Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Poland’s Ruling Party Casts Doubt on Election That Cost It Power

      by

      Loyalists of Poland’s Law and Justice party are questioning the legitimacy of the election won this month by an alliance of opposition parties.After eight years of pumping out vitriol against opponents of Poland’s governing party, state-controlled television has rallied to an unlikely new cause: a free media and fair play.Unsettled by the election this month of a new Parliament controlled by political forces it previously vilified, Poland’s main public broadcaster last week set up a telephone hotline as part of what it described as a “special campaign to defend media pluralism” and counter “increasingly frequent attacks on journalists.”The abrupt about face by a public broadcaster notorious for its often vicious, one-sided coverage reflected Poland’s febrile political atmosphere as loyalists of the defeated Law and Justice party scramble to keep their jobs by presenting themselves as victims of persecution and of a compromised election.That loyalists have much to lose as a result of the Oct. 15 vote was made clear last week when Gazeta Wyborcza, a liberal newspaper, published a long list of journalists and other Law and Justice supporters who “will have to say goodbye to their positions” in media, state corporations and other state-controlled entities. The list has since been expanded as readers send in the names of more people they want gone, too.Pleas for “media pluralism” by a public broadcasting system that for years froze out opposition voices and served as a propaganda bullhorn for Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the chairman of the nationalist governing party, have mostly been met with guffaws and cries of hypocrisy.But the effort pointed to the obstacles ahead for the election victors as the losing side digs in, fighting to hang on to jobs, and promotes often wild conspiracy theories to explain and, in some cases, deny Law and Justice’s defeat at the polls.The logo of TVP, Polish state television, is seen on the roof of the company’s building, in Warsaw, in September.Kacper Pempel/Reuters“They are trying to create the myth of a stolen victory,” said Jakub Majmurek a prominent commentator on Polish politics and culture. But, he added, “Kaczynski is not Donald Trump” and “I don’t think we are going to see scenes of January 6 in Poland.”Polish politics, he said, “are very unpredictable” and “very polarized” but are still even-tempered enough to make a replay of the storming of the Capitol highly unlikely in Warsaw. “It wouldn’t work. They would have to confront huge crowds on the streets and they don’t know how the police will react,” Mr. Majmurek said.More likely, most observers say, is a long drawn-out struggle by Law and Justice appointees — who are now in control of public broadcasting, the judiciary and other institutions — to resist being replaced by more neutral, or at least less brazenly partisan, figures.TVP Info, the public broadcaster’s news channel, this year gave 66 percent of its airtime to Law and Justice and just 10 percent to the main opposition party. This airtime gap was only 5 percent in favor of Poland’s previous governing party in 2014, the year before Law and Justice rose to power.Law and Justice won more votes than any other single party in the recent election but an alliance of its opponents won a clear majority in Parliament. They have proposed Donald Tusk, the leader of Civic Coalition, the biggest opposition party, as prime minister at the head of a new coalition government.But, more than two weeks after its victory, the opposition has still not been asked to form a government by Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, an ally of Law and Justice.The constitution gives Mr. Duda 30 days to make a decision, a long pause that diehard supporters of the defeated party are now using to try to delay and even derail the consequences of their electoral defeat.Daniel Milewski, a member of Parliament for the governing party, appealed to Mr. Duda “to prevent Donald Tusk from becoming prime minister” and vowed that Law and Justice “will do everything to stop this from happening.”Poland’s main opposition leader, Donald Tusk, is surrounded by journalists and supporters after leaving a voting station in Warsaw, in October.Petr David Josek/Associated PressAs well as veering close to Trump-like pleas to “stop the steal,” Law and Justice has insisted that foreign interference cost them the election, echoing the claims of Democrats in the United States stunned by Hillary Clinton’s upset defeat in 2016.“A question worth asking,” the party’s chairman, Mr. Kaczynski, told Gazeta Polska, a conservative magazine, is “to what extent is our public life autonomous from external forces?” Pointing a finger at Germany and Russia, he complained of “forces at work here all the time” to unfairly influence Polish voters.Antoni Macierewicz, a veteran Law and Justice legislator notorious for promoting apocalyptic conspiracy theories, on Monday accused the leader of Third Way, a centrist grouping allied with Mr. Tusk, of having ties to Russian intelligence and predicted that letting the opposition take power would risk World War III.Another senior Law and Justice legislator, Ryszard Terlecki, warned of dire consequences, including an upsurge in L.G.B.T.Q. activism that he described as a “rainbow flood,” if the opposition was allowed to form a government. But he assured supporters that “all is not lost” and “we still have hope” that right-wing forces might be able to form a coalition government “that will stop the catastrophe.”Particularly shocking to Law and Justice is that it lost the election despite having near total control of public broadcasting, a nationwide network of television and radio stations, and a firm grip on many regional newspapers that were purchased in 2021 by the state oil giant, PKN Orlen, which is itself headed by a former Law and Justice politician.A report on Poland’s election by observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said the election had been tarnished by “distorted and openly partisan coverage by the public broadcaster.” This, the observers said, “provided a clear advantage to the ruling party, undermining the democratic separation of state and party.”Restoring that separation, however, will be difficult because of the lingering grip of Law and Justice on a raft of bodies it set up after it took power in 2015 and began remaking the system to try to ensure that, no matter the results of future elections, its supporters would remain deeply entrenched.TVP, the Polish state broadcaster, was a target of protesters at a pro-European Union demonstration in Gdansk, in 2021. Mateusz Slodkowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOne such body is the National Media Council, an organization that, controlled by Law and Justice appointees, was given the power to appoint and dismiss public broadcasting executives. In a statement released after the election, the council rejected any attempt by the opposition to break Law and Justice’s hold on public television and radio, vowing to “defend public media and their employees” against what it described as “illegal activities” by the new majority in Parliament.Getting rid of the council — and similar bodies set up by Law and Justice to control judicial appointments — would require new legislation, but any move by Parliament aimed at creating a more level playing field would likely be vetoed by President Duda. The opposition doesn’t have a large enough majority to override his veto.Law and Justice, said Mr. Majmurek, the commentator, “built a lot of traps into the system and did everything to make sure that it still controls many vital state institutions even after losing an election.”The task now faced by the opposition, he added, is “like dismantling a very complicated and potentially deadly bomb.”Anatol Magdziarz More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      El gobierno de Maduro va contra la oposición previo a la elección de 2024

      by

      La decisión de anular las primarias en las que se eligió a una candidata unitaria para enfrentar al presidente Nicolás Maduro plantea dudas sobre su compromiso con un proceso libre.Luego de años de un gobierno autoritario, parecía que se abría un pequeño resquicio de esperanza para los partidarios de la democracia.La elección de una candidata de la oposición para enfrentarse en las urnas al presidente de Venezuela, que derivó del compromiso del gobierno de celebrar elecciones libres y justas el próximo año, generó un optimismo moderado en los venezolanos y observadores internacionales sobre la posibilidad de un retorno a la democracia.Pero ahora el gobierno del presidente Nicolás Maduro está atacando las primarias de la oposición celebradas este mes, lo que ha suscitado preocupaciones de que Maduro oponga resistencia a cualquier desafío serio a su poder, el cual tiene desde hace 10 años, incluso mientras su país sigue padeciendo las consecuencias de las sanciones internacionales.Las primarias de la oposición en Venezuela, país sudamericano de unos 28 millones de habitantes, se llevaron a cabo sin el apoyo oficial del gobierno. La votación, en cambio, fue organizada por la sociedad civil y se instalaron mesas electorales en viviendas, parques y sedes de partidos de la oposición.Más de 2,4 millones de venezolanos votaron, una cifra considerable que podría indicar el compromiso de los electores rumbo a las elecciones generales previstas para 2024.Pero en los días posteriores a la votación, el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, organismo controlado por Maduro, afirmó que la participación electoral estaba inflada y calificó a los organizadores de “ladrones” y “estafadores”, y describió las elecciones como una “farsa”.“Las primarias enviaron un claro mensaje de que el pueblo venezolano es, en esencia, profundamente democrático”, dijo Tamara Taraciuk Broner, quien realiza investigaciones sobre Venezuela para Diálogo Interamericano, una organización con sede en Washington. “Y si tienen la opción de votar, se expresarán a través del voto. Y eso es un enorme desafío para los que están en el poder”.La semana pasada, el Ministerio Público venezolano anunció que estaba investigando a 17 miembros de las comisiones nacionales y regionales que supervisaron los comicios bajo cargos de usurpación de funciones electorales, usurpación de identidad, legitimación de capitales y asociación para delinquir.Si el fiscal general presenta cargos penales, los acusados se enfrentarían a un juicio y a una posible sentencia a prisión.Y el lunes, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia del país emitió una sentencia que deja sin efecto las primarias. Pero dado que el gobierno no desempeñó ningún papel en los comicios, no está claro cuál será el efecto práctico o qué implicaciones tendrá la sentencia de cara al futuro.El gobierno del presidente Nicolás Maduro ha centrado su atención en los organizadores de las primarias de la oposición que María Corina Machado ganó.Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters“Se suspenden todos los efectos de las distintas fases del proceso electoral conducido por la Comisión Nacional de Primarias”, dice la sentencia.Juan Manuel Rafalli, abogado constitucionalista en Venezuela, dijo que es probable que el Ministerio Público solicite a los organizadores de las primarias la entrega de documentos que utilizará para tratar de invalidar los resultados de la votación o para convocar a una nueva.“Han soltado todo el aparato judicial que ellos controlan para tratar de anular lo que ocurrió”, dijo Rafalli. “No le busques explicación jurídica a esto porque no la van a encontrar”.Maduro asumió el poder en 2013, tras la muerte de Hugo Chávez, quien lideró una revolución de inspiración socialista a finales de la década de 1990. Bajo el mandato de Maduro, Venezuela, cuyas enormes reservas de petróleo convirtieron al país en uno de los más ricos de Latinoamérica, ha experimentado un declive económico que ha desencadenado una crisis humanitaria. Unos siete millones de venezolanos —una cuarta parte de la población— han salido del país.El mes pasado, el gobierno de Maduro y la oposición firmaron un acuerdo que buscaba encaminar al país a unas elecciones libres y justas, que incluía permitirle a la oposición elegir un candidato de cara a la elección presidencial del próximo año.María Corina Machado, candidata de centroderecha y exdiputada venezolana, ganó con el 93 por ciento de los votos en una contienda con 10 aspirantes.Pero el gobierno de Maduro la inhabilitó por 15 años para ejercer cargos públicos, alegando que no completó su declaración de bienes e ingresos cuando era diputada. Se trata de una táctica empleada de manera usual por Maduro para mantener alejados de las urnas a los contendientes más fuertes.Machado es una política experimentada, a quien se le ha apodado la “Dama de Hierro” por su relación confrontativa con los gobiernos de Maduro y Chávez. Algunos analistas afirman que, si se le permitiera presentarse, probablemente derrotaría a Maduro.Pero sus posturas de línea dura y su insistencia en responsabilizar penalmente a miembros del gobierno de Maduro por abusos contra los derechos humanos también podrían hacer menos probable que el gobierno le permita llegar al poder.“Es una contradicción que se firme un acuerdo. Y, acto seguido, en los días que siguen, se proceda a violar los primeros puntos del acuerdo”, dijo Machado en un discurso el jueves, refiriéndose a las investigaciones contra los organizadores de las primarias.El gobierno de Maduro inhabilitó a Machado para presentarse en las elecciones. Algunos analistas creen que si se le permitiera contender, vencería con facilidad a Maduro.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez para The New York TimesEl gobierno de Biden ha retirado algunas de las sanciones impuestas a la crucial industria petrolera de Venezuela en respuesta a algunas de las recientes concesiones de Maduro. El gobierno venezolano, entre otras cosas, ha accedido a aceptar a los venezolanos que han sido deportados de Estados Unidos y a liberar a un puñado de presos políticos.Pero el gobierno de Biden también espera que Venezuela restituya los derechos políticos de los candidatos a los que se inhabilitó de participar en las elecciones nacionales o, de lo contrario, que enfrente el restablecimiento de las sanciones.El Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos declaró estar al tanto de la decisión del tribunal venezolano sobre las primarias de la oposición e instó al gobierno de Maduro a cumplir el acuerdo de celebrar elecciones creíbles el próximo año.“Estados Unidos y la comunidad internacional siguen de cerca la implementación de la hoja de ruta electoral, y el gobierno estadounidense tomará medidas si Maduro y sus representantes no cumplen sus compromisos”, se lee en el comunicado.Otros dos miembros de la comisión nacional que organizó las primarias de la oposición, y que no están bajo investigación, criticaron la legitimidad de la medida del gobierno de Maduro.“Ellos no estaban conscientes del nivel de participación que se iba a producir y creo que los agarró de sorpresa a ellos y a nosotros”, dijo Víctor Márquez, integrante de la comisión. “Ya quedó claro que el gobierno actual no tiene ninguna posibilidad de ganar las elecciones”.Pedro Benítez, un analista político venezolano, dijo que el gobierno de Maduro estaba siguiendo un manual conocido para tratar de aplastar las amenazas a su poder.Lo que están tratando de hacer, “es subir la apuesta para impedir que la hayan elegido como candidata”, dijo Benítez, refiriéndose a Machado. “El objetivo es desanimar a la oposición, dividir a la oposición, crear conflictos en la oposición, desmoralizar a su base”.“Esa es la primera fase”, añadió. “Luego va a venir la siguiente fase que ya la ofensiva directamente contra el proceso”. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro Tries to Squash Venezuela’s Election Campaign Before it Even Starts

      by

      The government’s move to annul the election of a candidate to challenge President Nicolás Maduro raises questions about its commitment to a free election.It seemed like a small glimmer of hope for supporters of democracy, after years of authoritarian rule.The election of an opposition candidate to challenge Venezuela’s president, which followed on a commitment from the government to hold free and fair elections next year, led to cautious optimism among Venezuelans and international observers about the possibility of establishing a path back to democracy.But now the government of President Nicolás Maduro is taking aim at the opposition election held this month, raising concerns that Mr. Maduro will resist any serious challenge to his 10-year hold on power even as his country continues to suffer under international sanctions.The opposition primary in Venezuela, a South American nation of roughly 28 million people, took place with no official government support. Instead, the vote was organized by civil society, with polling stations in homes, parks and the offices of opposition parties.More than 2.4 million Venezuelans cast ballots, an impressive number that suggests how engaged voters could be in the general election that is supposed to take place in 2024.But in the days that followed, the president of the Maduro-controlled legislature has claimed that the voter turnout was inflated and called the organizers “thieves” and “scammers,” and the election a “farce.”“The primaries sent a clear message that the Venezuelan people are, in essence, profoundly democratic,” said Tamara Taraciuk Broner, who researches Venezuela for the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research organization. “And if they have the option to vote, they will express themselves through the vote. And that is a huge challenge to those in power.”Venezuela’s attorney general’s office announced last week that it was investigating 17 members of the national and regional commissions that oversaw the balloting, based on allegations of violating electoral functions, identity theft, money laundering and criminal association.If the attorney general files criminal charges, the defendants would face a trial and possible imprisonment.And on Monday, the country’s supreme court issued a ruling effectively annulling the primary. But since the government played no role in the election, it is not clear what the practical effect will be or what the ruling will mean going forward.President Nicolás Maduro’s government has taken aim at organizers of the opposition election won by Ms. Machado.Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters“All effects of the different phases of the electoral process conducted by the National Primary Commission are suspended,” the ruling said.Juan Manuel Rafalli, a constitutional lawyer in Venezuela, said the attorney general’s office will likely ask the primary’s organizers to hand over documents that it will use to try to invalidate the election results or to call for a new one.“They have unleashed all the judicial apparatus that they control to try to annul what happened,” Mr. Rafalli said. “Don’t look for a legal explanation for this because you won’t find one.”Mr. Maduro assumed power in 2013, following the death of Hugo Chávez, who had led a socialist-inspired revolution in the late 1990s. Under Mr. Maduro, Venezuela, whose vast oil reserves made it one of Latin America’ wealthiest nations, has been in an economic free fall, which has set off a humanitarian crisis. About seven million Venezuelans — one quarter of the population — have left the country.The Maduro government and the opposition signed an agreement last month that was intended to move the country toward free and fair elections, including allowing the opposition to choose a candidate for next year’s presidential contest.María Corina Machado, a center-right candidate and former member of Venezuela’s legislature, won with 93 percent of the vote, in a 10-candidate race.But Mr. Maduro’s government has barred her from running for office for 15 years, claiming that she did not complete her declaration of assets and income when she was a legislator. It is a tactic commonly used by Mr. Maduro to keep strong competitors off the ballot.Ms. Machado is a veteran politician, nicknamed “the Iron Lady” to reflect her adversarial relationships with the governments of Mr. Maduro and Mr. Chávez. If Ms. Machado were allowed to run, some analysts say, she could likely defeat Mr. Maduro.But her hard-line positions and insistence on holding members of the Maduro administration criminally responsible for human rights abuses could also make it less likely that the government would allow her to assume power.“It is a contradiction to sign an agreement and then, in the days that follow, they proceed to violate the first points of the agreement,” she said in a speech on Thursday, referring to the investigations of the organizers of the primary.Ms. Machado has been barred from running for office by the Maduro government. Some analysts believe that if she were allowed to run, she would easily beat Mr. Maduro.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesThe Biden administration has lifted some sanctions on Venezuela’s crucial oil industry in response to some of Mr. Maduro’s recent overtures, which have included accepting Venezuelans that have been deported from the United States and releasing a handful of political prisoners.But the administration also expects Venezuela to reinstate candidates prohibited from participating in the national election or face the restoration of sanctions.The U.S. State Department said it was aware of the Venezuelan high court’s decision regarding the opposition primary and urged the Maduro government to abide by its agreement to hold a credible election next year.“The United States and the international community are closely following implementation of the electoral road map, and the U.S. government will take action if Maduro and his representatives do not meet their commitments,” the statement read.Two other members of the national commission that organized the opposition election, and who are not under investigation, criticized the legitimacy of the Maduro government’s move.“They were not aware of the level of participation that was going to happen and I think it caught them and us by surprise,” said Víctor Márquez, a commission member. “It is clear that the current government has no chance of winning the elections.”Pedro Benítez, a Venezuelan political analyst, said the Maduro government was following a familiar playbook in trying to squelch threats to its power.“What they are trying to do is up the ante to prevent her from being chosen as a candidate,” Mr. Benítez said, referring to Ms. Machado. “The objective is to discourage the opposition, to divide the opposition, to create conflicts in the opposition, to demoralize its base.”“That is the first phase,” he added. “Then the next phase will come, which will be the direct offensive against the process.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Maduro podría perder las elecciones de Venezuela en 2024

      by

      Nicolás Maduro lleva 10 años en el poder en Venezuela. En esa década, ha supervisado un periodo de colapso económico, corrupción, un aumento importante de la pobreza, la destrucción medioambiental y la represión estatal de los disidentes y la prensa. Esto ha provocado un éxodo de más de 7 millones de venezolanos.Ahora Venezuela se encuentra en una encrucijada que definirá su próxima década y tendrá consecuencias cruciales para el mundo. Venezuela celebrará sus elecciones presidenciales en 2024, unas elecciones que Maduro podría perder, siempre que la oposición participe unida, la comunidad internacional siga implicada y los ciudadanos se sientan inspirados para movilizarse.Recientemente, dos acontecimientos importantes revelaron una oportunidad única de cara a las elecciones: primero, la participación masiva en las primarias de la oposición del 22 de octubre, que otorgaron a María Corina Machado, exdiputada de Venezuela, un sólido primer lugar como la candidata unitaria. Segundo, el régimen no impidió judicialmente ni con violencia que se celebraran estas elecciones. Fue una de las concesiones que hizo en un acuerdo con Washington y la oposición a cambio de que Estados Unidos suavizara las sanciones impuestas durante el mandato de Trump a las industrias del petróleo y el gas.El éxito de las primarias de la oposición podría haber sorprendido a Maduro, y estamos siendo testigos de un mayor hostigamiento contra los organizadores de las elecciones y declaraciones de funcionarios que niegan la posibilidad de levantar la inhabilitación impuesta a varios líderes políticos de la oposición, incluida Machado, de presentarse a las elecciones del próximo año.A pesar de la alentadora participación en las primarias y los avances en las negociaciones, hay una narrativa pesimista —tanto en el extranjero como en Venezuela— de que Maduro se aferrará inevitablemente al poder. He visto y he experimentado lo equivocado que es ese punto de vista. En realidad, las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año brindan la mejor oportunidad hasta la fecha para derrotar al chavismo —el movimiento de inspiración socialista iniciado por Hugo Chávez en el que milita Maduro— desde que llegó al poder hace más de dos décadas.Llevo desde 2013 trabajando como organizador comunitario en los barrios en sectores populares de Venezuela, antes bastiones del chavismo. He trabajado con líderes de la comunidad, la mayoría de los cuales eran chavistas cuando empezamos. He visto con mis propios ojos que, en lugares donde Chávez obtenía antes el 90 por ciento de los votos en las elecciones nacionales, ahora la inmensa mayoría desea un cambio. Hace poco, una exintegrante de la estructura política del partido gobernante, cuyo nombre no desea revelar por temor a las repercusiones, me dijo que Maduro y sus secuaces ya no son una opción para muchos venezolanos: “Ya no quiero nada con ellos ni la comunidad tampoco”. Añadió que “mientras ellos comen como unos reyes”, en los barrios comían muy mal.Para aprovechar esta oportunidad inusual, tienen que ocurrir tres elementos. El primero es que la oposición debe mantenerse unida en las urnas y en defender los votos. El segundo es que la comunidad internacional debe seguir presionando por mejores condiciones electorales y exigir respeto a los derechos humanos en Venezuela. También deben contribuir a bajar los costos de una posible salida de Maduro y su estructura. Y la tercera es que los políticos y los líderes de toda Venezuela deben volver a centrar el discurso en un mensaje lleno de esperanza, en vez de ceder a la tentación de alimentar aún más la polarización.El régimen de Maduro es consciente del riesgo que corre en las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año. Su objetivo es convencer a la gente de que el cambio es imposible, y de que a los venezolanos les irá mejor si se quedan en casa en lugar de ir a votar. La oposición de Venezuela debe contrarrestar esas tácticas con un firme llamado a la participación.También debe enfrentarse a un dilema más fundamental que es común a todos los sistemas electorales autoritarios: participar en unas elecciones que no serán libres y limpias, o boicotearlas.En las últimas elecciones presidenciales, en 2018, parte de la oposición, incluida Machado, boicoteó las elecciones. Como miembro de un partido político de la oposición —Primero Justicia—, yo también decidí no votar. Pero, ahora, tras casi seis años más de consolidación autoritaria, creo que nuestra estrategia fue errada. Pedirle a la gente que se quede en casa en lugar de movilizarse es caer en la trampa de Maduro.Para ser claros, las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 no serán un momento de celebración de la democracia; aún no se dan las condiciones para unas elecciones libres y limpias, y, francamente, puede que nunca se den. No obstante, si la oposición participa y los venezolanos votan en masa, Maduro puede perder.Algunos se preguntan si el régimen permitirá siquiera que se cuenten los votos el año que viene. Mi respuesta es que Maduro necesita hacerlo. Enfrentada a una monumental crisis social y económica, la élite chavista tiene que ofrecerles a los venezolanos un relato que les otorgue legitimidad interna, y eso, en Venezuela, solo puede venir de unas elecciones. Al igual que otros regímenes autoritarios del mundo, su mayor gancho publicitario es afirmar que cuentan con el respaldo del pueblo. Pero lo cierto es que su base sigue menguando drásticamente: hoy, el índice de aprobación de Maduro es del 29 por ciento, según una investigación de Consultores 21, con sede en Caracas.Una victoria arrolladora de la oposición es la mejor protección contra las trampas. Hay un ejemplo reciente de ello en Venezuela. Hace un año, en unas elecciones regionales en Barinas, el estado en el que nació Chávez, el partido gobernante perdió con un margen considerable, a pesar de utilizar toda su artillería de trampas. Aunque se trató de unas elecciones regionales y no estaba en juego el poder presidencial, la experiencia en el estado, unida a los acontecimientos del 22 de octubre, dan una lección sobre lo que debemos hacer para recuperar la democracia en 2024.El punto de partida es que la oposición debe adoptar una estrategia realista, que sea consciente de la desigualdad de condiciones en un sistema autoritario, y que ponga en primer plano la participación del pueblo venezolano. En Barinas, el partido en el poder intentó empujar a la oposición a boicotear las elecciones invalidando ilegalmente los resultados y prohibiendo a varios candidatos que se presentaran. Sin embargo, la oposición permaneció unida y mantuvo su compromiso de participar, a pesar de las injusticias.Para reforzar la unidad ahora, los partidos de la oposición deben priorizar el desarrollo de un mecanismo para tomar decisiones en conjunto que permita alcanzar consensos en una coalición diversa. Los dos pilares de esa unidad deberían ser la lucha por los derechos políticos de todos los líderes —sobre todo los de Machado tras su victoria— y el compromiso firme de participar en las elecciones del año que viene. En el mejor escenario, el gobierno de Maduro levantaría todas las inhabilitaciones antes de las elecciones como parte de las negociaciones. Pero, aunque eso no sucediera, participar y lograr una victoria aplastante en unas elecciones viciadas es el mejor camino que tenemos para avanzar en la democratización.La oposición también necesita un compromiso más firme de otros países latinoamericanos, de Estados Unidos y de Europa con las negociaciones. El régimen de Maduro ha demostrado que hará concesiones en materia de elecciones y derechos humanos si recibe los incentivos adecuados. Necesitamos líderes demócratas con disposición a asumir riesgos y a predicar con el ejemplo en su defensa de la democracia, que exijan la libertad de todos los presos políticos, y mejoras en las condiciones para las elecciones del año que viene. Además, necesitamos que la comunidad internacional acelere la entrega de las ayudas que tanto necesitan los más vulnerables de la sociedad. La oposición y el partido en el poder llegaron a un acuerdo hace un año para que los fondos públicos congelados en el extranjero a causa de las sanciones se transfieran a la ONU con fines humanitarios. Hasta la fecha, esos fondos no han sido implementados.Por último, la oposición tiene que ofrecer una verdadera alternativa a la división promovida por el establishment de Maduro. Inspirar a la gente a participar requiere unir al país en torno a un nuevo relato. El mensaje tradicional de la oposición, entre la polarización con el chavismo y la nostalgia de un pasado que no volverá, está condenado al fracaso.Un nuevo relato para Venezuela debería inspirar a los jóvenes, centrarse en ayudar a las personas en sus dificultades diarias (con servicios públicos, educación y acceso a anticonceptivos) y desarrollar una economía más diversificada que genere empleos bien remunerados para reducir la desigualdad. El nuevo mensaje debería aspirar también a sanar una de nuestras heridas más profundas: la separación de las familias debido a la migración masiva. La reunificación de nuestro país puede convertirse en una motivación personal y emocional para que cada venezolano participe y obre el cambio. Reunir a la familia venezolana es algo por lo que vale la pena luchar.Roberto Patiño, activista venezolano y antiguo dirigente del movimiento estudiantil, es fundador de Alimenta la Solidaridad y Mi Convive, que trabajan en las comunidades vulnerables de Venezuela, y miembro de la junta directiva del partido político Primero Justicia. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      I’ve Seen It: Maduro Could Lose Venezuela’s Presidential Election

      by

      Nicolás Maduro has been in power for 10 years in Venezuela. In that decade, he has overseen a period of economic collapse, corruption, a sharp increase in poverty, environmental devastation and state repression of dissidents and the press. This has led to an exodus of more than seven million Venezuelans.Now Venezuela stands at a crossroads, and its choices will define the next decade and carry significant consequences for the world. Venezuela will hold its presidential election in 2024 — one that Mr. Maduro can lose, as long as the opposition stays united in participating, the international community remains involved and citizens are inspired to mobilize.Recently, two significant events opened a unique window ahead of the election. First, a massive turnout for the opposition’s primary on Oct. 22 gave María Corina Machado, a former member of Venezuela’s legislature, a strong mandate as the unity candidate. Second, the regime didn’t block this election from happening — one of the concessions that it made in a deal with Washington and the opposition in exchange for U.S. relaxation of Trump-era sanctions on the oil and gas industries.The success of the opposition primary might have surprised Mr. Maduro; we are now seeing increased harassment against the election organizers and statements by officials denying the lifting of the ban on several opposition political leaders — including Ms. Machado — from running in next year’s elections.Despite encouraging participation in the primaries and advancements in negotiations, there is a pervasive narrative — both abroad and in Venezuela — that Mr. Maduro will inevitably hang on to power. I have seen and experienced how flawed that perspective is. In fact, the presidential election next year offers the best opportunity yet to defeat Chavismo, the socialist-inspired movement begun by Hugo Chávez that Mr. Maduro embraces, since it came to power over two decades ago.Since 2013, I have worked as a community organizer in marginalized neighborhoods, known as barrios in Venezuela, which used to be Chavismo’s strongholds. I worked with community leaders, most of whom were Chavistas when we started. I have seen firsthand how places where Mr. Chávez used to get 90 percent of the votes in national elections now overwhelmingly support the opposition. Recently, a former ranking member of the ruling party’s political structure, who didn’t want to be named for fear of repercussions, told me that Mr. Maduro and his cronies are no longer an option for many Venezuelans: “I don’t want anything to do with them, and neither does the community.” She added, “While they dine like royalty, we eat garbage because of inflation.”To seize this rare opportunity, three things need to happen. First, the opposition must stay united in the ballot and defend the vote. Second, the international community must continue to push for freer elections and human rights in Venezuela while lowering the stakes for Mr. Maduro’s exit from power. And third, politicians and leaders throughout Venezuela must refocus the narrative to a hope-filled message, rather than give in to the temptation to further feed crippling polarization.The Maduro regime is aware of the risk it faces in the presidential election next year. Its objective is to convince people that change is impossible and that Venezuelans are better off staying home rather than casting a vote. Venezuela’s opposition must counter those tactics with a strong call for participation.It also must face the more fundamental dilemma that common to many electoral authoritarian systems: whether to participate in an election that will not be free and fair, or to boycott it.In the last presidential election, in 2018, part of the opposition, including Ms. Machado, boycotted the vote. As a member of an opposition political party — Primero Justicia — I, too, decided not to cast a vote. But now, after nearly six more years of authoritarian consolidation, I believe that strategy was a mistake. Asking the people to stay at home is falling into Mr. Maduro’s trap.To be clear, the presidential election in 2024 will not be a celebratory moment of democracy: The conditions for free and fair elections are not there yet and, frankly, may never be. Nonetheless, if the opposition participates and Venezuelans cast their votes in large numbers, Mr. Maduro can lose.Some question whether the regime will allow votes to even be counted next year. But facing a monumental social and economic crisis, the Chavista elite will need to offer Venezuelans a story that can grant them internal legitimacy, and that can come only from elections. As with other authoritarians in the world, their biggest selling point is to claim that they have the people’s support. But the truth is that their base continues to shrink dramatically: Today Mr. Maduro’s approval rating is 29 percent, according to research from Consultores 21, a Caracas-based consulting firm.A landslide victory for the opposition is the best protection against cheating. There is a recent example of this in Venezuela. A year ago, in a regional election in Barinas, the birthplace of Mr. Chávez, the ruling party lost by a considerable margin, despite using everything in its artillery of chicanery. Even though it was a regional election and presidential power was not at stake, the experience in the state, combined with the events of the past month, offer a path to win back democracy in 2024.The starting point is that the opposition must embrace a realistic strategy that puts front and center the participation of the Venezuelan people. In Barinas, the ruling party tried to push the opposition to boycott the elections by illegally invalidating the results and barring several candidates from running. However, the opposition stuck together and maintained its commitment to participate, despite injustices.To strengthen their unity now, opposition parties must prioritize creating a mechanism for consensus building in the diverse coalition. The two building blocks of that unity should be to fight for all leaders’ political rights — especially Ms. Machado’s after her victory — and to commit to participate in next year’s elections. In the best scenario, Mr. Maduro’s government would lift all bans before the elections as part of negotiations; even if that doesn’t happen, participating in and winning flawed elections is the best path we have to advance democratization.The opposition also needs a stronger commitment from other Latin American countries, the United States and Europe to help. The Maduro regime has proved it will make electoral and human rights concessions — if it receives the right incentives. We need courageous democratic leaders willing to demand the release of all political prisoners and achieve better conditions for elections next year. We also need the international community to expedite the delivery of much-needed support to society’s most vulnerable. The opposition and the ruling party reached an agreement a year ago that public funds frozen abroad because of sanctions would be transferred to the U.N. for humanitarian purposes. To date, those funds have not been deployed.Finally, the opposition needs to offer a true alternative to the divisiveness promoted by Mr. Maduro’s establishment. Inspiring the people to participate requires unifying the country around a new narrative. The traditional opposition message, trapped in polarization with Chavismo and with a nostalgic message of a past that will not return, is doomed to fail.A new narrative for Venezuela should aim to inspire the youth, focus on helping people with their daily challenges — with public services, education and access to contraception — and build a more diversified economy that generates well-paying jobs to reduce inequality. The new message should also aspire to heal one of our most profound wounds: family separation due to mass migration. Our country’s reunification can become a personal and emotional motivator for every Venezuelan to participate and to effect change. Reuniting the Venezuelan family is something worth fighting for.Roberto Patiño, a Venezuelan social activist and former leader of the student movement, is the founder of Alimenta la Solidaridad and Mi Convive, which work in vulnerable communities in Venezuela, and a board member of Primero Justicia, a political party.Source photographs by Ariana Cubillos/Associated Press and Miguel Gutierrez/EPA, via Shutterstock.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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Virginia Republicans Look to Neutralize Abortion as an Election Issue

      by

      The state’s governor, Glenn Youngkin, has a strategy to win the state. If it halts Democrats’ momentum on the issue, it could be a model for the party in 2024.Abortion has been a losing issue at the polls for Republicans across the country since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. But now in Virginia, which holds elections in early November, the party thinks it has hit upon a formula to stop the electoral drubbings.Legislative races across the state will offer a decisive test of a strategy led by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who has united Republicans behind a high-profile campaign in support of a ban on abortion after 15 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. The party calls it a “common sense” position, in contrast to Democrats, who it says “support no limits.”The strategy is meant to defuse Republicans’ image as abortion extremists, which led to losses in last year’s midterms and threatens further defeats next month in an Ohio referendum and the Kentucky governor’s race.The approach is similar to one being pursued by Republican Senate candidates in battleground states like Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where the party has been open to some exceptions, a stance that research shows is more popular than an outright ban.Virginia Republicans aren’t looking to win over abortion-rights supporters so much as they want to neutralize the party’s disadvantage with swing voters. The hope is that these voters will prioritize a competing set of issues such as crime and the economy, on which Republicans have an advantage in some polls.All 140 seats in the state’s General Assembly are on the ballot this fall, with Republicans looking to take full control. Democrats have made the threat to abortion rights their No. 1 issue, pouring money into ads and looking to motivate voters in an off-year election with President Biden’s unpopularity dimming enthusiasm.If Republicans take majorities in both legislative chambers under Mr. Youngkin, a governor with national ambitions, it would clear the way for Virginia to become the last Southern state to sharply restrict abortions.Since mid-October, Mr. Youngkin’s political action committee has run a $1.4 million ad campaign taking the offensive on the issue. Accusing Democrats of “disinformation,” it promotes the 15-week limit with exceptions as “reasonable” and “common sense.”The Younkin ad, targeted at swing districts and echoed by the ads of individual Republicans running, shatters the formula of most G.O.P. candidates in battleground states after the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, who dodged abortion in midterm races and often lost.“We’re just simply not going to repeat 2022,” said Zack Roday, the coordinated campaigns director for Mr. Youngkin’s political group.Kaitlin Makuski, the political director of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a national anti-abortion group with close ties to Mr. Youngkin, said that if Virginia Republicans prevailed this year, it would be a clear signal to candidates in 2024 that leaning into a 15-week ban can be successful.“He and his team looked back at what they saw in 2022 and realized we can’t continue burying our head in the sand,” she said of the governor. “We need to move forward. This is a great template to follow.”Existing Virginia laws, which Democrats want to keep in place, allow abortions with no restrictions through the second trimester, about 26 weeks, and thereafter if three doctors certify that a pregnancy would “irremediably impair” the mother’s health.“Virginia has in place a law that parallels Roe v. Wade, that allows women to have freedom of choice to make their own health decisions,” said Senator Mamie Locke, chairwoman of the Virginia Senate Democratic caucus. “Why do you have to change the law to this 15-week ban? What’s ‘reasonable’ about that?”Democrats point to other Republican-led states that have banned abortion in almost all circumstances and say a 15-week limit is a ruse that will give way to stricter limits if Republicans gain full control of government. Last year, Mr. Youngkin told conservative activists that he would “happily and gleefully” sign any bill to “protect life.” The governor has insisted he is only interested in a 15-week limit.A 15-week ban, just past the first trimester of pregnancy, polls well in some surveys. A Gallup poll this year found that 69 percent of U.S. adults support abortion in the first trimester, but support falls to just 37 percent in the second trimester.In a Washington Post-Schar School poll this month, Virginia voters were equally divided on the 15-week ban with exceptions: 46 percent supported such limits and 47 percent opposed them.But in an illustration of how abortion polling can yield conflicting results, 51 percent of voters in the poll said they trusted Democrats to do a better job handling abortion vs. 34 percent who trust Republicans.Even if a 15-week ban doesn’t convert many voters for whom abortion rights are a top issue — and most of those who say so are Democrats — the G.O.P. bet is that they can neutralize the issue with independent voters. In the Washington Post poll, independents said they trusted Democrats more on abortion, but Republicans more than Democrats on crime and the economy.“Youngkin thinks the Republicans have an advantage on a set of issues people care about. They don’t on abortion, so they have to reduce the level of threat so people don’t vote on that issue,” said Bob Holsworth, the founding director of the School of Government at Virginia Commonwealth University. “He wants them to vote on these other issues where he thinks he’s in better shape.”Danny Diggs, a Republican running for State Senate in a crucial district around Newport News, enlisted his adult daughter Michelle to record an ad about his support for a 15-week limit. “Take it from me,” she says in the ad, her father “will not cater to the extremes.”Danny Diggs during a debate in September in Newport News, N.H. He is supporting a 15-week ban on abortions, with exceptions.Kendall Warner/The Virginian-PilotOver the weekend, as Mr. Diggs, a retired sheriff, greeted voters at a seafood festival in Poquoson, a town on Chesapeake Bay, he said he would vote against any bill limiting abortion earlier than 15 weeks. “I’m good with the 15 weeks, that’s what I’ve told people,” he said.Charles Salas, 53, who is retired from the Army, greeted Mr. Diggs as he stood beside a Republican Party tent and liked what the candidate had to say. On abortion, he sounded more conservative than Mr. Youngkin’s proposed 15-week cutoff. “I haven’t decided how early but I think it should be early enough,” he said. “I don’t believe it should be on demand and I shouldn’t have to pay for it,” he said.Ann Holland, a 58-year-old school district employee, said she was undecided in the election, but on the abortion issue, she wanted women to have broad leeway to make a choice. “I was in my third month and didn’t know,” she said with a laugh. “No morning sickness, no nothing.”Mr. Diggs said that in knocking on the doors of thousands of Republicans and independent voters, the top issues he heard about were public safety and education. Abortion did not often come up. “I don’t think it’s as important as the Democrats hope that it is,” he said. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why U.A.W. President Shawn Fain Has Taken a Hard Line

      by

      Shawn Fain owes his rise within the United Automobile Workers to a group determined to make the union far more confrontational toward automakers.When Shawn Fain sought the presidency of the United Automobile Workers union last year, he ran on a platform that promised: “No corruption. No concessions. No tiers.”That pledge encapsulated many members’ frustrations with years of union scandal and concessions to the three big Detroit automakers, including the creation of a lower tier of wages for newer employees. The platform helped propel Mr. Fain to the top job — where he has led a mounting wave of walkouts in recent weeks to demand more favorable contract terms.But the platform largely predated Mr. Fain’s candidacy. It was devised by a group called Unite All Workers for Democracy, which was officially formed in 2020 as a caucus — essentially, a political party within the union.The group set out to topple the ruling party, known as the Administration Caucus, which had run the union for more than 70 years. In 2022, Unite All Workers hashed out its party line, recruited candidates and ramped up a campaign operation to elect them.When the dust settled, the slate had won half the seats on the union’s 14-member executive board, with Mr. Fain, previously a union staff member, as president. Unite All Workers’ role helps explain why the union has taken such a hard line with the automakers.“We had a platform we ran on, and we’re trying to push that platform forward,” said Scott Houldieson, a founder of the group and a longtime Ford Motor worker in Chicago. “Shawn has been really upfront about what we’re trying to accomplish.”The first fruits of that approach may have emerged Wednesday, when negotiators for the union and Ford agreed on terms for a new four-year contract, including a wage increase of roughly 25 percent over the four years, according to the union.“We hit the companies to maximum effect,” Mr. Fain said in a Facebook livestream. The deal is subject to ratification by the company’s union workers.Since at least the 1980s, U.A.W. members have formed groups to challenge the union’s top officials, or at least prod them to be more confrontational with automakers. The efforts took on added urgency in 2007, when the union accepted tiers as a way to stabilize the automakers’ financial footing. (General Motors and Chrysler later filed for bankruptcy anyway; Ford avoided it.)Scott Houldieson, a founder of United Auto Workers for Democracy, said, “We had a platform we ran on, and we’re trying to push that platform forward.”Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesBut the Administration Caucus always held a trump card: The union leadership wasn’t elected directly by members. Rather, future leaders were effectively chosen by existing leaders, then approved by delegates to a convention every four years.That changed after a corruption scandal in which two recent U.A.W. presidents were charged with embezzlement in 2020. As part of a consent decree with the federal government, members voted in a referendum on whether to directly elect union leaders. Unite All Workers, which was pressing for the change, waged an all-out campaign to persuade union members to support “one member one vote.”When the initiative passed by nearly a two-to-one ratio, Unite All Workers, whose members paid an annual fee, was poised to become a kingmaker of sorts in the union’s 2022 elections. The group had a budget of over $100,000, two full-time staff members and hundreds of volunteer organizers.“It was obvious that we could use the same infrastructure” of staff and volunteers to compete in the election, said Mike Cannon, a retired U.A.W. member who serves on the Unite All Workers steering committee. “The only question at that point was, were we going to have any candidates?”Unite All Workers announced that anyone who wanted to join its campaign slate would have to fill out a detailed questionnaire and attend at least one meeting with its members.The group wanted to ensure that the candidates it backed were committed to running the union with extensive input from rank-and-file members, and to driving a much harder bargain with employers. It wanted an end to wage tiers, which it said divided and demoralized workers, and a focus on organizing new members, especially among electric vehicle and battery workers.Among those responding to the call was Mr. Fain, then a staff member in the union division responsible for Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler, Jeep and Ram. During his interview process, Mr. Fain explained how, as a local official in Indiana in 2007, he had helped lead opposition to the two-tier wage structure the union had agreed to, and how he had argued for more favorable contract terms after joining the headquarters staff.Some members of the group were skeptical that an employee of the old guard could be a reformer. But other U.A.W. dissidents vouched for him. “I knew the claims were legit,” said Martha Grevatt, a longtime Chrysler employee on the steering committee of Unite All Workers.Martha Grevatt said she had found Mr. Fain’s pledges to shake up the union “legit” even though he had been a staff member under the previous leadership.Daniel Lozada for The New York TimesThe group backed Mr. Fain and six other candidates for the union’s 14-member executive board, and all seven won.As president, Mr. Fain has appointed critics of the former leadership as his top aides, including one who served on the Unite All Workers steering committee. Board members, including Mr. Fain, have attended some of the group’s monthly membership meetings and taken part in one of its WhatsApp chats.Many of the group’s priorities became demands in the union’s contract negotiations, and Mr. Fain has indicated that he hopes to use momentum from the strike to organize nonunion companies like Tesla and Honda, a key objective of Unite All Workers.But for all the connections between the group and the union leadership, they are not one and the same.Some board members who ran on the Unite All Workers slate have at times taken positions in tension with the group’s priorities. In recent weeks, Margaret Mock, the union’s second-ranking official, has expressed concern to fellow board members about the walkout’s cost to the union’s budget. At a special board meeting last week, she offered a proposal intended to scale back spending on organizing during the strike, according to two people familiar with the meeting. The board set aside the proposal; Ms. Mock did not respond to a request for comment.For its part, Unite All Workers considers itself accountable to rank-and-file members, not an extension of the leaders it helped elect. On a tentative deal with any of the three large automakers, Unite All Workers plans to appoint a task force to provide an assessment of the proposal to the union’s members. The group’s members will then decide whether to support it.“I would say it’s not automatic that the caucus endorses” an agreement, said Andrew Bergman, who serves on the Unite All Workers steering committee.Still, as a practical matter, the group is highly unlikely to oppose an agreement, since Mr. Fain has forcefully pressed for its core priorities.“For years, we’ve been playing defense at every step, and we’ve been losing,” Mr. Fain said in a video streamed online on Friday, explaining why the strike would continue. “When we vote on a tentative agreement, it will be because your leadership and your council thinks we’ve gotten absolutely every dollar we can.” This week, the union expanded the strike to the largest U.S. factories at Stellantis and General Motors.The approach has raised concerns among employers and business groups. John Drake, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that the Detroit automakers could struggle to remain competitive after the strike, and that Mr. Fain appeared to be overreaching in extracting concessions.“It feels like there’s not really a strategy here,” Mr. Drake said. “It’s like pain is the goal.”Mr. Fain has indicated that he hopes to use momentum from the strike to organize nonunion companies like Tesla and Honda, a key objective of the insurgent group that endorsed his candidacy.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesThe best analogy for Unite All Workers may be to a group called Brand New Congress, created by supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders, the progressive Vermont independent, to help elect congressional candidates beginning in 2018.Not long after the 2016 presidential election, Brand New Congress urged an obscure New York bartender and activist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to challenge a longtime incumbent in a Democratic congressional primary. A sister group provided her with training and campaign infrastructure. After she won, two people involved with the groups joined her staff.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has since become far more prominent than those early backers, and in principle she could take positions at odds with their progressive stands. But in practice, it’s unlikely. The worldview is embedded in her political identity.Mr. Fain’s story is similar: a once-obscure progressive who was catapulted to a position of power by a group of insurgents and was determined to enact their shared principles once he got there. Except that, in backing him and his colleagues, Unite All Workers helped win not just a few legislative seats, but the reins of an entire union.After Vail Kohnert-Yount, a Unite All Workers steering committee member, seconded Mr. Fain’s nomination for president at the union’s convention last year, he spoke to her about relying on government assistance as a new parent decades ago.“I remember thinking this guy has not forgotten where he came from — he’s very much stayed that person,” Ms. Kohnert-Yount said. “We did our best to endorse a candidate we believed in.” More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Lawyers Are Going Down. Is He?

      by

      On Tuesday morning, Jenna Ellis became the third Donald Trump-allied lawyer to plead guilty in Fulton County, Ga., to state criminal charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. She joins Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro in similar pleas, with each of them receiving probation and paying a small fine, and each of them cooperating with the prosecution in its remaining cases against Trump and his numerous co-defendants.The Ellis, Powell and Chesebro guilty pleas represent an advance for both the state election prosecution in Georgia and the federal election prosecution in Washington. While their guilty pleas came in the Georgia case (they’re not charged in the federal prosecution, though Powell and Chesebro have been identified as unindicted co-conspirators in that case), the information they disclose could be highly relevant to Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump.Perhaps as important, or even more important, the three attorneys’ admissions may prove culturally and politically helpful to those of us who are attempting to break the fever of conspiracy theories that surround the 2020 election and continue to empower Trump today. At the same time, however, it’s far too soon to tell whether the prosecution has made real progress on Trump himself. The ultimate importance of the plea deals depends on the nature of the testimony from the lawyers, and we don’t yet know what they have said — or will say.To understand the potential significance of these plea agreements, it’s necessary to understand the importance of Trump’s legal team to Trump’s criminal defense. As I’ve explained in various pieces, and as the former federal prosecutor Ken White explained to me when I guest-hosted Ezra Klein’s podcast, proof of criminal intent is indispensable to the criminal cases against Trump, both in Georgia and in the federal election case. While the specific intent varies depending on the charge, each key claim requires proof of conscious wrongdoing — such as an intent to lie or the “intent to have false votes cast.”One potential element of Trump’s intent defense in the federal case is that he was merely following the advice of lawyers. In other words, how could he possess criminal intent when he simply did what his lawyers told him to do? He’s not the one who is expected to know election laws. They are.According to court precedent that governs the federal case, a defendant can use advice of counsel as a defense against claims of criminal intent if he can show that he “made full disclosure of all material facts to his attorney” before he received the advice, and that “he relied in good faith on the counsel’s advice that his course of conduct was legal.”There is a price, though, for presenting an advice-of-counsel defense. The defendant waives attorney-client privilege, opening up both his oral and written communications with his lawyers to scrutiny by a judge and a jury. There is no question that a swarm of MAGA lawyers surrounded Trump at each step of the process, much like a cloud of dirt surrounds the character Pigpen in the “Peanuts” cartoons, but if the lawyers themselves have admitted to engaging in criminal conduct, then that weakens his legal defense. This was no normal legal team, and their conduct was far outside the bounds of normal legal representation.Apart from the implications of the advice-of-counsel defense, their criminal pleas, combined with their agreements to cooperate, may grant us greater visibility into Trump’s state of mind during the effort to overturn the election. The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege prevents a criminal defendant from shielding his communications with his lawyers when those communications were in furtherance of a criminal scheme. If Ellis, Powell or Chesebro can testify that the lawyers were operating at Trump’s direction — as opposed to Trump following their advice — then that testimony could help rebut Trump’s intent defense.At the same time, I use words like “potential,” “if,” “may” and “could” intentionally. We do not yet know the full story that any of these attorneys will tell. We only have hints. Ellis said in court on Tuesday, for example, that she “relied on others, including lawyers with many more years of experience than I, to provide me with true and reliable information.” Indeed, Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, has indicted two other attorneys with “many more years of experience” — Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman. If Ellis’s court statement is any indication, it’s an ominous indicator for both men.If you think it’s crystal clear that the guilty pleas are terrible news for Trump — or represent that elusive “we have him now” moment that many Trump opponents have looked for since his moral corruption became clear — then it’s important to know that there’s a contrary view. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, a respected former federal prosecutor, argued that Powell’s guilty plea, for example, was evidence that Willis’s case was “faltering” and that her RICO indictment “is a dud.”“When prosecutors cut plea deals with cooperators early in the proceedings,” McCarthy writes, “they generally want the pleading defendants to admit guilt to the major charges in the indictment.” Powell pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges. Ellis and Chesebro both pleaded to a single felony charge, but they received punishment similar to Powell’s. McCarthy argues that Willis allowed Powell to plead guilty to a minor infraction “because minor infractions are all she’s got.” And in a piece published Tuesday afternoon, McCarthy argued that the Ellis guilty plea is more of a sign of the “absurdity” of Willis’s RICO charge than a sign that Willis is closing in on Trump, a notion he called “wishful thinking.”There’s also another theory regarding the light sentences for the three lawyers. When Powell and Chesebro sought speedy trials, they put the prosecution under pressure. As Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia defense attorney, wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, it was “extremely smart” to seek a quick trial. “They got the best deal,” Fleischman said, “because their lawyers picked the best strategy.”As a general rule, when evaluating complex litigation, it is best not to think in terms of legal breakthroughs (though breakthroughs can certainly occur) but rather in terms of legal trench warfare. Think of seizing ground from your opponent yard by yard rather than mile by mile, and the question at each stage isn’t so much who won and who lost but rather who advanced and who retreated. Willis has advanced, but it’s too soon to tell how far.The guilty pleas have a potential legal effect, certainly, but they can have a cultural and political effect as well. When MAGA lawyers admit to their misdeeds, it should send a message to the Republican rank and file that the entire effort to steal the election was built on a mountain of lies. In August, a CNN poll found that a majority of Republicans still question Joe Biden’s election victory, and their doubts about 2020 are a cornerstone of Trump’s continued political viability.Again, we can’t expect any single thing to break through to Republican voters, but just as prosecutors advance one yard at a time, opposing candidates and concerned citizens advance their cultural and political cases the same way. It’s a slow, painful process of trying to wean Republicans from conspiracy theories, and these guilty pleas are an important element in service of that indispensable cause. They represent a series of confessions from the inner circle and not a heated external critique.Amid this cloud of uncertainty, there is one thing we do know: With each guilty plea, we receive further legal confirmation of a reality that should have been plainly obvious to each of us, even in the days and weeks immediately following the election. Trump’s effort to overturn the election wasn’t empowered by conventional counsel providing sound legal advice. It was a corrupt scheme empowered by an admitted criminal cabal.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