corruption charges, announced the offer just ahead of a deadline to form a government, in the wake of Israel’s fourth inconclusive election in two years.The arrangement, part of a rotation agreement, would be a highly unusual one since Mr. Bennett, who served briefly as defense minister in a previous government, leads a small, pro-settlement party, Yamina, that holds just seven seats in the 120-seat Parliament.Mr. Netanyahu wrote about the offer in a post on Facebook less than 36 hours before his time to form a new government runs out at midnight on Tuesday. Mr. Bennett appeared to dismiss the offer as political spin in his initial response.The last election in March has left Mr. Netanyahu weakened and, so far, unable to muster a coalition that would command a parliamentary majority.Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party won the most seats of any party in the election, securing 30 seats in the 120-seat Parliament, but had been endorsed for the premiership by only 52 lawmakers from Likud, two loyal ultra-Orthodox parties and a far-right alliance called Religious Zionism.Even with Mr. Bennett’s Yamina on board, Mr. Netanyahu would still be two seats short of the 61 needed to form a majority government.Still, the support of Mr. Bennett’s party could be key, and he has been negotiating both with the Netanyahu-led bloc and with an opposition bloc made up of parties from across the spectrum that are determined to unseat Mr. Netanyahu. That group also had no easy path to power.A banner for Naftali Bennett and his Yamina party in Jerusalem ahead of last month’s elections.Ahmad Gharabli/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Netanyahu said Mr. Bennett had demanded to serve for one year in a rotating premiership while negotiating with both sides, playing each against the other.“It’s not exactly a routine demand from the person who heads a party with seven seats,” Mr. Netanyahu said of Mr. Bennett’s stipulation. “But the consideration that guides me is what is at stake now — the good of the country: A right-wing government and not a left-wing government.” Mr. Bennett subsequently denied having made the demand.If Mr. Bennett were to take up Mr. Netanyahu’s offer, it is unclear how much power Mr. Bennett would actually wield given the imbalance between their respective parties.Mr. Bennett has said he would prefer to sit in a coherent right-wing government but noted that he was waiting for Mr. Netanyahu to show he had a majority. His immediate response to Mr. Netanyahu’s offer was dismissive.“I have just heard Netanyahu’s proposal, and I have to say it is unclear to me,” Mr. Bennett said. “I did not demand the premiership from Netanyahu, but rather I asked for a government. And that, to my regret, he does not have.”In order to form a government, Mr. Netanyahu needs the direct or passive support of Raam, a small Islamist party whose Hebrew acronym stands for the United Arab List, which holds four seats in Parliament. But most of the Religious Zionism party has so far ruled out relying on the support of the Arab party, which they say supports terrorism.Mr. Netanyahu’s only other option is to attract defectors from the opposition bloc. Mr. Netanyahu said that if Mr. Bennett and his Yamina party joined forces to form a solid bloc of 59 seats, others would come.Mr. Bennett and Mr. Netanyahu during a meeting of the Israeli Parliament last year.Sebastian Scheiner/Associated PressThe latest power-sharing proposal could offer Israel a way out of its prolonged political deadlock. But even with Mr. Netanyahu in the background, it could highlight the cracks in his carefully curated image of indispensability.Mr. Netanyahu has presented himself as the only candidate qualified and experienced enough to secure Israel’s future in a volatile region, at a time when the Biden administration is pursuing negotiations aimed at restoring the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran despite Israeli objections.But questions of trust and stability would hang over any new government with Mr. Bennett at least nominally at the helm, after a similar agreement lasted just months.Mr. Netanyahu’s last government was also based on a rotation agreement with his main coalition partner, Benny Gantz, the leader of the centrist Blue and White party. The two joined forces in a unity government after last year’s election draw.Mr. Netanyahu held the office of prime minister first, with the agreement that Mr. Gantz would take over in November 2021. But after only seven months, Mr. Netanyahu created a budget crisis that led to new elections, before Mr. Gantz could get close to heading the government.What many Israelis are hoping for now is an end to the gridlock that paralyzed the government for years. The political morass left Israel without a state budget for two consecutive years in the middle of a pandemic and has delayed appointments to several key administrative and judicial posts.Aside from the country’s usual tensions between secular and religious, right-wing and left-wing, and Jewish and Arab, the main division had increasingly focused on Mr. Netanyahu himself. Even the ideological right has been split between pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps, largely over the leader’s fitness for the office of prime minister amid his legal troubles.Mr. Netanyahu is expected to appear in court regularly now that the evidentiary stage of his trial on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, which he denies, has begun. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      For Democrats, Another Bad Election Night in Texas

      by

      Two Republicans qualified for a runoff to fill a vacant House seat in northern Texas, foiling Democrats’ hopes of a breakthrough there.AUSTIN, Texas — Democrats hoping for some encouraging signs in Texas did not find any on Saturday in a special election to fill a vacant congressional seat. Instead, they found themselves locked out of a runoff that will now see two Republicans battle for the seat in northern Texas.The two Republicans — Susan Wright, who was endorsed by President Donald J. Trump, and State Representative Jake Ellzey — emerged as the top vote-getters in a 23-candidate, all-party special election to replace Mrs. Wright’s husband, U.S. Representative Ron Wright, who this year became the first congressman to die of Covid-19.Jana Lynne Sanchez, a Democrat who made a surprisingly strong showing for the seat in 2018 and was considered by many as a likely cinch for the runoff, came in a close third, leaving the two Republicans to fight for the seat that their party has controlled for nearly four decades.Democrats who needed a strong turnout to be competitive did not get one. They were hoping for signs of weakness in the Republican brand because of the state’s disastrous response to the brutal winter storm in February or any signs of weariness with Mr. Trump, but they did not see that, either.Michael Wood, a small-business man and Marine veteran who gained national attention as the only openly anti-Trump Republican in the field, picked up only 3 percent of the vote.Democrats have not won a statewide race in Texas since 1994. When the seat is filled, Texas’ house delegation will be 23 Republicans and 13 Democrats.“The Republicans turned out and the Democrats didn’t,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “That’s a critical takeaway. The party has to think very systematically about what’s wrong and what they need to change in order to be successful.Since 1983, Republicans have held seat, in Texas’ Sixth Congressional District, which includes mostly rural areas in three northern Texas counties and a sliver of the nation’s fourth-largest metropolitan region around Dallas, Fort Worth and Arlington.But growing numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans fueled Democrats’ hopes that they had a strong shot of at least getting into a runoff. Mr. Trump won the district by only 3 points in November. Ms. Sanchez, who grew up in the district and built a strong political organization, was widely portrayed as the lead contender in the field of 10 Democrats.But in the end, she came up 354 votes short after the Democrats splintered the party’s vote, and Mr. Ellzey nudged her aside for the runoff. Mrs. Wright won 19.2 percent of the vote to Mr. Ellzey’s 13.8 percent. Ms. Sanchez got 13.4 percent of the vote.The large field may have cost Ms. Sanchez a runoff spot, but in the end Republicans won 62 percent of the vote and Democrats 37 percent, not auspicious numbers for her hopes of winning if she did get in the runoff.“Democrats have come a long way toward competing in Texas but we still have a way to go,” Ms. Sanchez said in a concession statement on Sunday morning.She said: “We’ll keep fighting for a healthier, equitable and prosperous Texas and to elect leaders who care about meeting the needs of Texans, although it won’t happen in this district immediately.”The Republican runoff was already showing signs of being fought along familiar right-of-center turf.Ms. Wright’s general consultant, Matt Langston, assailed Mr. Ellzey, a former Navy pilot who was endorsed by former Gov. Rick Perry, as “an opportunistic RINO” — a Republican in Name Only.And one of her prominent supporters, David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth, which has spent more than $350,000 on mail, social media and texts against Mr. Ellzey’s bid, on Sunday called on the second-place candidate to pull out of the race. He said it was more important for Republicans to unite behind Mrs. Wright’s candidacy in advance of the critical midterm congressional races next year.“If he wants to unite, stop attacking,” said Craig Murphy, Mr. Ellzey’s spokesman, firmly rebuffing Mr. McIntosh’s proposal. Mr. Murphy also denounced Mr. Langston’s statement against his candidate as “silly and insulting” and described Mr. Ellzey as “a guy who has been under enemy fire eight times.”The defeat in the special election in some respects evoked the 2020 elections in Texas, when Democrats believed that demographic changes put them in reach of a potential “blue wave” to possibly take over the Republican-controlled state House of Representatives and flip several congressional seats. Instead, the blue wave never washed ashore, and the House remains in Republicans hands by the same margin as before.The Sixth District was once a Democratic stronghold, until Phil Gramm, formerly a conservative Democrat, switched party affiliations in 1983. The district has been a reliable Republican bastion ever since.The seat came open in February after Mr. Wright, who had lung cancer, died after he contracted the coronavirus. His wife was an early front-runner to replace him, but her chances of outright victory narrowed after the field grew to 23 candidates: 11 Republicans, 10 Democrats, a Libertarian and an independent. More

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Perú y la desolación final

      by

      La idea de una supuesta batalla final entre la izquierda y la derecha, ¿realmente ayuda a los peruanos a discernir y a decidir mejor por quién votarán el próximo 6 de junio?El escenario político del Perú, de cara a la segunda vuelta electoral, parece un libreto tan perfecto como aterrador. Si a un avezado guionista de televisión le hubieran encargado el diseño de un drama sin salidas posibles, tal vez no hubiera imaginado un relato tan desolador. La realidad no supera a la ficción: la sustituye. Después de la profunda crisis política que ha vivido el país —con cuatro presidentes en los últimos cinco años—, tener ahora que elegir entre Pedro Castillo y Keiko Fujimori parece una pesadilla inimaginable, el peor remake de la industria de la polarización latinoamericana.¿Acaso tiene sentido seguir tratando de analizar lo que ocurre en la región como si fuera, tan solo, parte de un único y casi mecánico enfrentamiento entre el capitalismo y el comunismo? Esta propuesta esquemática —donde convergen algunos escritores reconocidos y analistas internacionales— parece cada vez más inútil. No logra explicar la realidad. Tampoco ha logrado modificarla.Pensar que ahora, nuevamente, en el Perú, se produce un choque entre las fuerzas universales de la izquierda y la derecha; insistir en la idea de que nuestra historia reciente solo puede entenderse como una sucesión de conspiraciones entre supuestos socialistas y supuestos liberales, ya no aporta nada y, por el contrario, obvia o elude la complejidad de nuestras sociedades y del proceso que está viviendo el continente. Parecen simples fórmulas de postergación. Tras los múltiples incendios de la polarización, la tragedia de las grandes mayorías sigue igual, intacta.¿La idea de una supuesta batalla final entre la izquierda y la derecha, realmente ayuda a los peruanos a discernir y a decidir mejor por quién votarán el próximo 6 de junio?La consigna de Pedro Castillo, supuestamente en el extremo a la izquierda, no es nueva: “Solo el pueblo salvará al pueblo”. Forma parte de una retórica ambigua pero eficaz. Recita textos de uno de los intelectuales de la izquierda latinoamericana por antonomasia, Eduardo Galeano, y convoca al país rural, abandonado y muchas veces despreciado. Convierte el melodrama en una acción política. Sin ofrecer demasiadas claridades con respecto a su programa de gobierno, capitaliza las legítimas ansias de cambio de la gente, apelando emocionalmente a la pobreza. Como era de esperarse, y como se ha repetido ya en las elecciones en otros países, el fantasma de Hugo Chávez sobrevuela la contienda. Castillo se ha visto obligado a aclarar que no es comunista, que no es chavista. Hace pocos días, en un programa de radio, le mandó un mensaje directo a Nicolás Maduro, pidiéndole que —antes de opinar sobre el Perú— resolviera sus problemas en internos en Venezuela. Y añadió una frase que revela más bien un pensamiento conservador y xenófobo: “Que venga y se lleve a sus compatriotas que han venido, por ejemplo, acá a delinquir”.La supuesta derecha, con Keiko Fujimori, más que representar el pasado, lo encarna. Literalmente. Ha anunciado que, de ganar las elecciones, indultará a su padre. Ante la desventaja en las encuestas, su estrategia de distribución de miedos se ha incrementado. Tratando de alimentar las sospechas sobre su rival, sostiene que Castillo es “un clon real de Hugo Chávez”. Esta confrontación, que parece un círculo ruidoso donde ambos contrincantes solo se dedican a acusarse mutuamente, podrá verse hoy en un debate público de los dos candidatos.Angela Ponce/ReutersLos candidatos presidenciales del Perú, Pedro Castillo y Keiko FujimoriPaolo Aguilar/EPA vía ShutterstockLa invitación de Mario Vargas Llosa a votar por Keiko, argumentando que representa “el mal menor” para el país, es otro síntoma de las limitaciones de la polarización. A diferencia del Vargas Llosa novelista —capaz de abordar y narrar con complejidad el gobierno y derrocamiento de Jacobo Árbenz, por ejemplo—, el Vargas Llosa opinador parece estar continuamente obligado a entrar en el esquema polarizante, a optar y defender cualquier propuesta que se diga o se proclame liberal, en contra de cualquier propuesta que parezca de izquierda. De esta manera, lo mejor —el mal menor— puede ser el regreso a lo peor. Es una lógica que deja en entredicho el sentido y la utilidad de la democracia: un sistema donde el poder del pueblo consiste en resignarse ante una minoría corrupta y autoritaria.Suponer que Keiko Fujimori simboliza la última oportunidad de libertad y que Castillo significa la llegada intempestiva del comunismo implica, entre otras cosas, reducir la historia y la vida social a un nivel de simplicidad enorme. Casi pareciera que, en los últimos diez años, los peruanos no hubieron visto pasar por la presidencia del país a Ollanta Humala, a Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, a Martín Vizcarra, a Manuel Merino, a Francisco Sagasti. Como si no hubieran escuchado y vivido distintas propuestas, ideologías, nexos con la geopolítica regional. La condición apocalíptica de la polarización propone que la actualidad siempre es diferente y definitiva. Somete a los ciudadanos a hacerse responsables —de manera urgente— de las miserias de los actores políticos, así como a vivir postergando de forma permanente las genuinas ansias de cambio de su realidad.En la década de 1950, Williams S. Burroughs realizó un viaje desde Panamá al Perú, buscando tener experiencias con la ayahuasca. Durante el periplo, mantuvo una suerte de diario viajes, en forma de correspondencia con el poeta Allen Ginsberg, cuyo resultado fue un libro extraordinario, titulado Las cartas del Yagé. Al final de su periplo, ya en el Perú, el novelista estadounidense escribe lo siguiente: “Todas las mañanas, se oye el clamor de los chicos que venden Luckies por la calle: ‘A ver, Luckies’. ¿Seguirán gritando ‘A ver, Luckies’ de aquí a cien años? Miedo de pesadilla del estancamiento. Horror de quedarme finalmente clavado en este lugar. Ese miedo me ha perseguido por toda América del Sur. Una sensación horrible y enfermiza de desolación final”.Frente a esta realidad permanente, signada por la desigualdad, la pobreza y la impunidad, la polarización parece un juego pirotécnico, un libreto estridente que se repite sin gracia. El espectáculo que pretende convertir un fracaso conocido en una nueva esperanza.Alberto Barrera Tyszka (@Barreratyszka) es escritor venezolano. Su libro más reciente es la novela Mujeres que matan. More