Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Your Friday Briefing: Is China Relenting?

      by

      Plus: Kyiv in darkness, South Africa in turmoil and the week in culture.Vigil attendees in Beijing commemorated the victims of an apartment fire in Urumqi, China.Thomas Peter/ReutersIs China shifting on ‘zero Covid’?China appears to be backing away from its harsh Covid rules, after a week of mass protests against its policies. The demonstrations have been the largest challenge to Beijing in decades.In Guangzhou, residents returned to work yesterday for the first time in weeks after Covid-19 lockdowns were lifted. In Chongqing, some residents were no longer required to take regular Covid tests. And in Beijing, a senior health official played down the severity of Omicron variants, a rare move.The ruling Communist Party has still not publicly acknowledged the widespread demonstrations against lockdowns. But, after policing measures mostly muted the protests, the party is signaling a willingness to address the root cause of the public anger: intrusive pandemic controls that have stifled economic growth and left millions confined in their homes for long stretches.Context: Xi Jinping, China’s leader, has staked the party’s legitimacy on controlling the virus better than the nation’s rivals in the West. Any reversal or abandonment could undercut his authority.From Opinion:Run from anyone who claims to know where China’s protests are headed next, Nicholas Kristof says.Yasheng Huang argues that Xi Jinping has broken the social contract that helped China prosper.The Chinese people have reached a tipping point and are losing faith in the Communist Party, Wu Qiang writes.E.U. diplomats are still debating an oil price cap.Alexey Malgavko/ReutersIn Kyiv, life without powerSix million people across Ukraine are without power as temperatures drop. In Kyiv, 3.3 million people face shortages of electricity, water and heat, as well as cellphone and internet service.Municipal officials estimate that 1.5 million people are still without power for more than 12 hours a day in the capital. Elevators are stocked with emergency supplies, in case the power fails. The National Philharmonic played on a stage lit by battery-powered lanterns. Doctors have performed surgeries by flashlight. A cafe has two menus, one with no hot food.Residents are exhausted, and threats are mounting. Temperatures are often below freezing now. Extended power outages threaten health care and risk a rise in accidents and hypothermia. Yesterday, Russian shelling also knocked out power in Kherson, which was recently recaptured.Context: Kyiv has been relatively unscathed since spring. But waves of Russian missiles targeting Ukraine’s energy grid have affected the city.Understand the Protests in ChinaThe Toll of ‘Zero Covid’: The protests come as President Xi Jinping’s harsh pandemic policies have hurt businesses and strangled growth. The Daily looks at what the demonstrations could mean for Mr. Xi.A Roar of Discontent: The protests have awoken a tradition of dissent that had seemed spent after 10 years under Mr. Xi. The effects may far outlast the street clashes.The Economic Fallout: The unrest in the world’s biggest manufacturing nation is injecting a new element of uncertainty and instability into the global economy.Facing Long Odds: The protesters in China hope to bring sweeping change, but three major forces stand in their way, our columnist writes.Strikes: Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, defended strikes on Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure. (The U.N. said they could amount to war crimes.)Aid: The U.N. is seeking a record-breaking $51.5 billion from international donors. The war is fueling desperation around the world.“All options are on the table,” said a spokesman for President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa.Justin Tallis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSouth Africa’s president in perilCyril Ramaphosa’s future as South Africa’s president hangs in the balance, a day after a parliamentary panel found that he may have broken the law. Opponents are lobbying for his departure as Parliament readies itself for a possible impeachment hearing for corruption. On Wednesday, a parliamentary report cast heavy skepticism on Ramaphosa’s explanation of how a large sum of U.S. currency came to be hidden in — and stolen from — a sofa at his farm.When he swept into office four years ago, Ramaphosa was heralded as an anti-corruption crusader. But one of the president’s political foes alleged in June that Ramaphosa had between $4 million and $8 million stolen from his property in February 2020 and that he failed to report the theft to the police.Ramaphosa: He claims that only $580,000 was stolen and that the money represented the proceeds of the sale of 20 buffaloes. But now, he may be doomed by a corruption scandal of his own making.Elections: The A.N.C. is scheduled to elect its leadership at a national conference in two weeks. Until he was rocked by corruption allegations, Ramaphosa was favored to win a second term.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificRakesh Kumar Yadav, 40, died in Dubai. Five weeks later, his body was flown to Nepal.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesNepali migrants face inequality and vulnerability overseas. When they die, their families also struggle to repatriate their remains.From Opinion: Many Afghans who worked with U.S. troops were left behind in the withdrawal. Their text messages reveal their desperation.Around the WorldThe two leaders lavished praise on each other despite tensions about the handling of the war in Ukraine.Doug Mills/The New York TimesPresident Biden welcomed Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, at the White House. Biden said that he would be open to meeting with Vladimir Putin, but with conditions.The two leaders will have a state dinner. Check out the menu.The U.S. and Ukrainian Embassies in Spain were targeted by letter bombs. No major injuries have been reported.The DealBook SummitSam Bankman-Fried said that FTX’s downfall was caused by “a massive failure of oversight on my part.” Here are key takeaways from his interview.Janet Yellen, the U.S. Treasury secretary, described the collapse of FTX as a “Lehman moment” and called for more regulation of cryptocurrency.The World CupLed by Lionel Messi, Argentina advanced with a 2-0 victory over Poland, which also qualified for the knockout round despite the loss.Japan beat Spain, 2-1. And Germany beat Costa Rica, 4-2, but was eliminated.Belgium, a heavyweight, was eliminated after tying Croatia, 0-0. Morocco advanced with a win over Canada, 2-1.Garment workers in Myanmar earn less than $3 a day to produce soccer apparel for Adidas. Some say they were fired for asking for a raise.Qatar is watching the World Cup, too. Our photographer shot spectators across the country, rejoicing in public.The Week in CultureUNESCO, the United Nations heritage agency, decreed that the French baguette is a piece of “intangible cultural heritage.”Sight & Sound’s once-a-decade poll of critics crowned “Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles” as the greatest movie ever made. It’s the first to top the list that was directed by a woman.“Everything Everywhere All at Once” got top honors at the Gotham Awards, the first big show of the awards season.Where have all the movie stars gone?A Morning ReadGeorge Steinmetz for The New York TimesFew countries ship more live animals overseas than Australia, which has exported a million cattle a year, on average, since 2017. Damien Cave, our Sydney bureau chief, followed the route of some cattle to Indonesia, where they will be fattened and slaughtered by Islamic butchers.Advocacy groups insist that the journey is unethical, and the route is dangerous. But the business also has its own unique culture, at once a throwback and a modern marvel of globalization.ARTS AND IDEAS‘I want my body back,” Aleigha Harris said.Yehyun Kim for The New York TimesWhat does it take to breastfeed?Some 83 percent of babies in the U.S. start out on breast milk. But by 6 months, just 56 percent are breastfed. At that stage, only a quarter drink breast milk exclusively, as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends.That steady decline speaks to the wide-ranging challenges parents face in trying to breastfeed.Take Dr. Laiyin Ma, who returned to work four weeks after her oldest daughter’s birth and two weeks after her second arrived. She pumped milk in stolen bursts in clinic rooms, propping her chair against the door to prevent patients and colleagues from barging in. While performing long operations, she leaked breast milk under her surgical gown.She is stung by the irony that doctors and nurses struggle to meet the health guidelines they themselves recommend. “I really don’t think that people realize how hard it is for women in medicine to breastfeed,” Dr. Ma said.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookEvan Sung for The New York TimesThis cranberry tart riffs on the French tarte au citron.What to MoviesWatch a great documentary this weekend.What to Listen toChristine McVie, who died at 79, was the serene center of Fleetwood Mac. Here are some of her most beloved songs.Where to TravelSpend 36 hours in Rome, merging old and new.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and here’s a clue: Take the wheel (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.Have a lovely weekend! See you Monday. — AmeliaP.S. We’ll send you 31 delights, tips and distractions to get you through each day of the holiday season. Sign up here.“The Daily” is on a Jan. 6 verdict.Whet Moser wrote today’s Arts and Ideas. Email us at briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      In Georgia, Walker’s Pace in the Finish Worries Republican Allies

      by

      The Senate candidate’s performance in the final days of the runoff campaign has Republicans airing frustrations. But no one is counting him out yet.ATLANTA — Herschel Walker was being swamped by negative television ads. His Democratic opponents were preparing to flood the polls for early voting as soon as doors opened. After being hit by fresh allegations of carpetbagging, he was left with just over a week to make his final appeals to voters in the runoff for Georgia’s Senate seat.But for five days, Mr. Walker was off the campaign trail.The decision to skip campaigning over the crucial Thanksgiving holiday weekend has Mr. Walker’s Republican allies airing frustrations and concerns about his campaign strategy in the final stretch of the overtime election against Senator Raphael Warnock.Democrats, they point out, have gotten a head start on Republicans in their early-voting push and are drowning out the G.O.P. on the airwaves — outspending them two-to-one. With less than a week to go, time is running out fast for Mr. Walker to make inroads with the moderate conservatives who did not support him during the general election.“We almost need a little bit more time for Herschel’s campaign to get everything off the ground,” said Jason Shepherd, the former chairman of the Cobb County Republican Party, pointing to the transition from a general election campaign to a runoff sprint. Notably, the runoff campaign was cut from nine weeks to four by a Republican-backed law passed last year.“I think we’re behind the eight ball on this one,” Mr. Shepherd added.Mr. Shepherd said Mr. Walker’s decision not to campaign during Thanksgiving was just one troubling choice. He also pointed to a series of mailers sent by the Georgia Republican Party encouraging voters to find their polling places that contained broken QR codes as examples of poor organizing. And he raised concern about the steady stream of advertisements supporting Warnock, a first-term senator and pastor, on conservative talk radio and contemporary Christian stations.Supporters listening to Herschel Walker during a campaign event on Monday.Dustin Chambers for The New York TimesBoth Democrats and Republicans note that they are far from counting Mr. Walker out. The race remains within the margin of error, according to recent polling. Democrats outspent Republicans in the general election, too, pouring in more than $100 million, compared with $76 million spent by Republicans.Still, Mr. Walker, the former football star, won 1.9 million votes earlier this month — landing 37,000 votes short of Mr. Warnock and roughly 60,000 votes shy of the 50 percent threshold for winning the seat outright.His campaign has been one of the most turbulent in recent memory: Mr. Walker was found to have lied or exaggerated details about his education, his business, his charitable giving and his work in law enforcement. He acknowledged a history of violent and erratic behavior, tied to a mental illness, and did not dispute an ex-wife’s accusation of assault. Two women claimed that he had urged them to have abortions, although he ran as a staunchly anti-abortion candidate. He denied their accounts. He regularly delivered rambling speeches, which Democrats widely circulated with glee.“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Herschel Walker might be the most flawed Republican nominee in the nation this year,” said Rick Dent, a media consultant who has worked for candidates from both parties and plans to vote for Mr. Warnock.What to Know About Georgia’s Senate RunoffCard 1 of 6Another runoff in Georgia. More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How to Perform Normalcy — and Why the Democrats Should Give It a Try

      by

      Are the Democrats, finally, in array? They’ve just had the best midterms by a sitting president’s party in about 20 years, and passed significant legislation in 2022. And now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is stepping down after nearly two decades as leader, without the specter of intraparty battles. So what comes next for Dems, and what should the party’s future strategy be?[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]Today on “The Argument,” Jane is joined by two writers with close eyes on the Democratic Party. Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin and the president of The Nation magazine. Michelle Cottle is a member of the editorial board of The New York Times. They assess the place progressivism has in the Democratic Party, what the incoming generational shift in leadership will bring and how Democrats must win.Note: This episode contains explicit language.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThoughts? Email us at argument@nytimes.com or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Vishakha Darbha and Derek Arthur. Edited by Alison Bruzek and Amber Von Schassen. Original music by Isaac Jones and Pat McCusker; mixing by Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Kate Sinclair and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta with editorial support from Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Meet the Voters Who Fueled New York’s Seismic Tilt Toward the G.O.P.

      by

      Republicans used doomsday-style ads to prey on suburban voters’ fear of crime in New York, helping to flip enough seats to capture the House.GREAT NECK PLAZA, N.Y. — Lynn Frankel still has bouts of nostalgia for her old life, the one before the coronavirus pandemic brought New York City to a standstill and fears about crime began to bubble across this well-to-do suburb. There were dinners in the city with friends, Broadway shows, outings with her children — all an easy train ride away.But these days if she can help it, Ms. Frankel, 58, does not set foot in the city. She’s seen too many headlines about “a lot of crazy stuff”: flagrant shoplifting, seemingly random acts of violence and hate crimes, which triggered concern about the safety of her daughters, who are Asian American.Something else has changed, too. Ms. Frankel, a political independent who reviled Donald J. Trump, gladly voted Republican in this month’s midterm elections to endorse the party’s tough-on-crime platform, and punish the “seeming indifference” she ascribes to Democrats like Gov. Kathy Hochul.“If you don’t feel safe, than it doesn’t matter what all the other issues are,” she said the other day in Great Neck Plaza’s tidy commercial area.New York and its suburbs may remain among the safest large communities in the country. Yet amid a torrent of doomsday-style advertising and constant media headlines about rising crime and deteriorating public safety, suburban swing voters like Ms. Frankel helped drive a Republican rout that played a decisive role in tipping control of the House.The attempt to capitalize on upticks in crime may have fallen short for Republicans elsewhere across the nation. But from Long Island to the Lower Hudson Valley, Republicans running predominantly on crime swept five of six suburban congressional seats, including three that President Biden won handily that encompass some of the nation’s most affluent, well-educated commuter towns.Even in places like Westchester County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans, Mr. Zeldin and other Republican candidates found pockets of support.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesThe numbers were stark. New York’s major suburban counties around the city — Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland — all shifted between 14 and 20 points to the right, thanks to a surge in Republican turnout and crucial crossover votes from independents and Democrats. Even parts of the city followed the trend, though it remained overwhelmingly blue.Take the Third Congressional District, a predominately white and Asian American seat connecting northeast Queens with the North Shore of Long Island that flipped to a Republican, George Santos. Turnout data suggests that Republican enthusiasm almost completely erased Democrats’ large voter registration advantage and flipped some voters, helping Lee Zeldin, the Republican nominee for governor, turn a long-shot bid into the state’s closest race for governor in 30 years.Other factors accounted for Democrats’ suburban struggles here. Threats to abortion access drove some liberal voters to the polls, but many reliably Democratic Black, Latino and white voters stayed home. Swing voters blamed the party for painful increases in gas and grocery bills. Orthodox Jews furious over local education issues voted for Republicans at unusually high rates. Tactical decisions by Ms. Hochul appear to have hurt her party, too.The Aftermath of New York’s Midterms ElectionsWho’s at Fault?: As New York Democrats sought to spread blame for their dismal performance in the elections, a fair share was directed toward Mayor Eric Adams of New York City.Hochul’s New Challenges: Gov. Kathy Hochul managed to repel late momentum by Representative Lee Zeldin. Now she must govern over a fractured New York electorate.How Maloney Lost: Democrats won tough races across the country. But Sean Patrick Maloney, a party leader and a five-term congressman, lost his Hudson Valley seat. What happened?A Weak Link: If Democrats lose the House, they may have New York to blame. Republicans flipped four seats in the state, the most of any state in the country.But in interviews with strategists from both parties, candidates, and more than three dozen voters across Long Island and Westchester County, it appeared that New York was uniquely primed over the last two years for a suburban revolt over crime and quality of life.“Elections move dramatically when they become about a singular topic, and the election in New York was not about extremism on the left or right, about abortion or about Kathy Hochul,” said Isaac Goldberg, a Democratic political strategist on the losing side of several marquee races. “The election in New York was about crime.”Long Island and Rockland County in particular have large populations of active and retired law enforcement, and a history of sensitivity to crime and costs. Growing Asian American and Orthodox Jewish populations were especially motivated this year by a string of high-profile hate crimes.Many Orthodox Jews who voted for Republican candidates like Mr. Zeldin were especially motivated by a string of high-profile hate crimes.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesThen there is the coronavirus pandemic. Arguably no metropolitan area was hit harder than New York, where the economy and old patterns of life have also been slower to return. Remote work remains popular here, leaving Midtown office towers, commuter trains and subways below capacity — and many suburbanites increasingly reliant on media accounts saturated with images and videos of brutal acts of violence to shape their perceptions.Commuters recently boarding trains into Manhattan from Nassau and Westchester said they were uneasy navigating Pennsylvania Station, some of which has been under construction; unnerved by the apparent proliferation of homeless encampments and open drug usage in Midtown; and now looked over their shoulder on the subway for people who appear to be mentally disturbed.Several, including Ms. Frankel, said they frequently read The New York Post, which made Mr. Zeldin’s candidacy for governor and the repeal of the state’s 2019 bail law a crusade for more than a year, splashing violent crimes across its front page, however rare they may still be. Many asked not to be identified by their full names out of fear of backlash from friends, colleagues or even strangers who could identify them online.“I wouldn’t go into the city even if they paid me,” a retired dental hygienist said as she mailed a letter in Oyster Bay. A 41-year-old lawyer from Rockville Centre said she sometimes wondered if she would make it home at night alive. A financial adviser from North Salem in Westchester County said it felt like the worst days of the 1980s and 1990s had returned, despite the fact that crime rates remain a fraction of what they were then.“I have kids who live in Manhattan, and I am every day scared,” Lisa Greco, an empty nester who voted all Republican, said as she waited at a nail salon in Pleasantville, in Westchester.“I don’t want them taking the subways but of course they do,” she continued. “I actually track them because I have to know every day that they’re back home. Like, I don’t want to keep texting them like, ‘Are you at work? Are you here?’”Republicans, led by Mr. Zeldin, a Long Islander himself, relentlessly fanned those fears, blaming Democrats for the small rises in crime while accusing them of coddling criminals. A deluge of conservative advertising only amplified the approach, which blamed the new bail law and a Democratic Party that has complete control over both New York City and Albany.Crime statistics tell a more complicated story. Incidents of major crimes are higher in New York City and Nassau County than before the pandemic, though they remain well below levels seen in recent decades. In Westchester, Suffolk and Rockland counties, major crime has been flatter, though in the first six months of this year, property and violent crimes were up compared with the same period in 2021.Despite the Republican Party narrative, major crime has not increased in most suburban areas like Suffolk County, where Mr. Zeldin greeted voters from his district on Election Day. Johnny Milano for The New York TimesMs. Hochul had taken actions as governor to help combat crime and address the mental health crisis among the city’s homeless. And in the race’s final weeks, she pivoted to stress that she would do more. But voters and Democratic officials alike agreed the more nuanced approach was too little, too late.“She’s not wrong, but it came across to a lot of the people I spoke to on Long Island as dismissive and tone deaf,” said Laura Curran, the former Democratic Nassau County executive who was swept out of office last fall by similar currents. “I don’t think it can be overstated how visceral people on Long Island feel about it.”Ms. Hochul and other Democratic candidates spent more of the campaign focused on economic issues and protecting abortion rights. But unlike other states, some voters in New York said they were satisfied that abortion was already safely protected under state law.“The mayor of New York City got elected last year running on this issue. Nothing got better; it got worse,” said Mike Lawler, a Republican who unseated Representative Sean Patrick Maloney in a district that Mr. Biden won by 10 points in Westchester and Rockland Counties. “So I don’t know why any of them are so surprised that this was top of mind to voters.”Representative-elect Mike Lawler, left, was able to upset Sean Patrick Maloney, a powerful Democrat, in a district that President Biden won easily two years ago.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesMany New York City residents are baffled by what they view as the irrational fear of those in communities that are objectively far safer. But so are some suburbanites.Back on the South Shore of Long Island, a woman waiting for the Long Island Railroad one morning last week said that since relocating from Brooklyn earlier this year, she had noticed a “hypersensitivity to strangeness” and “hysteria” around crime. It included fliers claiming only Republicans could keep the area safe and a drumbeat of messages in a neighborhood watch group about suspicious looking strangers wandering through well-appointed streets.“There’s a lot of community fear around this town and Nassau becoming more unsafe or changing,” said the woman, a Black lawyer in her mid-40s who only agreed to be identified by her initials K.V. “Maybe it has to do with a wave of people moving from urban communities since the pandemic.”Commuting into the city two to three times a week for work from Rockville Centre, she said she felt no less safe than before, recalling stories of people getting pushed onto subway tracks when she was a child. She voted for Democrats to ensure the protection of abortion access.Republican George Santos won an upset victory in New York’s 3rd Congressional District.Mary Altaffer/Associated PressOther voters who supported Democrats said they did have concerns about increases in crime, but could not justify backing any Republican associated with Mr. Trump and opposed to abortion rights.“Abortion was definitely the biggest reason I voted Democrat,” said Susie Park, 41, who recently moved to Nassau County from Manhattan. “I don’t feel like a party should ever tell you what you should or should not do.”At the ballot box, though, they were clearly outnumbered on Long Island this year by voters like Gregory Gatti, a 61-year-old insurance broker.A political independent, he said he and most of his friends had voted for Republicans “because they want something done” about crime, inflation and illegal immigration.As he read a fresh New York Post — its front-page headline, “Children of War,” once again devoted to New York City crime — Mr. Gatti said changes to the state’s bail law were “definitely” driving increases in crime, and he was now worried about possible upticks in the suburbs. But he had noted other reasons for concern, as well, as he commutes a couple of days each week through Penn Station to Lower Manhattan.“I have noticed more homeless encampments. We never used to have those,” he said. “You have encampments, then you have drugs, you have crime.”Timmy Facciola contributed reporting from Pleasantville, N.Y. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      He Pointed Out a Judge’s Goof. Now, He Faces Jail Time in Fiji.

      by

      A lawyer who made light of a legal document’s error was convicted of contempt of court, in a sign of the island nation’s eroding civil liberties.MELBOURNE, Australia — It was an error that could have happened to anyone, especially two years into a pandemic: In a court document, a judge in Fiji twice wrote “injection” when he meant “injunction.”And so, in a gently mocking Facebook post back in February, Richard Naidu, one of the most senior lawyers in the Pacific nation, pointed out the mistake, concluding with a “thinking face” emoji. He now faces up to six months in prison.With Fiji facing a pivotal election on Dec. 14, the case is the latest example of government criticism being met with the strong arm of the law, over seemingly trivial issues.Outside of the region, Fiji is perceived as a Pacific haven: the palm-fringed paradise emblazoned on high-end bottled water, with golden beaches and endless azure waters. Yet to its smaller neighbors, it is a powerhouse to be reckoned with — and one that often portends their own shifts toward or away from human rights and democratic freedoms.Fiji is one of the largest Pacific island nations, with a population of around a million people, a powerful military and a G.D.P. many multiples those of Samoa, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. But its image of picture-perfect vistas and dreamy vacation homes belies a turbulent electoral history and what analysts describe as a growing disregard for civil liberties, which have together elevated tensions ahead of a critical election next month that many fear may devolve into unrest.Peaceful transitions of power have not always come easily to Fiji, which has experienced four coups d’état since 1987, and which is often described as a “conditional democracy.” Its Pacific neighbors have also struggled to reconcile traditional power structures with respecting the voice of the people.This year’s election comes as divisions deepen between those Pacific nations that have allied with China and those that retain close ties to Australia, New Zealand and the United States.An official drawing of ballot numbers in Suva last week ahead of the coming election.Pita Simpson/Getty ImagesFiji’s relationship to China has been evolving. After an initial burst of investment from Beijing after Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, 68, took power in a coup in 2006, Fiji’s government has become more selective in its partnerships with the Chinese government and Chinese companies. But it’s not clear how Beijing would respond to a change in government, or unrest after a disputed result.“An unstable Fiji is bad for the region, because it creates an opportunity for China to exert its influence,” said Dominic O’Sullivan, a professor of political science at Charles Sturt University in Australia. He added: “It makes it difficult for Australia and New Zealand to remain on friendly terms, because they’ll — at least to some degree — try to defend democracy.”Fiji, a British colony from 1874 until its independence in 1970, was once seen as a standard-bearer for human rights in the Pacific. But over the past two decades or so, protections around civil liberties and freedom of speech have gradually eroded. Rights advocates now warn that the judiciary is far from independent, and that freedom of the press is at a worrying low.“If you criticize government, the implicit message out there is, you could still get prosecuted under several different laws,” said Kate Schuetze, a researcher on the Pacific for Amnesty International.In 2014, eight years after he came to power, Mr. Bainimarama reintroduced democratic elections, which he and his party, FijiFirst, won with around 60 percent of the vote. Four years later, in 2018, the party barely achieved an absolute majority. This year, as Fiji contends with rising inflation as well as the shock of the pandemic to its tourism industry, coffers and health system, polling suggests his victory is far from assured.So clear is the call for a fresh face that even the incumbent government is running on a platform of reform, with the slogan “We are the change.”The ruling party’s increasingly repressive moves to retain power and its gradual constriction of liberties have together created an environment where speaking out against the government comes with significant risks, sometimes months down the line.Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama of Fiji, left, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand, center, at the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva in July. New Zealand and Australia have resisted criticizing Fiji’s increasing repression out of fear of pushing it closer to Beijing.Pool photo by William WestFor Mr. Naidu, a partner at a leading law firm, there was no immediate official response to his Facebook post, which garnered a few dozen likes and featured a screen shot of examples of the injunction/injection error in two consecutive instances, along with the comment “Maybe our judges need to be shielded from all this vaccination campaigning.”As the months passed, Mr. Naidu appeared at rallies for the opposition, fueling speculation that he planned to run for office himself. In July, around five months after publishing his post, he was suddenly charged with contempt of court, after Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, the country’s powerful attorney general and a government cabinet minister, said the post aimed to “ridicule the presiding judicial officer and the Fijian judiciary as a whole.”Mr. Naidu was found guilty of contempt of court on Wednesday. His sentencing will be in January, when he faces the prospect of a heavy fine, or three to six months in prison. He declined to comment.Other opposition figures have experienced similar clampdowns. Biman Prasad, the leader of an opposition party, was charged last month with two counts of “insulting the modesty” of a person after he greeted the wife of a former political colleague with a hug and a kiss on the cheek. (The charges were subsequently dropped.)The use of the courts to restrict criticism has become more common in Fiji, which passed legislation making it easier to prosecute people for what they post online.“We’re seeing that spread across many countries in the Pacific,” said Josef Benedict, a researcher covering the Asia Pacific region for the civic-action nonprofit Civicus.The United States and other democracies in the region, especially New Zealand and Australia, have been reluctant to criticize the assaults on freedoms in Fiji, for fear of pushing the country toward China.Now, with three weeks to the election, many analysts fear a disputed result that could lead the military to intervene either for Mr. Bainimarama or his main opponent, Sitiveni Rabuka, 74, who led Fiji’s first coup in 1987.“The challenge is going to be, in terms of ensuring political stability and peace and security for individuals, in making sure that the military’s role is clearly defined, and that it doesn’t have a role in terms of interfering, overturning, or having a say in the government’s politics of the day,” said Ms. Schuetze, of Amnesty International. “That’s going to be the biggest test of this election.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Only U.S. Territory Without U.S. Birthright Citizenship

      by

      People born in American Samoa, which has been held by the United States for more than 120 years, are not automatically citizens of the United States.The Australia Letter is a weekly newsletter from our Australia bureau. Sign up to get it by email. This week’s issue is written by Natasha Frost, a reporter with the Australia bureau.It seems straightforward enough. As the American Constitution put it, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”And generally, that’s accurate. People born in any of the 50 states, one federal district and four major territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) are automatically American citizens.But in one American territory, which has been held by the United States for more than 120 years and which is some 2,600 miles (4,184 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii, they aren’t.Every April, people in American Samoa, which has a population of about 50,000, celebrate “Flag Day,” the most important holiday of the year, commemorating its five islands and two coastal atolls becoming part of the United States. Its residents serve in the U.S. military — indeed, more soldiers per capita come from the Pacific territory than from any other U.S. territory or state. If they choose to leave their island home, they can live anywhere else in the United States they like. They even hold American passports.But they aren’t United States citizens. Instead, American Samoans are U.S. “nationals,” a small but significant distinction that precludes them from voting, running for office, and holding jobs in a narrow selection of fields, including law enforcement. They can become citizens after moving to the mainland, but the process is long, requires passing a history test and costs at least $725, before legal fees, without any guarantee of success.Until quite recently, the difference between being a U.S. national and a U.S. citizen was not always closely observed. Many American Samoans living elsewhere in the United States voted in elections without knowing that they were ineligible to.But under the Trump administration, that distinction became more closely observed. In 2018, a woman born in American Samoa ran as a Republican state House candidate in Hawaii, before learning that she was ineligible to run or even to vote. American Samoans serving as officers in the U.S. Army suddenly found that unless they underwent naturalization, they would be demoted.A handful of American Samoans living in the United States have attempted to challenge the status quo. In a recent case, which the U.S. Supreme Court last month declined to hear, three American Samoans living in Utah sought to demonstrate the ways in which not having U.S. citizenship were harmful to them.One said he had been criticized by his peers for not voting in elections; another was precluded from pursuing a career as a police officer, he said; a third said that as a noncitizen, she could not sponsor her ailing parents for immigration visas to the United States, where they could receive better health care. (Her father subsequently died before he was able to relocate.)Perhaps surprisingly, the government of American Samoans, as well as a majority of its citizens, is opposed to its residents acquiring birthright citizenship, particularly by judicial fiat, said Michael F. Williams, a lawyer who represents the government.In 1900, chiefs in American Samoa agreed to become part of the United States by signing a deed, which included protections for fa’a Samoa, a phrase meaning “the Samoan way” that refers to the islands’ traditional culture.“The American Samoan people have concerns that incorporating citizenship wholesale to the territory of American Samoa could have a harmful impact on traditional Samoan culture,” Williams said. He added: “The American Samoans believe if they need to make this fundamental change, they should be the ones to bring it upon themselves, not have some judge in Salt Lake City, or in Denver, Colorado, or Washington, D.C., doing it.”Yet the reasons American Samoans do not have birthright citizenship were not originally related to any effort to protect Samoan culture. Instead, a set of court cases in the early 20th century, known as the “Insular Cases,” established that U.S. territories were at once part of the United States and outside of it. The reason, the Supreme Court ruled in 1901, was that these territories were “foreign in a domestic sense,” “inhabited by alien races,” and that therefore governing them “according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible.”Those calling for a legislative change include Charles Ala’ilima, a lawyer based in American Samoa.“There’s only one class of citizens in the United States — except here in American Samoa,” he said. “What we have now is basically the imposition of second-class status on a people that are under the sovereignty of the government. That is the definition of colonialism.”Some legal scholars contend that American Samoa is not entirely subject to the United States Constitution, allowing it to maintain certain features of life, including the sa, a prayer curfew in place in some villages, and traditional communal ownership of land. Imposing birthright citizenship, they argue, would put those traditions at legal risk.But in the 1970s, a court in Washington, D.C., found that residents of American Samoa had the right to a jury trials “as guaranteed by our Constitution” — even after a court in American Samoa said that introducing jury trials would be “an arbitrary, illogical, and inappropriate foreign imposition.”Introducing jury trials has made little difference to the Samoan way of life, Ala’ilima said, and there was no evidence to suggest that granting its people citizenship would either. In the Northern Mariana Islands, another U.S. territory, residents can restrict land ownership to people of native descent — while still receiving birthright citizenship.“My impression is that at some level, they know that if they get upgraded to citizen, nothing’s going to happen,” he said, of the American Samoan government. Already, he added, a significant minority of American Samoans were citizens of the United States through descent.But for others in the territory, Hawaii, a former U.S. territory that acquired statehood in 1959, stands as a warning. “The government of American Samoa looks at Hawaii and sees what has happened to the native Hawaiians. Hawaii has become a playground for rich Americans; Native Hawaiian people are looking at crumbs,” Williams said.“Programs that were established by the state government in Hawaii for the benefit of Native Hawaiians, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, have been struck down or limited by constitutional litigation, based on the argument that it would be unfair to help one category of citizens based solely on their race,” he added.It may be that, to the extent American Samoa is already exposed to this risk, as some contend, granting birthright citizenship to its people would make little difference, beyond giving its people something that they are constitutionally owed. But for its leaders, and its deeply conservative people, the unknown consequences for now feel far too great.And now for the week’s stories.Australia and New ZealandKarangahape Road, Auckland.Ruth McDowall for The New York TimesSelling Stories on Auckland’s Ponsonby and Karangahape Roads. Stores in New Zealand’s largest city honor local craftspeople, sustainability — and, sometimes, their owners’ grandparents.World Cup 2022: How Australia Can Advance to the Round of 16. Here’s how Australia can qualify for the next round.Wrangling Over Australian Dinner. A couple disagrees on what to call different meals of the day.Around The TimesDoctors operating on a 13-year-old patient during an electricity outage in Kherson, Ukraine, on Tuesday.Bernat Armangue/Associated PressUkraine Adjusts to Life in the Dark. After a barrage of Russian missiles hit Ukrainian infrastructure, engineers and emergency crews worked desperately to restore services through darkness, snow and freezing rain.Covid Frustration Grows in China. As China’s harsh Covid rules extend deep into their third year, there are growing signs of discontent across the country.An Echoless Chamber in an Old Minneapolis Recording Studio. Could Caity Weaver, a writer for The New York Times Magazine, survive the world’s quietest place — and perhaps even set a record for the longest time spent within its walls?Are you enjoying our Australia bureau dispatches?Tell us what you think at NYTAustralia@nytimes.com.Like this email?Forward it to your friends (they could use a little fresh perspective, right?) and let them know they can sign up here.Enjoying the Australia Letter? Sign up here or forward to a friend.For more Australia coverage and discussion, start your day with your local Morning Briefing and join us in our Facebook group. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Your Friday Briefing: Covid Protests Grow in China

      by

      Plus Malaysia’s new prime minister and the week in culture.Videos showed workers protesting at Foxconn’s iPhone factory in central China.via AFP— Getty; via Reuters, via AFP— GettyCovid anger grows in ChinaAs China’s harsh Covid rules extend deep into their third year, there are growing signs of discontent across the country. The defiance is a test of Xi Jinping’s leadership.At the Foxconn iPhone factory in Zhengzhou, thousands of workers clashed with riot police. The workers were lashing out about a delay in the payment of bonuses as well as the company’s failure to properly isolate new workers from those who had tested positive. The new hires were recruited after thousands of workers fled the Foxconn plant last month because of a Covid outbreak.Unrest is spreading elsewhere. In Guangzhou, migrant workers broke out of locked-down buildings to confront health workers and ransack food provisions. Online, many raged after a 4-month-old died. Her father said restrictions had delayed access to treatment.Political fallout: Xi has used heavy censorship and severe punishment to silence critics, which makes the public airing of grievances particularly striking. Many Chinese have questioned the need for lockdowns at all. The unrest underscores the urgent question of how Xi can lead China out of the Covid era.Record cases: Covid outbreaks across the country have driven cases to a record high. On Wednesday, the country reported 31,444 cases, surpassing a record set in April, Reuters reported. Cases have increased by 314 percent from the average two weeks ago.Anwar Ibrahim’s appointment marks a stunning comeback.Fazry Ismail/EPA, via ShutterstockAnwar is now Malaysia’s prime ministerAnwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s longtime opposition leader, was sworn in yesterday as prime minister. He faces a divided country: One part of the electorate sees itself as modern and multicultural; another is driven by a conservative Muslim base.Anwar’s rise to the top post came after days of political chaos: Saturday’s elections led to the first-ever hung Parliament. (No group won a majority, though his group had the most seats.) Anwar said that he had a “convincing majority” to lead with his multiethnic coalition.A stunning comeback: Anwar, 75, has been the deputy prime minister and, twice, a political prisoner. Urbane and charismatic, he speaks often about the importance of democracy and quotes from Gandhi as well as the Quran.Challenges: Anwar will have to contend with a more religiously conservative bloc of the electorate, which sees him as too liberal. He pledged to continue to uphold constitutional guarantees regarding the Malay language, Islam and the special rights of the “sons of the soil,” referring to the Malays and Indigenous people.The rampage at a Walmart in Virginia was the 33rd mass shooting in November alone, according to the Gun Violence Archive.Kenny Holston for The New York Times3 mass shootings, 14 lost livesAs families across the U.S. gathered to celebrate Thanksgiving, a few among them suddenly faced an empty chair after the country’s latest spate of mass shootings. Fourteen people were killed in three rampages over two weeks.They include a janitor working his shift at a Walmart in Virginia, a 40-year-old woman returning home to Colorado for the holidays, a young man watching a drag show and three college football players.White and Black, gay and straight, old and young, the newly dead are the very picture of the ideals — inclusivity, setting aside differences — that the U.S. prides itself on at Thanksgiving, our reporter Michael Wilson writes.THE LATEST NEWSAsia Pacific“I heard voices calling ‘Mama, mama, mama,’ but I didn’t recognize any of them,” said Neng Didah, whose daughter died when her school collapsed.Ulet Ifansasti for The New York TimesAbout a third of the at least 272 people who died in Indonesia’s earthquake were children. Shoddy construction is partially to blame for the collapse of schools and homes.Lt. Gen. Syed Asim Munir, a former head of intelligence, has been named as Pakistan’s new army chief.The Taliban lashed 12 people in front of a stadium crowd this week, The Associated Press reports. The punishment was common during the group’s rule in the 1990s. The War in UkraineUkraine’s surgeons are struggling to operate as Russian strikes knock out power lines and plunge cities into darkness. A new era of confrontation between the U.S. and Iran has burst into the open as Tehran helps arm Russia and continues to enrich uranium.The World CupSouth Korea’s goalkeeper diving for a save.Pavel Golovkin/Associated PressSouth Korea tied with Uruguay, 0-0. Son Heung-min, Asia’s biggest star, played weeks after fracturing his eye socket.Portugal beat Ghana, 3-2. Cristiano Ronaldo got a goal and became the first man to score at five World Cups.Switzerland beat Cameroon, 1-0. Breel Embolo, a Swiss striker born in Yaoundé, Cameroon’s capital, scored the goal. He did not seem to celebrate.Brazil, one of the favorites, takes the field against Serbia. Here are updates.Around the WorldIn a direct response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the U.S., France’s National Assembly voted to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution. But the measure could still be rejected.A Paralympic sprinter, John McFall, was chosen to be the first disabled astronaut.Volker Türk, the new U.N. human rights chief, faces a major test: following up on a report that found that China may have committed crimes against humanity in repressing Uyghurs in Xinjiang.New York City has become a free-for-all for unlicensed weed.The Week in CultureNext year, you’ll probably be able to vote in the Eurovision Song Contest, even if you don’t live in a participating country.The dinosaur bone market is booming.Did a computer autograph copies of Bob Dylan’s new book?Museum directors across Europe fear for their masterpieces as climate protesters step up their attacks.Tumblr users are obsessing over “Goncharov,” a 1973 Scorsese film starring Robert DeNiro as a Russian hit man. The only catch: It’s not real.A Morning ReadAround 2,200 people are now able to speak, read or write in Manx.Mary Turner for The New York TimesIn 2009, UNESCO declared Manx, a Celtic language native to the Isle of Man, extinct. That rankled residents, who doubled down on efforts to preserve the ancient tongue. It’s now experiencing a revival thanks to a local school. “It sort of was on the brink, but we’ve brought it back to life again,” the head teacher said.ARTS AND IDEAS“We came to be and then ran amok,” Les Knight said, of humans.Mason Trinca for The New York Times“Thank you for not breeding”Les Knight has spent decades pushing one message: “May we live long and die out.”Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, which believes that the best thing humans can do to help the Earth is to stop having children. (Another one of his slogans: “Thank you for not breeding.”)“Look what we did to this planet,” Knight told The Times. “We’re not a good species.”His beliefs are rooted in deep ecology, a theory that sees other species as just as significant, and he sees humans as the most destructive invasive species. (In the past half-century, as the human population doubled, wildlife populations declined by 70 percent, and research has shown that having one fewer child may be the most significant way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.)But not all scientists agree that overpopulation is a main factor in the climate crisis. India, for instance, is heavily populated, but contributes relatively little per capita to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, some experts say, that focus could distract from the need to ditch fossil fuels and preserve the planet for the living things already here.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York TimesThis tall and creamy cheesecake is a good weekend project.What to ReadBooks to take you through Tangier.What to Listen toCheck out these five classical albums.HealthHow to approach the holidays if you’re immunocompromised.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Starting squad (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.Enjoy your weekend! I’ll be back on Monday. — AmeliaP.S. Seventy years ago today, Agatha Christie’s play “The Mousetrap” opened in London. (It is the world’s longest-running play, though it paused during the pandemic.)Listen to Times articles read by the reporters who wrote them. (There is no new episode of “The Daily.”)You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. We value your feedback. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Is Donald Trump Ineligible to Be President?

      by

      How does a democracy protect itself against a political leader who is openly hostile to democratic self-rule? This is the dilemma the nation faces once again as it confronts a third presidential run by Donald Trump, even as he still refuses to admit he lost his second.Of course, we shouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. The facts are well known but necessary to repeat, if only because we must never become inured to them: Abetted by a posse of low-rent lawyers, craven lawmakers and associated crackpots, Mr. Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 election by illegal and unconstitutional means. When those efforts failed, he incited a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol, causing widespread destruction, leading to multiple deaths and — for the first time in American history — interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. Almost two years later, he continues to claim, without any evidence, that he was cheated out of victory, and millions of Americans continue to believe him.The best solution to behavior like this is the one that’s been available from the start: impeachment. The founders put it in the Constitution because they were well acquainted with the risks of corruption and abuse that come with vesting great power in a single person. Congress rightly used this tool, impeaching Mr. Trump in 2021 to hold him accountable for his central role in the Jan. 6 siege. Had the Senate convicted him as it should have, he could have been disqualified from holding public office again. But nearly all Senate Republicans came to his defense, leaving him free to run another day.There is another, less-known solution in our Constitution to protect the country from Mr. Trump: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from public office anyone who, “having previously taken an oath” to support the Constitution, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to America’s enemies.On its face, this seems like an eminently sensible rule to put in a nation’s governing document. That’s how Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who has drafted a resolution in Congress enabling the use of Section 3 against Mr. Trump, framed it. “This is America. We basically allow anyone to be president,” Mr. Cicilline told me. “We set limited disqualifications. One is, you can’t incite an insurrection against the United States. You shouldn’t get to lead a government that you tried to destroy.”This was also the reasoning of the 14th Amendment’s framers, who intended it to serve as an aggressive response to the existential threat to the Republic posed by the losing side of the Civil War. Section 3 was Congress’s way of ensuring that unrepentant former Confederate officials — “enemies to the Union” — were not allowed to hold federal or state office again. As Representative John Bingham, one of the amendment’s lead drafters, put it in 1866, rebel leaders “surely have no right to complain if this is all the punishment the American people shall see fit to impose upon them.”And yet despite its clarity and good sense, the provision has rarely been invoked. The first time, in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was used to disqualify thousands of Southern rebels, but within four years, Congress voted to extend amnesty to most of them. It was used again in 1919 when the House refused to seat a socialist member accused of giving aid and comfort to Germany in World War I.In September, for the first time in more than a century, a New Mexico judge invoked Section 3, to remove from office a county commissioner, Couy Griffin, who had been convicted of entering the Capitol grounds as part of the Jan. 6 mob. This raised hopes among those looking for a way to bulletproof the White House against Mr. Trump that Section 3 might be the answer.I count myself among this crowd. As Jan. 6 showed the world, Mr. Trump poses a unique and profound threat to the Republic: He is an authoritarian who disregards the Constitution and the rule of law and who delights in abusing his power to harm his perceived opponents and benefit himself, his family and his friends. For that reason, I am open to using any constitutional means of preventing him from even attempting to return to the White House.At the same time, I’m torn about using this specific tool. Section 3 is extraordinarily strong medicine. Like an impeachment followed by conviction, it denies the voters their free choice of those who seek to represent them. That’s not the way democracy is designed to work.And yet it is true, as certain conservatives never tire of reminding us, that democracy in the United States is not absolute. There are multiple checks built into our system that interfere with the expression of direct majority rule: the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Electoral College, for example. The 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause is another example — in this case, a peaceful and transparent mechanism to neutralize an existential threat to the Republic.Nor is it antidemocratic to impose conditions of eligibility for public office. For instance, Article II of the Constitution puts the presidency off limits to anyone younger than 35. If we have decided that a 34-year-old is, by definition, not mature or reliable enough to hold such immense power, then surely we can decide the same about a 76-year-old who incited an insurrection in an attempt to keep that power.So could Section 3 really be used to prevent Mr. Trump from running for or becoming president again? As a legal matter, it seems beyond doubt. The Capitol attack was an insurrection by any meaningful definition — a concerted, violent attempt to block Congress from performing its constitutionally mandated job of counting electoral votes. He engaged in that insurrection, even if he did not physically join the crowd as he promised he would. As top Democrats and Republicans in Congress said during and after his impeachment trial, the former president was practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of Jan. 6. The overwhelming evidence gathered and presented by the House’s Jan. 6 committee has only made clearer the extent of the plot by Mr. Trump and his associates to overturn the election — and how his actions and his failures to act led directly to the assault and allowed it to continue as long as it did. In the words of Representative Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chair, Mr. Trump “summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.”A few legal scholars have argued that Section 3 does not apply to the presidency because it does not explicitly list that position. It is hard to square that claim with the provision’s fundamental purpose, which is to prevent insurrectionists from participating in American government. It would be bizarre in the extreme if Mr. Griffin’s behavior can disqualify him from serving as a county commissioner but not from serving as president.It’s not the legal questions that give me pause, though; it’s the political ones.First is the matter of how Republicans would react to Mr. Trump’s disqualification. An alarmingly large faction of the party is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of an election that its candidate didn’t win. Imagine the reaction if their standard-bearer were kept off the ballot altogether. They would thunder about a “rigged election” — and unlike all the times Mr. Trump has baselessly invoked that phrase, it would carry a measure of truth. Combine this with the increasingly violent rhetoric coming from right-wing media figures and politicians, including top Republicans, and you have the recipe for something far worse than Jan. 6. On the other hand, if partisan outrage were a barrier to invoking the law, many laws would be dead letters.The more serious problem with Section 3 is that it is easy to see how it could morph into a caricature of what it is trying to prevent. Keeping specific candidates off the ballot is a classic move of autocrats, from Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela to Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus to Vladimir Putin. It sends the message that voters cannot be trusted to choose their leaders wisely — if at all. And didn’t we just witness Americans around the country using their voting power to repudiate Mr. Trump’s Big Lie and reject the most dangerous election deniers? Shouldn’t we let elections take their course and give the people the chance to (again) reject Mr. Trump at the ballot box?To help me resolve my ambivalence, I called Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who sits on the Jan. 6 committee and taught constitutional law before joining Congress. He acknowledged what he called an understandable “queasiness” about invoking Section 3 to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot. But Mr. Raskin argued that this queasiness is built into the provision. “What was the constitutional bargain struck in Section 3?” he asked. “There would be a very minor incursion into the right of the people to elect exactly who they want, in order to obtain much greater security for the constitutional order against those who have demonstrated a propensity to want to overthrow it when it is to their advantage.”The contours of the case for Mr. Trump’s disqualification might get stronger yet, as the Justice Department and state prosecutors continue to pursue multiple criminal investigations into him and his associates and as the Jan. 6 committee prepares to release its final report. While he would not be prohibited from running for office even if he was under criminal indictment, it would be more politically palatable to invoke Section 3 in that case and even more so if he was convicted.I still believe that the ideal way for Mr. Trump to be banished for good would be via the voters. This scenario is democracy’s happy ending. After all, self-government is not a place; it is a choice, and an ongoing one. If Americans are going to keep making that choice — in favor of fair and equal representation, in favor of institutions that venerate the rule of law and against the threats of authoritarian strongmen — they do it best by themselves. That is why electoral victory is the ultimate political solution to the ultimate political problem. It worked that way in 2020, when an outright majority of voters rejected Mr. Trump and replaced him with Joe Biden.But it’s essential to remember that not all democracies have happy endings. Which brings us to the most unsettling answer to the question I began with: Sometimes a democracy doesn’t protect itself. There is no rule that says democracies will perpetuate themselves indefinitely. Many countries, notably Hungary and Turkey, have democratically undone themselves by electing leaders who then dismantled most of the rights and privileges people tend to expect from democratic government. Section 3 is in the Constitution precisely to help ensure that America does not fall into that trap.Whether or not invoking Section 3 succeeds, the best argument for it is to take the Constitution at its word. “We undermine the importance of the Constitution if we pick and choose what rules apply,” Mr. Cicilline told me. “One of the ways we rebuild confidence in American democracy is to remind people we have a Constitution and that it has in it provisions that say who can run for public office. You don’t get to apply the Constitution sometimes or only if you feel like it. We take an oath. We swear to uphold it. We don’t swear to uphold most of it. If Donald Trump has taught us anything, it’s about protecting the Constitution of the United States.”Surely the remedy of Section 3 is worth pursuing only in the most extraordinary circumstances. Just as surely, the events surrounding Jan. 6 clear that bar. If inciting a violent insurrection to keep oneself in office against the will of the voters isn’t such a circumstance, what is?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