Youth

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Ecuador y Guatemala en 4 conclusiones

      by

      A los “outsiders” les fue mejor de lo esperado, lo que subraya la volatilidad de la política latinoamericana. A los candidatos que llamaron a emular las medidas enérgicas contra el crimen de El Salvador no les fue bien.El domingo, Ecuador y Guatemala celebraron elecciones que dejaron en evidencia algunas tendencias cruciales en América Latina como los esfuerzos anticorrupción, la creciente importancia de los votantes jóvenes y los llamados a emular las medidas enérgicas contra el crimen de El Salvador.En Ecuador, donde el asesinato del candidato presidencial Fernando Villavicencio este mes ensombreció la campaña, una política de la izquierda tradicional, Luisa González, se enfrentará en una segunda vuelta a Daniel Noboa, el heredero de una familia adinerada conocida por su imperio bananero.Y en Guatemala, el activista progresista y anticorrupción Bernardo Arévalo ganó la segunda vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales de manera aplastante contra una ex primera dama, Sandra Torres, asestando así un golpe al establishment político conservador del país.Debido a las preocupaciones latentes sobre la erosión del Estado de derecho y la influencia cada vez mayor de las bandas narcotraficantes en diferentes partes de América Latina, la votación fue observada de cerca en busca de señales de lo que podrían significar los resultados.A continuación, presentamos algunas conclusiones clave.El presidente de El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, ha tomado medidas enérgicas contra la violencia de las pandillas mediante arrestos masivos que perjudicaron a miles de personas inocentes.Brittainy Newman para The New York TimesLa delincuencia no fue el único tema en la mente de los votantesEcuador y Guatemala enfrentan una variedad de retos diferentes, y aunque las dificultades para gobernar de manera efectiva en ambos países son bien conocidas, los nuevos líderes tendrán que lidiar con tener bajo control el crimen organizado y crear oportunidades económicas para mantener a sus ciudadanos en casa y evitar que emigren.La estrella del momento en la escena política de América Latina es el presidente populista conservador de El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, debido a su éxito en el uso de tácticas de línea dura para sofocar la violencia de las pandillas, incluidos arrestos masivos que afectaron a miles de personas inocentes y erosionaron las libertades civiles. Pero las expectativas de que los entusiastas de las tácticas de Bukele sobre el crimen tendrían un camino fácil hacia la victoria se desvanecieron tanto en Ecuador como en Guatemala.“Es notable que en ninguno de los dos casos les haya ido bien a los admiradores descarados de las políticas severas de Nayib Bukele contra las bandas criminales en El Salvador”, dijo Michael Shifter, miembro principal de Diálogo Intermericano, una organización de investigación con sede en Washington.A pesar de la conmoción generada por el asesinato de Villavicencio, los candidatos explícitamente anticrimen en Ecuador dividieron su porción de los votos. A Jan Topic, quien se alineó estrechamente con Bukele, le fue mal a pesar de haber subido en las encuestas tras el asesinato.“Hizo una campaña de un solo tema que, en su mayoría, se enfocó en la seguridad”, dijo Risa Grais-Targow, directora para América Latina de Eurasia Group, sobre Topic. “Pero los votantes tienen otras preocupaciones, como las relacionadas con la economía”.De manera similar, en Guatemala —donde crecían los temores de un descenso hacia el autoritarismo— la promesa de Torres de implementar políticas al estilo de Bukele no logró ganar mucho impulso. En cambio, su rival la puso a la defensiva debido a que había pasado un tiempo bajo arresto domiciliario en relación con cargos de financiamiento ilícito de campañas.También influyeron en el resultado las maniobras de la autoridad electoral de Guatemala para simplemente descalificar a los candidatos que se consideraron amenazas al orden establecido.Uno de los candidatos expulsados de la contienda antes de la primera vuelta en junio fue Carlos Pineda, un outsider que buscaba replicar las medidas enérgicas contra el crimen de Bukele. La descalificación de Pineda y otros le abrió un camino a Arévalo, otro candidato independiente cuyas propuestas para combatir el delito son más matizadas.Los candidatos guatemaltecos intentaron capitalizar el apoyo de los jóvenes.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesLos votantes jóvenes influyen en las eleccionesEn un grado notable, los resultados electorales en Ecuador y Guatemala dependieron de las decisiones de los votantes jóvenes. En Ecuador, Noboa, un empresario de 35 años, neófito de la política, estaba en los últimos lugares de las encuestas hasta hace apenas unas semanas.Pero aprovechando el apoyo de los jóvenes mientras se presentaba como un candidato independiente, Noboa se abrió camino inesperadamente hacia la segunda vuelta con cerca del 24 por ciento de los votos. (El reconocimiento de su apellido también podría haber ayudado; su padre, Álvaro Noboa, uno de los hombres más ricos de Ecuador, se postuló a la presidencia en cinco oportunidades).En Guatemala, el país más poblado de América Central, Arévalo, de 64 años, también se benefició del apoyo de los jóvenes, especialmente en las ciudades, quienes se sintieron atraídos por sus llamados a poner fin a la persecución política de activistas de derechos humanos, ambientalistas, periodistas, fiscales y jueces.Arévalo también mostró una postura más moderada sobre temas sociales. Aunque dijo que no buscaría legalizar el aborto o el matrimonio igualitario, dejó claro que su gobierno no permitiría la discriminación contra las personas por su orientación sexual.Esa postura, algo novedosa en Guatemala, contrastó en gran manera con la de Torres, quien seleccionó a un pastor evangélico como su compañero de fórmula y empleó un insulto contra personas homosexuales en la campaña electoral para referirse a los simpatizantes de Arévalo.Luisa González enfrentará a Daniel Noboa en la segunda vuelta de las elecciones en Ecuador.Johanna Alarcón para The New York TimesLa izquierda va en diferentes direccionesGuatemala y Ecuador ofrecieron visiones contrastantes de la izquierda en América Latina.Dentro del panorama político tradicionalmente conservador de Guatemala, Arévalo, quien critica gobiernos de izquierda como el de Nicaragua, a menudo es descrito como un progresista. En ese sentido se parece más a Gabriel Boric, el presidente joven y moderado de Chile, que a los agitadores de otras zonas de la región.El partido de Arévalo, Movimiento Semilla, el cual se formó tras las protestas anticorrupción en 2015, también es diferente a cualquier otro movimiento surgido en Guatemala durante las últimas décadas. Semilla llamó la atención por realizar una campaña austera y de principios, dejando claras sus fuentes de financiamiento, a diferencia del financiamiento opaco que prevalece en otros partidos. Otra fuente de inspiración para Semilla es el Frente Amplio de Uruguay, un partido de centro izquierda moderado y democrático.“Arévalo es un demócrata de pies a cabeza”, aseveró Will Freeman, miembro de estudios latinoamericanos del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores.González, en contraste, proviene de un sector diferente de la izquierda latinoamericana, caracterizado en el caso de Ecuador por poner a prueba los controles y equilibrios democráticos, dijo Freeman. Es partidaria de Rafael Correa, un expresidente ecuatoriano que sigue siendo una fuerza dominante en la política del país a pesar de tener seis años fuera del poder.Correa, quien vive en Bélgica tras huir de una sentencia de prisión de ocho años por violaciones en el financiamiento de campañas, conserva una base sólida que oscila entre el 20 y el 30 por ciento del electorado.En gran medida, ese apoyo es resultado de la “nostalgia de ese momento de bienestar que hubo durante la era de Correa”, dijo Caroline Ávila, analista política en Ecuador.Arévalo obtuvo más votos que cualquier otro candidato en Guatemala desde que se restableció la democracia en el país en 1985.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesLa imprevisibilidad marcó las contiendasLas elecciones tanto en Ecuador como en Guatemala destacaron una tendencia regional más general: la incertidumbre y volatilidad de la política latinoamericana.En ambos países, las encuestas fallaron en captar desarrollos cruciales. En Ecuador, donde Topic capitalizó las consecuencias del asesinato de Villavicencio, Noboa se abrió camino para pasar a la segunda vuelta.Y en Guatemala, Arévalo, un candidato académico que a veces lee sus discursos y carece de las habilidades oratorias de sus rivales, no fue visto como una amenaza por el establishment hasta que logró pasar a la segunda vuelta.Hoy, con su aplastante victoria, Arévalo obtuvo más votos que cualquier otro candidato desde que se restauró la democracia en Guatemala en 1985.Ese es un escenario que incluso muchos miembros del propio partido de Arévalo no vieron venir.Simon Romero More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Elections in Ecuador and Guatemala: Four Takeaways

      by

      Outsiders overperformed, underscoring the volatility of Latin American politics. Candidates calling to emulate El Salvador’s crackdown on crime did not do well.Ecuador and Guatemala held elections on Sunday that shed light on crucial trends throughout Latin America, including anticorruption drives, the growing importance of young voters and calls to emulate El Salvador’s crackdown on crime.In Ecuador, where the assassination this month of the presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio cast a pall over campaigning, an establishment leftist, Luisa González, will head into a runoff against Daniel Noboa, the scion of a well-heeled family known for its banana empire.And in Guatemala, the progressive anti-graft crusader Bernardo Arévalo won in a landslide over a former first lady, Sandra Torres, dealing a blow to the country’s conservative political establishment.As concerns simmer over the erosion of the rule of law and the expanding sway of drug gangs in different parts of Latin America, the voting was watched closely for signs of what the outcomes could mean.Here are key takeaways.President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has cracked down on gang violence, using mass arrests that swept up thousands of innocent people. Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesCrime wasn’t the only issue on voters’ minds.Ecuador and Guatemala each face an array of different challenges, and while it is hard to overstate the difficulty of governing effectively in both countries, new leaders will grapple with getting organized crime under control and creating economic opportunities to keep their citizens at home instead of emigrating.The star of the moment in Latin America’s political scene is El Salvador’s conservative populist president, Nayib Bukele, for his success in using hard-line tactics to quell gang violence, including mass arrests that swept up thousands of innocent people and the erosion of civil liberties. But expectations that enthusiasts for the Bukele gospel on crime would sail to victory fizzled in Ecuador and Guatemala.“It is notable that in neither case did unabashed admirers of Nayib Bukele’s hard-line policies against criminal gangs in El Salvador fare well,” said Michael Shifter, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research organization.Despite the shock over the assassination of Mr. Villavicencio, explicitly anti-crime candidates in Ecuador split their share of the votes. Jan Topic, who aligned himself closely with Mr. Bukele, fared poorly despite climbing in the polls after the assassination.“He did run a single-issue campaign that was very much focused around security,” Risa Grais-Targow, the Latin America director for Eurasia Group, said of Mr. Topic. “But voters have other concerns, including on the economy.”Similarly, in Guatemala — where fears were growing of a slide toward authoritarian rule — Ms. Torres’s pledge to put in place Bukele-style policies failed to gain much traction. Instead, the former first lady was put on the defensive by her rival because she had spent time under house arrest in connection to charges of illicit campaign financing.Also influencing the outcome: moves by Guatemala’s electoral authority to simply disqualify candidates who were viewed as threatening the established order.One of the candidates pushed out of the race ahead of the first round in June was Carlos Pineda, an outsider seeking to replicate Mr. Bukele’s crackdown on crime. When Mr. Pineda and others were disqualified, that provided an opening for Mr. Arévalo, another outsider, even though his proposals to fight crime are more nuanced.Guatemalan candidates tried to capitalize on the support of young people.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesYoung voters shape elections.To a notable degree, the electoral outcomes in Ecuador and Guatemala hinged on the choices of young voters. In Ecuador, Mr. Noboa, 35, a businessman and newcomer to politics, was polling in the doldrums just a few weeks ago.But seizing on youth support while casting himself as an outsider, Mr. Noboa unexpectedly surged into the runoff with about 24 percent of the vote. (Name recognition may also have helped; his father, Álvaro Noboa, one of Ecuador’s richest men, ran unsuccessfully for president five times.)In Guatemala, Central America’s most populous country, Mr. Arévalo, 64, also capitalized on the support of young people, especially in cities, who were drawn to his calls to end the political persecution of human rights activists, environmentalists, journalists, prosecutors and judges.Mr. Arévalo also offered a more moderate stance on social issues. While saying he would not seek to legalize abortion or gay marriage, he made it clear that his government would not permit discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation.That position, which is somewhat novel in Guatemala, stood in sharp contrast to that of Ms. Torres, who drafted an evangelical pastor as her running mate and used an anti-gay slur on the campaign trail to refer to Mr. Arévalo’s supporters.Luisa González will head into a runoff against Daniel Noboa in Ecuador.Johanna Alarcón for The New York TimesThe left is going in different directions.Guatemala and Ecuador offered sharply contrasting visions for the left in Latin America.Indeed, within Guatemala’s traditionally conservative political landscape, Mr. Arévalo, who criticizes leftist governments like Nicaragua’s, is often described as a progressive. In that sense, he is more like Gabriel Boric, Chile’s moderate young president, than firebrands elsewhere in the region.Mr. Arévalo’s party, Movimiento Semilla (Seed Movement), which coalesced after anticorruption protests in 2015, is also unlike any other party in Guatemala in recent decades. Semilla gained attention for running a principled and austere campaign, making its funding sources clear, in contrast to the opaque financing prevailing in other parties. Another source of inspiration for Semilla is Uruguay’s Frente Amplio (Broad Front), a moderate, democratic left-of-center party.“Arévalo is a democrat through and through,” said Will Freeman, a fellow in Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.Ms. González, by contrast, hails from a different part of the Latin American left, characterized in Ecuador’s case by testing democratic checks and balances, Mr. Freeman said. She is a supporter of Rafael Correa, a former Ecuadorean president who remains a dominant force in the country’s politics despite being out of power for six years.Mr. Correa, who lives in Belgium after fleeing an eight-year prison sentence for campaign-finance violations, retains a strong base that oscillates between 20 percent and 30 percent of the electorate.That support is largely a result of the “nostalgia for that moment of well-being that existed during the Correa era,” said Caroline Ávila, a political analyst in Ecuador.Mr. Arévalo got more votes than any other candidate in Guatemala since democracy was restored in the country in 1985.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesUnpredictability underlined the races.The races in both Ecuador and Guatemala highlighted a wider regional trend: the uncertainty and volatility of Latin America’s politics.Polls in both countries failed to capture crucial developments. In Ecuador, where Mr. Topic was seen capitalizing on the aftermath of the Villavicencio assassination, Mr. Noboa swooped in to make it to the runoff.And in Guatemala, Mr. Arévalo, a professorial candidate who sometimes reads his speeches and lacks the oratory skills of his rivals, was viewed as nonthreatening by the establishment — until he squeaked into the runoff.Now, with his landslide win, Mr. Arévalo got more votes than any other candidate since democracy was restored in Guatemala in 1985.That’s a scenario that even many within Mr. Arévalo’s own party did not see coming.Simon Romero More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Vivek Ramaswamy Has a Gimmick That Republicans Are Sure to Love

      by

      Vivek Ramaswamy is a 38-year-old investor and former pharmaceutical executive who wants to be the Republican nominee for president. He’s not ahead by any means, but he’s doing better than you might expect. If Donald Trump dominates the field and Ron DeSantis is the far runner-up, then Ramaswamy is the candidate poised to rise if the Florida governor falls further behind.Ramaswamy is “anti-woke,” condemns Juneteenth as a “useless” holiday and says that “diversity is not our strength.” He thinks climate activism is a “cult” and wants to send the military to the border with Mexico. He wants to unravel the so-called deep state, thinks the Trump indictments are politically motivated and won’t say whether, if he were in Mike Pence’s shoes, he would have refused the former president’s demand to overturn the 2020 election results.In other words, he’s preoccupied by most of the same concerns as his rivals. But he does have one gimmick that DeSantis and Trump don’t: “We are a constitutional republic. We need to revive civic duty among young Americans,” Ramaswamy said on the platform X, formerly known as Twitter. “That’s why I’m announcing my support for a constitutional amendment to raise the voting age from 18 to 25, but to still allow 18-year-olds to vote if they either pass the same civics test required of immigrants to become naturalized citizens, or else to perform 6 months of military or first responder service.”Ramaswamy has elaborated in interviews on his call to raise the voting age for most young people. “I think we have a loss of civic pride in our country. I think people, young people included, do not value a country that they simply inherit,” he told NPR. “I think we value a country that we have a stake in building. And I think that asking a young person, asking any citizen, to know something about the country before voting, I think is a perfectly reasonable condition.”Demanding a de facto literacy test for most young Americans to vote is not actually a “perfectly reasonable condition.” It is a direct assault on the basic democratic rights of millions of citizens.To begin, there’s the fundamental fact that no aspect of political equality hinges on the ability to memorize trivia. What’s more, you do not need a formal education of any sort to embrace the duties of citizenship or to understand yourself as a political actor with a right to self-government. You do not even need one to understand your political interests and to work, individually or with others, to pursue them through our democratic institutions.To think otherwise is to believe that Americans, from the yeoman farmers of the early Republic to the freedmen of the Reconstruction South to the urban industrial workers of the early 20th century, have never been equipped to govern themselves.There’s also the practical fact that most new requirements for voting in the United States are — in intent and purpose — new restrictions on voting.For example, these days we take the secret ballot for granted as the only rational way to conduct an election. Of course the state should produce uniform, standard ballots for all elections. Of course we should vote in private. But for much of the 19th century before the introduction of the secret ballot — also known as the “Australian” ballot — American voters obtained their ballots from their political parties. “Since the ballots generally contained only the names of an individual party’s candidates, literacy was not required,” notes the historian Alexander Keyssar in “The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States.” “All that a man had to do was drop a ballot in a box.”With a single, standardized ballot — cast in private without the assistance of a friend or relative or party representative — voters had to read to participate. That was the point. As one contemporaneous observer, George Gunton, an economist and social reformer, declared, “so obvious is the evil of ignorant voting that more stringent naturalization laws are being demanded, because too many of our foreign-born citizens vote ignorantly. It is to remedy this that the Australian ballot system has been adopted in so many states.” Its purpose, he continued, was “to eliminate the ignorant, illiterate voters.”We similarly take voter registration for granted — of course we should confirm our intention to vote with municipal authorities ahead of time. But that, too, was introduced to limit and restrict the electorate. “Beginning in the 1830s,” writes Keyssar, “the idea of registration became more popular, particularly among Whigs, who believed that ineligible transients and foreigners were casting their votes for the Democratic Party.” Sixty years later, Southern Democrats used highly discretionary registration laws to remove as many Republican-voting Blacks from the electorate as possible.“The key disfranchising features of the Southern registration laws were the amount of discretion granted to the registrars, the specificity of the information required of the registrant, the times and places set for registration, and the requirement that a voter bring his registration certificate to the polling place,” explained the political scientist J. Morgan Kousser in “The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910.” “Registration laws were most efficiently used — as in South Carolina, Louisiana and North Carolina — to cut the electorate immediately before a referendum on constitutional disfranchisement.”We also can’t forget the actual literacy tests, introduced at the turn of the 20th century, that were designed to keep as many immigrants, Black Americans and laboring people from the polls as possible. The point was to limit, as much as possible, the political power of groups that might challenge the interests of those in power, from industrial barons in the North to large landowners in the South.Ramaswamy says that the goal of his proposal is to encourage civic pride and inculcate a deeper attachment to the country among the youngest American adults. But there are ways to do both without creating new obstacles to voting. There’s also no evidence or indication that a mandatory civics test would achieve the goal in question. When you consider, as well, the extent to which there are older adults — even elderly adults — who could use a little civic pride themselves, it appears that Ramaswamy’s proposal has less to do with fostering national cohesion and more to do with the Republican Party’s unenviable dilemma with young people.Democrats win most younger voters across all racial and ethnic groups. In the 2022 midterm elections, according to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of voters under 30 backed Democrats compared with 31 percent for Republicans. And soon, young people will represent a majority of potential voters in the country.Rather than try to appeal to or persuade this bloc, Ramaswamy’s proposal is to remove a vast majority from the electorate altogether.To be clear, this isn’t a serious plan. The American public is so polarized along partisan and ideological lines as to make the Constitution effectively unamendable. Ramaswamy’s call to raise the voting age is a novelty policy for a novelty candidate. And yet it tells us something about the Republican electorate, and thus the Republican Party, that the eye-catching gimmick of an ambitious politician is a plan to disenfranchise millions of American voters.In many ways, big and small, the Republican Party has turned against the bedrock “republican principles” of majority rule and popular sovereignty. We see it in a governor removing a duly-elected official because he disagrees with the views she represents, a state legislature gerrymandering itself into a permanent majority regardless of where the votes fall, an entire state Republican Party trying (and failing) to change the rules of constitutional amendment to keep the voters from affirming their rights and a former president who would rather end the American experiment in democracy than accept defeat at the ballot box.Ramaswamy is playing the same song. There’s almost no one in the Republican Party, at this point, who isn’t.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Greek Youths, Shaped by Debt Crisis, Plan to Vote for Stability

      by

      Many children of Greece’s traumatic years of economic collapse have opted for pragmatism over radicalism and say they will back a conservative on Sunday.Days before this Sunday’s election in Greece, three young women with piercings and ironic T-shirts who sat outside a hipster coffee shop in an Athens neighborhood best known as a hub of anarchist fervor said they wanted stability.“Money is important — you can’t live without money,” said Mara Katsitou, 22, a student who grew up during the country’s disastrous financial crisis and one day hoped to open a pharmacy. “There’s nothing that matters to someone more than the economy.”As a result, she said, she would cast her vote for Kyriakos Mitsotakis, 55, the square, conservative prime minister who graduated from Harvard, who is fond of riding his bike and who, polls suggest, will win convincingly on Sunday in a second national election. With Mr. Mitsotakis — who is also the son of a former prime minister — Ms. Katsitou said, she had “definitely a better chance.” About a third of young voters like her feel the same, polls indicate.After spending impressionable years amid so much panic, desperation and humiliation during the decade-long financial crisis that erupted in 2010 — and which collapsed the Greek economy — many of Greece’s depression-era children have grown up to say they have no interest in ever turning back.In many quarters, youthful radicalism has given way to unexpected pragmatism, a yearning for prosperity and a steady hand, and an inclination to overlook or at least mute outrage over any number of scandals that have dogged Mr. Mitsotakis.Young Greeks have expressed no interest in going back to the realities of the 2010s. At the peak of the crisis, nearly one in three Greeks were jobless, and many struggled to buy food and pay bills.Byron Smith for The New York TimesIn recent days, a shipwreck that killed possibly more than 600 migrants has raised new questions about the Mitsotakis government’s hard-line measures to curb arrivals of migrants. The wiretapping of an opposition leader by the state’s intelligence service and Mr. Mitsotakis’s consolidation of Greek media has prompted concerns about the erosion of democratic norms. A train crash that killed 57 people in February revealed the shabby state of key Greek infrastructure, for which he apologized.But for Greeks, including an increasing number of younger Greeks, polls show that all of those issues pale in comparison to the country’s economic stability and fortunes.Mr. Mitsotakis’s government has spurred growth at twice the eurozone average by cutting taxes and debt, and by increasing digitization, minimum wages and pensions. Big multinational corporations are investing in the country. Tourism is skyrocketing. The country is paying back creditors ahead of schedule, increasing the chances of rating agencies lifting Greece’s bonds out of junk status.“It’s all about jobs, about, you know, raising disposable income and bringing in a lot of investment and about growing the economy much faster,” Mr. Mitsotakis said in a recent interview. “This was always my bet, and I think that we delivered, if you look at the numbers.”A bus stop with a campaign poster for Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis this month in Athens.Byron Smith for The New York TimesGreece’s 2010 debt crisis was a searing national catastrophe. Humiliating bailouts connected to seemingly endless austerity measures slashed household incomes by a third and sent unemployment skyrocketing as hundreds of thousands of businesses collapsed.At the peak of the crisis, in 2013, nearly one in three Greeks were jobless, and many were disheartened after years of violent protests, in which demonstrators clashed with the police in the streets of Athens and other cities in clouds of tear gas. Scenes of the most desperate people trawling through bins for food — once unheard-of — shocked the majority of Greeks who struggled to make ends meet.“We still have a deep sort of legacy of 10 years of a crisis,” Mr. Mitsotakis acknowledged in the interview. “Not many people appreciated how painful the crisis was — we lost 25 percent of our” gross domestic product.Mr. Mitsotakis, the standard-bearer for the New Democracy party, has won over a sizable share of the generation that grew up in that time, increasing his support among voters aged 17 to 24 by three points, to 33 percent.Just as telling, support among young voters for his leftist opponent, former Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, the leader of the Syriza party, has collapsed, falling to 24 percent from 38 percent since the 2019 elections, when Mr. Mitsotakis defeated him.In an initial election in May, Mr. Mitsotakis’s party thrashed Syriza by 20 points, but it was not enough of a majority to lead a one-party government. Instead of cobbling together a coalition, Mr. Mitsotakis opted for another election. With a new, more favorable election law that gives a bonus of seats to the leading vote-getter, he now hopes to win a landslide victory that will allow him to govern alone.Overall, Mr. Tsipras is trailing Mr. Mitsotakis by more than 20 points.Support for Alexis Tsipras, the leader of the left-wing Syriza party, among young voters has fallen since he was defeated by Mr. Mitsotakis in the 2019 elections.Byron Smith for The New York TimesThat is despite his efforts to depict Mr. Mitsotakis as an undemocratic, arrogant and unaccountable strongman who he says has overseen a “massive redistribution of wealth from the many to the few” in his four years in power.Not all young voters, of course, are behind Mr. Mitsotakis. Many complain that the prosperity that is supposed to kick-start their lives is making things so costly that they cannot move out of their homes.Not all of the economic indicators are good, either. Greece still has the European Union’s highest national debt, and it is the second-poorest nation in the European Union, after Bulgaria. Tax evasion is still common.Mr. Tsipras has tried to convince young voters that, in fact, he, not Mr. Mitsotakis, is not only the true agent of change, but also of stability. He has promised financial relief, including better health benefits, though it remains unclear how those would be funded.“We’ll fight so that hope for justice and prosperity for all is not lost in this country, for a fair society and prosperity for everyone,” Mr. Tsipras said this week at a campaign event in the western city of Patra.Some voters, suffering under rising prices and exponentially increasing rents, support him.“The crisis isn’t over; it’s still here,” said Grigoris Varsamis, 46, who said his record shop’s electric bills were through the roof and that he would vote for Mr. Tsipras.An information booth for former Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras this month in Athens.Byron Smith for The New York TimesBut there is little doubt that Mr. Tsipras, a former Communist firebrand who governed in the latter years of the financial crisis, has been tainted by a lasting association with the pain of that era.In 2015, under his leadership, Greeks voted to reject Europe’s draconian aid package, and Greece was nearly ejected from the eurozone. Social unrest returned and talk of “Grexit,” referring to Greece exiting the eurozone, mounted. Many young Greeks who grew up during that time feel scarred by the Syriza experience.Grigoris Kikis, 26, an award-winning chef at the restaurant Upon in Athens, remembers that the financial crisis coincided with his trying to break into the world of restaurants as a 13-year-old volunteering in kitchens after school.As restaurants closed and his father fretted about paying his workers, the chefs around him worried about the budgets for produce, meat, plates and glasses. When they wanted to try out a new dish, they could afford to test it only once.Today, Mr. Kikis runs a popular bistro in Athens with a 300-label wine list, in-house coffee-roasting machines and an eclectic menu with plates tried 25 times before they make the cut.“The restaurant is full every day,” he said, explaining that he would vote for Mr. Mitsotakis to keep it that way. “Many people my age care most about the economy. They say there is more opportunity and higher salaries, and maybe people will come from abroad and want to work in Greece because things changed for the better.”Grigoris Kikis, a chef in Athens, said people his age felt strongly about the future of their country’s economy.Byron Smith for The New York TimesThe same is true for Nikos Therapos, 29, a sustainability consultant. When he was 16, he said, the drastic cutting of the public budgets cost his mother, a kindergarten teacher, her job. His father’s company, in the hard-hit construction industry, shrank, too.“I remember very clearly about not being so optimistic about my professional career,” he said.In 2015, when he was studying business in Brussels, Greece was embroiled in intense political and social upheaval, and, Mr. Therapos recalled, his fellow students shunned him in working groups.“I was regarded as the lazy Greek, even though they didn’t know anything about me,” he said. “It was really unfair for me and my generation.”But in the past four years, Mr. Therapos said, there had been a change.“I cannot say we are back to normality for the simple reason that I have never known normality,” he said. But for the first time, he said, he felt “confident in our future.”Many of his more leftist friends had also shifted to Mr. Mitsotakis, Mr. Therapos said, because they want a “stable and sustainable economic system.”Unsurprisingly, Mr. Mitsotakis agreed.“At the end of the day,” he said, “Greece is no longer a problem for the eurozone. I think this offers a lot of people relief.” More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Should Gig Workers Be Classified?

      by

      More from our inbox:A Trump Scenario: Losing in Court, but Winning the PresidencySupporting World Heritage SitesYoung Voices for Climate ActionSome drivers for services like Uber and Lyft said they have seen wages decline, while others say they have risen.Gabby Jones for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Hustle Till It Hurts: Gig Work’s Luster Dims” (Sunday Business, May 28):The questions and concerns raised by freelance and gig work are important ones, but we need to stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.As a lawyer who has spent her career analyzing work force policy, hearing from women, single mothers and people with disabilities who feel left out of traditional work models, we need to address what’s missing from the conversation: the bigger policy picture.In America, the social safety net is tied to employment status, and worker classification laws are complicated and nuanced. Because of this, workers who want flexibility to choose when, where and how often to work have to choose between sovereignty and certainty.I urge policymakers to consider legislation that addresses these barriers by decoupling benefits from employment status, developing a thoughtful alternative model as other countries have done, and partnering with business leaders and educators to expand resources for workers to understand their classification status.Only then can we tap into the talents of a vast, diverse work force and build a more inclusive, innovative and sustainable economy.Regan ParkerPortland, Ore.The writer is the general counsel and chief public affairs officer for ShiftKey, a digital platform that connects independent licensed professionals with health care facilities.To the Editor:Your article rightly states that there is not a clear consensus on how some gig workers, such as ride-share drivers and freelance writers, should be classified under current employment laws. But when it comes to the highly regulated health care industry, there’s no room for debate: Nurses and nursing assistants should be classified as employees.The recent rise in digital health care staffing platforms gives nurses more flexibility, allowing them to work shifts as they please rather than full time at a facility. However, some of these staffing platforms improperly claim that because their nurses work gig-style schedules, they can be classified as independent contractors.These companies save themselves money but put the nurses and facilities where they work at risk. Nurses don’t control when they start and end their shifts. They are supervised and perform their responsibilities according to strict guidelines.When properly enforced, the Fair Labor Standards Act enables nurses to enjoy gig-style schedules without losing the employee-related benefits they deserve.Tony BraswellTampa, Fla.The writer is the president and founder of Gale Healthcare Solutions.A Trump Scenario: Losing in Court, but Winning the PresidencyDonald Trump at a campaign event.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Former President Donald Trump’s indictment might very well culminate in his being convicted on felony espionage charges while running for and possibly winning the presidency. Inexplicably, the Constitution does not preclude this.The surreal, disheartening and illogical nature of such an outcome is underscored by current employment prohibitions in the U.S. for convicted felons. Those with felony convictions cannot work in the banking, real estate, health care and insurance industries. Additionally, professions that require a license, including those involving lawyers, teachers and psychologists, preclude felonious applicants. Beyond this, several states have their own employment restrictions for individuals with felony backgrounds.In light of this, the idea that Mr. Trump could conceivably occupy the Oval Office for four more years, despite his being a felon, should this be the case, is proof that the framers of the Constitution were not prescient enough to anticipate how sordid our nation’s politics would become.Mark GodesChelsea, Mass.To the Editor:In my view, Democrats would do well to turn off the indictment news and focus on defeating Donald Trump. Jack Smith’s clear indictment offers, to those willing to read it, compelling evidence of the flood of corruption that surged through the White House during the Trump presidency and will hopefully persuade some more moderate Republicans to abandon him. But winning a conviction without defeating him at the ballot box leaves us in the same dark hole or worse off than before.Few who still support Mr. Trump after learning about the details of the indictment will change their decision based upon Mr. Smith’s success in the courtroom. The specter of Mr. Trump losing in court and winning the election would do enduring damage to the nation.Mr. Trump must be defeated the hard way, at the ballot box.Larry LobertGrosse Pointe Park, Mich.Supporting World Heritage SitesYosemite National Park in California is one of UNESCO’s many World Heritage sites.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “After a Six-Year Hiatus, the U.S. Will Rejoin UNESCO in July, Agency Says” (news article, June 13):Thank you for your reporting that the United States plans to rejoin UNESCO. And for highlighting the importance of World Heritage sites, designated by UNESCO. Many Americans — and citizens of other nations — have visited and been inspired by World Heritage sites in the United States, including the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone National Park, Chaco Culture National Historical Park and many other places.However, the United States last paid its World Heritage Committee dues in 2011. Congress and the Biden administration should pay our current year dues (estimated at less than $600,000) and past unpaid dues.The United States has continued to participate in the World Heritage program, including recent designations of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings, including the Guggenheim Museum, and pending nominations of Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks in Ohio and the Historic Moravian Church Settlements in Bethlehem, Pa. Advocates are also working to nominate U.S. Civil Rights Movement Sites and the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.Full U.S. engagement with World Heritage requires paying our share of the program’s costs. It would also permit the United States, a catalyst for the creation of the World Heritage program, to reassert our global leadership in heritage preservation, including such challenges as the reconstruction of World Heritage sites in Ukraine.Thomas CassidyArlington, Va.The writer is a trustee of World Heritage USA.Young Voices for Climate Action Amber Bracken for The New York TimesTo the Editor:The devastating Canadian wildfires make it imperative that we include everyone in climate advocacy, particularly young voices. These wildfires are stark reminders of the escalating climate crisis and the urgent need for change.Young voices are essential in demanding systemic transformations, as this is just one chapter in an existential fight that will persist for the rest of our lives.My climate advocacy is a matter of self-defense. I grew up in Portland, Ore., a place struggling with climate change. I have witnessed wildfires approaching my city and threatening my home, river ecosystems collapsing and their species being put at risk of extinction. The battle we face is not limited to a single fire season or year; it is a fight for our collective survival.Young people will bear the brunt of these disasters. Our future is at stake. Our voices must be heard. We did not ask for the fight against climate change, yet it is a battle we have shouldered since birth. We are ready to contribute our collective power to improve our future.Samantha BlockFalls Church, Va.The writer is a student at Bryn Mawr College. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Millennials Are Not an Exception. They’ve Moved to the Right.

      by

      Over the last decade, almost every cohort of voters under 50 has shifted rightward.Fifteen years ago, a new generation of young voters propelled Barack Obama to a decisive victory that augured a new era of Democratic dominance.Fifteen years later, those once young voters aren’t so young — and aren’t quite so Democratic.Republican Voting Share in Presidential Elections, by Age More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Is the Surge to the Left Among Young Voters a Trump Blip or the Real Deal?

      by

      There is a lot about the American electorate that we are only now beginning to see. These developments have profound implications for the future of both the Republican and the Democratic coalitions.Two key Democratic constituencies — the young and the religiously unobservant — have substantially increased as a share of the electorate.This shift is striking.In 2012, for example, white evangelicals — a hard-core Republican constituency — made up the same proportion of the electorate as the religiously unaffiliated: agnostics, atheists and the nonreligious. Both groups stood at roughly 19 percent of the population.By 2022, according to the Public Religion Research Institute (better known as P.R.R.I.), the percentage of white evangelicals had fallen to 13.6 percent, while those with little or no interest in religion and more progressive inclinations had surged to 26.8 percent of the population.Defying the adage among practitioners and scholars of politics that voters become more conservative as they age — millennials (those born between 1981 and 1996) and Gen Z (those born in 1997 and afterward) have in fact become decidedly more Democratic over time, according to data compiled by the Cooperative Election Study.The graphic below, which is derived from the study, shows a significant increase in voting for House Democratic candidates among Millennials and Gen Z. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Crucial Question in Thailand’s Election: Can You Criticize the King?

      by

      Liberal voters have intensified their scrutiny of the Thai monarchy in recent years. Conservatives have responded with a campaign to defend the institution at all costs.When Thais go to the polls on Sunday, they will be voting in a closely fought election that is seen, in part, as a referendum on whether it is illegal to criticize the Thai monarchy.Thailand has one of the world’s strictest laws against defaming or insulting the king and other members of the royal family. Once considered taboo, the topic of the monarchy was brought to the forefront after tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets and called for checks on the institution’s power in 2020.The protests represented two sides of an impassioned struggle to determine the role of the crown in modern Thailand. The election could determine whether the Southeast Asian nation of 72 million will revive its once-vibrant democracy or slide further toward authoritarian rule, with royalists firmly in power.On one side of the debate are conservative political parties whose standard-bearer is Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the general who has governed Thailand for nine years after seizing power in a coup. He and his supporters argue that amending the law could lead to abolishing the monarchy altogether, and have vowed to defend the royal family.On the other side is the progressive Move Forward Party, which is polling in second place and argues that the law needs to be amended because it is being used as a political weapon. Several young people who participated in the 2020 protests are now running as candidates with the Move Forward Party.Anti-government protesters flashing a three-fingered salute, a sign of resistance, at a demonstration in Bangkok in 2020.Adam Dean for The New York Times“Perhaps one of the deepest fault lines in Thai society is about the monarchy,” said Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher on Thailand for Human Rights Watch.Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the youngest daughter of the ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the front-runner for prime minister, is treading carefully. Her father, a populist billionaire, is one of the most divisive political figures in Thailand. He lives in self-exile after being ousted in a coup in 2006 and can only return to Thailand with the king’s permission.Royalists have consistently accused Mr. Thaksin of wanting to overthrow the monarchy, a charge that he denies. Ms. Paetongtarn has said her party, Pheu Thai, would not abolish the law protecting the monarchy from criticism, but that the issue of reform must be openly discussed in Parliament.King Maha Vajiralongkorn greeting his supporters in Bangkok during a ceremony in remembrance of his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej.Adam Dean for The New York TimesOpinion polls show that the party of Mr. Prayuth, United Thai Nation, is trailing in third place behind Pheu Thai, which has topped the polls. In recent weeks, there has also been a surge in support for the Move Forward Party, which is polling a close No. 2.Move Forward is the largest party pushing to amend the law, irking conservatives who have accused it of undermining the monarchy. The party wants to cut the jail terms of violators of the law and designate the Bureau of the Royal Household as the only agency allowed to file lawsuits. (Any Thai citizen is able to file complaints under the current version of the law.)Conservative politicians have threatened to disband Move Forward. The party’s previous iteration, the Future Forward Party, was dissolved in 2020 by the Constitutional Court. In a sign of how sensitive the topic of reform has become, Move Forward has attempted to moderate its position, saying reform would not take precedence in its campaign.For decades, the monarchy and the military have had a symbiotic relationship, with the army frequently reminding the public that it is the true guardian of the Thai crown. Thais are taught from a young age that they have to love the king and that any criticism of the monarchy is strictly forbidden.But today, many Thais no longer stand at attention when the royal anthem is played in public spaces such as movie theaters. Royalist Marketplace, a Facebook group set up to satirize the monarchy, had more than 1 million members before Facebook blocked access to it in 2020, citing a Thai government request.The law criminalizing criticism of the monarchy carries a minimum sentence of three years if violated — the only law in Thailand that imposes a minimum jail term — and a maximum sentence of up to 15 years. After the 2020 protests, the authorities charged at least 223 people, including 17 minors, for violating the law, known as Article 112.In the area around the Grand Palace in Bangkok, posters of the king and queen are ubiquitous.Adam Dean for The New York TimesTantawan “Tawan” Tuatulanon, a 21-year-old law student, was accused of violating the rule in 2022 after she and her friends conducted a poll asking whether the royal motorcade was an inconvenience to Bangkok residents.In recent weeks, she has been pressing political parties on whether they would amend the law — which she is in favor of abolishing — after the election. On Wednesday, Ms. Tantawan was arrested after she called for the release of a 15-year-old charged with violating the rule.“I feel we don’t need any law that specially protects anybody or any family,” said Ms. Tantawan, who mounted a hunger strike earlier this year in protest against the government. “He is a person like us, not a god or a demigod.”King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun, who ascended the throne in 2016, is not as beloved as his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who reigned for 70 years. While King Bhumibol was revered in Thailand, his son used to spend most of his time in Germany, though he has been seen more often in public since the 2020 protests.In the wake of the protests, Mr. Prayuth instructed all government officials to “use every single law” to prosecute anyone who criticized the monarchy. Royalists stepped up their campaign against people they accused of insulting the crown, filing more complaints and attacking anti-monarchy activists.In 2021, Warong Dechgitvigrom, a former doctor, founded Thailand’s first far-right party, Thai Pakdee, in response to what he called the “Three Fingers Mob,” referring to the three-finger salute adopted by young Thais as a symbol of resistance during the 2020 protests.A supporter holds up a poster of King Bhumibol Adulyadej during a rally for Thai Pakdee, a right-wing party that is centered on defending the monarchy against criticism.Jorge Silva/ReutersHe now says the current law protecting the monarchy does not go far enough, as it is limited to shielding four key members of the royal family. Former Thai kings, princes, princesses and the word “monarchy” itself should also be protected, he said.Although Mr. Warong’s views are considered extreme, he says he has collected about 6,000 to 7,000 signatures for his proposal, and that he is confident he can gather the 10,000 signatures needed for the House of Representatives to consider passing the bill.Mr. Warong says people need to understand that the Thai monarchy is unique. He recalled France’s former monarchy as one characterized by the oppression of its people. “But ours is like father and children,” he said. “We have good feelings together, there are no bad feelings.”Those views are at odds with how many young people feel about the king. During the 2020 demonstrations, protesters questioned the wealth of the royal family, which is one of the richest in the world.Protesters in 2020 at a pro-democracy rally in front of the Siam Commercial Bank, demanding that the king return royal assets to the people and reform the monarchy.Adam Dean for The New York TimesKasit Piromya, a former foreign minister, said it would be challenging for Mr. Warong and his party to lead a successful campaign backing the constitutional monarchy because many young people “don’t see what is in it for them.”“If you cannot speak this in the open, then it gives more room and ammunition to the students, to the Thaksin supporters to say, ‘We are more democratic,’” Mr. Kasit said, referring to calls to reform the monarchy.Arnond Sakworawich, an assistant professor of statistics at the National Institute of Development Administration, said that preserving Article 112 was necessary because the king and the royal family do not defend themselves against criticism.“It’s a different culture, because in Thailand, people believe that the king is their parent, and parents never hurt their children,” said Mr. Arnond, who is known for his royalist views. “So there must be some people to protect the king.”In their zeal to defend the monarchy, many royalists may ultimately end up hurting the institution more than they protect it.Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, the head of the department of government at Chulalongkorn University, said it was “very precarious and risky” for parties such as Thai Pakdee to use the monarchy as a campaigning platform.“Even though the monarchy is above politics, it’s now drawn into the divide,” she said. “It will polarize the voters and parties into two camps, inevitably.”Young protesters flash the three-fingered, anti-government salute at a pro-democracy rally at Democracy Monument in Bangkok.Adam Dean for The New York TimesRyn Jirenuwat More