Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Democracy, or Something Like It

      by

      No one is fooled when authoritarian leaders carry out fake elections. So why do they bother?This is an article from World Review: The State of Democracy, a special section that examines global policy and affairs, and is published in conjunction with the annual Athens Democracy Forum.The Nicaraguan president, Daniel Ortega, who has most recently been in power since 2007, is running for a fourth consecutive term this year. Virtually all of his potential challengers have disappeared, been detained, or pushed into exile, while the independent media has been silenced and the main opposition party has been formally disqualified from running.Yet Mr. Ortega continues to keep up the illusion of holding free elections, imitating the tactics of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. Last year, Mr. Maduro’s administration cracked down on dissident leaders, journalists and activists in Venezuela ahead of December’s parliamentary elections, which were eventually boycotted by the opposition. Mr. Maduro’s governing majority and allies won 91 percent of the seats in the National Assembly.Nicaragua is not alone in constructing a democratic facade, but Mr. Ortega’s methods have been exceptionally striking. “This is a dramatic escalation of systemic repression which we haven’t seen in Latin America since the 1980s,” said Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank.“There is still a desire on the part of regimes to have a fig leaf of democracy, however not credible that is,” Mr. Shifter said. He noted that the pretense might have been the excuse Mexico and Argentina needed to avoid joining in a recent Organization of American States vote denouncing the crackdown against Mr. Ortega’s political rivals in Nicaragua.These days, governments like those in Nicaragua, Venezuela and elsewhere that reject political pluralism are ready to go to great lengths to pretend to embrace democracy — primarily by imitating the crucial rituals of periodic elections.When election time comes around, authoritarians allow a certain amount of political campaigning, vet candidates (barring or even arresting those deemed too critical of the government), then make a show of counting ballots, all the while intending to hold on to power.A polling agent with ballot boxes in Lusaka, Zambia, in August. A challenger managed to win the presidency in Zambia by more than a million votes despite the incumbent’s attempts at voter intimidation.Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi/Associated PressBut faking elections can be a tricky business. Too big a victory can draw suspicion and encourage an angry populace to gather on the streets, as happened after the 2020 presidential election in Belarus. Too big a loss can be difficult to falsify, as was the case in Zambia in August when, despite the incumbent’s overt attempts at voter intimidation, the challenger, Hakainde Hichilema, managed to win the presidency by more than a million votes.Authoritarians have learned that they must carefully weigh how and when to interfere. Too much pre-election excitement can encourage too big a turnout, drawing more votes for the opposition. A low turnout is safer, because authoritarians have ways of making sure their voters get to the polls.Such intrigues require preparation, skill and money, all for an exercise that most citizens know is a sham.So why bother to pretend?Elections, even flawed ones, serve a purpose. The goal for autocrat and democrat alike is legitimacy — a right to rule that, in the views of most citizens in the 21st century, can be bestowed only by a popular vote, or at least the semblance of one.In other eras, and even now in some parts of the world, the right to rule could be inherited by a monarch, blessed by religious faith or sustained by an iron-fisted ideology like Communism. But where those options have been exhausted, democracy — or something resembling it — seems to be the best, and maybe the only, option for maintaining a monopoly on power short of outright dictatorship.“In the contemporary world, there are, practically speaking, no alternative ideologies,” Dmitri Furman, a Russian political scientist, wrote in New Left Review in 2008. He used the term “imitation democracy” to describe the combination of democratic forms and authoritarian reality then in place across most of the former Soviet Union.This formula was recently perfected in Russia, 20 years into Vladimir V. Putin’s rule, ahead of parliamentary elections last month.A woman voting in Moscow during elections last month. President Vladimir V. Putin and his allies deployed heavy-handed measures to keep critics off the ballot and to sway apathetic voters.Maxim Shipenkov/EPA, via ShutterstockThere never was any doubt that United Russia, the party backed by Mr. Putin, would come out on top. And indeed, the final vote gave the party 324 of the Duma’s 450 seats, more than enough to guarantee a constitutional, or two-thirds, majority (but fewer than the 343 seats United Russia took in 2016).Still, Mr. Putin and his allies took no chances, deploying heavy-handed measures to keep his critics off the ballot, while giving generous handouts to sway apathetic voters. Pensioners and military personnel, two crucial constituencies, received one-off pre-election bonuses, at an estimated cost of $6.7 billion to the federal government.Followers of the jailed opposition figure Alexei Navalny, now legally labeled “extremists,” were barred from running, and some were put in jail or forced to flee the country. Popular candidates from Russia’s legal parliamentary parties — including the liberal centrist party Yabloko and the Communist Party — were pushed off the ballot under thinly veiled pretenses, ranging from faulty paperwork to allegations of criminal offenses. In St. Petersburg, a well-known Yabloko candidate found himself running against two people who had recently adopted not only his name but also his appearance.The Kremlin also took on independent media outlets, declaring that many journalists were foreign agents. And yet news still leaked about local officials who went to great lengths to gin up the vote for United Russia. Election officials were reportedly caught on tape discussing vote targets of 42 percent to 45 percent, presumably for United Russia, and government officials complained of being pressured by their employers to vote. In today’s Russia, these advantages are called “administrative resources,” all of which tipped the scales in United Russia’s favor.Similar tactics have worked in the past. In Russia’s 2016 parliamentary elections, officials in the city of Saratov did not take any risks. In about 100 of the city’s 373 electoral districts, the results were exactly the same: 62.2 percent for United Russia, 11.8 percent for the Communist Party, and on down the list. A local electoral commission official dismissed the suspicious results as a mere coincidence.Much has changed in the last five years. Unpopular pension reforms in 2018 have hurt both Mr. Putin and United Russia in opinion polls. Ahead of the September elections, the party’s popularity hit a record low, falling below 30 percent nationally, and even lower in the big cities.“United Russia’s polling is bad, but it doesn’t really matter,” Aleksei Mukhin, director of the Center for Political Information, a Moscow think tank, told The Moscow Times in an interview in early September. A recycled Soviet-era joke made the rounds after the elections: “You pretend to hold elections, and we pretend to vote,” a retooled version of the old quip “You pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”But elections benefit the Putin government, according to an analysis by the political scientists Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes in their book “The Light That Failed: Why the West Is Losing the Fight for Democracy,” published last year. Elections have been turned into national rituals, spectacles that create the illusion that Russian voters can play a role in politics. They can also test the national mood, district by district, and allow the Kremlin to measure the loyalty and competence of their local officials.“You had a hard time in post-Communist Russia finding out how local officials were behaving, figuring out who was reliable, who could turn out the vote,” Mr. Holmes said in an interview. “It is not just about loyalty, but also about who is effective. Elections give you new tools to measure performance.”Paradoxically, “a managed democracy,” a term often used to describe the Putin system of government, is not so much about pretending to be democratic, but rather about pretending to manage, Mr. Holmes and Mr. Krastev said in their book. “Rigging an election also allowed the government to mimic the authoritarian power that it did not actually possess,” they wrote. “In Putin’s first decade in power, organizing a pseudo-election was like wearing sheep’s clothing to prove that you are a wolf.”But most pseudo-democrats these days are reluctant to assume their inner autocratic selves: They are not sure how to be wolves. In Nicaragua, where Mr. Ortega lost an election in 1990 after five years in power, today’s government seems to have gone further than others toward becoming a police state, but most other authoritarian rulers are careful not to cross the line, at times at the risk of seeming ineffective.Typically, they promote their hold on power as a guarantee of stability, and a protection of the nation in a hostile, unstable world. And in some cases, such leaders do in fact enjoy broad support: Mr. Putin’s popularity rating in Russia is down from a high point of 88 percent after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, but it still hovers above 60 percent, well above the ratings of leaders in Western democracies.These days, elections may be a necessary tool for authoritarian systems to hold power, but they remain risky, as was the case in Zambia, where the opposition managed against all odds to score a victory that was too big to deny, and in Belarus where the falsification of the results was so obvious that protesters came out to the streets.“Politics is about promising and disappointing and managing the disappointment,” Mr. Holmes said. “The special magic of democracy is that, although a lot of people may be disappointed, they have a hope that at the next election, they can bring in another group. By giving up the idea that another group can come to power, a lot of pressure builds up.”Celestine Bohlen is a former New York Times Moscow correspondent who covered the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Can You Imagine Bill de Blasio as Governor? He Can.

      by

      A run for higher office by New York City’s mayor might be viewed skeptically across the state, but he says he wants to remain in public life.Mayor Bill de Blasio has begun to tell people privately that he plans to run for governor of New York next year, according to three people with direct knowledge of his conversations with fellow Democrats and donors.Mr. de Blasio, who has been a polarizing figure during his two terms in office, has also sounded out trusted former aides about their interest in working on a potential campaign, according to two people who are familiar with those contacts, and has made other overtures to labor leaders about a possible bid. His longtime pollster conducted a private survey to assess Mr. de Blasio’s appeal beyond New York City. And publicly, too, he has increasingly made it clear that he wants to remain in public life.“There’s a number of things I want to keep working on in this city, in this state,” Mr. de Blasio said last week, noting his interest in public health, early childhood education and combating income inequality. “That is going to be what I focus on when this mission is over. So, I want to serve. I’m going to figure out the right way to serve and the right time to serve.”Mr. de Blasio’s move toward a possible run for governor comes even as the city he now leads faces extraordinary challenges and an uncertain future, and should he enter what may be a crowded and well-financed field, he would face significant hurdles.His approval ratings in New York City have been low, according to the sparse polling that is publicly available, and he faces deep skepticism elsewhere in the state — an environment similar to the one he confronted, unsuccessfully, in his 2020 presidential bid. A run for governor would be contrary to the better judgment of even some people he considers allies, as well as that of many party leaders across the state.“Osama bin Laden is probably more popular in Suffolk County than Bill de Blasio,” said Rich Schaffer, the chairman of the county’s Democratic committee, who endorsed Gov. Kathy Hochul on Monday. “De Blasio, I would say, would have zero support if not negative out here.”At a debate during New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary this year, the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they would accept Mr. de Blasio’s endorsement. Only one contender did so — a sign of the mayor’s standing in his own party.He could also face significant competition in the city, let alone the rest of the state. New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, who, like Mr. de Blasio, is from Brooklyn, is thought to be nearing a final decision concerning a possible campaign. Jumaane D. Williams, another Brooklyn Democrat and the city’s public advocate, has already begun exploring a potential run, and others in the party are also weighing whether to get into the race.Asked whether New York should have another white male governor — Ms. Hochul is the first woman to lead the state; Ms. James and Mr. Williams are Black, and Ms. James could be the first Black woman to govern any state in the country — Mr. de Blasio appeared to brush aside the question last week.“We need people of all backgrounds to be involved in government,” he said.His plans could change. Peter Ragone, the adviser who may be closest to Mr. de Blasio’s deliberations, insisted that the mayor had not made a determination.“The simple fact is that he hasn’t made any final decisions at all about what he’s doing next,” Mr. Ragone said. “The mayor believes in public service because he can do things like push universal pre-K and 3-K. That’s why millions of New Yorkers have voted for him in the past 12 years, to the dismay of political insiders.”Many New York Democrats are incredulous that Mr. de Blasio would run and, simultaneously, believe that he may do so, pointing to his failed presidential bid as proof that he has an appetite for challenging campaigns and a steadfast belief in his own political potential.Marc Molinaro, the Dutchess County executive and unsuccessful candidate for governor in 2018, said that many of his fellow Republicans, as well as independent voters around the state, blamed Mr. de Blasio for the “rise in crime and the deterioration of the economic and social strength of New York City.”Even so, Mr. Molinaro, who said he gets along well with Mr. de Blasio, warned that it would be unwise to discount the mayor’s political prowess.“I would not underestimate his ability to develop a coalition within his party,” Mr. Molinaro said. “He’s very skilled at that.”Mr. de Blasio’s allies, too, note that in his mayoral runs, he assembled a diverse coalition in the nation’s largest city, with strong support from Black voters, although that dynamic is hardly guaranteed to transfer to a potentially crowded field in a statewide race.The Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader, said that he had spoken with Mr. de Blasio about a potential run recently but that the mayor had not indicated whether he had reached a final decision.“He has some standing in the progressive community, he has some standing in communities of color,” Mr. Sharpton said. “He should not be taken lightly.”Other veterans of New York politics were less interested in discussing the mayor’s future prospects.“I very seldom pass, but I don’t want to get involved in anything that would be negative,” said Charles B. Rangel, the former congressman from Harlem, after laughing when asked for his thoughts on a potential run by Mr. de Blasio. “And I cannot think of anything positive.” More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Enters Philippine Presidential Race

      by

      Ferdinand Marcos Jr. joins the former boxing champion Manny Pacquiao in seeking to succeed Rodrigo Duterte in next year’s election.MANILA — The son and namesake of the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos formally announced his plan to run for president of the Philippines on Tuesday, more than three decades after a popular uprising toppled his father’s brutal regime and restored democracy to the country.Ferdinand Marcos Jr. joins the former boxing champion Manny Pacquiao and Francisco Domagoso, the mayor of Manila, in seeking the presidency in next year’s election. Leni Robredo, the vice president, and Sara Duterte-Carpio, the mayor of Davao City and daughter of President Rodrigo Duterte, are also expected to enter the race.Mr. Marcos, 64, once served as a governor and a senator. He lost his bid as vice president to Ms. Robredo in 2016, and sought to overturn that vote by accusing her of cheating. In his announcement on Tuesday, Mr. Marcos said he would focus on helping the public overcome the coronavirus pandemic, and vowed to lift the economy out of crisis.“That is why I am announcing here today my intention to run for the presidency of the Philippines in the coming May 2022 elections,” Mr. Marcos said. “I will bring that form of unifying leadership back to our country. Join me in this noblest of causes and we will succeed.”He also took an oath as a member of the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, the political party he would be representing in the election. The party founded by his father, the New Society Movement, also recently endorsed him as a candidate.Ferdinand Marcos ruled the country with an iron fist for two decades. He was defeated by a popular uprising in 1986 and went into exile in Hawaii, where he died three years later. He was accused of stealing up to $10 billion from state coffers and leaving thousands of activists dead or missing.His widow, Imelda R. Marcos, and children were later allowed to return to the Philippines, where they worked to rehabilitate the family name. Mrs. Marcos was found guilty of corruption in 2018, but has eluded jail time.Mr. Duterte, who announced his retirement last week, often publicly thanked the Marcos family for backing his candidacy in the 2016 presidential election. Just months into office, he allowed the dictator’s remains to be transferred to a national cemetery in Manila.Judy Taguiwalo, an activist with the Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and Martial Law, said the announcement from Mr. Marcos was a “brazen show of disregard and contempt for the thousands of Filipinos killed, disappeared, tortured, displaced and violated” during his father’s brutal regime.“Bongbong Marcos and his family have long been seeking to reclaim the highest seat of power after they were kicked out of the country by the people,” she said, referring to Mr. Marcos by his nickname, “and today, their shameless gall to return to the highest office in government is in full display.”Mr. Marcos, she said, was “spitting on the graves of the dead.” More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Once and Future Threat of Trump

      by

      Last fall, before the November election, Barton Gellman wrote an essay for The Atlantic sketching out a series of worst-case scenarios for the voting and its aftermath. It was essentially a blueprint for how Donald Trump could either force the country into a constitutional crisis or hold onto power under the most dubious of legal auspices, with the help of pliant Republican officials and potentially backed by military force.Shortly afterward I wrote a column responding, in part, to Gellman’s essay, making a counterargument that Trump wasn’t capable of pulling off the complex maneuvers that would be required for the darker scenarios to come to pass. Whatever Trump’s authoritarian inclinations or desires, I predicted, “any attempt to cling to power illegitimately will be a theater of the absurd.”That column was titled “There Will Be No Trump Coup.” Ever since Jan. 6, it’s been held up as an example of fatal naïveté or click-happy contrarianism, whereas Gellman’s article is regularly cited as a case of prophecy fulfilled. In alarmed commentary on Trumpism like Robert Kagan’s epic recent essay in The Washington Post, the assumption is that to have doubted the scale of the Trumpian peril in 2020 renders one incapable of recognizing the even greater peril of today. In a paragraph that links to my fatefully titled column, Kagan laments the fatal lure of Pollyannaism: “The same people who said that Trump wouldn’t try to overturn the last election now say we have nothing to worry about with the next one.”One odd thing about the underlying argument here is that in certain ways it’s just a matter of emphasis. I don’t think we have “nothing to worry about” from Trump in 2024 and I didn’t argue that he wouldn’t try (emphasis on try) to overturn the election in 2020. I agree with Kagan that the success of Trump’s stolen election narrative may help him win the Republican nomination once again, and I agree with him, as well, that it would be foolish not to worry about some kind of chaos, extending to crisis or paralysis in Capitol Hill, should a Trump-Biden rematch turn out to be close.But emphasis matters a great deal. The Kagan thesis is that the Trump threat is existential, that Trump’s movement is ever more equivalent to 1930s fascism and that only some sort of popular front between Democrats and Romney Republicans can save the Republic from the worst. My thesis is that Trump is an adventurer of few consistent principles rather than a Hitler, that we’ve seen enough from watching him in power to understand his weaknesses and incapacities, and that his threat to constitutional norms is one of many percolating dangers in the United States today, not a singular danger that should organize all other political choices and suspend all other disagreements.To draw a parallel from the not-too-distant past, Kagan regards Trump the way he once regarded Saddam Hussein, whose regime he depicted as such a grave and unique threat that it made sense to organize American foreign policy around its removal. Whereas an alternative possibility is that just as Hussein’s threat to the American-led world order was real but ultimately overstated by supporters of the Iraq War, so, too, Trump is a dangerous man, both a species and agent of American degradation, who nevertheless doesn’t fit in Kagan’s absolutist 1930s categories.History may eventually reveal that Kagan, so wrong about the Iraq war, is now correct about the Trump wars. In that case, in some future of sectional breakdown or near-dictatorship, my own threat-deflating Trump-era punditry will deserve to be judged as harshly as Kagan’s Bush-era threat inflation.But that judgment is far from settled. Let’s consider those autumn of 2020 essays I started with. In hindsight, Gellman’s essay got Trump’s intentions absolutely right: He was right that Trump would never concede, right that Trump would reach for every lever to keep himself in power, right that Trump would try to litigate against late-counted votes and mail-in ballots, right that Trump would pressure state legislatures to overrule their voters, right that Trump’s final attention would be fixed on the vote count before Congress.If you compare all those Trumpian intentions with what actually transpired, though, what you see again and again is his inability to get other people and other institutions to cooperate.In one of Gellman’s imagined scenarios, teams of efficient and well-prepared Republican lawyers fan out across the country, turning challenges to vote counts into “a culminating phase of legal combat.” In reality, a variety of conservative lawyers delivered laughable arguments to skeptical judges and were ultimately swatted down by some of the same jurists — up to and including the Supreme Court — that Trump himself had appointed to the bench.In another Gellman scenario, Trump sends in “Federal Personnel in battle dress” to shut down voting and seize uncounted ballots. In reality, the military leadership hated Trump and reportedly spent the transition period planning for how to resist orders that he never gave.Further on in his scenarios, Gellman suggested that if Trump asked “state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly,” this pressure could be extremely difficult for the legislators to resist. In reality, Trump did make the ask, and every state government dismissed it: No statehouse leader proposed setting aside the popular vote, no state legislature put such a measure on the floor, no Republican governor threatened to block certification.Finally, Gellman warned that if the counting itself was disputed, “the Trump team would take the position” that Vice President Mike Pence “has the unilateral power to announce his own re-election, and a second term for Trump.” We know now that John Eastman, a Trump legal adviser, ultimately made an even wilder argument on the president’s behalf — that Pence could declare count was disputed even without competing slates of electors from the states and try to hand Trump re-election. But the White House’s close Senate allies reportedly dismissed this as a fantasy, and in the end so did Pence himself.At almost every level, then, what Gellman’s essay anticipated, Trump tried to do. But at every level he was rebuffed, often embarrassingly, and by the end his plotting consisted of listening to charlatans and cranks proposing last-ditch ideas, including Eastman’s memo, that would have failed just as dramatically as Rudy Giuliani’s lawsuits did.Which was, basically, what my own “no coup” essay predicted: not that Trump would necessarily meekly accept defeat, but that he lacked any of the powers — over the military, over Silicon Valley (“more likely to censor him than to support him in a constitutional crisis,” I wrote, and so it was), over the Supreme Court, over G.O.P. politicians who supported him in other ways — required to bend or shatter law and custom and keep him in the White House.Instead, once he went down the road of denying his own defeat, Trump was serially abandoned by almost all the major figures who were supposedly his cat’s paws or lackeys, from Bill Barr to Brett Kavanaugh to Brian Kemp to Senators Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee and Pence. All that he had left, in the end, were Sidney Powell’s fantasy lawsuits, Eastman’s fantasy memo and the mob.I did, however, underestimate the mob. “America’s streets belong to the anti-Trump left,” I wrote, which was true for much of 2020 but not on Jan. 6, 2021. And that underestimation was part of a larger one: I didn’t quite grasp until after the election how fully Trump’s voter-fraud paranoia had intertwined with deeper conservative anxieties about liberal power, creating a narrative that couldn’t keep Trump in power but could keep him powerful in the G.O.P. — as the exiled king, unjustly deposed, whom the right audit might yet restore to power.That Trump-in-exile drama is continuing, and it’s entirely reasonable to worry about how it might influence a contested 2024 election. The political payoff for being the Republican who “fights” for Trump in that scenario — meaning the secretary of state who refuses to certify a clear Democratic outcome, or the state politician who pushes for some kind of legislative intervention — may be higher in three years than it was last winter. There could also be new pressures on the creaking machinery of the Electoral Count Act should Republicans control the House of Representatives.But as I’ve argued before, you have to balance that increased danger against the reality that Trump in 2024 will have none of the presidential powers, legal and practical, that he enjoyed in 2020 but failed to use effectively in any shape or form. And you have to fold those conspicuous failures, including the constant gap between Gellman’s dire scenarios and Trump’s flailing in pursuit of them, into your analysis as well. You can’t assess Trump’s potential to overturn an election from outside the Oval Office unless you acknowledge his inability to effectively employ the powers of that office when he had them.This is what’s missing in the Kagan style of alarmism. “As has so often been the case in other countries where fascist leaders arise,” he writes of Trump, “their would-be opponents are paralyzed in confusion and amazement at this charismatic authoritarian.” That arguably describes the political world of 2015 and 2016, but the story of Trump’s presidency was the exact opposite: not confused paralysis in opposition to an effective authoritarian, but hysterical opposition of every sort swirling around a chief executive who couldn’t get even his own party to pass a serious infrastructure bill or his own military to bend to his wishes on Afghanistan or the Middle East.Again and again, from the first shocking days after his election to the early days of the pandemic, Trump was handed opportunities that a true strongman — from a 1930s dictator to contemporary figures like Hugo Chávez and Vladimir Putin — would have seized and used. Again and again he let those opportunities slide. Again and again his most dramatic actions tended to (temporarily) strengthen his opponents — from the firing of James Comey down to the events of Jan. 6 itself. Again and again his most alarmist critics have accurately analyzed his ruthless amorality but then overestimated his capacity to impose his will on subordinates and allies, let alone the country as a whole.That Trump is resilient nobody disputes. That his flailing incompetence can push him to unusual extremities and create unusual constitutional risks is clear as well. That he could actually beat Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris) fairly in 2024 and become president again is a possibility that cannot be discounted.But to look at all his failures to consolidate and use power and see each one as just a prelude to a more effective coup next time is to assume a direction and a destiny that isn’t yet in evidence. And it’s to hold tightly to certain familiar 20th-century categories, certain preconceptions about How Republics Fall, rather than to acknowledge the sheer shambolic strangeness, the bizarro virtual-reality atmospherics, with which our own decadence has come upon us — with Trump and through Trump but through many other forces, too.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

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Rome Mayor Loses Re-election Bid, a Defeat for Five Star Movement

      by

      In five years in office, Virginia Raggi failed to stem the dysfunction of Italy’s capital, where voters will choose between two of her rivals in a runoff.ROME — Voters on Monday resoundingly rejected the re-election bid of Rome’s mayor, Virginia Raggi of the Five Star Movement, who swept into power five years ago promising change but was unable to turn around the degradation of services and quality of life that has become a hallmark of the capital.Instead, Ms. Raggi, the first woman to govern Rome and its youngest mayor, became associated with the city’s decline, earning her — and her party — a national reputation for incompetence.Speaking to supporters at a hotel in downtown Rome late on Monday, Ms. Raggi appeared to concede defeat.“As they say in Rome, I took on the most difficult part of the job and I did it with conviction,” she said. “Now those who come after me have no more excuses for not doing a good job, and we’re going to be watching them closely.”She lagged well behind the two leading candidates: Enrico Michetti, a lawyer supported by several parties on the right, and Roberto Gualtieri, a former finance minister and the candidate of a center-left coalition led by the Democratic Party.With most election districts counted, Mr. Michetti had more than 30 percent of the vote, Mr. Gualtieri 27 percent and Ms. Raggi just under 20 percent. Carlo Calenda, a rival to Mr. Gualtieri to be the center-left standard-bearer, had about 19 percent.With no candidate winning more than half the vote, Mr. Michetti and Mr. Gualtieri will compete in a runoff election on Oct. 18. Ms. Raggi told her supporters that she would not openly back either man.“The vote is free,” she said. “Votes are not packages to move around, nor are citizens cattle to be taken to pasture.”Ms. Raggi was once a bright spot in the firmament of Five Star, an upstart anti-establishment party that had charmed Italians who were jaded with the country’s political class.But the city’s problems piled up on her watch, as did uncollected garbage, attracting swarms of sea gulls, crows, and even hungry boars. A pothole epidemic saw no fix in sight. Public buses caught on fire, and some cyclists complained that the bike lanes the mayor had installed were unsafe and poorly maintained.Then on Saturday night, just hours before polls opened, a 19th century bridge in a trendy Rome neighborhood caught fire. Investigators and experts are still looking into the causes of the fire, but the metaphor of Rome burning was not lost on Ms. Raggi’s critics.Municipal elections were held on Monday in over 1,000 Italian cities and towns, but it is not yet clear what they mean for national politics. The next parliamentary elections could be more than a year and a half away.Prime Minister Mario Draghi, an independent and the former president of the European Central Bank, has broad support in Parliament, but low voter turnout may be a reflection of general disaffection among the electorate. Only 48.8 percent of Rome’s electors went to the polls, about ten percent less than five years ago, and the national average fell just short of 55 percent, the lowest ever.Ms. Raggi’s fate was, in part, a reflection of her party’s. Five Star has hemorrhaged support since triumphant national elections in 2018, when it won the largest share of the vote and formed part of the governing coalition.“It’s one thing to promise changes when you’re in the opposition, another to transform them into effective policies when you’re in the government,” said Roberto Biorcio, a professor of political sociology at the University of Milan at Bicocca. “In this sense, she followed this downward trajectory.”In Rome, disillusionment with Ms. Raggi grew as she failed to build a strong team, frequently replacing top cabinet members, which paralyzed administrative decisions.“It was the continuation of a trend of the deterioration of the city,” said Giovanni Orsina, the dean of Luiss University’s School of Government.“Rome’s problems are all still there,” after five years of Five Star government, he said, citing the garbage crisis and the city’s notoriously ineffective transport system. “And now the bridge caught fire ahead of the elections.”Support for the Five Star Movement also eroded in other cities. In Turin, another big win for the party in 2016, its mayoral candidate finished a distant third.But center-leftists where the Five Star and Democratic Party were allied won their races outright in closely watched races in Bologna and Naples, giving a boost to former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who was elected president of the Five Star in August. He has been pushing for these alliances, putting him on a collision course with more orthodox Five Star members who remain grounded in their anti-establishment roots.The outcome in various cities “suggests that where the Five Star and Democrats joined forces they can obtain some good results,” Mr. Biorcio said.Ms. Raggi may have lost her job, but she still has clout within Five Star, after being elected last month to the party’s governing body. And at 43, she is still young.“After being mayor of Rome for five years, it will be hard for her to go back to being a lawyer,” said Professor Orsina. “Now she’ll try to see if she’s able to parlay a different political future in the Five Star Movement.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      James Weighs a Run As Governor as Hochul Locks Key Endorsement

      by

      The chairman of the New York State Democratic Party endorsed Gov. Kathy Hochul, contending that a multicandidate primary in 2022 could damage the party.The chairman of the New York State Democratic Party on Monday endorsed Gov. Kathy Hochul in next year’s primary race, arguing that a fierce multicandidate free-for-all could be damaging to the party — even as several potential contenders take increasingly serious steps toward runs of their own.Jay Jacobs, the party chairman, said that the endorsement was his own, and not that of the state party. But his announcement was seen as an early effort to coalesce support behind Ms. Hochul, who ascended to the governorship after Andrew M. Cuomo resigned in disgrace.But Mr. Jacobs’s effort to bring the whole party along is already facing resistance — and he acknowledged as much, as he alluded to the increasing activity surrounding the race.“From the beginning, I have been urging those interested in looking into running for governor to hold their powder, to wait and allow Governor Hochul to get the job done and to make her mark,” Mr. Jacobs said at a news conference on Long Island. “Unfortunately, over the past few days, it seems that a number of candidates are becoming more anxious.”Indeed, last week the New York City public advocate, Jumaane D. Williams, launched an exploratory committee; the state attorney general, Letitia James, indicated that she was nearing a final decision on whether to run; and other Democrats, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, U.S. Representative Thomas Suozzi of Long Island and the Suffolk County executive, Steven Bellone, are also thought to be interested.“A party torn apart by multiple candidates in multiple primaries for multiple offices will exhaust precious resources, divide us and make us weaker in a year that we need to be at our strongest,” Mr. Jacobs added. “We have a governor that is proving she can do the job and do it with distinction. We have a governor who we know can win against any Republican candidate they put up in the fall.”The backing of Mr. Jacobs, who is also the chair of the Nassau County Democratic Committee, and another endorsement on Monday from Rich Schaffer, the head of the Suffolk County Democrats, underscore Ms. Hochul’s potential strength on vote-rich Long Island ahead of next year’s Democratic primary.Yet even as Mr. Jacobs spoke, perhaps Ms. Hochul’s most powerful would-be rival was about 25 miles away, appearing on a stage that, stylistically if not in substance, could have been mistaken for a campaign tableau.Ms. James was in the South Bronx on Monday morning, kicking off a statewide tour in which “she will begin delivering the first of up to $1.5 billion to combat the opioid epidemic,” her office said, tapping into settlements she negotiated. The tour is run through her government team, and the event was often sober as speakers shared painful stories about how the opioid crisis has ravaged neighborhoods across the city.“We’re not talking about politics, we’re talking about lives today,” she admonished a reporter who asked about Mr. Jacobs’s endorsement.Letitia James, the state attorney general, appeared in the South Bronx on Monday to begin a statewide tour to distribute money to fight the opioid epidemic.Dieu-Nalio Chéry for The New York TimesNevertheless, the tour comes as Ms. James and her allies have made clear that she is weighing a run for governor — and so the event, which illustrated Ms. James’s relationships in diverse communities around New York City, took on a fresh layer of significance.She was flanked by City Council members, Assembly members and state senators, and Representatives Adriano Espaillat and Jamaal Bowman.“With an event like this, she’s an effective A.G., capturing all those dollars to help our communities,” Mr. Espaillat said in a brief interview after the event. “That means that she would probably be an effective governor.”“We’ll be taking a look at all the candidates,” he added. “I think she would make a terrific candidate but that’s her choice.”Questions around whether Ms. James would run and what the rest of the field would look like have stopped some county chairs from joining Mr. Jacobs in making endorsements, though he suggested he expected others to indicate their support in coming days.“Kathy Hochul’s been doing a great job as governor and I hope she succeeds, but I think things need to play out a little bit more,” said Suzanne Berger, the chair of the Westchester County Democratic Committee. “The attorney general, who has also been a great elected official, needs an opportunity and space to make the best decision for herself and the state as well.”Other Democrats were openly critical of Mr. Jacobs’s move to intervene in a primary, especially at a relatively early juncture in the race — though there are few other recent points of comparison. Mr. Cuomo was in office for a decade, and before that, party officials asked Gov. David A. Paterson not to seek a full term after he took over from the disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer.Mr. Williams said in a statement that Mr. Jacobs’s role, “and that of the highest ranking Democratic officials in our state, should be to uplift Democratic candidates, Democratic voters, and democratic values.” Mr. Williams also noted Mr. Jacobs’s longtime alliance with Mr. Cuomo, who on Monday released yet another statement ripping into the independent investigation into his conduct released by Ms. James’s office. The ex-governor lamented that “this is not New York at her finest.” There has been considerable speculation around whether Mr. Cuomo — whose resignation speech doubled as a defense of his legacy — would seek to put real money into meddling in the race.Mr. Jacobs said that he had given Mr. Cuomo, among others, a heads-up on the endorsement, a remark that drew some attention on Monday.“I’m not involved in that, I truly am not,” Ms. Hochul said, when asked about Mr. Jacobs’s decision to engage Mr. Cuomo. “I’m proud to have the support of Jay Jacobs, Rich Schaffer and anyone else who wants to line up behind me, but they know that’s not my focus.”And asked about Mr. Cuomo’s missive, she replied, “I’m actually too busy governing New York to worry about emails that are written by people.” More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Skateboards, Climate Change and Freedom: Germany’s Next-Generation Parliament

      by

      A new generation of lawmakers is entering Germany’s Parliament. They felt ignored by the previous government, so they set out to change that by winning elections.BERLIN — Emilia Fester is 23 and has yet to finish college. Max Lucks is 24 and calls himself a militant cyclist. Ria Schröder is 29 and has the rainbow flag on her Twitter profile. Muhanad Al-Halak is 31 and came to Germany from Iraq when he was 11.And all of them are now in the German Parliament.The German election result was in many ways a muddle. The winners, the Social Democrats led by Olaf Scholz, barely won. No party got more than 25.7 percent. Voters spread their ballots evenly across candidates associated with the left and the right.But one thing is clear: Germans elected their youngest ever Parliament, and the two parties at the center of this generational shift, the Greens and the Free Democrats, will not just shape the next government but are also poised to help shape the future of the country.For now, the Greens, focused on climate change and social justice, and the Free Democrats, who campaigned on civil liberties and digital modernization, are kingmakers: Whoever becomes the next chancellor almost certainly needs both parties to form a government.“We will no longer leave politics to the older generation,” said Ms. Schröder, a newly minted lawmaker for the Free Democrats from Hamburg. “The world has changed around us. We want to take our country into the future — because it’s our future.”Ria Schröder, center, the chairwoman of the youth organization of the Free Democrats, listening to a speech at the party’s European Congress in 2019.Gregor Fischer/Picture Alliance, via Getty ImagesFor decades, Germany has been governed by two rival establishment parties, each run by older men, and, more recently, by a somewhat older woman. Indeed, when Chancellor Angela Merkel took office in 2005 at age 51, she was the youngest ever chancellor. Germany’s electorate still skews older, with one in four voters over 60, yet it was a younger vote, some of it angry, that lifted the two upstart parties.Fully 44 percent of voters under 25 cast their ballot for the Greens and the Free Democrats, compared with only 25 percent in that age range who voted for Ms. Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, the traditional center-left party.The most immediate effect will be felt in Parliament. Roughly one in seven lawmakers in the departing Parliament were under 40. Now the ratio is closer to one in three. (In the U.S. Congress, one in five members are 40 or younger. The average age in Congress is 58, compared with 47.5 for Germany’s new Parliament.)“We have a generational rift, a very stark polarization that didn’t exist before: It’s the under-30s vs. the over-50s,” said Klaus Hurrelmann, a sociologist who studies young people at the Hertie School in Berlin. “Young people want change and these two parties got the change vote.”The Greens finished in third place, while the Free Democrats came in fourth, both seeing their vote share rise. The split-screen quality of the race was unmistakable: Candidates for the two traditional parties campaigned for the status quo while the Free Democrats and Greens unabashedly campaigned for change.A polling station in Berlin during the election last Sunday.Lena Mucha for The New York Times“It mustn’t stay as it is,” read one Free Democrats campaign poster.The two parties are already signaling that they intend to change the old ways of doing business in German politics. Their leaders reached out to one another — an unprecedented step — before meeting with representatives of the bigger parties in advance of coalition negotiations, a process that began over the weekend.Rather than publicize their meeting with a leak to a newspaper or a public broadcaster, they posted a selfie of their four leaders on Instagram, causing a sensation in a country where political discussion has focused more on curbing social media than using it to reach new audiences.Many of the young lawmakers now moving to Berlin, like Mr. Lucks, say they will bike or — in the case of Ms. Fester — skateboard to work. Some are looking to rent communal housing. Others plan cross-party “beer pong” gatherings to meet one another. And all of them are in regular communication with their voters via social media.“What are your hopes and fears for a traffic light?” Mr. Lucks asked his followers on Instagram this week, referring to the green, yellow and red party colors of the most likely governing coalition of Greens and Free Democrats with the Social Democrats at the helm.Max Lucks, right, with Annalena Baerbock, the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, in Bochum, Germany, in August.Kay Nietfeld/Picture Alliance, via Getty ImagesWithin a couple of hours, Mr. Lucks, who was elected for the Greens, had received 200 comments. “Maintaining that direct line to my voters is really important to me,” he said. “Young people yearn to be heard. They’ve felt betrayed by politics — their issues were just not taken seriously by those in power.”The two issues that appeared to animate young voters most in the election were climate change and freedom, polls suggest.“There is no more important issue than climate change — it’s existential,” said Roberta Müller, a 20-year-old first-time voter in the Steglitz district of Berlin. “It doesn’t feel very democratic to me that older people get to decide on — and effectively destroy — our future.”The handling of the pandemic also played a big role. Schools were closed and college classes moved online, while billions of euros in aid flowed into the economy to keep businesses afloat and prevent widespread layoffs.“Hair salons were more important than education during the pandemic,” said Ms. Fester, of the Greens, who at 23 is the youngest of the 735 members of the new Parliament. “There were long discussions about how the hair salons could stay open, but universities and kindergartens remained closed.”The pandemic also put the spotlight on key workers who are often badly paid — and younger — while bringing to light how far behind Europe’s biggest economy is on developing the digital infrastructure needed to be competitive in the modern, globalized world.A younger cohort of lawmakers has also helped increase other kinds of diversity in what previously had been a mostly homogeneous chamber. There will be more women and lawmakers from ethnic minorities than ever before — and Germany’s first two transgender members of Parliament.At 31, Mr. Al-Halak, of the Free Democrats, could be considered one of the “older” new members of Parliament.Muhanad Al-Halak, who was born in Iraq before emigrating with his family to Germany, will represent a Lower Bavaria district in Parliament.Free DemocratsBorn in Iraq, he was 11 when he emigrated with his family to Germany, settling in a southern part of Lower Bavaria, which he will now represent in Parliament. He wants to serve as a voice for a new generation of Germans who were born elsewhere but have successfully learned the language and a trade — he worked at a wastewater facility — to become active members of society.“I wanted to be an example for other young people that you can get ahead as a working man, regardless of where you come from, what you look like or what religion you practice,” Mr. Al-Halak said.Despite having a woman as chancellor for 16 years, the percentage of women represented in Parliament only rose slightly from 31 percent in the previous legislature.“I know there are some people who are happy that we now have 34 percent women represented in Parliament, but I don’t think it is anything to celebrate,” said Ms. Fester, who included feminism as one of her campaign issues. “The predominance of old, white men is still very visible, not only in politics but in other areas where decisions are made and money flows.”Germany’s smaller parties have traditionally defined themselves by issues, rather than staking out broadly defined ideological stances. They also agree on several things; both parties want to legalize cannabis and lower the voting age to 16.“There are now other coordinates in the system, progressive and conservative, collectivist and individualist, that describe the differences much better than left and right,” Ms. Schröder said.Still, the two junior parties disagree on much. The Greens want to raise taxes on the rich, while the Free Democrats oppose a tax hike. The Greens believe the state is essential to address climate change and social issues, while the Free Democrats are counting on industry.A climate demonstration in Berlin last month.Markus Schreiber/Associated Press“The big question is: Will they paralyze each other or will they manage to build the novelty and innovation they represent into the next government?” said Mr. Hurrelmann, the sociologist. “The balancing act will be: You get climate, we get freedom.”This week, incoming freshman lawmakers went to the Parliament building, the Reichstag, to learn rules and procedures, as well as how to find their way around.“The first days were very exciting,” Ms. Fester said. “It was a bit like orientation week at university. You get your travel card and have to find your way around — only it is in the Reichstag.”Mr. Lucks said he still has to remind himself that it is all real.“It’s a great feeling,” he said, “but then it’s also kind of humbling: We have a big responsibility. Our generation campaigned for us and voted for us and they expect us to deliver. We can’t let them down.”Christopher F. Schuetze More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Is Letitia James Running for New York Governor?

      by

      Ms. James, New York’s attorney general, has embarked on a campaign-like tour of the state and is discussing her plans with donors and officials.In recent days, Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, has given every public indication that she is thinking about running for governor.Over the course of the past week, she courted business and civic leaders, delivering a much-analyzed speech in which she described a vision for the state that extended well beyond the duties of her current job, and declared that “there is no upstate or downstate way to make government work.” She schmoozed with Democratic leaders in Brooklyn and the Bronx, addressed a League of Conservation Voters gala in Manhattan and campaigned with a Westchester County legislator.But it was behind closed doors at an event on Thursday for Ulster County Democrats in Kingston, N.Y., that she offered what appears to be the most candid assessment to date of her political future: She has a big decision to make, and she intends to make it soon.“You might be wondering about my future plans — just saying,” Ms. James said, to whoops and applause, according to a recording of the event obtained by The New York Times. “The question for me really boils down to this: What is the best way that I can make transformational change in the State of New York?”“I don’t know the answer,” she continued, in remarks that were also reported by The New York Post. She added later, “That day is coming very, very soon.”Yet the public actions and private conversations of Ms. James and those around her in recent weeks leave little doubt: She is taking serious and accelerated steps toward a potential run for governor, according to interviews with more than two dozen New York Democratic officials. Her entry into a contest in which Gov. Kathy Hochul is already running would instantly elevate next year’s primary into an expensive, high-profile and closely watched intraparty battle.“I don’t think anybody would question: Would she be capable of running the state?” Donovan Richards, the Queens borough president, said of Ms. James’s deliberations. “The question is, will she run? Is she running? And I think that’s what’s on the mind of every political insider at the moment.”Behind the scenes, Ms. James and her allies have made it clear to donors, elected officials and other Democratic power brokers that she is weighing a bid and is nearing a final decision. Her team is close to making additional political hires, according to a person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.“I have not made an ultimate — I have not made a decision,” Ms. James said in a brief interview on Thursday, quickly rephrasing in an apparent effort to avoid suggesting she had made a determination about her plans.“A number of individuals have approached me with respect to running for higher office,” she said, even as she repeatedly insisted that her focus was on her current job.But asked to characterize those conversations, Ms. James did not shy away.“That I should consider it because of my leadership, because of my ability to speak truth to power, because of my experience and because of my ability to unite the state,” she said. “I’m still focused on the office of attorney general, but I thank them for their comments.”Her comments came after she spoke briefly at a gathering of the Brooklyn Democratic Party at Junior’s, a restaurant known for cheesecake and political events.The scene there offered one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the Democratic primary has begun to take shape in the past week, with the nascent contours of a campaign trail coming into view.Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female governor, was there as well, part of her breakneck public schedule as she also moves aggressively to try to cement a huge fund-raising advantage in advance of the primary. She spoke before both Ms. James and Jumaane D. Williams, New York City’s public advocate, who announced this week that he had formed an exploratory committee and was considering his own run. (“Great job as public advocate!” Ms. Hochul cracked wryly.)Ms. Hochul, Ms. James and Mr. Williams made the rounds through a room packed with party activists and elected leaders who clamored for selfies and hugs in between bites of scrambled eggs and sips from precariously balanced coffee cups. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is also thought to be weighing a run, also dropped by, a day after he and the others were at a gathering of Bronx Democrats.It is possible that Ms. James may not ultimately challenge Ms. Hochul. She does not have a history as a strong fund-raiser, though her allies are hopeful that as the potential first Black female governor in America, she would attract national attention and support should she run. She would also have to give up her current job to run for governor, and she might prefer to seek another term as attorney general instead — boosted, perhaps, by the attention her recent activity has attracted.A representative for Ms. James declined to comment for this article.Each day brings fresh signs that the governor’s race is shaping up to be competitive and complicated.Ms. Hochul enjoys significant good will from many New Yorkers, ascending to the governorship after Andrew M. Cuomo resigned in disgrace after an independent investigation released by Ms. James’s office found he had sexually harassed 11 women.Ms. James with Anne Clark and Joon Kim, the two outside lawyers she hired to lead the investigation that prompted Andrew M. Cuomo, the former governor, to resign.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesSince taking over, Ms. Hochul, a native of western New York who is seen as a moderate, has forged ahead with several policies that are popular among many left-wing leaders. She has been a constant presence in New York City as she seeks to shore up her standing downstate, and she named a lieutenant governor, Brian A. Benjamin, who represented Harlem in the State Senate. She is also poised to benefit from the power of incumbency, including the ability to complete critical projects across the state, which would give her a concrete record to promote.“The people I hear from who have long waited for a woman to be governor are very clear that they are going to be supporting her,” Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick of Manhattan said of Ms. Hochul.Ms. Glick said she had heard next year’s race described as akin to a contest for an open seat. “I wonder if that would have been a comment that would have been made if it was a man,” she said.Mr. Williams, who, like Ms. James, is from Brooklyn, is beloved by many on the left, and some officials who are close to both worry about whether one would siphon votes from the other if they were both in the race, though their political bases are hardly identical.Other Democrats, including Representative Thomas Suozzi of Long Island, have taken steps toward a possible run.Then there is the Cuomo factor: The former governor has an $18 million war chest he could deploy to meddle in the race, and he has already attacked Ms. James, despite initially backing the independent investigation himself. She used the first part of her recent speech to business leaders to sharply rebuke his attacks and to defend her own work.“You could tell, when the speech started, that everyone perked up, stopped what they were doing, were very focused on what she had to say, which is very rare in those rooms,” said Assemblywoman Nily Rozic of Queens, who praised Ms. James for having “set the record straight.” At the Ulster County event, the crowd grew rowdy as Ms. James reached her crescendo.“So just stay with me and pray with me,” she said. “And stay tuned.” More