Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Jimmy Carter’s Presidency Was Not What You Think

      by

      The man was not what you think. He was tough. He was extremely intimidating. Jimmy Carter was probably the most intelligent, hard-working and decent man to have occupied the Oval Office in the 20th century.When I was regularly interviewing him a few years ago, he was in his early 90s yet was still rising with the dawn and getting to work early. I once saw him conduct a meeting at 7 a.m. at the Carter Center where he spent 40 minutes pacing back and forth onstage, explaining the details of his program to wipe out Guinea worm disease. He was relentless. Later that day he gave me, his biographer, exactly 50 minutes to talk about his White House years. Those bright blue eyes bore into me with an alarming intensity. But he was clearly more interested in the Guinea worms.Mr. Carter remains the most misunderstood president of the last century. A Southern liberal, he knew racism was the nation’s original sin. He was a progressive on the issue of race, declaring in his first address as Georgia’s governor, in 1971, that “the time for racial discrimination is over,” to the extreme discomfort of many Americans, including his fellow Southerners. And yet, as someone who had grown up barefoot in the red soil of Archery, a tiny hamlet in South Georgia, he was steeped in a culture that had known defeat and occupation. This made him a pragmatist.The gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson once described Mr. Carter as one of the “meanest men” he had ever met. Mr. Thompson meant ruthless and ambitious and determined to win power — first the Georgia governorship and then the presidency. A post-Watergate, post-Vietnam War era of disillusionment with the notion of American exceptionalism was the perfect window of opportunity for a man who ran his campaign largely on the issue of born-again religiosity and personal integrity. “I’ll never lie to you,” he said repeatedly on the campaign trail, to which his longtime lawyer Charlie Kirbo quipped that he was going to “lose the liar vote.” Improbably, Mr. Carter won the White House in 1976.He decided to use power righteously, ignore politics and do the right thing. He was, in fact, a fan of the establishment’s favorite Protestant theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, who wrote, “It is the sad duty of politics to establish justice in a sinful world.” Mr. Carter was a Niebuhrian Southern Baptist, a church of one, a true outlier. He “thought politics was sinful,” said his vice president, Walter Mondale. “The worst thing you could say to Carter if you wanted him to do something was that it was politically the best thing to do.” Mr. Carter routinely rejected astute advice from his wife, Rosalynn, and others to postpone politically costly initiatives, like the Panama Canal treaties, to his second term.His presidency is remembered, simplistically, as a failure, yet it was more consequential than most recall. He delivered the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II arms control agreement, normalization of diplomatic and trade relations with China and immigration reform. He made the principle of human rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, planting the seeds for the unraveling of the Cold War in Eastern Europe and Russia.He deregulated the airline industry, paving the way for middle-class Americans to fly for the first time in large numbers, and he regulated natural gas, laying the groundwork for our current energy independence. He worked to require seatbelts or airbags, which would go on to save 9,000 American lives each year. He inaugurated the nation’s investment in research on solar energy and was one of the first presidents to warn us about the dangers of climate change. He rammed through the Alaska Land Act, tripling the size of the nation’s protected wilderness areas. His deregulation of the home-brewing industry opened the door to America’s thriving boutique beer industry. He appointed more African Americans, Hispanics and women to the federal bench, substantially increasing their numbers.But some of his controversial decisions, at home and abroad, were just as consequential. He took Egypt off the battlefield for Israel, but he always insisted that Israel was also obligated to suspend building new settlements in the West Bank and allow the Palestinians a measure of self-rule. Over the decades, he would argue that the settlements had become a roadblock to a two-state solution and a peaceful resolution of the conflict. He was not afraid to warn everyone that Israel was taking a wrong turn on the road to apartheid. Sadly, some critics injudiciously concluded that he was being anti-Israel or worse.In the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, Mr. Carter rightly resisted for many months the lobbying of Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and his own national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to give the deposed shah political asylum. Mr. Carter feared that to do so would inflame Iranian passions and endanger our embassy in Tehran. He was right. Just days after he reluctantly acceded and the shah checked into a New York hospital, our embassy was seized. The 444-day hostage crisis severely wounded his presidency.But Mr. Carter refused to order any military retaliations against the rogue regime in Tehran. That would have been the politically easy thing to do, but he also knew it would endanger the lives of the hostages. Diplomacy, he insisted, would work. And yet now we have good evidence that Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager Bill Casey made a secret trip to Madrid in the summer of 1980, where he may have met with a representative of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and thus prolonged the hostage crisis. If this is true, such interference in the hostage negotiations sought to deny the Carter administration an October surprise, a release of the hostages late in the campaign, and it was dirty politics and a raw deal for the American hostages.Mr. Carter’s presidency was virtually scandal free. He often spent 12 hours or more in the Oval Office reading 200 pages of memos a day. He was intent on doing the right thing and right away.But there were political consequences to such righteousness. In 1976, while he won the electoral votes of the South and the union, Jewish and Black popular votes, by 1980, the only large margin Mr. Carter sustained was among Black voters. Even evangelicals deserted him because he had insisted on stripping tax-exempt status from all-white religious academies.The majority of the country rejected him as a president way ahead of his time: too much of a Georgian Yankee for the New South and too much of an outlier populist for the North. If the election in 1976 offered hope for a healing of the racial divide, his defeat signaled that the country was reverting to a conservative era of harsh partisanship. It was a tragic narrative familiar to any Southerner.Mr. Carter’s loss of a second term momentarily plunged him into depression. But then one night, in January 1982, Mrs. Carter was startled to see him sitting up in bed, wide-awake. She asked him if he was feeling ill. “I know what we can do,” he replied. “We can develop a place to help people who want to resolve disputes.” This was the beginning of the Carter Center, an institution devoted to conflict resolution, public health initiatives and election monitoring around the world.If I once believed that Mr. Carter was the only president to use the White House as a steppingstone to greater things, I see now that the past 43 years have really been an extension of what he thought of as his unfinished presidency. In or out of the White House, Mr. Carter devoted his life to solving problems, like an engineer, by paying attention to the minutiae of a complicated world. He once told me that he hoped to outlive the last Guinea worm. Last year there were only 13 cases of Guinea worm disease in humans. He may have succeeded.Kai Bird is a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, the director of the Leon Levy Center for Biography and the author of “The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter.”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

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Protesters Head to Jerusalem as Israel’s Leaders Look to Rein in Judges

      by

      Two contentious bills were scheduled to come up for an initial vote in Israel’s Parliament on Monday, including one that would reduce the power of the Supreme Court.JERUSALEM — Tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Jerusalem for the second straight Monday as Israel’s far-right government pushed forward with a divisive plan for a judicial overhaul that critics say will weaken and politicize the country’s courts and undermine its democratic foundations.Protesters, many of them arriving in convoys from across Israel, blocked highways en route to the city then gathered near the Parliament, where legislators were preparing for the first phase of voting on two bills aimed at curbing judicial oversight and giving politicians more influence over the courts.One bill would change the makeup of a nine-member committee that selects judges to reduce the influence of legal professionals on the body and give representatives and appointees of the government an automatic majority. The change would effectively allow the government of the day to choose judges.The other bill would strip the Supreme Court of its power to strike down basic laws passed by Parliament.Advocates say the changes are needed to curb the influence of an overreaching judiciary that has granted itself increased authority over the years. They also say the measures would shift power away from an unelected bureaucratic elite — the judiciary — in favor of elected officials and governments that reflect the will of the people.Israel’s New Far-Right GovernmentBenjamin Netanyahu has returned to power at the helm of the most right-wing and religiously conservative administration ever in Israeli history.A Hard-Right Agenda: Israel’s new government has moved quickly on several agenda items that would weaken the judiciary, entrench Israeli control of the West Bank and strengthen ultraconservative Jews.Judicial Overhaul: The government is pressing ahead with a far-reaching overhaul of Israel’s judicial system, setting off mass protests by those who say it will destroy the country’s democratic foundations.​​Rising Tensions: The roots of the recent spasm of violence in Israel and the West Bank predate the new government, but the administration’s ministers and goals are fueling tensions.Ultra-Orthodox Parties: To preserve his new government, Mr. Netanyahu has made a string of promises to Israel’s ultra-Orthodox parties. Their push for greater autonomy has potentially broad-ranging implications.Critics say the proposed overhaul would place unchecked power in the hands of the government, remove protections afforded to individuals and minorities and deepen divisions in an already fractured society. They also fear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is standing trial on corruption charges, could use the changes to extricate himself from his legal troubles.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, in Jerusalem on Sunday. Critics fear Mr. Netanyahu could use the judicial changes to extricate himself from his legal troubles.Pool photo by Abir SultanThe attorney general has barred the prime minister from any involvement in the new legislation because of a conflict of interest. Mr. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing and says he does not have any personal interest in judicial change.After a first reading, bills must go back to a committee for further discussions, then return to the floor for two more votes before passing into law, a process that can take weeks or months. But a deeply split Israel is already in turmoil over the plan, with opponents alarmed at the speed with which it is moving forward, just weeks after the governing coalition — the most right-wing and religiously conservative in Israeli history — came to power.Mass protests have been taking place on Saturday nights in Tel Aviv for seven consecutive weeks and have spread around the country. Last Monday about 100,000 protesters filled the streets around Parliament and the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, according to estimates in the Israeli news media, though organizers put the number at more than double that.On the morning of the vote, small groups of protesters sat down outside the front doors of some coalition lawmakers’ homes in a bid to block them from leaving for the Parliament. They were removed by the police. The coalition leaders have pushed for a hasty first vote on the bills, defying a plea from Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, to pause the legislative process and allow room for a national dialogue and compromise. The president, a mostly ceremonial figure, has little executive power, but his voice is meant to be unifying and carries moral authority.The leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, a centrist, asked for a 60-day hiatus in the legislative process as a condition for any negotiations. The politicians driving the process have expressed some willingness to talk but have so far refused to halt their work even for a day.“We won’t stop the legislation now, but there is more than enough time until the second and third readings to hold an earnest and real dialogue and to reach understandings,” Yariv Levin, the justice minister, told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper on the eve of the initial vote.Last Monday about 100,000 protesters filled the streets around Parliament and the Supreme Court in Jerusalem.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesBut critics have dismissed the government’s position as disingenuous, arguing that once the bills have passed a first vote, only cosmetic changes will be possible.Many Israelis, including some of those protesting, agree that some kind of judicial change is needed, but opinion polls suggest that a majority want it to be the result of dialogue and do not support the government plan in its current form.The domestic tensions are also causing friction between the Israeli government and its closest ally, the United States. In a rare intervention in Israeli political affairs, President Biden, like Mr. Herzog, has called for efforts to reach a consensus.The American ambassador to Israel, Thomas R. Nides, over the weekend told The Axe Files, a CNN podcast, “We’re telling the prime minister, as I tell my kids, pump the brakes, slow down, try to get a consensus, bring the parties together.”He said he had told Mr. Netanyahu, “We can’t spend time with things we want to work on together if your backyard’s on fire,” referring to the U.S. support that Israel is seeking on issues such as curbing Iran’s nuclear program and Mr. Netanyahu’s ambitions to establish diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.Amichai Chikli, an Israeli cabinet minister responsible for relations with the Jewish diaspora, responded bluntly to Mr. Nides in an interview with Israel’s public broadcaster, Kan, on Sunday. “I tell the American ambassador, you pump the brakes,” he said, adding: “Mind your own business.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Peter Obi Has Energized Nigeria’s Young Voters. Will They Turn Out for Him?

      by

      The race is wide open in the presidential election in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation and a struggling economic powerhouse. Youth looking to evict the old guard are cheering on Peter Obi, a surprise third-party candidate.As the convoy of S.U.V.s pulled up to the biggest electronics market in Lagos, Nigeria’s economic capital, word quickly spread that inside one vehicle with tinted windows was Peter Obi, one of the front-runners in the upcoming presidential election, on a surprise campaign stop. Within minutes, a large crowd of mostly young men had gathered.“If I told them I was coming, they’d have shut down the market — it would have been ten times this,” Mr. Obi said, smiling, looking out at his roaring fans from under a cap that read: “Make Nigeria Great.” Then he stepped out in front of the sea of smartphones held aloft to record the occasion.“A new Nigeria is possible,” he told the crowd in his distinctive high voice. “For the first time, government is going to care about you.”For eight years, the citizens of Africa’s most populous nation — 70 percent of them under the age of 30 — have been governed by Muhammadu Buhari, who previously ruled the country as a military dictator, in the 1980s, long before most of them were even born.In a country where vote-buying and violence often distort elections, the presidential vote scheduled for Feb. 25 presents a rare chance for millions of young Nigerians, many of them new voters, to make their elders listen.According to polls, many of these new voters support Mr. Obi, a former state governor challenging the traditional two-party hegemony by running with the lesser-known Labour Party. He is seen as the candidate of the youth, though far from young at 61; his main rivals are in their 70s. Mr. Buhari, who is 80, served the maximum of two terms.“A one-eyed man, in the land of the blind, is king,” said Mr. Obi’s running mate, Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed, in an interview.Mr. Obi, seen as the candidate of Nigeria’s youth, drew an enthusiastic young crowd at Alaba market, Lagos, this month.Taiwo Aina for The New York TimesNigeria, and particularly its young people, have had an extremely tough few years. Large groups of schoolchildren have been kidnapped, by extremists or ransom seekers. Youth unemployment nearly tripled during the Buhari years. Demonstrators in peaceful protests against police brutality were themselves shot dead by security forces in 2020 as they sang and waved the flag by a tollgate in Lekki, an upmarket Lagos suburb.Many young people are channeling their anger at the government’s repressive response to that movement — as well as the failure to bring those responsible to justice, a seven month Twitter ban, and persistent police brutality — into this election.“What happened in Lekki is a clear indication that this government don’t care about the youth,” said Amanda Okafor, 28, who said she saw many fellow protesters shot dead in Lekki. Ms. Okafor was eligible to vote in the past two elections, but never did. Now she goes everywhere with her voter’s card, determined to cast her first-ever vote.“We’re tired of these same old people coming in to tell us that they’re going to change stuff for us and they’re not doing anything,” she said.For many young Nigerians, these “same old people” include the presidential candidate of the party in power, Bola Tinubu, a former Lagos governor with a strong southwestern base, and the slogan, “It’s my turn.” He sometimes slurs words and appears confused, alarming some voters.Minutes after he arrived at the Alaba electronics market, Mr. Obi’s visit began to go viral. Taiwo Aina for The New York TimesThe old guard also includes the candidate of the opposition People’s Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar — a former vice president running for president for the sixth time. He will likely garner much support in Nigeria’s northern states.In an interview, Mr. Obi said that young people invest so much hope in him because the leaders they had known never cared for them or Nigeria. He said it was an “existential election” for the country.“We’re not going to solve the problem of Nigeria overnight, because it’s huge,” he said.His rivals, Mr. Abubakar and Mr. Tinubu, did not respond to requests for interviews.Minutes after he arrived in Alaba electronics market, Mr. Obi’s unexpected visit began to go viral. As the convoy left for yet another rally, social media-savvy Obi supporters — nicknamed Obidients — mobbed the vehicles, unsure which one their hero was in. Eventually, he popped out of a sunroof, blowing kisses to the crowd.“No shishi!” yelled the supporters running alongside his car — a slogan that, roughly, means “My vote is not for sale.”“No shishi” is exactly the kind of change that Onyx Ahmed, 21, would like to see. A recent anatomy graduate and protester against police violence, she retweets Peter Obi’s posts, blocks supporters of his rivals, and hectors her friends to register to vote.But in June, when she went to collect her own voter’s card, upon seeing the long lines, she quickly gave up.“I was like, I’ll go home, and come back. I never went back,” she said, wincing, but only slightly. “I don’t really like stress.”Supporters of the incumbent All Progressives Congress party, whose candidate, Bola Tinubu, is a former Lagos governor, at a rally in Lagos this month.Taiwo Aina for The New York TimesAnalysts warn Ms. Ahmed’s attitude may be common, and say that newly registered voters are least likely to show up at the polls. Mr. Obi’s political opponents wield this idea to mock his supporters, dismissing them as just a few irrelevant armchair warriors.But the Obidients give as good as they get. When Adams Oshiomhole, a former governing party chairman, told a television channel that Mr. Obi’s online support was “just 10 young men and women in one room” churning out stories, the Obidients changed his words to the catchier “Four people tweeting in a room.” That became a catchphrase, posted alongside image after image of thronging crowds at Obi rallies.But there are other reasons young Obi supporters may not turn out. Many tried for days to obtain voters’ cards, but never made it to the front of interminable queues. Others cannot afford to travel to the states where they are registered to vote.And their numbers may be overwhelmed by the get-out-the-vote machines built over decades by the governing All Progressives Congress party, and its longtime rival, the P.D.P. Each has local branches, women’s and youth groups nationwide, and affiliations with workers’ groups like that of Lagos’s market women, to mobilize voters come election day.The reach of this party machinery was on display at Adebayo market in Bariga, a Lagos suburb, where customers sashayed down lanes crammed with jollof rice seasoning, diapers, hair weaves and zippers.The governing party has deep ties among the people who work at the Bariga market in Lagos.Taiwo Aina for The New York TimesThe market’s financial secretary took me around, making introductions to women working there, including Olabisi Onisarotu, selling baby care products. She said she was supporting Mr. Tinubu, because as Lagos governor, he had provided free education and good health care.She glanced over my shoulder at the financial secretary, who was making sure she stuck to the script.“Social amenities,” he mouthed.“And social amenities,” Ms. Onisarotu repeated.Around the corner in a general goods store, the market coordinator, 72-year-old Gbemisola Lawal, complained that the policies of the A.P.C. had run the economy into the ground, driving her customers away. But that wouldn’t change her vote, she said — or that of her small army of market women.“This market belongs to A.P.C.,” said Ms. Lawal. “We’ve always voted A.P.C. and we’ll always vote A.P.C.”Left: Onyx Ahmed, 21, who hectors her friends to vote for Mr. Obi but did not collect her own voter’s card. Right: Gbemisola Lawal, 72, coordinator of Adebayo market, whose market women, she said, would all vote for Mr. Tinubu.Taiwo Aina for The New York TimesEven so, cracks are appearing in the traditional parties’ machinery. Near the market, the driver of a yellow danfo, or minibus, said that this year he would defy his A.P.C.-supporting transport union, follow his conscience, and vote for Mr. Obi.But the driver would not give his name, saying it would cost him his job.Back in Mr. Obi’s convoy, his Labour Party colleagues — traveling in the luxury van behind his car — strategized about when he should stay hidden (in the neighborhood of his opponent, Mr. Tinubu) and when he should pop out of the sunroof and wave (in areas dominated by people from the southeast, Mr. Obi’s home region). Calls from the rally they were headed toward reported members being attacked by thugs.“They should fight back,” one of them ordered.The convoy drew up at the rally, where the crowds sang along with the musical duo P-Square, who like many Nigerian musical stars, are proud Obidients. On the sidelines, dozens of young people insisted they would turn out to vote, violence or not.The stakes were too high for them not to, they said.An Obi rally in Lagos this month. Many young Obi supporters tried to obtain voters’ cards but never made it to the front of the lines. Others cannot afford to travel back to the states in which they are registered to vote.Taiwo Aina for The New York TimesOladeinde Olawoyin contributed reporting. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Rishi Sunak Pursues Deal on Northern Ireland

      by

      Amid political change in Scotland, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak went to Belfast to work on a trade agreement with the European Union.LONDON — Rarely have Britain’s politics looked so shambolic: a revolving door of prime ministers in Downing Street; the sudden resignation of Scotland’s formidable longtime leader, Nicola Sturgeon; and the lack of a functioning government in Northern Ireland. Yet beyond the disarray, there are the glimmerings of a path to a more stable United Kingdom.On Friday, the current prime minister, Rishi Sunak, met with pro-unionist leaders in Northern Ireland’s capital, Belfast, to enlist their support for an agreement with the European Union on post-Brexit trade arrangements in the territory. That has buoyed hopes that Mr. Sunak could present the deal to the British Parliament as early as next week.If the prime minister is able to secure a deal — a big if — it could open the door to restoring the power-sharing government in Belfast. And that, in turn, could quiet the voices of those calling for Northern Ireland to break away from Britain and unite with the Irish Republic.“If the protocol can be made to work, it would be very good for Northern Ireland,” said Bobby McDonagh, who served as Ireland’s ambassador to Britain, referring to the Northern Ireland Protocol, which governs trade between the North and the E.U. “If it doesn’t work, and if there were some sort of border erected on the island of Ireland, nothing could do more to reignite a debate about Irish unity.”In Scotland, the departure of Ms. Sturgeon, a clarion voice for Scottish independence, has left that movement at loose ends. Not only does it lack a leader as commanding as her, but it also lacks a clear path to independence — one of the reasons that Ms. Sturgeon chose to step down after eight years as first minister.Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s long-serving leader, leaving on Wednesday after announcing that she will step down.Pool photo by Jane BarlowNobody expects the Scots to give up their dreams of independence, just as nobody expects Irish nationalists to give up their goal of a united Ireland. But taken together, Mr. Sunak’s high-stakes diplomacy with Belfast and Brussels, and Ms. Sturgeon’s abrupt departure in Edinburgh, could slow the centrifugal forces that have threatened to unravel the United Kingdom in the aftermath of Brexit.“Sunak is trying to put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle back together,” Mr. McDonagh said. “He’s doing his best to restore some sanity to British politics, but we don’t know whether he’ll have the strength to carry this through.”Some of it is out of his hands: the Scottish National Party will choose a new leader in the coming weeks, and the charisma and leadership abilities of that person will be critical to the fate of the independence movement. On Northern Ireland, Mr. Sunak faces obstacles from pro-unionist leaders in Belfast, who seek to maintain political links with Britain, as well as from his own lawmakers in London. The Democratic Unionist Party, or D.U.P., is demanding that Britain effectively scrap the protocol, which gives the North hybrid trade status as a part of the United Kingdom that has an open border with the Irish Republic, a member of the European Union.An even bigger threat could come from the pro-Brexit wing of the Conservative Party. Some of those lawmakers have threatened to oppose any agreement that would leave the European Court of Justice with jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. They argue that the court, which guarantees that European law is applied in all member states, infringes British sovereignty.Though details of a potential deal remain closely guarded, analysts and diplomats said they appeared to distance, if not eliminate, the role of the European court by prioritizing other mechanisms to resolve legal disputes.More tangibly, it seeks to remove paperwork and other barriers to goods flowing from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland. Unionists complain that these barriers drive a wedge between them and the rest of the United Kingdom. Under the terms being discussed, food and other goods destined for shelves in the North would pass through a “green lane,” requiring no customs declarations.Whether these compromises would pass muster with the unionists was still unclear. On Friday, after meeting with Mr. Sunak, the leader of the Democratic Unionists, Jeffrey Donaldson, said, “progress has been made across a range of areas, but there are still some areas where further work is required.”The leader of the Democratic Unionists, Jeffrey Donaldson, spoke in Belfast on Friday.Lorraine O’Sullivan/ReutersEven if the unionists accept the deal, analysts cautioned that they might not agree to go back into Northern Ireland’s power-sharing government. That is in part because Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party, is now the biggest party in the North’s assembly, which gives it the right to name a first minister.The creation of that government was a key achievement of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of sectarian bloodshed in Northern Ireland. Restoring the government, experts said, was important not just to improve daily life in the North but also to prevent sectarian tensions from resurfacing.“When the government institutions don’t function, you see a rise in support for Irish unification,” said Katy Hayward, a professor of politics at Queen’s University in Belfast. “When they are functioning, you see a decline in support.”Beyond Northern Ireland’s domestic politics, Professor Hayward said Mr. Sunak’s effort to reset Britain’s relationship with the European Union was critical to tamping down separatist passions in both the North and Scotland.The Scottish independence movement was galvanized by Brexit, which was unpopular in Scotland as well as in Northern Ireland. The regular tiffs between Mr. Sunak’s predecessor, Boris Johnson, and European leaders like President Emmanuel Macron of France played better in England than they did in Scotland or Northern Ireland.“Those tensions create a space that unionists and nationalists can fill,” Professor Hayward said. “If it’s possible to bring back certainly and stability in the U.K.-E.U. relationship, that will help calm the waters within the U.K.”Mr. Sunak plans a weekend diplomatic blitz to seal the deal with Brussels. He is scheduled to meet with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and other European leaders at the Munich security conference. He may also meet there with Vice President Kamala Harris and speak by phone with President Biden, who has urged Britain to settle its differences with the European Union.Mr. Biden hopes to visit Belfast in April to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. A stopover in London could hinge on whether Mr. Sunak is able to secure an agreement by then. Mr. Sunak told Mr. Biden last November that his goal was to deliver it before the anniversary.For Mr. Sunak, it is perhaps his stiffest test yet. Having replaced the scandal-scarred Mr. Johnson and the ill-fated Liz Truss, he has a tenuous grip over a divided party. Among the fears of his allies is an 11th-hour intervention by Mr. Johnson, who made the Brexit deal that Mr. Sunak is trying to overhaul and could mobilize opponents in London and Belfast.“If he gets an agreement on the protocol, we’re going to be over the hump with the E.U. but not necessarily with the D.U.P.,” said Jonathan Powell, who was involved in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement as chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair.Regardless, Mr. Powell said, “We’re approaching a period of transition in British politics. You get these inflection points when things change a lot.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Nicola Sturgeon Resigns: What to Know, and What’s Next for Scotland

      by

      The decision by Ms. Sturgeon to step down as the country’s leader came as a shock. What is her legacy, and why did she quit?The impending departure of Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s longest-serving first minister, who said on Wednesday that she would step down, has roiled the nation’s political establishment.One of Britain’s most powerful politicians and a fierce champion for Scottish independence, Ms. Sturgeon cited exhaustion and said that she had become too polarizing a figure to continue after eight years in the role.Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom, which also includes England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and though the British government is responsible for some policies across the union in areas like foreign policy and defense, it shares power with elected officials on the country level, including Ms. Sturgeon, who determine policies on health care and the economy, among other areas.Though Ms. Sturgeon will remain in office until a successor is chosen, her resignation prompted shock at a time of division on issues including transgender rights and Scottish independence. Here’s what you need to know.Who is Nicola Sturgeon?The first woman to lead Scotland’s government, Ms. Sturgeon, 52, rose through her party ranks to become a force in Scottish politics.Born in the coastal town of Irvine in 1970, she joined the then-marginal Scottish National Party at just 16. She later worked as a lawyer in Glasgow before being elected as a regional representative in 1999.She served as the S. N. P.’s deputy first minister before becoming its leader in 2014 — months before the party won a landslide victory in Britain’s general election that propelled her into Scotland’s most prominent political position. Her inspiration to run for office came in part from Margaret Thatcher, she said, because she was opposed to Thatcher’s politics and horrified by the impact of her policies on Scotland, which led to surging unemployment.Ms. Sturgeon is married to Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the S.N.P., whom she first met at a youth camp.Ms. Sturgeon resigned as first minister at Bute House in Edinburgh on Wednesday.Pool photo by Jane BarlowWhy did she quit?Ms. Sturgeon said the “brutality” of political life and exhaustion contributed to her decision to resign.“I could go on for another few months, six months, a year maybe,” she said in a hastily arranged news conference on Wednesday in Edinburgh. “But I know that as time passed, I would have less and less energy to give to the job.”“Giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job — it’s the only way to do it,” she added. “But in truth, that can only be done by anyone for so long.”The announcement came as a surprise: Only last month, Ms. Sturgeon had told the BBC that she was not ready to step down, and in her resignation speech said she had wrestled with the decision for weeks.It drew comparisons to the resignation of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand last month, who said being an effective leader required “a full tank plus a bit in reserve for those unexpected challenges.”Ms. Sturgeon called the party her extended family because she joined so early, at age 16. “Being your first minister has been the privilege of my life,” she said. But she said she had become too polarizing a figure to effectively lead in the country’s tense environment and that the job had taken a toll on her and her family.“Maybe I want to spend a bit of time on Nicola Sturgeon, the person, the human being,” she said.What is she known for?A deft hand at navigating the power-sharing system of the United Kingdom, Ms. Sturgeon has been a dominant figure in the push for Scottish independence.She has argued for independence as a way for Scotland to secure autonomy over its own decisions while engaging on the world stage, framing nationalism as outward looking rather than parochial.As deputy minister, she led a failed referendum in 2014 for Scottish independence, and had announced new plans for another that would take place in October, but the Supreme Court ruled that would need the approval of Britain’s government.Supporters of Scottish independence marched in Glasgow in 2021. Ms. Sturgeon had sought another referendum on the matter for this fall, but it was blocked by Britain’s Supreme Court.Robert Perry/EPA, via ShutterstockShe also emerged as a sure-footed and cautious leader during the coronavirus pandemic. She kept virus restrictions in place longer than England, challenging what she saw as a more lax approach. Scotland has reported fewer deaths and positive cases relative to its population compared with England. Ms. Sturgeon described leading the country through the pandemic as “by far the toughest thing I’ve done.”More recently, Ms. Sturgeon had clashed with Britain’s government over transgender rights, after the Scottish Parliament passed legislation that would allow transgender people to have the gender with which they identify legally recognized without the need for a medical diagnosis. But the law was rejected by Britain’s government, which cited other equality laws. Her support for the legislation and for transgender rights has mired Ms. Sturgeon in a culture war, including a case over a convicted rapist who was briefly held in a women’s prison.What happens next?The leadership changeover will not be immediate, and Ms. Surgeon has said she will stay in the role for now.But her announcement precipitated the formal submission of her resignation to King Charles III, after which the S.N.P. will have several weeks to elect another party leader to take the reins.Who might succeed her?There is no clear front-runner for the leadership role, but some names have emerged as potential successors as Scotland’s next first minister. They include:Kate Forbes, 32, a former finance secretary who has often been tipped as next in line to Ms. Sturgeon. Elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, Ms. Forbes is a fluent Gaelic speaker and a member of the Free Church of Scotland, an evangelical Presbyterian denomination.Angus Robertson, 53, a senior party member who has served as a Scottish lawmaker in the British House of Commons. A former journalist, Mr. Robertson is currently a cabinet secretary for the Constitution, external affairs and culture.John Swinney, 58, Ms. Sturgeon’s deputy, who was also appointed cabinet secretary for Covid Recovery in May 2021. He led the party from 2000 to 2005 when it did not have a majority of seats in Scottish Parliament.Humza Yousaf, 37, cabinet secretary for health and social care. Elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2011 at age 26, Mr. Yousaf, a practicing Muslim of South Asian descent, was the first person from a minority ethnic background to hold a cabinet position. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Nicola Sturgeon Resigns as Scotland’s First Minister, Citing Toll of the Job

      by

      Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation removes one of the most formidable figures from British politics, one who has dedicated her life to the cause of Scottish independence.LONDON — Nicola Sturgeon, a fiery campaigner for Scotland’s independence who led its government for more than eight years, resigned on Wednesday, declaring that she was exhausted and had become too polarizing a figure to lead the country’s hurly-burly politics as it weighs another bid to break from Britain.Her resignation removes one of the most formidable figures from British politics. A skilled veteran of the United Kingdom’s system of power sharing and a sure-handed leader during the coronavirus pandemic, she outlasted four British prime ministers, while bedeviling each of them with her unyielding push for Scottish independence.But that goal has remained elusive and appears no closer than it was nearly a decade ago, when voters rejected a proposal for independence. Support for leaving the union has ebbed and flowed over the years, but the British government remains implacably opposed to another referendum. And Ms. Sturgeon said she was no longer the leader to see the battle through.“Is carrying on right for me?” Ms. Sturgeon, 52, said at a news conference in Edinburgh. “And, more important, is me carrying on right for my country, my party, and for the independence cause I have devoted my life to?”“I’ve reached the difficult conclusion that it’s not,” she said.In recent weeks, Ms. Sturgeon had also become embroiled in a dispute over the Scottish government’s transgender policy. Britain’s Parliament rejected legislation from Scotland’s Parliament making it easier for people to legally change their gender. Ms. Sturgeon said she would remain as first minister until the Scottish National Party, which controls Parliament, chooses a successor, most likely at a party conference next month. So dominant is her position that political analysts said there was no obvious successor — an acute problem for a party that faces a crossroads on independence, but a weakness that she said was another reason for her to relinquish the stage now.There was a distinct echo in Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation of the similar decision by Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, who announced her resignation last month by saying she “no longer had enough in the tank.” Both women emphasized the relentless toll of their jobs and their yearning to focus on other parts of their lives.Journalists and members of the public gathered outside Bute House, the official residence of the first minister, where Ms. Sturgeon held a news conference.Pool photo by Jane BarlowLike Ms. Ardern, Ms. Sturgeon drew widespread attention for adopting policies on Covid that diverged from those of other countries — in her case, keeping lockdowns in place longer than in neighboring England. As with Ms. Ardern, Ms. Sturgeon’s Covid policies brought mixed results and her popularity, while still decent, dimmed as the urgency of the pandemic gave way to concerns about the economy.“While Sturgeon is effectively the equivalent of a state governor, she has an extraordinary international profile,” said Nicola McEwen, professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh. “But she has become a figure who divides; there is a recognition that she may not be the person to get them to the next level.”Still, her announcement left Scotland’s political establishment slack jawed. Only last month, she told the BBC that she had “plenty in the tank” to continue leading Scotland and was “nowhere near ready” to step down.On Wednesday, however, Ms. Sturgeon said she had been wrestling for weeks over whether to resign. She spoke about only realizing now how exhausting the pandemic was for her, and said she had come to a final decision on Tuesday while attending the funeral of Allan Angus, a friend and leading figure in the Scottish National Party.Ms. Sturgeon has been married to Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the S.N.P., since 2010. She does not have children, but spoke about her twin niece and nephew during her resignation speech, noting that when she had entered government in 2007, both were very young and now they were celebrating their 17th birthday.Commuters heading home during rush hour in Edinburgh on Wednesday evening spoke of their surprise at Ms. Sturgeon’s choice. Regardless of their opinions on her politics, many said that it was an important moment for the nation.Sean MacMillan, 29, said he expected her decision to step down could have an impact on the push for a second independence referendum as she did not have a clear strong successor. “It is really unclear who is coming next, and I am sure it will change with that,” he said.Prime Minister Rishi Sunak offered restrained praise, thanking Ms. Sturgeon on Twitter “for her long-standing service. I wish her all the best for her next steps.” Mr. Sunak and Ms. Sturgeon have a cordial relationship, an improvement over the scarcely concealed hostility between her and one of Mr. Sunak’s predecessors, Boris Johnson.A photograph released by 10 Downing Street showing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon of Scotland during a meeting in Inverness, Scotland, last month.Simon Walker/No 10 Downing Street, via ReutersMs. Sturgeon denied she had resigned over the transgender legislation or any other short-term political setbacks. But she said that in the current hothouse political environment, “issues that are controversial end up almost irrationally so.”Scotland’s law would allow transgender people to have the gender with which they identify legally recognized, and to get a new birth certificate without a medical diagnosis. But the British government swiftly overruled the Scottish Parliament, saying the law conflicted with equality laws that apply across Britain.For Ms. Sturgeon, passing the legislation was part of what she said was a deeply felt commitment to protect minority rights, and she denounced the British government’s decision to block it. But the law was less popular with the Scottish public than it was in Parliament. And it quickly became a cudgel in the heated cultural clash over transgender rights, with both sides seizing on it to attack the other.The debate was inflamed by the case of Isla Bryson, who was convicted of raping two women before her gender transition. She was initially placed in a women’s prison, prompting an outcry over the safety of other female inmates. Ms. Sturgeon later announced that Ms. Bryson had been moved to a men’s prison.The handling of the case exposed Ms. Sturgeon to sharp criticism and put her in an awkward position when she was quizzed repeatedly at a news conference about whether she regarded Ms. Bryson as a woman.“She regards herself as a woman,” a visibly frustrated Ms. Sturgeon replied. “I regard the individual as a rapist.”A rally against a controversial transgender legislation in Glasgow earlier this month.Andy Buchanan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWhen it came to independence, Ms. Sturgeon was rarely at a loss for words. Having joined the Scottish National Party when she was 16, she spent much of her time trying to secure for Scotland as much power over its own affairs as possible. Allies described her as one of the most important leaders of the era of devolution, when London delegated more power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.Ms. Sturgeon’s departure is unlikely to weaken Scotland’s independence drive. It is, after all, the Scottish National Party’s founding goal. But as the party gathers at next month’s conference to plot the next phase of the campaign, her absence could greatly affect their tactics and strategy.The Scottish government had at one point planned to schedule a second referendum next October, following the unsuccessful vote in 2014. But those hopes were dashed last November when Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that Scotland’s Parliament did not have the right to act unilaterally. The court upheld the authority of the British Parliament to consent to a referendum, which it has steadfastly refused to do.That has left the Scottish nationalists with a dilemma. Ms. Sturgeon has proposed that the Scots treat the next British general election, which must be held by January 2025, as a de facto referendum on independence. A clear majority for the Scottish National Party, she said, would effectively be a vote for independence.The problem with this approach, analysts said, is that it would lack legal or constitutional legitimacy. That could hurt Scotland’s quest to join the European Union, which it has said it wants to do after separating from Britain. There are practical questions about how Scotland would break away if Britain did not recognize the move.Other people in the party would prefer to continue to build support for independence in the hopes that the pro-independence majority would become so emphatic that the Parliament in London would have no choice but to go along.Ms. Sturgeon leaving the news conference on Wednesday where she announced she would step down.Pool photo by Jane BarlowSupport for independence has waxed and waned since 2014, when Scots voted against leaving by 55 percent to 45 percent. But the Brexit vote in 2016, which was deeply unpopular in Scotland, has built a durable, if small, majority in favor of independence. Scotland’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which many viewed as more sure-footed than England’s, also fired up separatist sentiment.The prospects for independence, analysts said, will depend in part on how the Scottish National Party handles life after Ms. Sturgeon.“The downside risks are obvious,” said John Curtice, a professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde and one of Britain’s leading experts on polling. “That the party will not be able to find someone with the communications skills of Sturgeon,” leaving the nationalists divided and without a plan.Ms. Sturgeon herself emphasized the necessity of having someone fully dedicated to her party’s causes. “Giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job is the only way to do it,” she said, before acknowledging that she was no longer able to do that. “The country deserves nothing less.”Megan Specia More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Who Could Replace Nicola Sturgeon as Scotland’s First Minister?

      by

      Just hours after Nicola Sturgeon announced her surprise resignation on Wednesday, discussion had already begun about who might succeed her as the leader of the Scottish National Party and who would head the Scottish government.The party is expected to hold a leadership election in the coming weeks, and Ms. Sturgeon said she would continue to lead the party until that time. While it is still unclear who may stand for the leadership role, and no one has yet to officially throw his or her hat into the ring, a handful of party members have already been suggested.Kate ForbesPool phoot by Fraser BremnerKate Forbes, 32, has often been tipped as a potential successor to Ms. Sturgeon. A former finance secretary, Ms. Forbes is currently on maternity leave after giving birth to her daughter, Naomi, in August.Ms. Forbes is the daughter of missionaries and is originally from the town of Dingwall in the Scottish Highlands, but spent much of her time growing up in Glasgow and India. She is a fluent Gaelic speaker and is a member of the Free Church of Scotland, an evangelical Presbyterian church that follows a strict interpretation of the Bible.She was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, representing the constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch since that time. In 2020 she was appointed as the finance minister after her predecessor, Derek Mackay, resigned from the post when it was revealed that he had been sending inappropriate text messages to a teenager.Angus RobertsonRussell Cheyne/ReutersAngus Robertson, the former leader of the Scottish National Party’s group in Westminster, is also seen as a potential candidate to succeed Ms. Sturgeon. After serving in the House of Commons from 2001 to 2017, he became a Member of the Scottish Parliament representing the Edinburgh Central constituency in 2021.Mr. Roberston, 53, is considered one of the most senior members of his party, which he joined in 1984 as a teenager. He now serves as a cabinet secretary for the Constitution, external affairs and culture. He was a journalist before he entered politics and is married with two daughters.John SwinneyRussell Cheyne/ReutersJohn Swinney, Ms. Sturgeon’s deputy, has also been seen as a potential successor. He was appointed as the deputy first minister and cabinet secretary for Covid Recovery in May 2021.Mr. Swinney, 58, was born in Edinburgh and has a master’s degree in politics from Edinburgh University. He is married to Elizabeth Quigley, a television reporter, and has three children.He previously served as the head of the Scottish National Party from 2000 to 2004, but was not first minister because the party did not have the majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament at the time. Shortly after Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation, Mr. Swinney said he was “very sorry Nicola Sturgeon has decided to step down as first minister and as SNP leader.”“She has given outstanding leadership to our country, government and party,” he wrote in a statement on Twitter.Humza YousafRussell Cheyne/ReutersHumza Yousaf, 37, has served in the Scottish Parliament since 2011 and is currently the cabinet secretary for health and social care. When he was first elected, representing the Glasgow region, he was just 26, the youngest minister ever appointed to the Scottish government.He broke another barrier the next year, when he was appointed Scotland’s minister for external affairs and international development, becoming the first person from an ethnic minority background to hold the position. Mr. Yousaf, a practicing Muslim, has long been involved in community work and served as a media spokesman for the international aid group Islamic Relief.His family initiated a legal action against a nursery that he and his wife believed had discriminated against their daughter, allegedly because she had a Muslim-sounding name, but dropped the lawsuit earlier this month. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Before Stepping Down, Nicola Sturgeon Faced a Battle Over Transgender Rights

      by

      A battle over her support for transgender rights is not, by Nicola Sturgeon’s account, the reason she is quitting as Scotland’s first minister. But the issue has dogged her in recent weeks, precipitating a clash with the British government and ensnaring her in a messy episode involving a convicted rapist who was held in a women’s prison.Ms. Sturgeon’s problems began in December when the Scottish Parliament passed legislation that would allow transgender people to have the gender with which they identify legally recognized and to get a new birth certificate without a medical diagnosis. Britain’s government swiftly rejected the law, saying that it conflicted with equality laws that apply across Britain, including Scotland.That prompted a crisis in Britain’s power-sharing system, known as devolution, with Ms. Sturgeon calling it a “a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make its own decisions.”For Ms. Sturgeon, the transgender legislation is part of her declared commitment to protect minority groups. But while the law was supported in Parliament, it has divided the broader Scottish population and become a cudgel in the culture wars.It has also become conflated with the case of Isla Bryson, a transgender woman who was convicted of raping two women before her transition. She was initially placed in a women’s prison while awaiting sentencing, a decision that prompted an outcry by critics who said it jeopardized the safety of other inmates.Ms. Sturgeon later announced that Ms. Bryson had been moved to a men’s prison. But the handling of the case exposed Ms. Sturgeon to sharp criticism and put her in an awkward position when she was quizzed repeatedly at a news conference about whether she regarded Ms. Bryson as a woman.“She regards herself as a woman,” a visibly frustrated Ms. Sturgeon replied. “I regard the individual as a rapist.” More