Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Las elecciones presidenciales de Turquía en cinco puntos clave

      by

      Las crisis, incluidos los terremotos y la inflación, no impidieron la reelección de Recep Tayyip Erdogan. La votación se consideró libre, pero no justa, ya que Erdogan utilizó su poder para inclinar la balanza.ESTAMBUL — La reelección del presidente Recep Tayyip Erdogan le ha otorgado cinco años más para profundizar su impronta conservadora en la sociedad turca y hacer realidad su ambición de aumentar el poder económico y geopolítico del país.El Consejo Supremo Electoral de Turquía nombró a Erdogan vencedor después de una segunda vuelta electoral el domingo 28 de mayo. Ganó el 52,1 por ciento de los votos contra el candidato de la oposición, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, quien obtuvo el 47,9 por ciento con casi todos los votos escrutados, dijo el consejo.Las elecciones fueron seguidas de cerca por los aliados de Turquía en la OTAN, incluido Estados Unidos, que a menudo ha visto a Erdogan como un socio frustrante debido a su retórica antioccidental y sus estrechos vínculos con el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin, los cuales han crecido desde la invasión rusa a Ucrania.Erdogan no ha dado indicios de que planee cambiar su política exterior, en la que ha buscado utilizar la ubicación de Turquía en la confluencia de Europa, Asia y Medio Oriente para expandir su influencia, o a nivel nacional, donde ha consolidado el poder en sus manos y respondió a una crisis inflacionaria con medidas poco convencionales que, según los economistas, exacerbaron el problema.En las elecciones lo desafió una oposición recientemente unida que calificó la votación como un momento decisivo para la democracia turca. El candidato de la oposición, Kilicdaroglu, se postuló como una figura anti-Erdogan y prometió restaurar las libertades civiles y mejorar los vínculos con Occidente. Se presentó a sí mismo como un candidato más en contacto con las luchas del ciudadano común.A continuación, algunas conclusiones:Las crisis perjudicaron, pero no abatieron a ErdoganEl candidato de la oposición, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a la derecha en esta pancarta en Estambul, se presentó como una figura anti-Erdogan.Sergey Ponomarev para The New York TimesEstas fueron las elecciones más desafiantes de los 20 años de Erdogan como el político más prominente de Turquía, como primer ministro desde 2003 y como presidente desde 2014. Antes de la votación, la mayoría de las encuestas apuntaban a una contienda reñida con Kilicdaroglu a la cabeza.Los analistas citaron varias razones por las que Erdogan podría tener problemas. La indignación por una dolorosa crisis del costo de vida puso a algunos votantes en su contra. Los fuertes terremotos de febrero acabaron con la vida de más de 50.000 personas y dañaron cientos de edificios en el sur de Turquía. Muchos sobrevivientes del terremoto se quejaron de la lenta respuesta inicial del gobierno, mientras que la destrucción planteó dudas sobre si la prisa de Erdogan por desarrollar el país había fomentado una construcción insegura.La oposición históricamente dividida de Turquía dejó de lado sus diferencias para unirse en apoyo a Kilicdaroglu y alegó que se requería un cambio para detener la caída del país hacia la autocracia.Pero Erdogan prevaleció, gracias al ferviente apoyo de una parte importante de la población y sus habilidades como político en campaña. Los conservadores religiosos que aprecian su expansión del papel del islam en la vida pública lo apoyaron e incluso muchos de los turcos indignados por la inflación afirmaron que no creían que la oposición pudiera gobernar mejor.El terremoto no tuvo un gran impacto sobre las eleccionesPersonas haciendo fila para la distribución de suministros tras los terremotos que sacudieron la ciudad de Antioquía, en febrero. La participación en las elecciones en las zonas afectadas por el sismo fue sorprendentemente alta.Sergey Ponomarev para The New York TimesErdogan llegó al poder hace 20 años en medio de la indignación por la desastrosa respuesta del gobierno a un terremoto cerca de Estambul en 1999 en el que murieron más de 17.000 personas. Es por eso que muchos esperaban que el terremoto de este año también perjudicara sus posibilidades.Pero hay pocos indicios de que eso haya sucedido.Erdogan salió victorioso en ocho de las 11 provincias afectadas por el terremoto de febrero. A su partido, el gobernante Partido de la Justicia y el Desarrollo, y a sus aliados políticos les fue incluso mejor, pues ganaron la mayoría de los votos en las elecciones parlamentarias simultáneas en todas menos una de las provincias afectadas por el terremoto.La participación en la zona del terremoto también fue alta, a pesar de las preocupaciones de que muchos votantes desplazados por la destrucción tendrían dificultades para regresar a casa, como se requería, para emitir sus votos. Aunque la participación en las 11 provincias afectadas por el terremoto fue inferior al 88,9 por ciento de los votantes aptos que emitieron su voto a nivel nacional, en ninguna de esas provincias la participación fue menor del 80 por ciento.Entrevistas con sobrevivientes del terremoto indicaron muchas razones por las que el desastre no había cambiado su perspectiva política. Algunos describieron el terremoto como un acto de Dios al que cualquier gobierno habría tenido problemas para responder. Otros cuyas casas fueron destruidas dijeron que tenían más fe en Erdogan para reconstruir las zonas afectadas que en su rival.Las advertencias sobre el terrorismo resonaron en los votantesSimpatizantes de Erdogan en Estambul el domingo. Erdogan hizo de la oposición a los militantes kurdos un tema clave de su campañaSergey Ponomarev para The New York TimesErdogan socavó a la oposición al retratar a sus líderes como débiles e incompetentes, pero una línea de ataque resultó ser especialmente potente: las acusaciones de que serían blandos con el terrorismo.El mandatario planteó esta idea a los votantes en diversas ocasiones, argumentando que la oposición había recibido el apoyo del principal partido prokurdo de Turquía. A menudo, el gobierno acusa a ese partido de colaborar con militantes de la minoría kurda de Turquía, quienes, buscando autonomía, han estado en guerra con el Estado turco por décadas.Erdogan llegó incluso a transmitir videos manipulados en sus mítines para mostrar a los líderes militantes cantando la canción de campaña de Kilicdaroglu. Muchos votantes le creyeron y dijeron en entrevistas que no confiaban en la oposición para mantener la seguridad del país.El voto fue libre pero no justoRecuento de votos en Estambul el domingo. El contrincante de la oposición no impugnó el recuento, pero dijo que la elección en general fue injusta.Sergey Ponomarev para The New York TimesLos observadores internacionales no reportaron problemas a gran escala con el proceso de recolección y conteo de votos, considerando el proceso libre.Sin embargo, señalaron las enormes ventajas que tenía Erdogan antes de que comenzara la votación, incluida su capacidad para liberar miles de millones de dólares en gastos estatales para tratar de compensar los efectos negativos de la inflación y otras tensiones económicas y la cobertura mediática abundante y positiva que recibió del canal financiado por el Estado.En las últimas horas del domingo, Kilicdaroglu no cuestionó el recuento de votos, pero les dijo a sus seguidores que las elecciones en general habían sido “uno de los procesos electorales más injustos de los últimos años”.Muchos en la oposición temen que la contienda reñida impulse a Erdogan a tomar medidas más agresivas contra sus oponentes políticos para evitar un reto así de difícil en el futuro.Erdogan ahora debe abordar los problemas económicosTurquía ha recurrido a sus reservas de divisas extranjeras mientras intenta estabilizar su propia moneda.Sergey Ponomarev para The New York TimesLos economistas advirtieron que Erdogan recurrió a tácticas costosas a corto plazo para aislar a los votantes de la inflación y evitar que el valor de la moneda nacional se hundiera aún más. Pero no puede seguir haciendo eso para siempre.Las reservas de divisas extranjeras han disminuido drásticamente, lo que significa que el país podría perder su capacidad para pagarles a los acreedores extranjeros. Y, debido a que gran parte de ese dinero se ha gastado para mantener estable la moneda turca, su valor podría desplomarse cuando se detenga ese gasto.Erdogan no dio indicios durante su campaña de que planeara modificar sus políticas económicas, a pesar de una inflación obstinadamente alta de dos dígitos que, según los economistas, se ha visto exacerbada por su insistencia en bajar las tasas de interés en lugar de incrementarlas para combatir la inflación, como recomienda la economía ortodoxa.Es por eso que, independientemente de las medidas que a Erdogan le gustaría priorizar al comienzo de su nuevo mandato, es probable que los riesgos de una crisis monetaria o una recesión exijan su atención.Gulsin Harman More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Turkey’s Election Is a Warning About Trump

      by

      “The totalitarian phenomenon,” the French philosopher Jean-François Revel once noted, “is not to be understood without making an allowance for the thesis that some important part of every society consists of people who actively want tyranny: either to exercise it themselves or — much more mysteriously — to submit to it.”It’s an observation that should help guide our thinking about the re-election this week of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. And it should serve as a warning about other places — including the Republican Party — where autocratic leaders, seemingly incompetent in many respects, are returning to power through democratic means.That’s not quite the way Erdogan’s close-but-comfortable victory in Sunday’s runoff over the former civil servant Kemal Kilicdaroglu is being described in many analyses. The president, they say, has spent 20 years in power tilting every conceivable scale in his favor.Erdogan has used regulatory means and abused the criminal-justice system to effectively control the news media. He has exercised his presidential power to deliver subsidies, tax cuts, cheap loans and other handouts to favored constituencies. He has sought to criminalize an opposition party on specious grounds of links to terrorist groups. In December, a Turkish court effectively barred Erdogan’s most serious prospective rival, Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu of Istanbul, from politics by sentencing him to prison on charges of insulting public officials.Then, too, Kilicdaroglu was widely seen as a colorless and inept politician, promising a return to a status quo ante that many Turks remember, with no fondness, as a time of regular economic crises and a kind of repressive secularism.All of this is true, as far as it goes, and it helps underscore the worldwide phenomenon of what Fareed Zakaria aptly calls “free and unfair elections.” But it doesn’t go far enough.Turkey under Erdogan is in a dreadful state and has been for a long time. Inflation last year hit 85 percent and is still running north of 40 percent, thanks to Erdogan’s insistence on cutting interest rates in the teeth of rising prices. He has used a series of show trials — some based in fact, others pure fantasy — to eviscerate civil freedoms. February’s earthquakes, which took an estimated 50,000 lives and injured twice as many, were badly handled by the government and exposed the corruption of a system that cared more for patronage networks than for well-built buildings.Under normal political expectations, Erdogan should have paid the political price with a crushing electoral defeat. Not only did he survive, he increased his vote share in some of the towns worst hit by, and most neglected after, the earthquakes. “We love him,” explained a resident quoted in The Economist. “For the call to prayer, for our homes, for our headscarves.”That last line is telling, and not just because it gets to the importance of Erdogan’s Islamism as the secret of his success. It’s a rebuke to James Carville’s parochially American slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Actually, no: It’s also God, tradition, values, identity, culture and the resentments that go with each. Only a denuded secular imagination fails to notice that there are things people care about more than their paychecks.There is also the matter of power. The classically liberal political tradition is based on the suspicion of power. The illiberal tradition is based on the exaltation of it. Erdogan, as the tribune of the Turkish Everyman, built himself an aesthetically grotesque, 1,100-room presidential palace for $615 million. Far from scandalizing his supporters, it seems to have delighted them. In it, they see not a sign of extravagance or waste, but the importance of the man and the movement to which they attach themselves and submit.All this is a reminder that political signals are often transmitted at frequencies that liberal ears have trouble hearing, much less decoding. To wonder how Erdogan could possibly be re-elected after so thoroughly wrecking his country’s economy and its institutions is akin to wondering how Vladimir Putin appears to retain considerable domestic support in the wake of his Ukraine debacle. Maybe what some critical mass of ordinary Russians want, at least at some subconscious level, isn’t an easy victory. It’s a unifying ordeal.Which brings us to another would-be strongman in his palace in Palm Beach. In November, I was sure that Donald Trump was, as I wrote, “finally finished.” How could any but his most slavish followers continue to support him after he had once again cost Republicans the Senate? Wouldn’t this latest proof of losing be the last straw for devotees who had been promised “so much winning”?Silly me. The Trump movement isn’t built on the prospect of winning. It’s built on a sense of belonging: of being heard and seen; of being a thorn in the side to those you sense despise you and whom you despise in turn; of submission for the sake of representation. All the rest — victory or defeat, prosperity or misery — is details.Erdogan defied expectation because he understood this. He won’t be the last populist leader to do so.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What is Behind the Rising Tensions Between Kosovo and Serbia?

      by

      Clashes in northern Kosovo that injured dozens of ethnic Serbs and NATO soldiers are the latest flare up in a long-running standoff between Kosovo and Serbia.Dozens of NATO peacekeepers were injured this week in northern Kosovo when they clashed with ethnic Serbs, raising fears of a larger escalation between Serbia and Kosovo.The violence came after Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian leadership sent heavily armed security forces to take control of town municipal buildings, the latest turn in a dispute that has roots going back to the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s. Kosovo, where a majority of the population is ethnic Albanian and Muslim, declared its independence from Serbia in 2008, almost a decade after NATO’s bombing campaign that drove Serb forces, responsible for years of brutal mistreatment of ethnic Albanians, from Kosovo.Since then, the two countries have clashed over Kosovo’s treatment of its minority ethnic Serb population.The fighting in recent days — mostly skirmishes, but also some shooting — began when the Kosovan government deployed its security forces in several towns to install the ethnic Albanian mayors who had won in local elections last month. Local Serbs had mostly boycotted those votes.Each side has blamed the other for the fighting. NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, called the recent clashes “unacceptable” on Tuesday and said that 700 reserve troops had been deployed to help the peacekeeping mission there, which included 3,800 troops before the conflict. In response to the violence, Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic, said in a statement released by his office that he had put the army on the highest level alert.Here is what we know.How did the violence start?The recent clashes were centered on four northern municipalities bordering Serbia that are home to much of Kosovo’s Serb minority.Serbian nationalists living in Kosovo, many of whom still regard the Serbian capital, Belgrade, as their true capital, have staged protests throughout the past decade to resist integrating with Kosovo.The boycott of local elections last month was prompted by a Serbian political party in Kosovo. In a statement posted to Facebook days before the election, the group dismissed the process as “undemocratic” and urged Serbs to stay home on voting day.“Serbs should watch with contempt all those who go out to participate in this illegal and illegitimate process that is against the interest of the Serbian people,” the post said.To ensure that the ethnic Albanians who won recent mayoral elections could take their posts, Kosovo’s central government last week sent in armed security forces to the area, a move that was condemned in unusually strong terms by the United States, Kosovo’s main international backer. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken on Friday accused Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian leadership of “escalating tensions in the north and increasing instability.”Over the weekend, Serb protesters gathered outside municipal buildings in a number of Serbian-majority towns, facing off with Kosovo security forces and troops from a NATO-led peacekeeping mission called KFOR.A total of 30 NATO peacekeepers, including 19 Italians and 11 Hungarians, suffered injuries in the clashes. More than 50 Serbs were treated for injuries, Mr. Vucic said.The NATO mission’s commander, Maj. Gen. Angelo Michele Ristuccia, in a statement urged both sides to “take full responsibility for what happened and prevent any further escalation.”A total of 30 NATO peacekeepers, including 19 Italians and 11 Hungarians, suffered injuries in the clashes.Georgi Licovski/EPA, via ShutterstockTensions in the region had been building since the elections last month.In a televised statement early Tuesday, Mr. Vucic blamed Kosovo’s prime minister, Albin Kurti, for fueling hostilities. He also criticized NATO’s peacekeeping mission, saying it had failed to protect the Serbian population and was enabling the “illegal and forceful takeover” of the majority-Serbian municipalities by the Kosovan government.Mr. Kurti, Kosovo’s prime minister, applauded the NATO forces, saying they had been trying to curb the “violent extremism” in the streets. “In a democracy there is no place for fascist violence,” he said in a statement on Twitter. “Citizens of all ethnicities have a right to full & unencumbered service of their elected officials,” he added.What’s behind the conflict?The latest escalation is part of a dispute over the status of Kosovo, which declared its independence 15 years ago, almost a decade after NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign in 1999 that drove Serb forces, then engaged in brutal mistreatment of ethnic Albanians, from Kosovo.While an independent Kosovo has been recognized by the United States and many European countries, Serbia — as well as its key allies, Russia and China — still refuses to recognize Kosovo’s independence. It has called the split a violation of U.N. resolution 1244 that dates back to 1999 and the end of the Kosovo war.President Vucic and other Serbian leaders claim Kosovo as being the “heart” of their country, in part, because it houses many revered Orthodox Christian sites. Mr. Vucic has ruled out recognizing Kosovo and vowed to “protect” ethnic Serbs.Troops from the NATO-led peacekeeping mission secure an area near Zvecan, on Tuesday. Armend Nimani/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSerbian nationalists in Kosovo have been joined by more moderate Serbs in demanding the implementation of a 2013 deal brokered by the European Union that calls for a measure of self-rule for Serb-dominated municipalities in the north, a provision Kosovo has reneged on.In February, leaders of Kosovo and Serbia tentatively accepted a peace deal, which was mediated by the European Union and rejected by nationalists on both sides. It has not been formally signed.What is the regional backdrop to the tensions?Tensions between the two ethnic communities have flared regularly over the past decade, making the region a hub of unpredictable violence.Clashes erupted last July in response to a new law that would require ethnic Serbs living in Kosovo to switch from Serbian license plates to Kosovar ones. The recent escalation of hostilities comes as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has absorbed the attention of Kosovo’s important allies, the United States and the European Union.Serbia, a candidate to join the European Union, has been a close partner with Moscow for centuries. While it voted in favor of a U.N. resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Serbia has refused to join sanctions imposed on Moscow by Western countries.“Serbs are fighting for their rights in northern Kosovo,” Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia said on Monday during a visit to Kenya. “A big explosion is looming in the heart of Europe,” he said.Joe Orovic More

    • 88 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Alberta’s Conservatives Retain Power Behind Hard-Right Leader

      by

      But the United Conservative Party will hold substantially fewer seats in the legislature, in an apparent rebuff of the politics of its outspoken leader.Voters in Alberta, the oil-rich western province that is a bastion of conservatism in Canada, kept its conservative government in power on Monday but substantially reduced the number of seats it holds in the legislature, data from Canada’s national broadcaster indicated.The result, while a win for conservatives, is likely to be seen as a rebuff of the politics of Danielle Smith, the hard-right leader of the United Conservative Party who has been Alberta’s premier for seven months. Ms. Smith came to power after the party effectively rejected a more moderate conservative, Jason Kenney, as premier over his refusal to end pandemic restrictions and vaccine mandates.That revolt, led by a socially conservative wing of the party, reflected the anger in Canada that also led to the formation of a truckers’ convoy that paralyzed Ottawa, the national capital, for nearly a month.The views of Ms. Smith, a former radio talk show host and newspaper columnist who previously led another conservative party, are firmly aligned with that faction. She has declared that the unvaccinated were the “most discriminated-against group” she’d seen in her lifetime and suggested that police officers who enforced pandemic measures had committed crimes. In May, a video surfaced of her likening people who chose to be vaccinated to Germans who came to support Hitler.She has previously stated that politicians on the right in the United States were her political models and floated ideas, like fees for services in public health care, that enjoy little support across the political spectrum.United Conservative Party supporters at an election night party in Calgary, Alberta, on Monday.Todd Korol/ReutersThe Canadian Broadcasting Corporation projected early Tuesday morning that Ms. Smith and the United Conservatives would be returned to power. But the broadcaster’s data also showed that the party was leading or had been elected in just 52 electoral constituencies, down from the 63 it held before the vote. Unless the final number of seats turns out to be substantially higher, it will be the slimmest margin of victory in Alberta’s history.Many political analysts said before election night that the conservatives would have won overwhelmingly under Mr. Kenney or another more moderate leader.In a victory speech, Ms. Smith said her first act when the legislature reconvenes would be to introduce a law requiring that any future personal or business tax increases be approved by voters in a referendum, suggesting that it would make the province more attractive to investors.“We are throwing our doors wide open for businesses, large and small,” she said.She went on to reject planned federal limits on the energy industry’s carbon emissions, saying that they would not be “inflicted” on the province.As anticipated, the United Conservatives were strongest in rural areas. The New Democratic Party, led by Rachel Notley, a lawyer and former premier, had a strong showing in Edmonton, the provincial capital and one of the most left-leaning parts of the province, as well as Calgary, the largest city, which generally supports the conservatives.Rachel Notley, the New Democratic Party leader, said that despite her party’s campaign shortcomings, she would continue to lead it.Amber Bracken/ReutersAs of early Tuesday, the New Democrats, a left-of-center party co-founded by organized labor, had been elected or were leading in 35 electoral districts, a gain of 11 seats.Ms. Smith’s victory will be a challenge for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. One of her first acts as premier was to introduce legislation that she said would allow the province to refuse to enforce federal laws, a measure that many legal experts believe to be unconstitutional.Under the United Conservatives, the future of the province’s carbon tax, which is deeply unpopular with the right, and other climate change measures may be in jeopardy. When the New Democrats held power in Alberta from 2015 to 2019, after an unprecedented victory that resulted from a fracturing of the conservatives into two parties, Ms. Notley agreed to introduce carbon taxes in exchange for Mr. Trudeau’s government purchasing an oil pipeline to the Pacific Coast to ensure its expansion.Canada’s oil and gas production, which is largely based in Alberta, accounts for 28 percent of the country’s carbon emissions.Mr. Trudeau has said that the federal government will enact caps on the sector’s emissions. Ms. Smith, on Tuesday morning, called the plan a “de facto cap on production” and promised to block the measure.The trucker protest in Ottawa last year. The views of Ms. Smith are aligned with the socially conservative wing of her party that sympathized with the protest.Brett Gundlock for The New York TimesThe New Democratic Party’s win in 2015 broke a string of conservative governments in Alberta dating to the Great Depression. But Ms. Notley’s victory coincided with a collapse in oil prices that cratered the province’s economy, sending the party’s approval ratings spiraling.On Tuesday morning, Ms. Notley said she accepted responsibility for the party’s campaign shortcomings but said that she would continue as its leader.“Although we did not achieve the result we wanted, we did achieve a major step toward it,” she told supporters. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Alberta’s Vote Will Test American-Style Far-Right Politics

      by

      An election in Alberta will be a test of a premier who has said that she models her politics after those of prominent right-wing U.S. politicians.The NewsVoters in Alberta, the epicenter of conservative politics in Canada, will select a new provincial government on Monday. Albertans will vote for local representatives in the provincial legislature and the party that wins the most seats will form the government, with its leader becoming premier. The election pits the United Conservative Party, led by the current premier, Danielle Smith, against a leftist party, the New Democratic Party, led by Rachel Notley, a lawyer. Before the pandemic, the governing United Conservative Party appeared to have a firm hold on power. But last year, large and angry demonstrations against pandemic restrictions and against vaccine mandates helped spark a trucker convoy in the province that eventually spread, paralyzing Ottawa, Canada’s capital, and blocking vital cross-border crossings.A small group of social conservatives within the United Conservatives ousted their leader, Jason Kenney, ending his premiership, after the government refused to lift pandemic measures. The party replaced him with Ms. Smith, a far-right former radio talk show host and newspaper columnist prone to incendiary comments; she compared people who were vaccinated against Covid-19 to supporters of Hitler. Danielle Smith, the leader of the United Conservative Party, while campaigning this month in Calgary.Amber Bracken for The New York TimesThe BackgroundMs. Smith likes to extol right-wing U.S. politicians, for example, calling Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican running for president, her hero. She also has floated ideas that most Canadians would never support, like charging fees for public health care.Ms. Smith now finds herself, analysts say, far to the right of many conservative loyalists, turning what should been a near-certain victory for her party into a close race that has provided an opening for their opponents, the New Democratic Party, a leftist party.“This would not be a close race if anyone other than Danielle Smith was leading the U.C.P.,” said Janet Brown, who runs a polling firm based in Calgary, Alberta’s largest city. Ms. Notley is seeking to steer the labor-backed New Democrats to a second upset victory in the province in recent years. In 2015, she led the New Democrats to power for the first time in Alberta’s history, thanks in part to a fracturing of the conservative movement into two feuding parties. The stunning win broke a string of conservative governments dating to the Great Depression. But her victory coincided with a collapse in oil prices that cratered the province’s economy. Ms. Notley’s approval ratings plunged and the United Conservatives took over in 2019.Ms. Smith’s support is largely based in the province’s rural areas, surveys show, while Ms. Notley’s path to victory on Tuesday will likely be through Alberta’s urban centers, including its two largest cities, Edmonton and Calgary. Edmonton, the provincial capital and a city with a large union presence, is likely to back the New Democrats. That could make Calgary, which is generally more conservative leaning, a deciding factor. Calgary also has a growing ethnic population, particularly immigrants from South Asia, and Ms. Smith’s is unpopular with many of those voters because of some of her extreme statements.Why It MattersIf Ms. Smith’s brand of conservatism fails to return her party to office in Canada’s most conservative province, the federal Conservative Party of Canada may need to reconsider its strategy as it prepares to take on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party in the next national elections. The federal conservatives also replaced the party’s leader during the pandemic with a combative right-wing politician, Pierre Poilievre, who welcomed truck convoy protesters to Ottawa, the capital, with coffee and doughnuts. Mr. Poilievre shares Ms. Smith’s penchant for promoting provocative positions.Even a narrow victory for Ms. Smith could actually be a loss, if it means fewer conservative seats in the provincial legislature, said Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University in Calgary. In that scenario, Ms. Smith could find her position as premier and party leader tenuous and many of the policies she promotes could be cast aside, he said. “If she loses, she’s gone,” he said. “If she wins, I think she’s still gone.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Erdogan’s Victory in Turkey’s Presidential Election: Key Takeaways

      by

      Crises including earthquakes and inflation did not stop the re-election of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The vote was seen as free but not fair, as he used his power to tilt the playing field.President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s re-election grants him five more years to deepen his conservative imprint on Turkish society and to realize his ambition of increasing the country’s economic and geopolitical power.Turkey’s Supreme Election Council named Mr. Erdogan the victor after a runoff election on Sunday. He won 52.1 percent of the vote against the opposition candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who had 47.9 percent with almost all votes counted, the council said.The election was closely followed by Turkey’s NATO allies, including the United States, who have often seen Mr. Erdogan as a frustrating partner because of his anti-Western rhetoric and close ties with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, which have grown since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Mr. Erdogan has given no indication that he plans to change his policies abroad, where he has sought to use Turkey’s place at the juncture of Europe, Asia and the Middle East to expand its influence, or at home, where has consolidated power in his hands and responded to an inflation crisis with unconventional measures that economists said exacerbated the problem.Challenging him in the election was a newly united opposition that billed the election as a make-it-or-break-it moment for Turkish democracy. The opposition’s candidate, Mr. Kilicdaroglu, ran as the anti-Erdogan, vowing to restore civil freedoms and improve ties with the West. He billed himself as more in touch with common people’s struggles.Here are some key takeaways:Crises damaged but did not break Erdogan.The opposition candidate, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, on the right of this banner in Istanbul, presented himself as an anti-Erdogan.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThis was the most challenging election of Mr. Erdogan’s 20 years as Turkey’s most prominent politician, as prime minister since 2003 and as president since 2014. Before the initial vote, most polls suggested a tight race with Mr. Kilicdaroglu in the lead.Analysts cited several reasons Mr. Erdogan might struggle. Anger at a painful cost-of-living crisis turned some voters against him. Powerful earthquakes in February killed more than 50,000 people and damaged hundreds of buildings in southern Turkey. Many quake survivors complained about the government’s slow initial response while the destruction raised questions about whether Mr. Erdogan’s haste to develop the country had encouraged unsafe construction.Turkey’s historically fractious opposition set aside its differences to come together behind Mr. Kilicdaroglu and argued that change was needed to stop the country’s slide toward one-man rule.But Mr. Erdogan prevailed, thanks to fervent support from a significant portion of the population and his skills as a campaigner. Religiously conservative Turks who appreciate his expanding the role of Islam in public life stood by him, and even many of those angry about inflation said they did not have faith that the opposition could govern any better.The earthquake didn’t affect the election much.Lining up for supply distribution after earthquakes hit the city of Antakya, Turkey, in February. Turnout in quake-hit areas was surprisingly high.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesMr. Erdogan came to power 20 years ago amid anger at the government’s disastrous response to an earthquake near Istanbul in 1999 that killed more than 17,000 people. So many expected this year’s quake to hurt his standing as well.But there few indications that it did.Mr. Erdogan came out ahead in eight of the 11 provinces affected by February’s earthquake. His governing Justice and Development Party and its political allies fared even better, winning a majority of votes in the simultaneous parliamentary elections in all but one of the quake-stricken provinces.Participation in the earthquake zone was also high, despite worries that many voters displaced by the destruction would struggle to return home to cast their ballots as is required. Although participation in the 11 quake-affected provinces was lower than the 88.9 percent of eligible voters who cast ballots nationally, in none of those provinces did turnout dip below 80 percent.Interviews with quake survivors indicated many reasons that the disaster had not changed their political outlook. Some described the quake as an act of God that any government would have struggled to respond to. Others whose homes were destroyed said they had more faith in Mr. Erdogan to rebuild the affected areas than they had in his challenger.Terrorism warnings resonated with voters.Supporters of Mr. Erdogan in Istanbul on Sunday. He made opposition to Kurdish militants a key campaign issue. Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesMr. Erdogan undermined the opposition by portraying its leaders as weak and incompetent, but one line of attack proved to be especially potent: accusations that they would be soft on terrorism.The president repeatedly made this argument to voters, based on the opposition’s having received the support of Turkey’s main pro-Kurdish party. The government often accuses that party of collaboration with militants from Turkey’s Kurdish minority who have been at war with the Turkish state for decades, seeking autonomy.Mr. Erdogan even went so far as to air videos at his rallies that had been doctored to show militant leaders singing along to Mr. Kilicdaroglu’s campaign song. Many voters believed him, saying in interviews that they did not trust the opposition to keep the country safe.The vote was free but not fair.Counting ballots in Istanbul on Sunday. The opposition challenger did not contest the count, but said the election overall was unfair.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesInternational observers reported no large-scale problems with the process of collecting and counting votes during the first round, deeming the process free.But they noted the tremendous advantages Mr. Erdogan had before voting began, including his ability to unleash billions of dollars in state spending to try to offset the negative effects of inflation and other economic strains and the abundant, positive media coverage he received from the state-funded broadcaster.Late on Sunday, Mr. Mr. Kilicdaroglu did not contest the vote count, but told his supporters that the overall election had been “one of the most unfair election processes in recent years.”Many in the political opposition fear that the closeness of the race will lead Mr. Erdogan to crack down on his political opponents more aggressively to prevent such a stiff challenge in the future.Mr. Erdogan must now confront economic problems.Turkey has drawn on its foreign currency reserves while trying to stabilize its own currency.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesEconomists warn that Mr. Erdogan resorted to expensive short-term tactics to insulate voters from inflation and prevent the value of the national currency from sinking further. But he can’t keep it up forever.Turkey’s foreign currency reserves have declined steeply, meaning the country could lose its ability to pay back foreign creditors. And because much of that money has been spent to keep the currency stable, its value could dive once that spending stops.Mr. Erdogan gave no indication during his campaign that he planned to modify his economic policies, despite stubbornly high, double-digit inflation that economists say has been exacerbated by his insistence on lowering interest rates instead of raising them to combat inflation, as orthodox economics recommends.So regardless of what moves Mr. Erdogan would like to prioritize at the start of his new term, the risks of a currency crisis or recession are likely to demand his attention.Gulsin Harman More

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How Hard Will It Be for DeSantis to Beat Trump? Nixon vs. Reagan in 1968 Offers a Clue.

      by

      Ron DeSantis, the 44-year-old governor of Florida, has entered the presidential race, establishing himself as the most formidable Republican rival to Donald Trump.Mr. Trump, an inveterate liar who tried to overturn the last election, is alienating to a wide swath of voters, and many establishment Republicans have been happy to hunt out alternatives, particularly in Mr. DeSantis. After a rough midterm for Republicans that included the defeat of several Senate candidates endorsed by Mr. Trump, the former president appeared vulnerable.But since then, it has grown clear that counting him out as the likely Republican presidential nominee is foolhardy. Several factors — among them, the intense support he draws from a sizable chunk of the Republican base and his singular talent for commanding media attention — help explain why Mr. Trump holds a commanding position in the primary. History offers at least one parallel for why it will be so difficult for Mr. DeSantis and other G.O.P. contenders, like Nikki Haley, 51, the Trump administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Senator Tim Scott, 57, Ms. Haley’s fellow South Carolinian, to take him down.There was, more than a half century ago, another de facto leader of the Republican Party who reeked of failure. Pundits mocked and dismissed him as a has-been. Rivals across the ideological spectrum no longer feared him and cheered on his slide into irrelevancy.By the end of 1962, few believed there was a future for Richard Nixon, the former vice president. In 1960, he lost one of the closest-ever presidential races to John F. Kennedy, and members of the liberal Republican establishment, including Dwight Eisenhower, were glad to see him fall.After losing to Kennedy, Nixon tried to regroup, entering the 1962 California governor’s race against the well-liked Democratic incumbent, Pat Brown. Nixon, who had served as a representative and senator from the state, was initially expected to triumph and use the governorship as a steppingstone to the presidency. Instead, Brown swatted Nixon away after the former vice president had to endure a bruising primary battle against a Republican who was popular with the sort of movement conservatives who would, in the coming years, seize control of the party.On the morning after his loss to Brown, Nixon famously told the assembled press at the Beverly Hilton Hotel they wouldn’t have him to “kick around anymore.” That November, the journalist Howard K. Smith titled a television segment “The Political Obituary of Richard M. Nixon.”In the wake of these humiliations, Nixon’s tenuous comeback hinged on persuading both Republican voters, who could find more attractive warriors for their cause, and influential party and media elites that he in fact wasn’t completely finished. In 1964, Nixon flirted with running for president but backed away. (Mr. Trump, of course, did not feel chastened for supporting weak and beatable candidates in the midterms last year, and instead waited roughly a week to announce another presidential run.)Nixon decided to support Barry Goldwater, the far-right Arizona senator who lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic president. Nixon’s attachment to Goldwater won him some plaudits with the base of the party — he had been one of the few prominent Republicans to stick with the senator — but didn’t help alter the perception that he was a serial loser. To complete his rehabilitation, in the 1966 midterms, he strategically stumped for anti-Johnson Republicans who were poised to ride the white backlash to the Great Society and civil rights programs.By 1968, Nixon had established himself as a foreign policy maven, having undertaken many world tours in the 1960s, and cast himself as an arch, erudite critic of the Johnson administration.His period of vulnerability was briefer, but Mr. Trump today, like mid-’60s Nixon, has reasserted himself as a party kingpin. Now he, too, is contending with a popular governor from a large swing state.In the 1968 G.O.P. primary, Nixon actually had to outflank three prominent Republican governors — George Romney of Michigan, Nelson Rockefeller of New York and Ronald Reagan of California — who could offer, in the immediate term at least, more allure.Reagan, who had defeated the formidable California Governor Brown in 1966, was actually older than Nixon but had the swagger and ease of a much younger man, marrying the sort of sunny optimism Nixon could never muster with the raw appeal to a growing reactionary vote that Nixon craved.Just as Mr. DeSantis, with his wars on critical race theory, “woke” Disney and Covid restrictions, is trying to outmaneuver Mr. Trump on the cultural terrain that’s always been so vital in Republican primaries, Reagan outshone Nixon with his open disdain for Johnson’s landmark civil rights agenda, the burgeoning antiwar movement and the emerging hippie counterculture. He railed against the “small minority of beatniks, radicals, and filthy-speech advocates” upending California and successfully demoralized Brown, who remarked, shellshocked, after Reagan’s triumph that “whether we like it or not, the people want separation of the races.”Nixon rebuffed Reagan and the others in one of the last primaries where delegates and party insiders, rather than the will of voters, played a significant role in determining the nomination.Here the present diverges from history. Nixon was far more introspective, methodical and policy-minded than Trump. He was, by 1968, a significantly stronger general election candidate, winning the most votes — Trump has twice lost the popular vote — despite the segregationist George Wallace’s third-party bid, which ate into Nixon’s support.But just as a divided primary field worked to Nixon’s advantage, so it may for Mr. Trump, especially if several other candidates become viable. In such a scenario, Mr. Trump may need only pluralities in pivotal early states to take the nomination. His core fan base might be enough. Though Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign was often shambolic, it managed a finely tuned nativist, anti-free trade and anti-globalization message that cut through the noise of a chaotic primary season. In Nixonian fashion, Mr. Trump tapped into his party’s reactionaries and delighted the grass roots.The question is whether Mr. Trump can do it again. One of Nixon’s great political strengths was to assume, even at the height of his powers, the position of the aggrieved — to convince a palpable mass of voters that they, and he, were the outsiders. Genuinely self-made, this posture came naturally to Nixon. Mr. Trump, though the son of a millionaire real estate developer, has nevertheless effectively adopted it throughout his political career, once boasting of his love for the “poorly educated.”Mr. DeSantis enters the fray hoping that Mr. Trump’s many flaws, continuing legal troubles and political baggage ultimately render him weaker than he appears today. But looking at the historical parallel, even Reagan, a once-in-a-generation political talent, could not dislodge Nixon. As Mr. DeSantis’s Twitter-launch debacle suggests, he will need to quickly, and considerably, improve his standing. Perhaps then, with the help of a Trump implosion, can he hold out hope for 2024 — or even, as Reagan’s example suggests, a future presidential run.If 1968 is any guide, Mr. Trump will be tough to beat. In a crowded field, among a hungry younger generation of contenders like Mr. DeSantis, he will have to manufacture anew this kind of populism. He might just do it.Ross Barkan is an author and a contributing writer to The New York Times Magazine.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