Subterms
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails Volodymyr Zelensky’s European tour has been about requests for attack jets as the war nears its first year anniversary. But it is likely to be a while before […] More
Petr Pavel, a political novice, defeated Andrej Babis, a populist business tycoon and former prime minister, in the first of several important European elections this year.The Czech Republic on Saturday elected Petr Pavel, a retired senior NATO general and political novice, as president, according to nearly complete results, with voters decisively rejecting the rival candidacy of a populist billionaire and cementing the country’s position as a robust supporter of Ukraine.Mr. Pavel, a former chief of the general staff of the Czech Army and chairman of the NATO Military Committee, defeated the tycoon Andrej Babis, a pugnacious former prime minister who had sought to cast his opponent in Saturday’s runoff vote as a warmonger intent on dragging Czech soldiers into the conflict in Ukraine.Mr. Babis’s tactics copied those of a close former ally, Hungary’s illiberal prime minister, Viktor Orban, who won a landside victory last April after falsely claiming that his main rival wanted to send Hungarian troops to fight Russia in Ukraine.But that argument flopped for Mr. Babis in the Czech Republic, which has far more diverse media outlets than Hungary, where Mr. Orban’s governing Fidesz party and its business allies have a tight grip on television and most other sources of information.With more than 99 percent of the votes counted, the tally gave Mr. Pavel a decisive victory: 58 percent to 42 percent. Two weeks ago, in the first round of voting, Mr. Pavel and Mr. Babis finished neck and neck.The Czech presidency is largely ceremonial, but the incumbent, Milos Zeman, who was barred from running by term limits, stretched its limited powers to try to tilt Czech foreign policy toward Russia and China and loosen the Central European country’s moorings in the West.Mr. Zeman, who last year dropped his previously pro-Kremlin views, did not upset the Czech government’s strong support for Ukraine, which has included sending tanks and other military hardware, but his reputation for heavy drinking and disruptive eccentricity has often raised questions abroad over the Czech Republic’s direction.Taking a swipe at Mr. Zeman’s decade-long tenure, Mr. Pavel on Saturday declared the election’s outcome a “victory for the values that we share — truth, respect, humility.”“I will make sure these values return to Prague Castle,” he added, referring to the seat of the Czech presidency.Neither Mr. Pavel nor Mr. Babis shares Mr. Zeman’s eastward leanings, but their race represented a stark clash in political styles — between low-key pragmatism and rambunctious populism.Andrej Babis arriving on Monday at a campaign event in Brno, Czech Republic. Mr. Babis was defeated by Mr. Pavel. Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockOtto Eibl, the head of the political science department at Masaryk University in the Czech city of Brno, said Mr. Pavel’s victory “could be a moment of calming and perhaps a step toward improving the political culture in the country.”“But,” Mr. Eibl continued, “it will depend on how Babis handles his defeat — whether he continues to add fuel to the fire, or acknowledges the victory” of his rival.Speaking on Saturday at his party’s headquarters in Prague, Mr. Babis conceded defeat, but he showed no sign of bowing out of politics. He said the result showed that he had strong support and could win the next parliamentary election in 2025.Mr. Pavel, a former paratrooper widely known as “the general,” campaigned on the slogan, “Leading with experience and calm in difficult times.” Mr. Babis, who was recently acquitted of fraud charges relating to European Union funding, fanned fears of war spreading to the Czech Republic, claiming that “the general does not believe in peace.”The clash between the two men made the vote — the first in a series of important elections this year in Eastern and Central Europe — a significant test of whether Europe’s once rising populist tide has crested.Despite the Czech president’s limited formal powers, the post carries great symbolic weight. This year’s election, with a first round of voting featuring eight candidates, stirred even more interest than usual, with more than 70 percent of voters casting ballots in Saturday’s runoff, the highest turnout in a Czech election.That populism continues to be a force was shown last year by Mr. Orban’s landslide victory in Hungary, but its fortunes elsewhere have been mixed. It suffered a big setback in the Czech Republic in October 2021 when Mr. Babis lost his post as prime minister after a broad alliance of centrist and leftist parties won a parliamentary election. Elections last year in Slovenia delivered another blow, with voters ousting Janez Jansa, a far-right admirer of Donald J. Trump and a close ally of Mr. Orban.But anti-establishment populism could gain ground in elections this year in Slovakia, whose centrist government collapsed in December, opening the way for a possible return to power by Robert Fico, a belligerent former prime minister tainted by corruption and other scandals.The key test, however, will be an election this fall in Poland, the region’s most populous country, which has been governed since 2015 by the deeply conservative and nationalist Law and Justice party.Barbora Petrova More
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky has praised his “special bond” with Boris Johnson – but said it is “not correct” for him to support any comeback bid by the […] More
After Brexit and Trump, rightwing populists cling to power – but the truth is they can’t governJonathan FreedlandThe farcical scenes among US Republicans have echoes in our Tory party. Both promise disruption, then deliver exactly that The US right has this week been staging a clown show that has had liberals in that country and beyond pulling up a chair and breaking out the popcorn. There has been a karmic pleasure in watching the Republicans who won control of the House of Representatives struggle to complete the most basic piece of business – the election of a speaker – but it’s also been instructive, and not only to Americans. For it has confirmed the dirty little secret of that strain of rightwing populist politics that revels in what it calls disruption: it always ends in bitter factional fighting, chaos and paralysis. We in Britain should know, because Brexit has gone the exact same way.Start with the karma that saw House Republicans gather two years to the day since they sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from one party to another: often overlooked in the anniversary recollections of 6 January 2021 is that, mere hours after rioters had stormed the US Capitol, a majority of Republican House members voted to do precisely as the rioters had demanded and overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Yet here were those same House Republicans on 6 January 2023, having prevented the smooth transfer of power from one party to another – except this time, the party they were thwarting was their own.House still without speaker as McCarthy pleads with Republican holdouts – liveRead moreIt should have been straightforward. Republicans won a narrow majority in the House in November, which gave them the right to put one of their number in the speaker’s chair. The trouble was, while most backed Kevin McCarthy, about 20 rebels did not. By Thursday night, they had gone through 11 rounds of voting – the most since the civil war era – without McCarthy or anyone else winning a majority. The result: deadlock.It was a study in incompetence. A party asks the electorate to give them power; they get it and then freeze, unable to take even the first step towards using it. There’s no clear political logic to the stalemate. The rebels are devotees of Donald Trump, but McCarthy himself is a tireless Trump sycophant – patronised by the former president as “my Kevin” – who begged for and won the backing of the orange one. The pro-Trump rebels are divided among themselves: one rebuked Trump for sticking with McCarthy, while another voted to make Trump himself speaker.It’s telling that the rebels’ demands are not on policy but on procedure, seeking rule changes or committee seats that would give them more power. Otherwise, they can’t really say what they want. They succeeded in getting metal detectors removed from the entrance to the chamber, so now people can walk on to the floor of the House carrying a gun, but apart from that, and their hunger to start investigating Democrats, including Joe Biden’s son Hunter, nothing.All this has significance for the year ahead in US politics. For one thing, it’s yet more evidence of the diminishing strength of Trump among Republican leaders, if not yet among the party faithful. For another, if Republicans cannot make a relatively easy decision like this one, how are they going to make the tough but necessary choices that are coming – such as authorising the spending, and debt, required to keep the US government functioning?But its meaning goes far wider. For what’s been on display this week, in especially florid form, is a strain of politics that has infected many democracies, including our own. Its key feature is its delight in disruption, in promising to upend the system. That was the thrust of the twin movements of 2016, Trump and Brexit. Both promised to sweep away the elites, the experts, the orthodoxy – whether in Washington DC or Brussels. They were new movements, but they were drawing on deep roots. Four decades ago both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher cast themselves as radicals daring to shake off the dead hand of the government.So we can hardly be surprised that those who railed against government should be so bad at it. They promised disruption, and that’s what they’ve delivered. In the US it was the chaos of Trump himself, and now a House of mini-Trumps that can’t tie its own shoelaces. In the UK, it looks different: we have a prime minister in Rishi Sunak whose pitch is technocratic competence. But that should not conceal two things.First, the post-2016 Tory party delivered just as much parliamentary turmoil and intra-party division as McCarthy and co served up this week. Whether it was the Commons gridlock of the two years preceding the 2019 election or the psychodrama of the three years after it, Brexit-era Conservatism has proved every bit as unhinged as Trump-era Republicanism. When it comes to burn-it-all-down politics, the Republicans’ craziest wing are mere novices compared with a master arsonist such as Liz Truss. The US and UK are simply at different points in the cycle.House Democrats should unite with moderate Republicans to elect a speaker | Robert ReichRead moreSecond, even with Sunak in charge, and though painted in less vivid colours, Brexit-era Toryism is just as paralysed as its sister movement in the US. The five-point plan unveiled in the PM’s new year address consisted mostly of the basics of state administration – growing the economy, managing inflation – rather than anything amounting to a political programme.And that’s chiefly because his party, like the Republicans, cannot agree among themselves. Consider how much Sunak has had to drop, under pressure from assorted rebels. Whether it was reform of the planning system, the manifesto commitment to build 300,000 new houses a year or the perennial pledge to grasp the nettle of social care, Sunak has had to back away from tasks that are essential for the wellbeing of the country. True, he has avoided the farcical scenes that played out this week on Capitol Hill, but that’s only because he has preferred to preserve the veneer of unity than to force a whole slew of issues. The result is a prime minister who cannot propose much more than extra maths lessons lest he lose the fractious, restive coalition that keeps him in office.None of this is coincidence. It’s in the nature of the rightwing populist project, in Britain, the US and across the globe. Brexit is the exemplar, a mission that worked with great potency as a campaign, as a slogan, but which could never translate into governing, because it was never about governing. It was about disrupting life, not organising it – or even acknowledging the trade-offs required to organise it. It offered the poetry of destruction, not the prose of competence.The Conservatives are several stages further down this road than the Republicans, perhaps because their power has been uninterrupted throughout. But in both cases, and others, the shift is unmistakable. Once parties of the right saw themselves as the obvious custodians of state authority: the natural party of government. Now they are happier shaking their fists at those they insist are really in charge. They are becoming the natural party of opposition. Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
TopicsUS politicsOpinionRepublicansDonald TrumpBrexitConservativesRishi SunakEuropean UnioncommentReuse this content More
The Guardian view on Zelenskiy in Washington: a pivotal momentEditorialThe Ukrainian leader went to the US this week for hard bargaining with the Americans, as well as to be feted President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s highly choreographed visit to Washington was a significant international moment. Not long ago, Mr Zelenskiy had been adamant that his place was always on the frontline with his people. This week, however, he made a lightning trip in person, via Poland, to Washington itself, meeting President Joe Biden at the White House and delivering a primetime address to the US Congress before heading back into his suffering country less than 24 hours later.The visit was much more than a Christmas celebration of Ukraine’s defiance and of Mr Zelenskiy’s immense role in it. Instead, it was a political event with important future implications for Ukraine, the United States and Russia, and for the conflict more generally. It was clearly focused on what should happen in 2023 rather than what has happened already.Mr Zelenskiy had three principal objectives. The first was to rally American and, by extension, global support. The second was to intervene at a pivotal moment in the war and in US politics to advance that effort. The third was to make an ambitious pitch for even more financial and military support from the only state that is in a position to supply it, and thus to strengthen Ukraine’s resistance during a bitter winter, with the prospect of fresh fighting in the spring.02:12In public, Mr Zelenskiy produced another media-savvy performance, especially in his address to Congress. He spent every hour in Washington in his iconic olive-green fatigues, and emphasised the immediacy of his cause by presenting Congress with a battlefield Ukrainian flag that he had collected from soldiers on the frontline in Bakhmut on Tuesday. He skilfully mixed gratitude with fresh requests for support. US aid and support was not charity, he insisted, but an investment in the “global security and democracy” for which the US and its allies stand.It is clear that the Biden administration agrees with that. The deeper questions of the visit, however, are how urgently Washington wants that investment to bear fruit and what price it is willing to pay. Weapons and money are the twin keys to the answer. Mr Biden and his aides will have assured Mr Zelenskiy that the US wants Russia to be defeated in Ukraine. But they will also have told him that they do not want a wider conflict and that they may have a different definition of what defeat could look like.The toughest arguments behind closed doors will have focused on Ukraine’s demands for more and better weaponry, and on the terms to be set for ending the conflict. At home, though, finance is an even bigger political issue for Mr Biden. The US has already spent more than $48bn on humanitarian, financial and military support; another $2bn in military aid was announced during the visit. The administration also aims to get another aid package, worth almost $45bn, through Congress before the Republicans take over the House of Representatives in January.The US domestic political question is whether bipartisan support continues in January. Mr Zelenskiy’s visit was in large part directed towards ensuring that it does. But the real issues this week will have been military and strategic. Russia is preparing a fresh ground assault, perhaps during winter. Another Ukrainian counterattack is expected too. Mr Zelenskiy is the hero of the hour. But Washington is increasingly looking towards an endgame in 2023. The end of the conflict is increasingly in the US’s hands, not just those of Russia and Ukraine.Some on both sides of the Atlantic made the comparison between Mr Zelenskiy’s wartime flight from Kyiv this week and Winston Churchill’s visit to Washington after Pearl Harbor in 1941. For that comparison to be intellectually useful rather than merely sentimental, it is important to remember that Churchill’s visit marked the moment in the second world war when the US began to take charge of the allied cause in Europe. The same thing may be true this time over Ukraine.TopicsVolodymyr ZelenskiyOpinionUkraineBiden administrationUS politicsEuropeUS CongressJoe BideneditorialsReuse this content More
Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s speech in full to a joint session of US CongressUkraine’s president vows his country will never abandon resistance to Russian aggression, but said Washington’s support is vital
Russia-Ukraine war – latest news updates More
Zelenskiy due in US to meet Biden and address CongressTrip to Washington is Ukrainian president’s first disclosed foreign visit since Russia invaded in February Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, will arrive in Washington on Wednesday where he will meet President Joe Biden at the White House and address a joint session of Congress.The trip – Zelenskiy’s first known foreign visit since Russia invaded Ukraine – will also see the Ukrainian president meet with congressional leadership and national security committee chiefs from the Republican and Democratic parties.The trip comes as US lawmakers are due to vote on a year-end spending package that includes about $45bn in emergency assistance to Ukraine. The latest tranche of US funding would be the biggest American infusion of assistance yet to Ukraine, above even Biden’s $37bn emergency request.“The visit will underscore the United States’ steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, including through the provision of economic, humanitarian, and military assistance,” said a White House statement announcing the visit.President Zelenskiy confirmed in a tweet that he was on his way to Washington and would be speaking before Congress, as well as conducting a number of bilateral meetings.On my way to the US to strengthen resilience and defense capabilities of 🇺🇦. In particular, @POTUS and I will discuss cooperation between 🇺🇦 and 🇺🇸. I will also have a speech at the Congress and a number of bilateral meetings.— Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) December 21, 2022
In a letter inviting Zelenskiy to address the joint meeting of Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the fight for Ukraine a fight for democracy itself.“In the face of Putin’s horrific atrocities, Ukrainian freedom fighters have inspired the world with an iron will and an unbreakable spirit … your courageous, patriotic, indefatigable leadership has rallied not only your people, but the world, to join the frontlines of the fight for freedom”, Pelosi wrote.In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, a senior administration official, who did not wish to be named, said Biden and Zelenskiy had discussed a potential visit when they spoke by phone on 11 December and the White House formally extended an invitation last Wednesday. Zelenskiy’s office accepted the invitation last Friday and the visit was confirmed on Sunday.Biden will first welcome Zelenskiy at the White House for bilateral meetings with the US president’s national security team and cabinet. After a press conference, Zelenskiy will go to Capitol Hill and address a joint session of Congress. He will return home after just a few hours on the ground.The official said: “We’re looking forward to having President Zelenskiy back at the White House for his second visit but his first visit since the start of Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine. It’s something we’ve wanted to do for some time and tomorrow is actually the 300th day since Russia brutally invaded Ukraine in an all-out assault with the goal of wiping its neighbour off the map and subjecting the Ukrainian people to Russian dominion.”Biden will announce a new package of nearly $2bn of security assistance including a Patriot missile battery. The US will, in a third country, train Ukrainian forces in how to operate the Patriot system.Despite some Republicans questioning the price of the war, the official predicted Zelenskiy would receive a strong bipartisan show of support. “This isn’t about sending a message to a particular political party. This is about sending a message to Putin and sending a message to the world that America will be there for Ukraine for as long as it takes.“President Putin badly miscalculated the beginning of this conflict when he presumed that the Ukrainian people would yield and that Nato would be disunited. He was wrong on both counts. He remains wrong about our staying power and that’s what this visit will demonstrate.”The senior administration official also denied that Biden will pressure Zelenskiy to seek a diplomatic end to the war. “The president is not coming with a message that is about pushing or prodding or poking Zelenskiy in any way. This is going to be a message of solidarity and support, coordination and alignment and making sure that we are very much putting Ukraine in the best possible position to defend its interests and secure its objectives.”Biden has said from the start that the US will not send forces to Ukraine to directly fight the Russians. No change to that policy is expected on Wednesday.The Associated Press contributed to this reportTopicsVolodymyr ZelenskiyUkraineWashington DCUS CongressUS politicsEuropenewsReuse this content More
In Leo Varadkar’s first stint as prime minister, he embodied for many his country’s move into modernity. But after several missteps, he now takes up the role for a second time, with the glow of optimism dimmed.When Leo Varadkar became Ireland’s prime minister in 2017, he was hailed as a fresh face in European politics, only 38 years old, his country’s first openly gay leader and the first with South Asian heritage — a personification of a rapidly modernizing state.Now he returns to office on Saturday, in a prearranged power-sharing deal, with that initial optimism dissipated, and with question marks over his judgment and leadership style.Mr. Varadkar, who trained as a doctor, was one of Europe’s youngest heads of government when he took over from Enda Kenny, then his party’s leader, who had become embroiled in a police whistle-blowing scandal. At the time, many Irish commentators viewed him as a breath of fresh air. He “comes across to the public, especially younger voters, as if he is not a politician at all,” the political columnist Stephen Collins wrote in The Irish Times in 2017.“In this anti-politician phase of Western democracy,” Mr. Collins added, “that is a crucial asset.”Much was expected of Mr. Varadkar as he climbed the ranks. The son of an immigrant — his father, who is also a doctor, is from Mumbai; his mother is an Irish nurse — Mr. Varadkar announced that he was gay in 2015 while serving as health minister. That statement, during a referendum about legalizing gay marriage, was cited by some as having contributed to the measure’s approval.Then, as prime minister, or taoiseach, Mr. Varadkar oversaw another referendum — and another cultural watershed in a country long a stronghold of Roman Catholic doctrine — this time to legalize abortion. That measure, voted on in 2018, was also approved.A crowd in Dublin reacting to the result of the referendum that liberalized the abortion law in 2018. The measure was approved while Mr. Varadkar was taoiseach.Paulo Nunes dos Santos for The New York TimesFor many, Mr. Varadkar, a conservative who had once opposed abortion and allowing gay couples to adopt, was a symbol of Ireland’s transition to a socially liberal, secular nation.But by the time Mr. Varadkar became prime minister, his party, Fine Gael, had already been in power for six years, and he could not shield it from deepening crises in housing, health and education on its watch. In the 2020 election, Fine Gael slumped to third place for the first time in its history and was forced into a coalition with a rival center-right party, Fianna Fail, to hold onto power.The coalition deal demoted Mr. Varadkar to deputy prime minister. Micheal Martin of Fianna Fail took over for the first two and a half years of the usual five-year term; now, Mr. Varadkar gets another chance.So far, his return to power has been marked by little fanfare, and there have been no announcements of major new policies, which would in any case have to be agreed upon with his coalition partners in Fianna Fail, the Green Party and a few independent lawmakers.Critics have pointed to Mr. Varadkar’s stiffness of manner and tendency to speak his mind, to the point of insensitivity, as counting against him in Ireland’s relatively conciliatory political climate.Last month, for example, Mr. Varadkar responded to reports that many young Irish people were thinking of emigrating to escape the housing and cost of living crisis by saying that they should not expect to find cheaper rents abroad.“The grass can look greener, and considering emigration is not the same as actually doing it, and many do come back,” he said in a radio interview.Traditional brick houses in Stoneybatter, a gentrified neighborhood of Dublin. The Irish government’s Central Statistics Office found that 43 percent of renters were thinking of leaving Ireland to find better and cheaper housing abroad.Paulo Nunes dos Santos for The New York TimesThose comments prompted a storm of social media posts from young Irish emigrants reporting that they had indeed found better and cheaper accommodation in major cities abroad. Critics noted that in 2021, Dublin was the most expensive city in the European Union for renting a small house or one-bedroom apartment — higher than Amsterdam, Berlin or Paris — and pointed out that rents in Ireland had increased by another 8.2 percent since then. This month, the government’s Central Statistics Office found that 43 percent of renters were thinking of leaving Ireland to find better and cheaper housing abroad.Lorcan Sirr, a housing policy lecturer at Technological University Dublin, said Mr. Varadkar’s comments portrayed him as out of touch.“The tin ear and lack of sensitivity to other people’s needs is fairly characteristic of his party,” Mr. Sirr noted. “Varadkar has had a fairly privileged housing upbringing in that he didn’t have to suffer the trials and tribulations that many young voters — now including many who would have voted Fine Gael — have to go through to find somewhere to live.”For the past two years, he has also been dogged by questions about the legality and appropriateness of his actions when, as prime minister, he leaked details from a closed negotiation with Ireland’s main doctors’ organization to an acquaintance with an interest in the talks.Without referring to anything in particular, this past week, Mr. Varadkar acknowledged his fallibility. “Everyone makes errors in judgment — you wouldn’t be human if you didn’t,” he told reporters, but he added that he was confident that he had the full support of the coalition.Whether the public is behind him is another question. At the start of this month, an opinion poll found that 43 percent would prefer Mr. Martin to remain Taoiseach. Only 34 percent wanted Mr. Varadkar to take over again. A month before, the two had been tied at 39 percent.Winning the next election, scheduled for 2025, looks to be an uphill battle for Mr. Varadkar. The agreement between his party, Fine Gael, and Fianna Fail — also in long-term decline — was seen as an awkward alliance to check the growing influence of an up and coming rival for power, Sinn Fein.Mr. Varadkar, center, with Micheal Martin of Fianna Fail and Mary Lou McDonald, the Sinn Fein leader, at an election debate in February 2020 in Dublin.Pool photo by Niall CarsonOnce the political wing of the militant Provisional Irish Republican Army, which used violence to try to end British rule in Northern Ireland during the bloody “Troubles” of 1968 to 1998, Sinn Fein has sought to rebrand itself as a democratic force of the center-left. The party vows to solve the housing crisis by abandoning the reliance on private developers and landlords to supply properties, instead spending state money to build 100,000 new homes. That, together with promises to overhaul health and education, have won Sinn Fein considerable support.A Politico poll this month showed voter support for Sinn Fein at 34 percent, with Fine Gael at 23 percent and Fianna Fail at 18 percent. If replicated in an election, that would put the Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald in a strong position to become the first female taoiseach, and also the first from outside the Fine Gael and Fianna Fail political movements since the state was founded a century ago.After being in government in various roles for 11 years, Mr. Varadkar may no longer carry the novelty of being a political outsider, but his supporters say that he is older and wiser and has learned from his mistakes.Gary Murphy, a professor of politics at Dublin City University, said he believed that Mr. Varadkar’s main priority in his second term as prime minister would be to show he can guide his party to the electoral success that has so far eluded him.“In 2017, when he walked home in the party leadership competition, he was being hailed as a generational change,” Professor Murphy said, “but that hasn’t happened.”“He’s young, and he could still have a life outside politics,” Professor Murphy added, “but I don’t think he’ll want to go until he has shown he can do well in an election.” More
