Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Modi’s Visits Abroad Help to Build His Image in India

      by

      For an audience in India, the prime minister is linking his diplomatic reception abroad, and himself, to the country’s growing importance on the world stage.His grip on the levers of national power secure, his hold on India’s domestic imagination cemented, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has increasingly turned to advancing himself on a new horizon: the global stage.With a packed diplomatic calendar that includes India’s hosting of the Group of 20 summit later this year, Mr. Modi is building an image going into his re-election campaign as a leader who can win respect and investment for his vast nation. The state visit accorded to Mr. Modi in Washington, which ends on Friday, is perhaps the biggest prize yet in that quest.“It’s not just about a fairer bargain abroad,” said Ashok Malik, a former government adviser who is the India chair at the Asia Group, a consulting firm. “It’s also that ‘my investments in key foreign policy relations are actually helping to build the Indian economy and therefore create opportunities for Indians at home and strengthen India overall.’”At home, Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist party has continued to sideline institutions that were once important checks on the government. It has persisted in its vilification of the country’s 200 million Muslims, even as Mr. Modi used an exceedingly rare news conference in Washington to claim that there was no discrimination against anyone in India.But abroad, world leaders eager to court an ascendant India have offered little pushback. And often, they have given Mr. Modi invaluable fodder for an information campaign that shapes perceptions of him among many Indian voters who are ecstatic to see their country’s importance affirmed.Eid-al Fitr prayers in Chennai, India, in April. Mr. Modi used a news conference in Washington to claim that there was no discrimination against anyone in India, including the country’s huge Muslim minority.Idrees Mohammed/EPA, via ShutterstockWhen Mr. Modi traveled to Australia last month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese referred to him as “the boss” in front of an arena in Sydney packed with about 20,000 people. Mr. Modi then returned to New Delhi to a large crowd gathered for his welcome at 6 in the morning, telling supporters that the grand welcome for him abroad was about India, not him.On Friday, as Mr. Modi was wrapping up his meetings in the United States before arriving in Egypt for another grand greeting, his political party and the large sections of the broadcast media friendly to him reveled in the reception he had gotten from President Biden and other American leaders.The red carpet in Washington played perfectly into one of Mr. Modi’s talents: He can build a media campaign out of virtually anything, projecting himself as the only leader who can expand India’s economy and usher a nation coming into its own to new heights.While opposition leaders back home were holding their largest gathering yet, hoping to find a formula for uniting to challenge the prime minister in elections early next year, Mr. Modi was reaching for the world.Social media was flooded with montage videos, set to regal background music, of Mr. Modi making a grand entrance into the House of Representatives for his address to a joint session of Congress. The speech, after which several lawmakers sought Mr. Modi’s autograph, made him one of only a very small number of world leaders to have addressed that body twice.Another video online kept count of the number of times Mr. Modi received applause or standing ovations during his speech. A third cut to dramatic images of Mr. Modi contrasting him with the dynastic leaders who came before him, advancing a constant narrative that he represents a subversion of the old elite that long ruled India.“History tells us that powerful people come from powerful places. History was wrong,” a deep voice intones in the video. “Powerful people make places powerful.”Congress offers a standing ovation for Mr. Modi’s speech on Capitol Hill on Thursday.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesMr. Modi’s next major opportunity to appear as a global statesman will come in September when India welcomes the Group of 20 leaders, a summit meeting he has framed to his support base as his bringing the world to India.His government has turned promotion for the meeting into a roadshow, hosting hundreds of G20 events, so many that foreign diplomats in New Delhi quietly complain about travel fatigue. Cities and towns across India are decked out with billboards bearing the G20 logo — which cleverly incorporates the lotus, a symbol both of India and his Bharatiya Janata Party — and pictures of Mr. Modi.In promoting the G20 presidency, Mr. Modi has taken to frequently describing India, the world’s most populous nation, as the “mother of democracy.” Abroad, however, he has pursued a transactional brand of diplomacy built not on practicing democratic values, but on what best serves Indian economic and security interests, and what elevates India in the world.The image of “a rising India, a new India being seen more seriously abroad” helps Mr. Modi politically, Mr. Malik said. But Mr. Modi is also investing heavily in U.S. relations with an eye toward how they could help an Indian economy that is struggling to create enough jobs for its huge young population and that must put up a fight against an aggressive China next door.“Addressing China is not just about soldiers and weapons at the border, it’s also about building economic alternatives to what China offers,” Mr. Malik said.Supporters of Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party cheer during a rally in Bengaluru, India, last month.Manjunath Kiran/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe list of agreements between the United States and India, announced at the end of a bilateral meeting at the White House, was long, covering defense, space and a wide range of technological cooperation.Defense cooperation, in particular — including deals on Indian manufacturing of General Electric jet engines and purchasing Predator military drones — received a major boost after what had been a history of reluctance and bureaucratic hurdles on both sides. Dr. Tara Kartha, a former senior official in India’s security council who dealt with U.S. on defense, said the agreement on aircraft engines was “an affirmation of trust” that would help the military partnership beyond the smaller steps of the past two decades.“Each country is trying to get past its bureaucratic constrains,” she said. “Until the bureaucracy can catch up, there will be frustrations.”Among ordinary Indians on the streets of New Delhi, opinions of Mr. Modi’s diplomatic efforts were divided.Vijay Yadav, a 26-year-old taxi driver, said Mr. Modi’s outreach abroad could not cover for how India’s economy was struggling to create enough jobs.“I saw on Instagram a news feed which was constantly touting Mr. Modi’s trip to America as if no other Indian leader had been there before,” he said. “Firstly, he must get down to solving the problems of his own countrymen before he goes abroad to project himself as a hero.”Nidhi Garg, 41, who has inherited a vegetable and fruit shop from her father, said her heart swelled each time she saw Mr. Modi representing India abroad.“Today, wherever you see, the name of our nation is being taken,” she said. “The first thing that comes to anyone’s mind when they mention the word India, they immediately connect it to Prime Minister Modi.”Suhasini Raj More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Guatemala: algunos candidatos perdieron antes de la votación

      by

      Los comicios del domingo estarán marcados tanto por los presentes como por los ausentes en las papeletas, pues las autoridades descalificaron a algunos de los principales contendientes.La primavera pasada, una magistrada guatemalteca entró en una reunión en la embajada estadounidense y sacó una gran cantidad de efectivo. Según dijo, el dinero era un soborno de uno de los aliados más cercanos del presidente.La magistrada, Blanca Alfaro, forma parte del Tribunal Supremo Electoral, la autoridad que supervisa las elecciones del país. Alfaro dijo que le entregaron el soborno para influir en las elecciones de Guatemala, según un funcionario estadounidense que fue informado sobre el encuentro y una persona que estuvo presente y solicitó mantener su anonimato por no estar autorizada para discutir los detalles de la reunión privada.Los diplomáticos estadounidenses se sorprendieron por la desfachatez del episodio, pero no por los señalamientos. En el volátil clima político que reina en Guatemala en las vísperas de las elecciones presidenciales del domingo ha habido una constante: un bombardeo de ataques continuo contra las instituciones democráticas por parte de quienes están en el poder.En un país que ha pasado de ser un escenario donde se erradicaba la corrupción a otro en el que decenas de altos funcionarios anticorrupción se han visto obligados a exiliarse, la primera vuelta de la votación estará marcada tanto por quienes aparecen en la papeleta como por los ausentes.El organismo electoral del país ha descalificado a todos los candidatos serios que podrían desafiar el statu quo, encarnado por el presidente Alejandro Giammattei, un conservador al que los críticos acusan de llevar el país hacia la autocracia y que no puede contender por un nuevo mandato.Los demás candidatos son personas vinculadas a algún segmento de la élite política o económica. Junto a sus nombres en la papeleta de votación habrá varias casillas en blanco, que representan a cuatro candidatos que fueron excluidos del proceso por la autoridad electoral.La magistrada Alfaro les dijo a los funcionarios estadounidenses que había recibido el soborno de Miguel Martínez, un confidente cercano de Giammattei y funcionario clave de su partido, según afirman tanto la persona que asistió a la reunión como el funcionario estadounidense.Alfaro también dijo que la suma de dinero ascendía a 50.000 quetzales guatemaltecos (el equivalente a más de 6000 dólares), según la persona que estuvo presente en el encuentro. El Times no ha corroborado la afirmación de la magistrada Alfaro sobre el soborno. En una entrevista, Alfaro negó que fuera a la embajada e hiciera esa acusación.“No me he reunido con Miguel Martínez”, le dijo a The New York Times. Y añadió: “Dudo que a la embajada se puedan ingresar 50.000 quetzales porque uno tiene que pasar por muchas medidas de seguridad”.Por su parte, Martínez negó haber sobornado a la magistrada Alfaro y afirmó que nunca se ha reunido con ella. Dijo que estaba al tanto de un esfuerzo por parte de personas que no pudieron participar en las elecciones para involucrarlo “en alguna situación legal” con la Embajada de Estados Unidos.“Ahora nos estamos dando cuenta que en la situación legal que me están tratando a mí de involucrar para afectar al tema del proceso electoral que se está llevando a cabo de una manera limpia y democrática, es esto”, dijo Martínez.Luego, en una declaración grabada en video que circuló ampliamente en las redes sociales, Martínez dijo a unos periodistas que el Times pronto publicaría un relato de la visita de Alfaro a la embajada. “Esto es algo malicioso que ellos quieren hacer para desestabilizar las elecciones”, dijo Martínez en el video.Cuando se le preguntó sobre las acusaciones de Alfaro y la respuesta de la embajada, una portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Christina Tilghman, dijo: “No confirmamos la existencia de supuestas reuniones ni discutimos el contenido de las discusiones diplomáticas”.Tilghman dijo que siempre que el gobierno estadounidense recibe denuncias de corrupción que “cumplen los requisitos probatorios establecidos por la normativa y la legislación de Estados Unidos”, sanciona o castiga de otro modo a los implicados.La actuación de la autoridad electoral ha hecho que grupos de defensa de los derechos civiles cuestionen si la contienda presidencial del domingo en realidad puede considerarse libre y justa.“Legalidad no es lo mismo que legitimidad”, dijo Juan Francisco Sandoval, exfiscal anticorrupción que ahora vive en Estados Unidos y forma parte de las decenas de fiscales y jueces que se han exiliado en los últimos años.Sandoval afirma que la votación se verá empañada tanto por los fallos arbitrarios sobre quién puede postularse, como por el aumento de la financiación ilícita de campañas con fondos públicos.Aunque representan tendencias ideológicas distintas, al menos tres de los candidatos excluidos inquietaron a las élites políticas de Guatemala.Uno de ellos, Carlos Pineda, se posicionó como un empresario independiente que utilizó TikTok para surgir como favorito en las encuestas.“Quince partidos accionaron en mi contra. Lo hicieron porque íbamos punteando en las encuestas y se determinaba que en primera vuelta íbamos a hacer historia y ganar las elecciones”, dijo Pineda refiriéndose al hecho de que si nadie obtiene más del 50por ciento de los votos, se celebrará una segunda vuelta entre los dos candidatos más votados. “Para mí estas elecciones son ilegítimas”.Carlos Pineda en una protesta contra su exclusión de la campaña presidencialDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesOtra candidata excluida, Thelma Cabrera, es una líder de izquierda proveniente de una familia maya mam que intenta organizar a los pueblos indígenas de Guatemala, que representan aproximadamente la mitad de la población, en una fuerza política unificada. El tercero, Roberto Arzú, es un dirigente de derecha de una familia de políticos que se ha posicionado como una fuerza opositora a las élites del país.Blanca Alfaro, al centro, e Irma Elizabeth Palencia Orellana, de amarillo, magistradas del Tribunal Supremo Electoral, la autoridad encargada de las elecciones del domingoDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesGiammattei, a quien la ley le prohíbe presentarse a la reelección, ha guardado silencio sobre la exclusión de varios de los principales aspirantes. En gran medida, la campaña se ha convertido en una contienda entre tres candidatos principales que se considera que pueden ofrecer cierta continuidad con el statu quo.Sandra Torres fue primera dama de 2008 a 2011, cuando estaba casada con el presidente Álvaro Colom. Se divorciaron cuando Torres intentó postularse por primera vez como candidata a la presidencia en 2011, en un intento de sortear una ley que prohíbe que los familiares del presidente puedan presentarse como candidatos.Torres fue detenida en 2019 en relación con violaciones de financiación de campaña, pero el caso fue cerrado por un juez en 2022 apenas unas semanas antes de que comenzara oficialmente la campaña, lo que le permitió postularse. Su plataforma destaca las promesas de ampliar los programas sociales, incluidas las transferencias de efectivo para los pobres.Sandra Torres en un evento electoral en Ciudad de GuatemalaDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesOtra de las principales candidatas, Zury Ríos, es hija de Efraín Ríos Montt, quien fue dictador de Guatemala a principios de la década de 1980 y ordenó tácticas extremas contra la insurgencia guerrillera y posteriormente fue condenado por genocidio en una sentencia pionera de 2013 por intentar exterminar a los ixiles, un pueblo maya indígena de Guatemala.Zury Ríos no se ha arrepentido de las acciones de su padre, y este año incluso llegó a negar que un genocidio sucedió. Cristiana evangélica, ha ganado popularidad entre los conservadores tras aliarse con figuras que pretenden frenar las iniciativas anticorrupción. Tras su paso por el Congreso, donde hizo hincapié en temas relacionados con las mujeres, ha centrado su campaña presidencial en la adopción de políticas de seguridad de línea dura para combatir la delincuencia.Edmond Mulet, otro de los principales aspirantes, fue diplomático y generalmente se inclina por puntos de vista conservadores. Mulet, cuyas propuestas incluyen la ampliación del acceso a internet y el suministro de medicamentos gratuitos, ha criticado la persecución de periodistas y fiscales, pero ha forjado vínculos con poderosas figuras políticas tradicionales, evitando el destino de los candidatos excluidos.Los sondeos de las últimas semanas apuntan a que ninguno de los tres podrá obtener una mayoría suficiente el domingo, lo que forzaría a una segunda vuelta el 30 de agosto.La descalificación de varios candidatos de la campaña presidencial ha puesto en duda la legitimidad de la votación del domingo.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesLa contienda, según los expertos, revela lo efectiva que han sido los poderosos en erradicar cualquier fuente seria de disenso.“El uso del sistema judicial como un arma está haciendo que se marchen algunas de las mentes más brillantes del país e intimida a quienes se quedan”, dijo Regina Bateson, académica de la Universidad de Ottawa especializada en Guatemala. En su opinión, esa situación ha originado unas “elecciones que socavan la democracia”.Simon Romero es corresponsal nacional y cubre el suroeste de Estados Unidos. Ha sido jefe de las corresponsalías del Times en Brasil, los Andes y corresponsal internacional de energía. @viaSimonRomeroNatalie Kitroeff es la jefa de la corresponsalía del Times para México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. @Nataliekitro More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico’s Supreme Court Rejects AMLO-Backed Election Changes

      by

      The ruling from the country’s top court came as President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ramps up his attacks on the judicial system.Mexico’s highest court on Thursday struck down a key piece of a sweeping electoral bill backed by the president that would have undermined the agency that oversees the country’s vote, and that helped shift the nation away from single-party rule.The ruling by the Supreme Court is a major blow to President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who has argued that the plan would make elections more efficient, save millions of dollars and allow Mexicans living abroad to vote online.The election measures were passed early this year by Congress, which is controlled by the president’s party, and would have applied to next year’s presidential race. Though Mr. López Obrador is barred from seeking re-election, his party’s chosen candidate will most likely be a heavy favorite.The bill would have slashed the National Electoral Institute’s work force, reduced its autonomy and curbed its power to punish politicians for violating election laws. Civil liberty groups said the measures would have hobbled a key pillar of Mexican democracy.“What it sought was to transform the entire electoral system,” said Ernesto Guerra, a political analyst based in Mexico City. “It was a 180-degree turn to the rules of the democratic game.”However relieved some Mexicans were by the ruling, some also worried that Mr. López Obrador might try to turn the legal setback to his advantage and rally his base around the idea that the judiciary is corrupt. During a morning address Thursday in which he anticipated the ruling, he lit into the court.“It is an invasion, an intrusion,” Mr. López Obrador said.He said he would present an initiative “in due time” to have members of the judiciary elected just like the president or senators. “It should be the people who elect them,” he said. “They should not represent an elite.”The court last month had invalidated another part of the bill that, among other things, involved changes to publicity rules in electoral campaigns.Mexicans casting ballots in Ciudad Juárez in 2018.Victor J. Blue for The New York TimesIn throwing out the remaining part of the bill by a vote of nine to two, justices pointed to violations by lawmakers of legislative procedure, saying that the changes had been rushed through in only four hours and that members of Congress had not been given reasonable time to know what they were voting on.“As a whole, they are so serious that they violate the constitutional principles of Mexican democracy,” Justice Luis María Aguilar said during the court’s discussion. “Not respecting the rules of legislative procedure is constitutional disloyalty.”José Ramón Cossío, a lawyer who is a former member of the court, said that Mr. López Obrador and his allies had pushed the changes known as “Plan B” forward “in such an arrogant, violent, rude way that they lost.”Experts described the court’s decision as a major setback for the administration of Mr. López Obrador, who has made overhauling the electoral system a major priority. The government had defended the changes as a needed step to “reduce the bureaucratic costs” of elections and to ensure that “no more frauds occur” in Mexico.“The rule of law has never been threatened with the approval of the reforms,” the president’s legal adviser wrote in a statement in March. “It is false that the fundamental rights of the citizens are at risk.”With Plan B struck down, next year’s elections will be governed by the same rules under which Mr. López Obrador and his party, Morena, came to power, Mr. Guerra said.“This gives me peace of mind,” he said. “We see the burial of this reform emanating from and for the political power.”The Supreme Court building in Mexico City. Marco Ugarte/Associated Press But fears remain that the ruling may be weaponized against the judicial system, which already has come under attack by the president for rejecting a number of his administration’s initiatives, including one that would have transferred the newly created National Guard from civilian to military control. The court ruled that this was unconstitutional.“This defeat was intentionally sought to properly assume the role of victim and erect the perfect enemy,” said Juan Jesús Garza Onofre, an expert in constitutional law and ethics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “Narratively, this defeat becomes more of a victory.”The risk, analysts warn, is long-term damage to the judiciary. “Justice as we know it, with all its shortcomings, could experience a setback,” Mr. Garza Onofre said.The president, he added, would be prudent “to cool heated tempers.”“We know that is not going to happen,” he said. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Guatemala Votes for President, but Candidates Are Excluded

      by

      Guatemala’s first round of elections on Sunday is as much about who’s not on the ballot as who is, after courts barred leading candidates from running.A Guatemalan judge walked into a meeting at the American Embassy last spring and pulled out a large quantity of cash: The money, she said, was a bribe from one of the president’s closest allies.The judge, Blanca Alfaro, helps lead the authority that oversees the country’s elections. She claimed the money had been given to her to gain influence over the electoral agency, according to a U.S. official briefed on the encounter and a person who was present and requested anonymity to discuss the details of a private meeting.American diplomats were shocked by the brazenness of the episode, but not by the allegations. In the volatile political climate consuming Guatemala in the run-up to presidential elections on Sunday, there has been one constant: a steady drumbeat of attacks on democratic institutions by those in power.In a country that has shifted from a staging ground for rooting out corruption to one where dozens of anticorruption officials have been forced into exile, the first round of voting will be as much about who is not on the ballot as who is.The nation’s electoral agency has disqualified every serious candidate in the race who could challenge the status quo, which is embodied by President Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative who critics accuse of pushing the country toward autocracy and who is barred from running for another term.The remaining front-runners are people with links to some segment of the political or economic elite. Alongside their names on the ballot will be several blank boxes, representing four candidates excluded from the process by the electoral authority.Judge Alfaro told American officials that she had received the bribe from Miguel Martínez, a close confidant of Mr. Giammattei’s and a key official in his party, said the person who attended the meeting and the U.S. official.She said the money she had with her amounted to 50,000 Guatemalan quetzales (the equivalent of more than $6,000), according to the person who was present.The Times has not substantiated Judge Alfaro’s claim that she was bribed. In an interview, Ms. Alfaro denied that she went to the embassy and made the allegation.“I have no relationship with Miguel Martínez,” she told The New York Times. “I doubt that 50,000 quetzales can be brought into the embassy because you go through so many security measures.”Mr. Martínez denied giving Judge Alfaro a bribe, saying he had never met with her. He said he was aware of an effort by people who were unable to participate in the elections “to get me involved in some legal situation” with the American Embassy.“Now we are realizing that this is the legal situation they are trying to involve me in,” Mr. Martínez said, “to affect the electoral process that is being carried out in a clean and democratic way.”Later, Mr. Martínez told reporters that The Times would soon publish an account of Ms. Alfaro’s trip to the embassy in a statement captured on video and circulated widely on social media. “This is something malicious they want to do to destabilize the elections,” Mr. Martínez said in the video. When asked about the Ms. Alfaro’s allegations and the embassy’s response, a State Department spokeswoman, Christina Tilghman, said, “We do not confirm the existence of alleged meetings nor discuss the contents of diplomatic discussions.”Ms. Tilghman said that whenever the American government receives allegations of corruption that “meet evidentiary requirements under U.S. regulations and law,” it imposes sanctions or otherwise punishes those involved.The actions of the electoral authority have led civil rights groups to question whether Sunday’s presidential contest can truly be considered free and fair.“Legality is not the same as legitimacy,” said Juan Francisco Sandoval, a former anticorruption prosecutor who now lives in the United States and is among the dozens of prosecutors and judges who have gone into exile in recent years.The vote, he said, will be marred both by “arbitrary rulings” on who was allowed to run, and a surge in illicit campaign financing using public funds.Though from different ideological backgrounds, at least three of the excluded candidates were viewed as unsettling to Guatemala’s political establishment.One of them, Carlos Pineda, positioned himself as an outsider businessman and used TikTok to become a front-runner in the polls.“They went after us because we were climbing so much in the polls that we could make history by winning in the first round,” said Mr. Pineda, referring to the fact that if no one wins more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff will be held between the top two candidates. “This election is illegitimate.”Carlos Pineda at a demonstration protesting his exclusion from the race. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesAnother barred candidate, Thelma Cabrera, is a leftist from a Maya Mam family trying to organize Guatemala’s Indigenous peoples, who account for roughly half the population, into a unified political force. A third, Roberto Arzú, is a right-wing scion of a political family who had positioned himself as an opponent of the country’s elites.Blanca Alfaro, center, and Irma Elizabeth Palencia Orellana, in yellow, magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the authority overseeing Sunday’s election. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesMr. Giammattei, prohibited by law from seeking re-election, has remained silent about the barring of several top contenders. The race has largely become a contest among three leading candidates who are viewed as providing some continuity with the status quo.Sandra Torres was the first lady from 2008 to 2011, when she was married to President Álvaro Colom. They divorced when Ms. Torres first sought to run for president in 2011 (Guatemalan law prohibits a president’s relatives from running for office).Ms. Torres was arrested in 2019 in connection with campaign finance violations, but the case was dismissed by a judge in 2022 just weeks before campaigning officially got underway, allowing her to run. Her platform highlights promises to expand social programs, including cash transfers for the poor.Sandra Torres at a rally in Guatemala City. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesAnother leading candidate, Zury Ríos, is the daughter of Efraín Ríos Montt, a dictator of Guatemala in the early 1980s who ordered extreme tactics against a guerrilla insurgency and was convicted of genocide in 2013 for trying to exterminate the Ixil, a Mayan people indigenous to Guatemala. Ms. Ríos has been unrepentant about her father’s actions, going so far as to deny this year that the genocide happened. An evangelical Christian, she gained popularity among conservatives after allying with figures seeking to blunt anticorruption initiatives. When she served in Congress, she emphasized women’s issues, but on the presidential campaign trail she has stressed adopting hard-line security policies to combat crime.Another top contender, Edmond Mulet, is a former diplomat who generally hews to conservative views. Mr. Mulet, whose proposals include expanding internet access and providing free medicines, has criticized the persecution of journalists and prosecutors, but has also forged ties with powerful entrenched political figures, avoiding the fate of excluded candidates.Polls in recent weeks suggest that none of the three are expected to come close to winning a majority of the votes on Sunday, which would force a runoff on Aug. 30.The disqualification of several candidates from the presidential race has raised question about the legitimacy of Sunday’s vote.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesThe contest, experts said, lays bare how effective Guatemala’s power brokers have been at extinguishing any real source of dissent.“The weaponization of the judicial system is driving some of the brightest minds in the country to leave and intimidating anyone that’s left,” said Regina Bateson, a scholar at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Guatemala. The result, she said, is an “election undermining democracy.” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Indian TV Praises Modi During His U.S. Trip

      by

      “Super King of Diplomacy,” read the ticker placed in bold on top of one news channel. “Long live our friendship,” said another. A third declared, “The Boss in America.”Mainstream Indian news channels — in Hindi, English and some regional languages — covered Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reception in Washington with adulation, praising his diplomatic skills for millions of viewers before a crucial election year for him.The visuals from Washington played into what Mr. Modi has already set as one of his main campaign themes: tying India’s rise as a major economic power with his rise as a global statesman.“The scale, the splendor, the warmth,” one headline enthused. Others, such as “Modi’s breakthrough diplomacy” and “Watch history being made,” flooded Indians’ homes Thursday evening as Mr. Modi walked the red carpet to meet President Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden.“Their body language reflected that they were incomplete without one another,” one news anchor said as visuals of the two leaders shaking hands played on the screen.Mr. Modi has carefully crafted his relationship with traditional news outlets, using a mix of incentives and pressure tactics to get most of them on his side.When uncomfortable issues arise — a state election loss, an ethnic war resulting in weeks of unrest and bloodshed in a northeastern state, a deadly three-way train crash — they are quick to deflect blame away from Mr. Modi.And when a major moment like the state visit to Washington comes, they are happy to join in the cheerleading — a factor that, combined with how Mr. Modi’s party has mastered social media to take his messages viral, helps explain Mr. Modi’s talent for shaping politics to his benefit.The coverage of Mr. Modi’s visit to the United States is a political boon, setting the agenda in his favor before he launches himself full-time into campaign mode for parliamentary elections next year.While many channels showed the White House dinner menu ad nauseam, calling it “dinner for friendship,” some others waxed eloquent about the importance of the gifts Mr. Modi had carried for the Bidens. One anchor declared of a military deal between the two countries: “The biggest defense deal. The hearts of enemies will burn!”And when, at his news conference with Mr. Biden, Mr. Modi skirted a question on India’s grim human rights record and suppression of free speech, one Hindi-language news anchor came to his rescue on her show, saying he had “very bravely” faced the question. More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Politics of Class

      by

      We’re covering the class inversion in American politics, severe weather in Texas and the Indian prime minister’s visit to the U.S.The class inversion in American politics — Republicans’ struggles with college graduates and Democrats’ struggles with the working class — is a running theme of this newsletter. To help make sense of it, I asked four Times Opinion writers to join me in an exchange this morning. They are Michelle Cottle, Carlos Lozada, Lydia Polgreen and Ross Douthat, and they’re also the hosts of a new podcast, “Matter of Opinion.”David: Democrats are nearly shut out of statewide office in almost 20 states, largely because of their weakness with working-class voters. And in the past five years, the party has lost ground with working-class voters of color. How can Democrats do better?Michelle: There are concrete issues on which some Democrats stumbled too far to the left, crime being notable. But I don’t think the main problem is with the party’s policies so much as its overall vibe. Dems need to relearn how to talk to working-class voters — to sound less condescending and scoldy. Too many Democrats radiate an aura of, If only voters understood what was good for them, they would back us.Carlos: Dispensing political strategy is not my comfort zone, so all I’ll say is that it seems a bit shortsighted when politicians talk to Latino voters as if the only thing they care about is immigration and the border, or when they address Black voters as if all that animates them is policing reform or racial discrimination. Don’t try to woo large and varied voting groups with narrow appeals. It’s pandering, it’s obvious and it’s dismissive.Lydia: As Michelle hinted at, the Democrats have become the party of officious technocracy, which makes so many things they propose sound, well, ridiculous. A classic for me was Kamala Harris’s student loan forgiveness plan from the 2020 race: You had to be a Pell Grant recipient, start a business in a disadvantaged community and keep that business going for three years. That’s no “Make America Great Again.” They should talk about big, bold and simple ways you will improve people’s lives.Michelle: “Officious technocracy” is my new favorite term, Lydia! I’m officially — and officiously — appropriating it.Carlos: The irony of the Democrats’ officious technocracy is that, in some cases, it misrepresented how science works. Admonishing people to “follow the science” on Covid can be counterproductive when recommendations should change as new data comes in. Science is a method of inquiry, not a set of off-the-shelf solutions.Ross: Talking about working people’s material interests in language that doesn’t sound like it was lifted from a glossary of progressive-activist terminology is the right path for Democrats. Right now, though, I think they have a lot to gain by treating the Covidian and George Floyd-era breakdown in public order as their major political problem — treating homicide rates, drug abuse, school discipline and border security as key issues where they need to separate themselves from their own activist class, which has a tendency to act like living with disorder is an essential part of left-wing tolerance.Remember Kamala Harris the prosecuting attorney, once disdained by the left? The Democrats could use a leader like that.Brian Kemp, Georgia’s governor.Audra Melton for The New York TimesCraziness and chaosDavid: What about the other side of the class inversion? Republicans used to win white-collar professionals. Not anymore.Ross: The G.O.P. has multiplied the reasons for college graduates to turn against them: The craziness and chaos of the Trumpist style cost them with one group; the fact that they can now legislate against abortion costs them with another.I think you can see in the success of Brian Kemp in Georgia a model for how they can advance pro-life legislation without suffering dramatic losses. But the Kemp model requires a rigorous reasonability, a studied outreach to suburbanites, a moderate and competent affect, none of which a Trump 2024 candidacy is likely to offer, and the effort to defeat Donald Trump may push Ron DeSantis from the Kempian sweet spot as well.Lydia: I think it’s brave to take a principled stand on a defining moral question like abortion, electoral consequences be damned! Just ask the Democrats what embracing civil rights cost them. Maybe there is something for the G.O.P. to learn from Bill Clinton, who was able to triangulate his way into the Oval Office by undercutting the critiques of liberal overreach.Michelle: It goes beyond the Trumpian crazy. Republicans have, for a while now, been spinning up their voters by painting every issue as an existential crisis such that compromise, triangulation and moderation are anathema. College-grad-moderate-swing-voter-suburban types find it unsettling.Carlos: Maybe the thing to remember is that “rigorous reasonability,” as Ross calls for, is relative, and the G.O.P. could benefit from the soft bigotry of low expectations. It might not take all that much for college grads turned off by Trumpism but still wary of the activist left to consider a Republican who combines populist policy impulses with a more sober governing style. In his book, DeSantis brags that his administration in Florida was “substantively consequential.”Michelle: I like your optimism, Carlos. But I’d venture that DeSantis’s nerdier approach is a key reason he’s getting his booty stomped in polls by the MAGA king. Not juicy enough and way too wonky/jargony at times.Listen to the latest episode of “Matter of Opinion” — about America’s place in the world and the significance of this week’s visit to the U.S. by Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister.THE LATEST NEWSPoliticsRepresentative Adam Schiff, right.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesThe Republican-led House voted to censure Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat, for his role leading investigations into Trump.Justice Samuel Alito took a vacation with a billionaire who frequently has cases before the Supreme Court, ProPublica reported. Alito sought to rebut the report ahead of time with a Wall Street Journal op-ed.A federal judge sentenced a rioter who assaulted an officer on Jan. 6 to more than 12 years in prison.Modi’s U.S. VisitPresident Biden is welcoming Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, today, hoping to woo the country at a time of conflict with Russia and rising tension with China.By staying neutral in the war in Ukraine, India has profited: It has emerged as a primary buyer of Russia’s crude oil, which it refines and exports.Severe WeatherA storm barreled through a Texas town with about 600 residents, killing at least three people.Extreme heat is stalled over Oklahoma and Texas and could linger until the Fourth of July, straining the power grid.Other Big StoriesA superyacht helped rescue 100 migrants thrown overboard in a deadly wreck in the Mediterranean, reflecting a new inequality of the seas.The search for the missing submersible continues in the North Atlantic. The vessel’s oxygen could run out today.Math and reading scores for 13-year-olds in the U.S. hit their lowest levels in decades.The U.S. approved the production and sale of laboratory-grown chicken meat.A Florida county is trying to contain an invasive species of giant snail that can grow as big as a fist.OpinionsAs Modi visits the U.S., President Biden should promote shared democratic values with an increasingly autocratic ally, The Times’s editorial board writes.Here are columns by Tressie McMillan Cottom on a Black rodeo in Portland, Ore., and Zeynep Tufekci on the lab-leak theory.MORNING READSThe New York headquarters of Salesforce.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesReturn to office: Bosses have reached the desperation phase.Beauty: The salon where a corporation tries to understand Black women’s hair.The Ethicist: “My wife lives in a nursing home. Can I take a lover?”Lives Lived: Haim Roet survived the Holocaust by hiding in a Dutch village. At a protest in 1989, he read out the names of people murdered by the Nazis, starting a practice that has become a part of memorial ceremonies around the world. He died at 90.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICN.B.A. blockbuster: Kristaps Porzingis is heading to Boston and Marcus Smart to Memphis in a three-team swap.Wunderkind: Meet Ness Mugrabi, the N.F.L.’s youngest agent.Scrutiny: Leaders of the PGA Tour, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and the LIV Tour were invited to testify in front of a congressional committee.ARTS AND IDEAS Clive, a prince, is out for revenge in this new incarnation of the Final Fantasy franchise.Square EnixRole-playing games: The Final Fantasy video game series has been around for more than three decades. Recently, as its creators worked on the next entry, Final Fantasy XVI, they confronted what The Times’s Brian X. Chen calls the “Star Wars” problem: Can a long-running franchise reinvent itself to win over new audiences without losing longtime fans who crave nostalgia?Final Fantasy XVI is out today, and Corey Plante writes at Kotaku that it successfully threads the needle: “It just may be the best the series has been in more than 20 years.”More on cultureThe second season of “And Just Like That …” premieres today. Catch up.Six writers selected essential works of queer literature.THE MORNING RECOMMENDS …David Malosh for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Simon Andrews.Broil miso-honey chicken.Exercise your body and mind with tai chi.Visit the site where Caesar was killed.Upgrade your bath towels.Skip the silicone baking mats.GAMESHere are today’s Spelling Bee and the Bee Buddy, which helps you find remaining words. Yesterday’s pangrams were autocracy and carryout.And here are today’s Mini Crossword, Wordle and Sudoku.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. The Society for News Design named The Times best-designed newspaper.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The United States and India Can Be Better Partners

      by

      Idealism and pragmatism have long made rival claims on American foreign policy, forcing hard choices and sometimes leading to disappointment. There was a moment in the 1990s when the collapse of the Soviet Union looked to clear the way for a universal political and economic order, but that chimera soon gave way to the more complex world we inhabit today, in which the ideals of liberal democracy — often in otherwise well-functioning democracies — sometimes seem to be in conflict with the popularity of strongmen leaders, the desire for security or the forces of xenophobia or grievance.For American presidents and policymakers, this poses a challenge; it is no longer enough to champion the ideals of liberal democracy and count on the rest of the world to follow. Lecturing any country, be it global powers like Russia or China or regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can embolden autocratic tendencies; engagement can, at least sometimes, lead to further dialogue and space for diplomacy. Advancing American ideals requires being pragmatic and even accommodating when our democratic partners fall short of the mark — and humility about where the United States falls short, too.Take India, and the quandary it poses for Washington, which is on display as Prime Minister Narendra Modi makes a state visit this week.India is a democracy in which the world’s biggest electorate openly and freely exercises the fundamental right to choose its leader. Its population is the largest in the world, and its economy is now the fifth largest in the world; its vast diaspora wields huge influence, especially in American business. With its history of close relations with Moscow, long and sometimes contested border with China and strategic location in a highly volatile neighborhood, India is destined to be a critical player in geopolitics for decades to come. Mr. Modi, the prime minister since 2014, commands sky-high popularity ratings and a secure majority in his Parliament, and is in the enviable position of leading a country with a relatively young, growing population.While India has a long history of wariness toward America — most of its military equipment comes from the Soviet Union and Russia, and it would prefer to steer clear of direct involvement in the U.S.-China rivalry — senior American officials believe that India’s views of the United States have fundamentally improved in recent years.This is partly through the work of the dynamic Indian diaspora, partly through greater strategic partnership, and partly because of the growing interest by American companies in India as an alternative to China for expansion in Asia. India has joined the United States, Japan and Australia in the “Quad,” an informal grouping that seeks to counter China’s increasingly assertive behavior in the Indo-Pacific region. And hundreds of American business and industry leaders will gather to meet with Mr. Modi this week. The visit is expected to include major deals to build American jet engines in India and to sell American drones.So it is not hard to fathom why India’s leader is getting rock-star treatment in Washington, from a state dinner at the White House to an address on Capitol Hill. President Biden is right to acknowledge the potential of America’s partnership with India using all the symbolism and diplomatic tools at his disposal.But Mr. Biden cannot ignore the other, equally significant, changes in India during the last nine years: Under Mr. Modi and his right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, India has witnessed a serious erosion of the civil and political rights and democratic freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Mr. Modi and his allies have been accused of policies that target and discriminate against religious minorities, especially India’s 200 million Muslims, and of using the power of the state to punish rivals and silence critics. Raids on political opponents and dissenting voices have become frequent; the mainstream news media has been diminished; the independence of courts and other democratic institutions has been eroded — all to a chorus of avowals from the B.J.P. that it is acting strictly within the law.In March, a court in Mr. Modi’s home state sentenced the opposition leader, Rahul Gandhi, to a two-year prison term for defaming the prime minister; though Mr. Gandhi has not been jailed, the sentence led to his expulsion from Parliament, and will most likely prevent him from running again. Before that, in January, the Modi government used emergency laws to limit access to a BBC documentary that reexamined damning allegations that Mr. Modi played a role in murderous sectarian violence in Gujarat State 20 years ago, when he was chief minister there. As this editorial board warned, “When populist leaders invoke emergency laws to block dissent, democracy is in peril.”This remains true, and it behooves Mr. Biden and every other elected official and business leader who meet with the Indian delegation this week to make sure that a discussion of shared democratic values is on the agenda.That may be a tall order. Mr. Modi has demonstrated a prickly intolerance for criticism and may still harbor resentment from the nearly 10 years he was effectively barred from traveling to the United States for allegations of “severe violations of religious freedom” over the Gujarat violence. (He has repeatedly denied involvement, and the visa ban was lifted by the Obama administration when Mr. Modi became prime minister.) A public scolding from the White House, especially when the United States is wrestling with its own threats to democracy, would serve little purpose except to anger the Indian public.Nevertheless, Mr. Biden and other American officials should be willing to have a forthright, if sometimes uncomfortable, discussion with their Indian counterparts. America’s own struggles are humbling proof that even the most established democracies are not immune to problems. As Human Rights Watch notes in a letter to Mr. Biden: “U.S. officials can point to how the U.S. political system has itself struggled with toxic rhetoric, while working to maintain an open and free media. These topics can be discussed openly and diplomatically in both directions.”The quandary is not limited to India. How the United States manages its relationships with “elected autocracies,” from Poland’s Law and Justice government to Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right coalition in Israel to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government in Turkey, is one of the most important strategic questions of American foreign policy. The leaders of these countries and others will be watching closely to see how the Biden administration deals with this indispensable but increasingly autocratic Asian democracy.The administration also faces the problem that the United States’ democratic credentials have been tarnished by Donald Trump and the possibility that he may be back in the White House before long. Mr. Trump’s politics have been openly hailed as inspiration by many an elected autocrat — including Mr. Modi, whose magnetism Mr. Trump likened to Elvis Presley’s at a rally in Houston on an official visit in 2019.President Biden knows, from his many years in public service, that there will always be points of friction even in the closest partnerships between nations, let alone in relationships with leaders who have a very different view of the world. And senior U.S. government officials say that the administration is keenly aware of the flaws of the Modi government. Yet they believe that India’s vital role on the global stage supersedes concerns about one leader. Far better, they say, to raise concerns in private; and they insist they have raised them in many difficult conversations, and said they would raise them in this week’s meetings with Mr. Modi.It is essential that they are raised. India has shaped a great and complex democracy out of a rich panoply of people, languages and religious traditions, and it is reaching for a more prominent role in global affairs.But it is also critical to make clear that intolerance and repression run counter to everything that Americans admire in India, and threaten the partnership with the United States that its prime minister is actively seeking to strengthen and deepen. America wants and needs to embrace India; but Mr. Modi should be left with no illusion about how dangerous his autocratic leanings are, to the people of India and for the health of democracy in the world.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

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mailbag: Does Trump Represent Half the Country?

      by

      Settling a marital dispute, and a question that gets at a tension within today’s conservatism — in this month’s reader mailbag.Mary Altaffer/Associated PressHelp settle a disputeNate, help me settle a marital dispute. My wife contends that 50 percent of the country are Trump supporters, while I believe the number is closer to 35-40 percent. Knowing that there is not a definitive answer — are we talking about all people, registered voters, etc. — who do you think is closer to being right? — Phil StevensonWhenever possible, it’s important for both partners to feel good with the settlement of a marital dispute. So let me suggest that the answer depends on your preferred definition of a “Trump supporter.”If a Trump supporter is someone who voted for Donald J. Trump or, alternately, someone who will vote for him over President Biden in the next election, I think the answer is closer to your wife’s 50 percent tally. After all, Mr. Trump won 47 percent of voters in 2020 and 46 percent in 2016. I’m open-minded about what he could win in 2024, but if the election were held today it’s reasonable to think he’d win something closer to 50 percent than 37.5 percent, the midway point of your 35-40 percent range.But if being a Trump supporter requires something more than merely preferring him over Mr. Biden, the number of Trump supporters is probably closer to your 35-40 percent range. To take one simple measure: Mr. Trump has around a 40 percent national favorability rating. Another option: Only 35 percent said they wanted him to run for president in an NBC poll taken in April.A.I. and pollingI am curious to know if you think A.I. has a place in the future of polling. — Brian BakerAt the moment, I’m more concerned that A.I. might claim an unintended place in the present of polling: by making it even easier for bots to contaminate online panels. I’m not sure that common data quality measures — like open-ended responses — will work for long.A boost for Haley?Does DeSantis’s decline offer any hope to Nikki Haley— David NewbergerThis is like asking whether the decline of the Mets — one of baseball’s best teams last year — gives any hope to the Washington Nationals (currently the National League’s worst team, but now just 6.5 games behind the Mets!). I suppose it must be good news for the Nats at some level, but the Mets weren’t really their problem. At the moment, Ms. Haley is not plainly outpacing the likes of Tim Scott, Chris Christie or Mike Pence. Ron DeSantis isn’t really her problem.What about Asa?Would love to hear your thoughts on the way Asa Hutchinson’s candidacy may play out. — Merideth TomlinsonWho? I’m joking of course (he’s the former Arkansas governor), but he’ll need to find a way to break out of obscurity in a big field. I would guess he’ll need to dazzle in the debates to even earn a look from most voters. I’m not sure you should count on it, but you never know.Books by candidatesI previously mentioned that I don’t read books by aspiring presidential candidates. Is that always a good idea?I was interested in your description of how you prepare yourself when evaluating candidates. What you do clearly makes sense, EXCEPT you immediately reminded me how I decided to support Barack Obama in 2008. I thought he was not a strong candidate, but he was an interesting person, so I read “Dreams From My Father” … and became a big Obama fan! I imagine I am not the only voter who had this experience. Of course, someone is unlikely to read a book by a candidate unless they are somewhat interested in that person. — Angie BoyterWhen I wrote that I don’t read a presidential candidate’s book, I was mainly thinking about the genre of political books written by someone just about to run for president. These books often weave biographical detail, policy proposals and a political message into a preview of a coming campaign. They largely go unread, but they offer an excuse for TV producers to book a presidential hopeful on their shows. Mr. Obama’s 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” falls into this category.Why don’t I want to read a book like this? I want to know the message a candidate emphasizes in speeches, advertisements and interviews, not the one that makes it into a 100,000-word book.Your experience with “Dreams From My Father” — a literary autobiography — is quite different. The book was widely read, and the content was distinct from what Mr. Obama talked about on the campaign trail. This is pretty unusual; J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” is the only recent example that comes to mind of something like it. Perhaps that’s a case where there’s a better argument for reading the book.On DeSantis and freedomThis isn’t really a question, but it’s an interesting observation that gets at a tension within conservatism nowadays:He’s been popular with Democrats and Republicans alike in Florida for his freedoms, not restrictions. Limiting people’s freedoms, regardless of the topic, will definitely harm him. — John FahrenwaldMr. DeSantis rose to prominence by fighting for freedom from coronavirus restrictions, and this remains an important part of his brand. His budget is branded as a “Framework for Freedom.” His book — which by now you may have guessed I have not read — is titled “The Courage to Be Free.”But as Mr. DeSantis’s fight for freedom has transitioned to a fight against “woke,” his orientation toward “freedom” has become a bit more complicated. He signed a six-week abortion ban. He’s used his authority as governor to crack down on “woke” corporations, and he’s expressed skepticism about giving tax breaks to companies who go on to advance the left’s values. This is emblematic of a broader turn on the intellectual right in which many want to use the power of the government to defend what they say are traditional values and fight the influence of the left in academia, the media and corporate America.This is sometimes called “post-liberal” conservatism. Here, liberal is meant in the classical sense of supporting liberty, free markets and limited government (as it is still used in Europe), not the American sense of liberal: a regulated market economy with a welfare state. In this context, the Republican Party has represented a liberal conservatism for most of the last half-century. The post-liberal conservatives prioritize conserving traditional values over conserving liberty.This post-liberal turn among a segment of conservative intellectual elites may reflect genuine fears of the threat posed by the left to traditional values, but it’s hard to see a political winner here. America is fundamentally a liberal country — again, in the classical, lower-case-l sense. It’s hard to think of anything more deeply embedded in traditional American values than individual liberty and freedom. It is not Hungary. I would guess that the constituency for an explicitly post-liberal conservatism is pretty small; perhaps that’s why Mr. DeSantis continues to brand himself as someone fighting for freedom, even as he increasingly supports measures that arguably restrict it. More