More stories

  • in

    The Republicans We’re Thankful For

    It has been a tough year for fans of American democracy. The sacking of the Capitol on Jan. 6 set the tone. Former President Donald Trump’s chokehold on the Republican Party continues to fuel its most unhinged impulses and elements. More than two-thirds of Republicans buy the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, according to a recent poll by Public Religion Research Institute, while 30 percent say violence may be needed to save the country.Too many party leaders who know better are playing along. The United States even made this year’s list of “backsliding” democracies, issued by the International IDEA think tank, which cited a “visible deterioration” that began in 2019.More prosaically, there have been the usual obstructionism and attempts to make the government as dysfunctional as possible that we have come to expect from congressional Republicans.Not exactly a glowing advertisement for the American way.But there have been exceptions, select Republicans who have put the public good ahead of partisan and personal interests — some more dramatically than others. Not that these folks are saints, or even consistent in their commitment. But these days, even glimmers of responsible, pro-democratic behavior amid the miasma of Trumpism merit a shout-out. So in the spirit of the season, let us give thanks for these rare Republican pockets of character and duty.1. Representative Liz Cheney. Who would have predicted that Dick Cheney’s superconservative daughter, long despised by many as a pro-torture, anti-abortion, warmongering chip off the old block, would wind up on the same side as Democrats on anything ever? Yet here we are. Ms. Cheney’s vote to impeach Mr. Trump (in his second round), her service on the Jan. 6 select committee, her steady drumbeat of warnings about the threat Mr. Trump’s lies pose to the nation — these shouldn’t be partisan issues, but in today’s G.O.P. they absolutely set her apart from the sniveling herd. (Plus, her running feud with Senator Ted Cruz is a delight.) In return, she was booted from the House leadership in May, and the Wyoming G.O.P. voted this month to stop recognizing her as a Republican. She is facing a fierce primary challenge next year, enthusiastically backed by Mr. Trump and some of her MAGA colleagues.2. Representative Adam Kinzinger. The Illinois lawmaker has been an outspoken Trump critic, voting for impeachment this year and serving on the Jan. 6 committee. Even some of his family members turned on Mr. Kinzinger for his betrayal of Mr. Trump, firing off a group letter in January proclaiming themselves “disgusted” and accusing him of joining the “devil’s army” of “Democrats and the fake news media.” Last month, after redistricting complicated his re-election prospects, Mr. Kinzinger announced his retirement from the House at the end of this term — though he left open the possibility of running for higher office.3. The impeachment backers. Ten House Republicans voted to impeach Mr. Trump last January for having incited the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt. In February, seven Senate Republicans voted to convict. These members upheld the Constitution and put country over party, so naturally they have been targeted for payback by the former president and his toadies.4. The infrastructure package supporters. For G.O.P. lawmakers, just doing one’s job has become risky business. This month, 13 Republican House members helped pass a badly needed bipartisan infrastructure package, putting constituents’ interests ahead of their party’s desire to deny the Democrats a legislative accomplishment. For their troubles, the 13 were trashed as “RINOs” by Mr. Trump and declared “traitors” by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who posted their office phone numbers on social media. The former Trump strategist Steve Bannon similarly posted the numbers of the 19 Republican senators who voted for the plan in August. The insults, invective and death threats promptly came rolling in.5. The Georgia vote defenders. Mr. Trump lost Georgia fair and square, but that didn’t stop him from trying to persuade state leaders to overturn the results and declare him the winner. Were it not for the spinal fortitude of people like Gov. Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and the election official Gabriel Sterling in resisting the former president’s machinations, America could have been plunged into a full-blown constitutional crisis.6. Al Schmidt. The Republican on Philadelphia’s city commission, the three-member bipartisan board in charge of elections there, Mr. Schmidt went on “60 Minutes” the weekend after Election Day last November to dispute claims that the vote had been rigged. “Counting votes cast on or before Election Day by eligible voters is not corruption,” he said. “It is not cheating. It is democracy.” His office received death threats. Of course.7. Maricopa County Republican officials. Postelection audits have been one of Trumpworld’s go-to moves to undermine public confidence in the 2020 election. Arguably nowhere has this push been more pathetic than in Arizona, where Republican state lawmakers, unhappy with previous recounts of the voter-rich Maricopa County that verified President Biden’s victory, began their own partisan effort. The process proved so sketchy and embarrassing that Republican leaders in Maricopa denounced it as a “sham” and “a grift disguised as an audit.”8. Oregon state lawmakers who said no to mob violence. In June, Republicans in the State House joined the Democratic majority to expel a Republican colleague, Mike Nearman, who had let violent, armed, right-wing protesters into the State Capitol last December. (He objected to the building’s closure to the public because of Covid safety precautions.) It was the first such expulsion in the body’s history. Mr. Nearman’s was the only vote opposed.Apologies to any stand-up Republicans who got overlooked this time around. And here’s hoping that in the months to come, even more officials at all levels get fed up with licking Mr. Trump’s anti-democratic, filth-encrusted boots.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

  • in

    José Antonio Kast, candidato de extrema derecha, lidera la primera vuelta de las elecciones de Chile

    Los principales contendientes para liderar a Chile y sacar al país de un momento turbulento son un exactivista estudiantil de izquierda de 35 años y un exdiputado de la extrema derecha de 55 años.SANTIAGO, Chile — El domingo, los chilenos le dieron la ventaja a un político de extrema derecha en la primera vuelta de los comicios presidenciales, un giro sorprendente en una nación que ha sido sacudida por protestas políticas y sociales por la desigualdad y el aumento del costo de vida.Con más del 88 por ciento de los votos contados, José Antonio Kast, un abogado conservador y exdiputado que prometió restaurar la seguridad y el orden y reducir drásticamente el tamaño del Estado, había alcanzado una ventaja de tres puntos sobre su rival de izquierda, Gabriel Boric. Los dos se enfrentarán el 19 de diciembre en la segunda vuelta.“Hoy dimos el primer paso para que la esperanza se haga realidad”, dijo Kast a sus partidarios el domingo por la noche frente a la sede de su campaña, en un exclusivo barrio de Santiago. “Chile merece paz, merece libertad”.La campaña se llevó a cabo en un periodo inusualmente turbulento en el país sudamericano, que ha sido gobernado durante décadas por partidos centristas y que, hasta hace poco, había sido considerada como una de las democracias más estables y prósperas de la región.El presidente saliente de Chile apenas logró eludir un proceso de destitución este mes. Un mes antes, el ejército fue enviado al sur para enfrentar a un movimiento cada vez más violento de militantes indígenas. Y desde julio, un grupo de delegados en la capital ha estado escribiendo una nueva Constitución, un proyecto que derivó de las protestas generalizadas en 2019, en las que se reclamaba la desigualdad y el aumento del costo de vida.Este momento turbulento, que la pandemia de coronavirus ha complicado aún más, preparó el escenario para la primera vuelta de una elección presidencial inusualmente polarizada el domingo. Las coaliciones centristas que se han alternado el poder en las últimas décadas no son las favoritas en una campaña liderada por candidatos más radicales que ofrecen visiones del futuro completamente opuestas a los chilenos.La elección de Chile es una de varias en América Latina en las que los gobernantes y los partidos en el poder están a la defensiva, en parte debido a la agitación social y el malestar económico que ha infligido la pandemia. Otras de las contiendas más importantes son las presidenciales del próximo año en Brasil y Colombia, dos países en los que el virus ha dejado como saldos la muerte de cientos de miles de personas y paralizado grandes sectores de sus economías.“La covid expuso la desigualdad, la exacerbó y facilitó su politización de una manera que, creemos, será muy difícil para los mandatarios en el poder”, dijo Jennifer Pribble, profesora de ciencias políticas en la Universidad de Richmond, especializada en América Latina. “Ha generado un malestar y descontento que la ciudadanía tiene descargar contra alguien”.Los candidatos principales que contienden para sustituir al actual presidente, Sebastián Piñera —quien no puede reelegirse— están en lados opuestos del espectro político: Boric, un diputado de izquierda que promete ampliar considerablemente la red de seguridad pública, y Kast, un exdiputado de extrema derecha que propone un Estado drásticamente más pequeño, en el que las fuerzas de seguridad tendrían una autoridad más extensa para sofocar la violencia y el desorden.Gabriel Boric, a la izquierda, diputado izquierdista, y José Antonio Kast, segundo desde la izquierda, exdiputado de extrema derecha, son los favoritos en las elecciones presidenciales de Chile.Foto de consorcio de Esteban FelixLas encuestas más recientes en Chile, que no han sido muy confiables en elecciones recientes, habían registrado el creciente atractivo en los votantes que Kast había tomado en la recta final de la campaña. Las encuestas también sugerían que Boric probablemente logrará llegar a la segunda vuelta en diciembre.Kast, quien obtuvo el 8 por ciento de los votos cuando se postuló para la presidencia en 2017, y Boric sorprendieron a los analistas políticos al consolidarse como los punteros de la contienda presidencial a medida que los políticos más moderados no generaban tracción.Ambos aprovecharon el descontento con los partidos tradicionales, que han dominado la política en Chile desde el regreso de la democracia en la década de 1990.Grisel Riquelme, una costurera de 39 años de Santiago, la capital, que administra una pequeña empresa familiar, dijo que se había sentido tan frustrada con la política que podría anular su voto a manera de protesta.“Todos los candidatos vienen con el mismo discurso, que van a ayudar al pueblo, que van a solucionar los problemas, que la economía se va a arreglar, que va a haber trabajo y la calidad de vida será mejor”, dijo. “Pero seguimos estando igual, y tal vez peor. Y después se olvidan de lo que prometieron. Cambiamos de caras pero sigue todo igual”.La insatisfacción con el statu quo condujo a un inesperado estallido social en octubre de 2019, cuando un aumento en las tarifas del metro de Santiago desató una ola de manifestaciones que se prolongó por un mes. El vandalismo, incluido el incendio de estaciones de metro y otros edificios gubernamentales, derivó en una dura respuesta de las fuerzas de seguridad, que dispararon balines de goma contra los manifestantes, lo que cegó a cientos de ellos.Un centro de votación el viernes. La elección de Chile se encuentra entre varias en América Latina en las que los gobernantes y los partidos en el poder están a la defensiva.Ivan Alvarado/ReutersDespués de no poder apaciguar las calles durante semanas, Piñera, un multimillonario que distaba de ser el líder ideal para enfrentar un descontento originado por la desigualdad, acordó apoyar una iniciativa para convocar una Convención Constitucional a fines de diciembre de 2019.Ese proceso inició en mayo de este año con la elección de delegados, que representan a segmentos de la sociedad chilena que habían sido marginados históricamente. El organismo constituyente que redacta la nueva carta magna tiene paridad de género y está liderado por Elisa Loncón, una académica de la comunidad indígena mapuche.El acuerdo para crear la nueva Constitución fue un logro importante, dijo Pia Mundaca, directora ejecutiva de Espacio Público —un grupo de investigación en Chile que estudia el sistema político—, debido a lo violentas e inestables que se volvieron las calles de Chile en 2019 y a la cantidad de personas en la región que han perdido la confianza en la democracia.“Es muy poderoso, dada nuestra historia en América Latina con la democracia y momentos antidemocráticos, que una crisis política tan profunda como la que enfrentó Chile a fines de 2019 haya encontrado una salida democrática e institucional”, dijo.Los integrantes de la Convención Constitucional están debatiendo cómo garantizar derechos económicos y sociales a gran escala, lo que podría trastocar temas como el sistema de pensiones, los derechos reproductivos y los reclamos de las comunidades indígenas sobre sus tierras ancestrales.Boric, un político de 35 años que tiene tatuajes, evita las corbatas y quien, en caso de ser elegido, se convertiría en el líder más joven de la historia de Chile, ha sido un firme partidario del nuevo proceso constitucional, que ve como una vía para reformar la economía y el sistema político de Chile favorables al mercado de manera drástica.Boric, un diputado de izquierda, retratado antes de votar el domingo, promete expandir la red de seguridad pública.Andres Poblete/Associated Press“Si Chile fue la cuna del neoliberalismo, también será su tumba”, dice su plataforma de campaña.Boric, de Punta Arenas, una ciudad en el extremo sur del país, ha propuesto una reforma total del sistema de seguridad social, plantea reducir la semana laboral de 44 a 40 horas y propone absolver la deuda estudiantil. El aumento significativo en el gasto público que prevé se compensaría con nuevos impuestos a los ultrarricos y un sistema más eficaz para combatir la corrupción, dice su plataforma de campaña.Apoya la legalización del aborto —prohibido en Chile, salvo un puñado de excepciones— y el matrimonio igualitario.Kast, un abogado de 55 años que fue diputado de 2002 a 2018, se opone de manera rotunda al matrimonio igualitario y a la legalización del aborto. Ha propuesto planes draconianos para restaurar la seguridad en el país, entre los que destaca una propuesta para construir una zanja a lo largo de la frontera con Bolivia, una vía de acceso a la inmigración indocumentada.Dice que la burocracia chilena debería reducirse tajantemente y propone pasar de 24 a 12 ministerios, pero favorece una expansión considerable del sistema penitenciario. Su enfoque de mano dura se llevaría al levantamiento armado de facciones indígenas mapuche en la región de la Araucanía, donde algunas personas buscan recuperar sus tierras ancestrales, ahora controladas por empresas madereras, con métodos como ocupación territorial y quema de camiones, casas e iglesias.Kast, un exdiputado de extrema derecha, después de votar en SantiagoEsteban Felix/Associated PressPiñera, quien el mes pasado decretó un estado de emergencia en la Araucanía, donde desplegó al ejército, está por terminar su segundo mandato no consecutivo en la presidencia en un momento complejo. Este mes, los legisladores estuvieron a punto de acusarlo por una transacción en 2010 que involucró a un negocio minero que es parcialmente propiedad de su familia.Dejará el cargo con casi el 79 por ciento de desaprobación por su desempeño, y muchos tienen una opinión poco halagüeña del manejo de la clase política de los desafíos de los últimos años.“Gobernar nunca ha sido fácil, y a nosotros nos ha tocado especialmente difícil”, dijo en un discurso el miércoles. “Lamentablemente, en esta oportunidad siento que en el mundo de la política nos ha faltado grandeza, unidad, colaboración, diálogo y acuerdos para enfrentar estos enormes y exigentes desafíos”.Vivian Asun, una estudiante de derecho de 21 años en Santiago, mencionó que albergaba pocas esperanzas en que el sucesor de Piñera fuera más efectivo. No pudo votar el domingo porque está lejos de la ciudad donde está registrada. Pero no es un problema, advirtió.“No tengo la menor idea por quién votaría”, dijo. “Por supuesto que no me da lo mismo quién gane, pero no hay ningún candidato que pueda responder a las necesidades que estamos enfrentando como país”.Pascale Bonnefoy More

  • in

    Chileans Will Vote For President on Sunday

    The top contenders to lead Chile out of a turbulent era are a leftist 35-year-old former student activist and a 55-year-old far-right former congressman, offering voters a stark choice.SANTIAGO, Chile — Chile’s departing president narrowly dodged impeachment this month. A month earlier, the army was deployed to the south to confront an increasingly violent uprising by Indigenous militants. And since July, delegates in the capital have been drafting a new Constitution, prompted by sweeping protests in 2019 over inequality and the rising cost of living.This tumultuous period, which the coronavirus pandemic has further scrambled, set the stage for the first round of an unusually polarized presidential election on Sunday. The centrist coalitions that have traded power in recent decades are underdogs in a race led by more radical candidates who offer Chileans starkly opposed visions for the future.Chile’s election is among several in Latin America in which incumbents and governing parties are on the defensive, partly because of the upheaval and economic pain the pandemic has inflicted. Foremost are next year’s presidential contests in Brazil and Colombia, where the virus has killed hundreds of thousands of people and crippled large segments of their economies.“Covid exposed inequalities, it exacerbated inequalities and made it easy to politicize those inequalities in a way that we expect will be very hard on incumbents,” said Jennifer Pribble, a political science professor at the University of Richmond who specializes in Latin America. “It has generated malaise and discontent that citizens have to put on someone.”The leading candidates vying to replace President Sebastián Piñera — who is not eligible for re-election — are Gabriel Boric, a leftist lawmaker who promises to vastly expand the safety net, and José Antonio Kast, a far-right former congressman who proposes a drastically leaner state in which the security forces are given broader authority to quell violence and disorder.Gabriel Boric, left, a leftist lawmaker, and José Antonio Kast, second from left, a far-right former congressman, have emerged as the front-runners in Chile’s presidential election.Pool photo by Esteban FelixThe latest public opinion polls in Chile — which have been unreliable in recent elections — suggest Mr. Kast shot to the lead in the final stretch. But the polls also show that Mr. Boric would probably prevail in a runoff in December if, as expected, no candidate wins in the first round.Mr. Kast — who won 8 percent of the vote when he ran for president in 2017 — and Mr. Boric surprised political observers by rising to the top of the presidential contest as more moderate politicians gained little traction.Both tapped into the simmering discontent with the establishment parties that have dominated politics in Chile since the return of democracy in the 1990s.Grisel Riquelme, a 39-year-old seamstress in Santiago, the capital, who runs a small family business, said she had become so frustrated with politics that she may spoil her ballot in protest.“All the candidates come with the same message, that they’re going to help people, that they’re going to fix problems, that the economy will recover, that there will be jobs and that quality of life will improve,” she said. “But then they forget about all the promises; the faces change but everything remains the same.”Dissatisfaction with the status quo burst out unexpectedly in October 2019, when an increase in Santiago subway fares set off a monthslong wave of demonstrations. Vandalism, including arson of subway stations and other government buildings, elicited a tough response by security forces, which fired rubber bullets into crowds of demonstrators, blinding hundreds.A polling station on Friday. Chile’s election is among several in Latin America in which incumbents and governing parties are on the defensive.Ivan Alvarado/ReutersAfter failing to calm the streets for weeks, Mr. Piñera, a billionaire who was far from the ideal leader to tackle an uprising over inequality, agreed to support an initiative to convene a constitutional convention in late December 2019.That process began in May with the election of delegates representing broad segments of Chilean society that had historically been marginalized. The body drafting the new Constitution has gender parity and is led by Elisa Loncón, a scholar from the Mapuche Indigenous community.Given how unstable and violent Chile’s streets became in 2019, and how many Latin Americans have lost faith in democracy, the deal to create a new Constitution was a major achievement, argued Pia Mundaca, the executive director of Espacio Público, a research group in Chile that studies the political system.“It’s very powerful, given our history in Latin America with democracy and undemocratic moments, that a political crisis as profound as the one Chile faced in late 2019 found a democratic and institutional exit,” she said.The constitutional convention delegates are debating large-scale economic and social rights, which could upend matters like the pension system, reproductive rights and Indigenous claims over their ancestral lands.Mr. Boric, 35, a tattooed politician who eschews neckties and would become Chile’s youngest leader ever, has been a vocal supporter of the new constitution process, which he sees as a vehicle to drastically overhaul Chile’s market-friendly economy and political system.Gabriel Boric, a leftist lawmaker who promises to expand the safety net greatly, on Sunday.Andres Poblete/Associated Press“If Chile was the cradle of neoliberalism, it will also be its grave,” his campaign platform says.Mr. Boric, who is from Punta Arenas, a city in the far south, has proposed a wholesale overhaul of the social security system, shortening the workweek to 40 hours from 44 and forgiving student debt. The significant increase in public spending he envisions would be offset by new taxes on the ultrarich and a more effective system to fight corruption, his campaign platform says.He supports legalizing abortion — which is outlawed in Chile with a handful of exceptions — and same-sex marriage.Mr. Kast, 55, a lawyer who served in Congress from 2002 to 2018, adamantly opposes same-sex marriage and legalized abortion. He has proposed hard-line tactics to restore security in the country, highlighted by a proposal to build a ditch along the border with Bolivia, a gateway for undocumented immigrants.He says the Chilean bureaucracy ought to be radically downsized, calling for consolidating 24 ministries into 12, but favoring a significant expansion of the prison system. His strong-armed approach would extend to an armed uprising by Mapuche Indigenous factions in the Aracaunía region, where some seek to restore ancestral lands controlled by lumber companies by occupying the lands and burning trucks, homes and churches.José Antonio Kast, a far-right former congressman, after casting his vote in Santiago.Esteban Felix/Associated PressMr. Piñera, who last month invoked a state of emergency in Aracaunía, where he deployed the Army, is completing his second, nonconsecutive term in office on a dour note. Lawmakers came close to impeaching him this month over a transaction in 2010 involving a mining company partly owned by his family.He leaves office with nearly 79 percent of the electorate disapproving of his performance, and with many taking a dim view of how the political class rose to the challenges of the past few years.“Governing has never been easy, and we faced especially hard times,” he said in an address on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, this time around, I feel that in the world of politics we have lacked greatness, unity, collaboration, dialogue and agreements to face the enormous and pressing challenges.”Vivian Asun, a 21-year-old law student in Santiago, said she had little faith that Mr. Piñera’s successor would prove more effective. She was unable to vote on Sunday because she is far from the city where she is registered. But it is just as well, she said.“I have no idea who I would vote for,” she said. “It’s not that I’m indifferent about who wins, but there’s no candidate who can address the needs we’re facing as a nation.”Pascale Bonnefoy More

  • in

    Bloodied Venezuelan Opposition Returns to Elections for First Time in Years

    UPATA, Venezuela — His opposition to Venezuela’s authoritarian leader had left him bloodied by government thugs, forced him into hiding in a foreign embassy and pushed him into a nearly two-year exile in Italy, where he sold bread in a train station as he thought of home.Américo De Grazia’s political defiance had also cost him his marriage and his savings. And yet here he was, back in his hometown in southeastern Venezuela, sweating through his shirt sleeves on stage — one of thousands of opposition candidates running in an election this Sunday that they are almost certain to lose.“We are in a time of turbulence,” Mr. De Grazia, 61, told voters as drums beat behind him, “and that demands we fight.”The political parties who oppose Venezuelan’s autocratic leader, Nicolás Maduro, have for years refused to participate in elections, arguing that to do so would legitimize a man who has spent nearly a decade jailing enemies, detaining journalists, co-opting political parties and banning key opposition figures from office, all as the country has fallen into an economic and humanitarian crisis.But on Sunday, the opposition will make a return to the ballot box, putting up candidates in gubernatorial and mayoral races across the country, an about-face they say is meant to rally a disillusioned electorate ahead of a future presidential vote, which should legally take place in 2024.Supporters of Mr. De Grazia cheering during a speech.Mr. De Grazia’s political defiance cost him his marriage and his savings. The conditions — while nominally better than in past years, according to the nonpartisan Venezuelan Electoral Observatory — are far from freely democratic, and the shift is a gamble for the opposition.Mr. Maduro, who faces both economic sanctions and an investigation in the International Criminal Court, is hungry for democratic legitimacy, and he is likely to use the election to push the United States and the European Union to ease their positions against him.Supporters of Ángel Marcano, the candidate for the ruling party, gathering for a rally in downtown Ciudad Bolívar.A warehouse with the former President Hugo Chavez’s likeness emblazoned on the front.But the shift is also a sign of just how desperate many Venezuelans are for anything that looks like a shot at change. And Mr. De Grazia’s fight to become governor of one of the country’s largest states is emblematic of that desperation.“This election is not free, not fair, not transparent, nothing like that,” he said over lunch one day after a campaign rally where he handed out tiny pieces of paper bearing his name, face and personal phone number — homespun campaigning in difficult times. But, “to beat this regime you have to confront it.”Bolívar, a sprawling state in Venezuela’s southeast, is home to steel and aluminum plants and large deposits of gold, diamonds and coltan. Despite these resources, its people have suffered greatly amid the country’s economic decline. Ninety-five percent of the nation now lives in poverty, according to the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Caracas.In Bolívar, families line up daily outside food kitchens, and children die regularly of treatable and preventable conditions — malaria, hydrocephalus, malnutrition — because their parents cannot afford medication.A couple making a pot of soup that will feed over a dozen children in their community in the state of Bolivar.Roxana Sánchez, 20, with her son, Anthony, 7 months, who a doctor in Bolivar diagnosed with severe malnutrition, with the boy weighing little more than his birthweight.In interviews in six municipalities across the state, many people said that an influx of dollars that began two years ago, after Mr. Maduro’s decision to relax economic regulations that had once defined his government, had percolated little beyond the richest families.Mr. De Grazia is the son of Italian immigrants who started a string of bakeries in Bolívar in the 1950s. The original shop, Panadería Central, is still open across the street from the home where Mr. De Grazia lives with his mother, who runs the bakery.He entered politics at 14, and eventually became a vocal critic of the governments of Hugo Chávez and his successor, Mr. Maduro, who held themselves up as champions of a socialist revolution.Mr. De Grazia’s career has often focused on workers’ rights and corruption in the mining industry. He was a congressman for a decade, and said that he had been beaten up at least four times in the National Assembly. In the last instance, the results of which were caught on camera in 2017, men wearing ski masks left him bleeding on the legislature’s patio.In 2019, he supported a decision by the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, to declare himself interim president, a move backed by the United States and dozens of other countries.Afterward, Mr. Maduro’s government issued capture orders for Mr. De Grazia and many other opposition figures, forcing him to flee. He went first to the Italian Embassy, where he lived for seven months, and then to Italy, where he worked in a bakery run by one of his seven children.It was around that time that his wife issued an ultimatum: Leave politics or we split. They split. “She could no longer take that life,” he said. “This is part of the price.”Supporters of Mr. De Grazia in El Palmar, Venezuela.A boy resting on his grandmother’s shoulders during an assembly in support of Mr. De Grazia in Upata, Venezuela.But in Italy, Mr. De Grazia became increasingly convinced that the opposition coalition he once backed had no plan to move beyond a stalemate. He said that electoral abstention had left the coalition disconnected from voters and almost weaponless in the fight for fairer election conditions in 2024.In February, he announced that he would participate in this year’s vote. He left the coalition, and was booted from the party he joined at 14, called Causa R. In April he declared his candidacy for governor.Several months later, much of the coalition that had rejected him declared that they, too, would participate in the vote. Among the candidates running this year is David Uzcátegui, of Miranda State, who called abstention “an error.”“The vote is an instrument you can fight with,” he said.Mr. De Grazia and many other opposition candidates have limited chances of winning. In a report ahead of the vote, the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory said that while the government had allowed a broader spectrum of participation in this election than in past years, it continued to “restrict full freedom to exercise suffrage” in myriad ways, among them the illegal use of public funds to campaign for the ruling party.Hundreds of political prisoners remain locked up, while many voters fear they will lose benefits if they don’t cast a ballot in favor of Maduro-backed candidates.Takeaways From the 2021 ElectionsCard 1 of 5A G.O.P. pathway in Virginia. More

  • in

    After Time in U.S. Prisons, Maria Butina Now Sits in Russia's Parliament

    Maria Butina, convicted of serving as an unregistered foreign agent before and after the 2016 election, insists she “wasn’t a spy” and that her Duma seat is “not a reward.” Her critics call her a Kremlin “trophy.”MOSCOW — When Russia’s lower house of Parliament, or Duma, assembled last month for the first time following elections in September, one of its newest members was a name more familiar in the United States than in her home country.Maria V. Butina made headlines across America when she was convicted three years ago of operating as an unregistered foreign agent trying to infiltrate influential conservative political circles before and after the 2016 election.She is now focused on playing a prominent role in Russia’s political system — through legal means this time, and with the support of President Vladimir V. Putin’s United Russia party.Ms. Butina, 33, who returned to Russia in October 2019 after spending 15 months in several U.S. penitentiaries, including four months in solitary confinement, now represents the impoverished Kirov region in the Duma.Her critics have characterized her rapid political rise as a thank you from the Kremlin, a claim she rejects.“It’s not a reward,” Ms. Butina said in an interview at a cafe in central Moscow near where she lives. “I wasn’t a spy. I wasn’t working for the government. I was just a civilian.”But in December 2018, Ms. Butina pleaded guilty to conspiring, under the direction of a Russian official, to “establish unofficial lines of communication” with high-level Republicans on behalf of Russia’s government from 2015 to 2017.Prosecutors said she had tried to broker a meeting between then-candidate Donald J. Trump and Mr. Putin during the 2016 presidential campaign, and the judge at her sentencing hearing noted she had been sending political reports to Russia at the same time Russian intelligence operatives were trying to sway the election.Since coming home, Ms. Butina has used her experiences with Washington insiders — and the time she spent in prison — to cast herself as an expert on both America and penal systems.That was evident in April when she ambushed Russia’s most famous political prisoner, the opposition politician Aleksei A. Navalny, on a surprise visit to the penal colony where he is held and which is notorious for harsh treatment.Granted access as part of a civilian monitoring program, Ms. Butina favorably compared Mr. Navalny’s conditions to the U.S. prisons where she had served time.In a widely seen video broadcast by the state-owned Rossiya-24 television network, she said she was impressed by the facility’s food and medical services. Then she confronted Mr. Navalny, who at the time of her visit was one week into a 24-day hunger strike declared because he had been denied medical treatment for severe pain in his back and right leg.“You can walk normally,” Ms. Butina tells Mr. Navalny, who did not consent to be filmed.Mr. Navalny repeated to her that he was being denied access to his doctor, and walked off.“I don’t judge Navalny. I said in that video what I saw,” Ms. Butina said in her interview.Since coming home, Ms. Butina has used her experiences with Washington insiders — and the time she spent in prison — to cast herself as an expert on both America and penal system.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesMaria Pevchikh, who heads the investigative unit of Mr. Navalny’s organization, the Anti-Corruption Foundation, said she believed Ms. Butina’s Duma seat was a gift not for her activities in the United States, but for her harassment of Mr. Navalny. He had embarrassed Mr. Putin by exposing the government’s plot to kill him, and revealing the luxurious nature of a Black Sea palace believed to be purpose built for the Russian president.“If anything, this was a reward for what she did by visiting Navalny in prison, and that TV episode, which was highly embarrassing and disgusting,” Ms. Pevchikh said. “Not many people would agree to do that. And she did.”In the United States, Ms. Butina’s case was treated like the plot of a Cold War thriller, and her love life — including a relationship with a Republican operative, Paul Erickson, whom she met in Russia in 2013 and who would later be convicted of financial crimes and pardoned by Mr. Trump — was dissected in lurid detail on cable news.In Russia, however, the pro-government media portrayed her story as a miscarriage of justice. Ms. Butina was seen as a scapegoat for Democrats’ failure to come to grips with Mr. Trump’s victory. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it exemplified America’s rampant “Russophobia.” Over a caviar-laden meal at a restaurant featuring cuisine from her native Siberia, Ms. Butina insisted that she wanted to use her new status as a national lawmaker to improve relations between Washington and Moscow.“I believed in the friendship between the two nations, and I still do believe in it,” said Ms Butina. “We can be friends, we must be.”Yet in her frequent TV appearances and on social media, she has been outspoken in her criticisms of America, especially when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other countries and race relations.“She is quite a good trophy” for the ruling party, Ms. Pevchikh said. “Just talking nonstop about how bad things in America are.”Ahead of the recent Duma elections, she published a post about U.S. interference in foreign elections during the Cold War on Telegram, the social-media platform. “Their logic is that the U.S. can intervene in the elections of other countries, but Russia cannot,” she wrote.Ms. Butina, who worked before joining the Duma for RT, a government-backed television channel, frequently comments on systemic racism in America, as pro-Kremlin figures have done for decades.In October 2020, Ms. Butina published a memoir, “Prison Diaries,” which discusses how her imprisonment affected her political views.While her time in prison did not make her any less of a gun-rights advocate — she said losing her lifetime N.R.A. membership particularly stung — it did diminish her affinity for the Republican Party, she said, as she witnessed America’s structural inequality first hand.Much of the book explores her experiences with Black inmates, and she said her time in prison had broken down a lot of stereotypes she had once held — and showed her how racist the views were of many of those American influencers she had been close to.Ms. Butina wants to use her new Duma platform to help Russians imprisoned abroad, saying she was eager to campaign against solitary confinement and torture. But when she was asked about a recent leaked cache of graphic videos that purported to show torture and rape in Russian prisons, Ms. Butina hesitated to comment, saying they needed to be verified.Some of the Russian figures she has publicly supported include the convicted arms dealer Viktor Bout, known as the “Merchant of Death.”In October 2020, Ms. Butina published a memoir, “Prison Diaries,” in which she detailed her four months in solitary confinement.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesMs. Butina, who during her time in the United States earned a master’s degree in international relations, with a focus on cybersecurity, from American University in Washington, continues to be highly active on social media. That was certainly the case in the United States, too, before she attracted the attention of F.B.I. investigators with her photographs with prominent Republicans like Donald Trump Jr., Rick Santorum and Scott Walker, as well as the N.R.A.’s leader, Wayne LaPierre.Her connection to Russian government figures predates both her time in the Duma, and the United States. She arrived in Moscow from her native Siberian city of Barnaul in 2011 and soon after was hired as special assistant by a Russian senator, Aleksandr P. Torshin, an influential member of United Russia who later would become deputy governor of Russia’s Central Bank.Still, in Russia, she is not a well-known personality, said Andrei Pertsev, a political journalist with the independent news outlet Meduza.“The broad masses do not know her,” he said.Ms. Butina was now just one among many “propagandists” in the 450-member Duma, Mr. Pertsev said, adding that in his view her elevation to the body — her seat was given to her by the governor of the Kirov region — was a way for the government to imbue her statements against America with more heft.With her new job, “it is as if the speaker’s status rises, and these things, they sound more weighty,” said Mr. Pertsev, who shares something unwelcome in common with Ms. Butina.His media outlet, Meduza, was designated a “foreign agent” by Russian authorities earlier this year, a charge that echoes the one against Ms. Butina, who failed to register her activities with the Justice Department as required by U.S. law.But in Russia, the foreign agent label is primarily wielded against Russian citizens engaged in independent journalism or human rights work, and it has been increasingly applied to organizations and individuals whose work displeases the Kremlin.“Don’t compare our law with your law,” Ms. Butina said, adding that she found the Russian law less onerous in its requirements than the American one.As part of her U.S. plea deal, Ms. Butina had to admit to being part of an organized effort, backed by Russian officials, to persuade powerful conservatives that Russia should be counted as friend, not foe.During her defense, her American lawyers argued in court that Ms. Butina’s efforts had been well-intentioned and stressed that she had never tried to hide what she called her “diplomacy project.” Back in Russia, she denies ever having been part of a broader plot and insists she acted on her own.“If I had known that I have to register to build peace between the two nations by my own initiative,” she said, “I would have loved to.”Alina Lobzina contributed reporting. More

  • in

    Los aliados de EE. UU. impulsan el declive de la democracia en el mundo, afirma un nuevo estudio

    Los países alineados con Washington retroceden casi el doble que los no aliados, según las cifras, lo que complica las viejas suposiciones sobre la influencia estadounidense en el establecimiento de modelos democráticos.Según un nuevo análisis, Estados Unidos y sus aliados representaron una parte considerablemente grande del retroceso democrático global experimentado en la última década.Los aliados de Estados Unidos siguen siendo, en promedio, más democráticos que el resto del mundo. Pero casi todos han sufrido algún grado de erosión democrática desde 2010, lo que significa que elementos centrales como elecciones justas o independencia judicial se han debilitado, y a un ritmo que supera con creces los declives promedio entre otros países.Con pocas excepciones, los países alineados con Estados Unidos no experimentaron casi ningún crecimiento democrático en ese periodo, aunque muchos de los que están lejos de la órbita de Washington sí lo hicieron.Los hallazgos son extraídos de los datos registrados por V-Dem, una organización sin fines de lucro con sede en Suecia que rastrea el nivel de democracia de los países a través de una serie de indicadores, y fueron analizados por The New York Times.Las revelaciones dejan en claro las penurias de la democracia, una tendencia característica de la era actual. Sugieren que gran parte del retroceso del mundo no es impuesto a las democracias por potencias extranjeras, sino que es una podredumbre que está creciendo dentro de la red más poderosa de alianzas mayoritariamente democráticas del mundo.En muchos casos, las democracias como Francia o Eslovenia vieron cómo se degradaron sus instituciones, aunque solo ligeramente, en medio de políticas de desconfianza y críticas adversas. En otros, dictaduras como la de Baréin restringieron libertades que de por sí no eran plenas. Pero con frecuencia, la tendencia fue impulsada por un giro hacia la democracia no liberal.En esa forma de gobierno, los líderes elegidos se comportan como caudillos y las instituciones políticas son más débiles, pero los derechos personales permanecen en su mayoría (excepto, casi siempre, para las minorías).De manera frecuente, los aliados de Estados Unidos lideraron esta tendencia. Turquía, Hungría, Israel y Filipinas son ejemplos de eso. Varias democracias más establecidas también han dado pasos pequeños en esa dirección, incluido Estados Unidos, donde los derechos electorales, la politización de los tribunales y otros factores son motivo de preocupación para muchos estudiosos de la democracia.Los hallazgos también socavaron las suposiciones estadounidenses, ampliamente compartidas por ambos partidos, de que Estados Unidos es, por naturaleza, una fuerza democratizadora en el mundo.Desde hace mucho tiempo, Washington se ha vendido como un defensor mundial de la democracia. La realidad siempre ha sido más complicada. Sin embargo, a través de los años, una cantidad suficiente de sus aliados se ha movido hacia ese sistema como para crear la impresión de que la influencia del país genera libertades al estilo estadounidense. Estas tendencias actuales sugieren que eso quizás ya no es cierto, si es que alguna vez lo fue.“Sería demasiado fácil afirmar que todo esto puede ser explicado por la existencia de Trump”, advirtió Seva Gunitsky, politólogo de la Universidad de Toronto que estudia cómo las grandes potencias influyen en las democracias. Los datos indican que la tendencia se aceleró durante la presidencia de Donald Trump, pero es anterior a ella.En cambio, los académicos afirman que lo más probable es que este cambio esté impulsado por fuerzas a más largo plazo. Por ejemplo, la disminución de la creencia en Estados Unidos como un modelo al cual aspirar; la disminución de la creencia en la propia democracia, cuya imagen se ha visto empañada por una serie de conmociones del siglo XXI; décadas de política estadounidense en la que solo se les dio prioridad a temas a corto plazo como el antiterrorismo; y un creciente entusiasmo por la política no liberal.Debido a que el mundo alineado con Estados Unidos lidera en la actualidad el declive de un sistema que alguna vez se comprometió a promover, “el consenso internacional sobre la democratización ha cambiado”, dijo Gunitsky.Reclusos en una cárcel superpoblada en 2016 en Ciudad Quezón, en Filipinas. El presidente Rodrigo Duterte supervisó una brutal represión contra los consumidores de drogas.Daniel Berehulak para The New York TimesUna crisis globalDesde el final de la Guerra Fría, los países alineados con Estados Unidos se habían movido muy lentamente hacia la democracia pero, hasta la década de 2010, la mayoría había evitado tener retrocesos.En la década de 1990, por ejemplo, 19 aliados se volvieron más democráticos, incluidos Turquía y Corea del Sur. Solo seis, como el caso de Jordania, se volvieron más autocráticos, pero todos por márgenes muy pequeños.Eso es lo que indica el índice de democracia liberal de V-Dem, que considera decenas de métricas en una puntuación de 0 a 1. Su metodología es transparente y se considera muy rigurosa. El índice de Corea del Sur, por ejemplo, aumentó de 0,517 a 0,768 en esa década, gracias a una transición a un gobierno civil pleno. La mayoría de los cambios son más pequeños y reflejan, por ejemplo, un avance gradual en la libertad de prensa o un ligero retroceso en la independencia judicial.Durante la década de 1990, Estados Unidos y sus aliados representaron el nueve por ciento de los incrementos generales en los puntajes de democracia en todo el mundo, según las cifras del índice. En otras palabras, fueron responsables del nueve por ciento del crecimiento democrático global. Esto es mejor de lo que suena: muchos ya eran altamente democráticos.También durante esa década, los países aliados solo representaron el cinco por ciento de las reducciones globales, es decir, retrocedieron muy poco.Esas cifras empeoraron un poco en la década de 2000. Luego, en la década de 2010, cayeron a niveles desastrosos. Estados Unidos y sus aliados representaron solo el cinco por ciento de los aumentos mundiales de la democracia. Pero un impactante 36 por ciento de los retrocesos ocurrieron en países alineados con Estados Unidos.En promedio, los países aliados vieron disminuir la calidad de sus democracias casi el doble que los no aliados, según las cifras de V-Dem.El análisis define “aliado” como un país con el que Estados Unidos tiene un compromiso formal o implícito de defensa mutua, de los cuales hay 41. Aunque el término “aliado” podría definirse de varias maneras, todas ellas arrojan resultados muy similares.Este cambio se produce en medio de un periodo de agitación para la democracia, que se está reduciendo en todo el mundo.Los datos contradicen las suposiciones de Washington de que esta tendencia está impulsada por Rusia y China, cuyos vecinos y socios han visto cambiar muy poco sus puntuaciones, o por Trump, que asumió el cargo cuando el cambio estaba muy avanzado.Más bien, el retroceso es endémico en las democracias emergentes e incluso en las establecidas, dijo Staffan I. Lindberg, un politólogo de la Universidad de Gotemburgo que ayuda a supervisar el índice V-Dem. Y estos países suelen estar alineados con Estados Unidos.Esto no significa que Washington sea exactamente la causa de su retracción, subrayó Lindberg. Pero tampoco es irrelevante.Una bandera estadounidense usada para una fotografía de los presidentes Joe Biden y Recep Tayyip Erdogan en la cumbre del Grupo de los 20 celebrada en Roma el mes pasado.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesLa influencia estadounidense, para bien o para malA pesar de décadas de narrativa de la Guerra Fría en la que se consideraba a las alianzas estadounidenses como una fuerza para la democratización, esto nunca ha sido realmente cierto, afirmó Thomas Carothers, quien estudia la promoción de la democracia en el Fondo Carnegie para la Paz Internacional.Si bien Washington alentó la democracia en Europa occidental como contrapeso ideológico de la Unión Soviética, suprimió su propagación en gran parte del resto del mundo.Estados Unidos apoyó o instaló dictadores, alentó la represión violenta de elementos de izquierda, y patrocinó grupos armados antidemocráticos. A menudo, esto se realizó en países aliados, con cooperación del gobierno local. Los soviéticos hicieron lo mismo.Como resultado, cuando terminó la Guerra Fría en 1989 y disminuyó la intromisión de las grandes potencias, las sociedades tuvieron más libertad para democratizarse, y así lo hicieron, en grandes cantidades.“Muchas personas alcanzaron la mayoría de edad en esos años y pensaron que eso era lo normal”, ya que confundieron la oleada de los años noventa como el estado natural de las cosas y como algo que había logrado Estados Unidos (debido a su hegemonía mundial), dijo Carothers.“Pero entonces llegó la guerra contra el terrorismo en 2001”, explicó, y Washington nuevamente presionó para establecer autócratas dóciles y frenos a la democratización, esta vez en sociedades donde el islam es predominante.El resultado han sido décadas de debilitamiento de los cimientos de la democracia en los países aliados. Al mismo tiempo, las presiones lideradas por Estados Unidos en favor de la democracia han comenzado a desvanecerse.“La hegemonía democrática es buena para la democratización, pero no a través de los mecanismos en los que la gente suele pensar, como la promoción de la democracia”, dijo Gunitsky, estudioso de la política de las grandes potencias.En vez de alianzas o presidentes que exijan a los dictadores que se liberalicen, ninguno de los cuales tiene un gran historial, dijo, “la influencia de Estados Unidos, donde es más fuerte, es una influencia indirecta, como un ejemplo a emular”.Su investigación ha descubierto que Estados Unidos estimula la democratización cuando los líderes de otros países, los ciudadanos o ambos ven que el gobierno de estilo estadounidense promete beneficios como la prosperidad o la libertad. Algunos pueden considerar que adoptarlo, aunque sea superficialmente, es una forma de ganarse el apoyo estadounidense.Sin embargo, las impresiones de la democracia estadounidense, que solían ser positivas, se han ido deteriorando rápidamente.“Muy pocos de los encuestados piensan que la democracia estadounidense es un buen ejemplo a seguir para otros países”, reveló un estudio reciente del Centro de Investigaciones Pew. En promedio, solo el 17 por ciento de las personas en los países encuestados dijo que la democracia en Estados Unidos era digna de ser emulada, mientras que el 23 por ciento afirmó que nunca había sido un buen ejemplo.Es posible que la prosperidad estadounidense ya no parezca tan atractiva, debido a problemas cada vez mayores como la desigualdad, así como el surgimiento de China como modelo económico alternativo.Además, el conocimiento de los problemas internos de Estados Unidos —tiroteos masivos, polarización, injusticia racial— ha afectado enormemente las percepciones.Podría ser más acertado pensar que la situación actual se debe más al surgimiento de la democracia no liberal como modelo alternativo. Ese sistema parece ser cada vez más popular, mientras que ya no lo es tanto la democracia más plena, con sus protecciones para las minorías y su dependencia de las instituciones establecidas.Pero incluso las personas que quieren una democracia no liberal para su país tienden a considerarla poco atractiva en otros, gracias a sus tendencias nacionalistas. A medida que se degradan las opiniones sobre la democracia estadounidense como modelo global, también lo hace la propia democracia.“Gran parte del atractivo de la democracia en todo el mundo está vinculado al atractivo de Estados Unidos como modelo de régimen”, dijo Gunitsky. “Cuando una de esas cosas decae, hará decaer la otra”.Max Fisher es reportero y columnista de temas internacionales con sede en Nueva York. Ha reportado sobre conflictos, diplomacia y cambio social desde cinco continentes. Es autor de The Interpreter, una columna que explora las ideas y el contexto detrás de los principales eventos mundiales de actualidad. @Max_Fisher — Facebook More

  • in

    The N.Y. Governor’s Race Is Wide Open, and Democrats Are Rushing In

    Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, became the latest Democrat to enter the 2022 race for governor.On a weekend swing through Southern California, Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, wooed corporate donors to join a new fund-raising initiative aimed at helping her become the nation’s first Black female governor.Closer to home, Gov. Kathy Hochul — her campaign accounts already swelling with more than $11 million — waded into Ms. James’s political backyard on Sunday, preaching from the pulpits of Black churches in vote-rich Brooklyn and Queens about the scourges of the coronavirus and gun violence.Two days later, Jumaane D. Williams of Brooklyn, New York City’s public advocate, formalized his bid for governor, using a campaign launch video to position himself as an activist with the most authoritative claim to the race’s increasingly crowded left lane.“Without courageous progressive leadership, the way things have always been will stand in the way of what they can be,” he said in the video.Three months after Ms. Hochul’s unexpected ascension as the state’s first female governor, next year’s Democratic primary contest is now veering toward something New York has not seen in decades: a freewheeling intraparty battle among some of the state’s best-known political figures.The race, which has played out in recent weeks from the beaches of Puerto Rico to West Hollywood, Calif., and will culminate in June, will test traditional racial, geographic and ideological coalitions in a liberal stronghold, setting up one of the most high-profile Democratic primary battles in the nation as a midterm election year arrives.“Like me, so many people are going to grapple with this really, really hard,” said Ruben Diaz Jr., the Bronx borough president.The melee in the making has already inspired a mix of anticipation and wariness among party leaders.For some left-wing officials and activists, the profusion of possible nominees has stirred memories of this year’s mayoral primary, when they struggled to coalesce around one candidate, and Eric Adams, a relative moderate, triumphed. This time around there is a real commitment, officials say, to unite behind one contender early — most likely Ms. James or Mr. Williams — though that may be easier said than done.Mr. Williams, the New York City public advocate, lost to Ms. Hochul in 2018 in a race for lieutenant governor.Anna Watts for The New York TimesMore moderate leaders are voicing worries, too, warning that after this month’s stinging electoral losses for Democrats in New York and across the country, nominating someone seen as too far to the left could put the party’s hold on Albany at risk. Some have pointed to the losses to argue for their own brands of politics.Steven Bellone, the Suffolk County executive who is thought to be considering a number of statewide offices, said the drubbing his party took on Long Island “was a message to the Democratic Party.” He added: “If our party is not sounding the alarm now, in advance of the midterms, I think we’re in for a very tough time ahead.”The tensions were on vivid display just after Election Day as New York’s political elite — including every potential candidate but Mr. Williams — decamped to the humid, booze-filled beaches of Puerto Rico for an annual postelection junket of lobbying, politicking and partying.After months of shadowboxing, it proved to be a surreal campaign in miniature, as Ms. Hochul, Ms. James, and Mr. Bellone schmoozed under palm trees alongside two more potential Democratic candidates: Mayor Bill de Blasio and Representative Thomas Suozzi. Contenders met surreptitiously with City Council members, party activists and union leaders in what amounted to high-powered focus groups fueled by piña coladas.Ms. James, for her part, offered fresh indications in Puerto Rico that she intends to run to the left of Ms. Hochul while building a base that, her allies hope, will be broader than that of Mr. Williams.She referred to herself as “the face of the Working Families Party,” New York’s leftist alternative to the Democratic line. She literally dropped a mic after a stem-winding campaign appeal to Bronx Democrats gathered in a makeshift club, who roared their approval. And the next morning, Ms. James turned a breakfast hosted by labor unions into a de facto campaign rally.“Join the O.G. team,” Ms. James said at a Working Families Party gathering. “Her name is Tish James.”Ms. Hochul showed her political power in other ways. She threw a lavish soiree in a ballroom overlooking the ocean, where labor leaders and business lobbyists fought for the governor’s ear between bites of passed hors d’oeuvres, and Mr. Adams showed up, a few days after Ms. Hochul made a cameo at his victory party.In an interview in a private room at a beachfront hotel — which was briefly interrupted when Ms. James walked in — Ms. Hochul warned that the general election in the governor’s race could be competitive; Representative Lee Zeldin of Long Island is considered the leading Republican candidate. She urged her party to focus on matters of public safety and economic growth, among other priorities, after Democrats lost badly across New York.Governor Hochul announced that her campaign had raised $11 million in her bid for a full four-year term. Stephanie Keith for The New York Times“They have concerns about where our party’s headed,” she said. “They want to make sure that the mainstream principles of our party prevail.”For now, though, it is the left-leaning and Brooklyn-area lanes of the primary that appear most crowded. As many as three candidates — Ms. James, Mr. Williams and Mr. de Blasio — could ultimately run: all boasting of deep ties to the progressive-left movement, and all from that borough.“I’m supporting Jumaane because I think he has real potential to fire people up,” said Brad Lander, the New York City comptroller-elect. Calling both Mr. Williams and Ms. James “really compelling leaders,” he also emphasized that “it’s important for progressives to get on the same page in the governor’s race and to rally around one candidate.” Allies of Ms. James had hoped that Mr. Williams, who garnered 47 percent of the vote running against Ms. Hochul as lieutenant governor in 2018, would skip the race, wary that the two candidates would siphon votes from one another.An in-person meeting between Ms. James and Mr. Williams to discuss the race last month, before either had formally entered, ended with both still moving toward a run, according to three people with direct knowledge of the meeting. Representatives for both candidates declined to comment on the meeting, which was first reported by City and State.Takeaways From the 2021 ElectionsCard 1 of 5A G.O.P. pathway in Virginia. More

  • in

    U.S. Allies Drive Much of World’s Democratic Decline, Data Shows

    Washington-aligned countries backslid at nearly double the rate of non-allies, data shows, complicating long-held assumptions about American influence.The United States and its allies accounted for a significantly outsize share of global democratic backsliding in the last decade, according to a new analysis.American allies remain, on average, more democratic than the rest of the world. But nearly all have suffered a degree of democratic erosion since 2010, meaning that core elements like election fairness or judicial independence have weakened, and at rates far outpacing average declines among other countries.With few exceptions, U.S.-aligned countries saw almost no democratic growth in that period, even as many beyond Washington’s orbit did.The findings are reflected in data recorded by V-Dem, a Sweden-based nonprofit that tracks countries’ level of democracy across a host of indicators, and analyzed by The New York Times.The revelations cast democracy’s travails, a defining trend of the current era, in a sharp light. They suggest that much of the world’s backsliding is not imposed on democracies by foreign powers, but rather is a rot rising within the world’s most powerful network of mostly democratic alliances.In many cases, democracies like France or Slovenia saw institutions degrade, if only slightly, amid politics of backlash and distrust. In others, dictatorships like Bahrain curtailed already-modest freedoms. But, often, the trend was driven by a shift toward illiberal democracy.In that form of government, elected leaders behave more like strongmen and political institutions are eroded, but personal rights mostly remain (except, often, for minorities).U.S. allies often led this trend. Turkey, Hungary, Israel and the Philippines are all examples. A number of more established democracies have taken half-steps in their direction, too, including the United States, where voting rights, the politicization of courts, and other factors are considered cause for concern by many democracy scholars.The findings also undercut American assumptions, widely held in both parties, that U.S. power is an innately democratizing force in the world.Washington has long sold itself as a global champion for democracy. The reality has always been more complicated. But enough of its allies have moved toward that system to create an impression that American influence brings about American-style freedoms. These trends suggest that may no longer be true — if it ever was.“It would be too easy to say this can all be explained by Trump,” cautioned Seva Gunitsky, a University of Toronto political scientist who studies how great powers influence democracies. Data indicates that the trend accelerated during his presidency but predated it.Rather, scholars say this change is likely driven by longer-term forces. Declining faith in the United States as a model to aspire to. Declining faith in democracy itself, whose image has been tarnished by a series of 21st century shocks. Decades of American policy prioritizing near-term issues like counterterrorism. And growing enthusiasm for illiberal politics.With the American-aligned world now a leader in the decline of a system it once pledged to promote, Dr. Gunitsky said, “The international consensus for democratization has shifted.”Inmates in an overcrowded jail in 2016 in Quezon City, in the Philippines. President Rodrigo Duterte oversaw a brutal crackdown on drug users.Daniel Berehulak for The New York TimesA Global CrisisSince the Cold War’s end, American-aligned countries have shifted toward democracy only slowly but, until the 2010s, mostly avoided backsliding.In the 1990s, for instance, 19 allies grew more democratic, including Turkey and South Korea. Only six, like Jordan, became more autocratic, but all by very small amounts.That’s according to V-Dem’s liberal democracy index, which factors dozens of metrics into a score from 0 to 1. Its methodology is transparent and considered highly rigorous. South Korea’s, for example, rose from 0.517 to 0.768 in that decade, amid a transition to full civilian rule. Most shifts are smaller, reflecting, say, an incremental advance in press freedom or slight step back in judicial independence.During the 1990s, the United States and its allies accounted for 9 percent of the overall increases in democracy scores worldwide, according to the figures. In other words, they were responsible for 9 percent of global democratic growth. This is better than it sounds: Many were already highly democratic.Also that decade, allied countries accounted for only 5 percent of global decreases — they backslid very little.Those numbers worsened a little in the 2000s. Then, in the 2010s, they became disastrous. The U.S. and its allies accounted for only 5 percent of worldwide increases in democracy. But a staggering 36 percent of all backsliding occurred in U.S.-aligned countries.On average, allied countries saw the quality of their democracies decline by nearly double the rate of non-allies, according to V-Dem’s figures.The analysis defines “ally” as a country with which the United States has a formal or implied mutual defense commitment, of which there are 41. While “ally” could be plausibly defined in several different ways, all produce largely similar results.This shift comes amid a period of turmoil for democracy, which is retrenching worldwide.The data contradicts assumptions in Washington that this trend is driven by Russia and China, whose neighbors and partners have seen their scores change very little, or by Mr. Trump, who entered office when the shift was well underway.Rather, backsliding is endemic across emerging and even established democracies, said Staffan I. Lindberg, a University of Gothenburg political scientist who helps oversee V-Dem. And such countries tend to be American-aligned.This does not mean Washington is exactly causing their retrenchment, Dr. Lindberg stressed. But it isn’t irrelevant, either.An American flag used for a photo-op between President Biden and Mr. Erdogan at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Rome last month.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAmerican Influence, for Better or WorseDespite decades of Cold War messaging calling American alliances a force for democratization, this has never really been true, said Thomas Carothers, who studies democracy promotion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.While Washington encouraged democracy in Western Europe as an ideological counterweight to the Soviet Union, it suppressed its spread in much of the rest of the world.It backed or installed dictators, encouraged violent repression of left-wing elements, and sponsored anti-democratic armed groups. Often, this was conducted in allied countries in cooperation with the local government. The Soviets did the same.As a result, when the Cold War ended in 1989 and great power meddling receded, societies became freer to democratize and, in large numbers, they did.“A lot of people came of age in those years and thought that was normal,” Mr. Carothers said, mistaking the 1990s wave as both the natural state of things and, because the United States was global hegemon, America’s doing.“But then the war on terror hit in 2001,” he said, and Washington again pressed for pliant autocrats and curbs on democratization, this time in societies where Islam is predominant.The result has been decades of weakening the foundations of democracy in allied countries. At the same time, American-led pressures in favor of democracy have begun falling away.“Democratic hegemony is good for democratization, but not through the mechanisms that people usually think about, like democracy promotion,” said Dr. Gunitsky, the scholar of great power politics.Rather than alliances or presidents demanding that dictators liberalize, neither of which have much of a track record, he said, “The U.S. influence, where it’s strongest, is an indirect influence, as an example to emulate.”His research has found that the United States spurs democratization when other countries’ leaders, citizens or both see American-style governance as promising benefits like prosperity or freedom. Some may see adopting it, even superficially, as a way to win American support.But once-positive impressions of American democracy have been rapidly declining.“Very few in any public surveyed think American democracy is a good example for other countries to follow,” a recent Pew Research Center study found. On average, only 17 percent of people in surveyed countries called U.S. democracy worth emulating, while 23 percent said it had never offered a good example.American prosperity may no longer look so appealing either, because of growing problems, like inequality, as well as the rise of China as an alternate economic model.And awareness of the United States’ domestic problems — mass shootings, polarization, racial injustice — has greatly affected perceptions.It may be more precise to think of what’s happening now as the rise of illiberal democracy as an alternate model. That system appears to be increasingly popular. Fuller democracy, with its protections for minorities and reliance on establishment institutions, is becoming less so. But even people who want illiberal democracy for their country tend to find it unappealing in others, thanks to its nationalist tendencies. As impressions of U.S. democracy as a global model degrade, so does democracy itself.“A lot of the appeal of democracy around the world is tied to appeal of the U.S. as a regime type,” Dr. Gunitsky said. “When one of those things decline, the other will decline.” More