A New Pandemic: Worldwide Political Climate Change

The political climate is changing around the world — well, everywhere, except in the authoritarian countries

By Anil Madan

The political climate is changing around the world — well, everywhere, except in the authoritarian countries, China, Russia, Turkey, Belarus. Even Iran shows signs of some change.

There is a churn as the political waters heat up, and the winds of political climate change blow more forcefully, with more intensity and greater frequency.

Calls for change resonate globally. Pic – International IDEA

What is going on? Why does the entire world seem to be going topsy turvy? I don’t purport to have a definitive answer. This is not like the climate change we see about the weather which should be explainable by science. Political science is, after all, not science at all, but simply voodoo, prognostication, amulet chasing, and all that said, a somewhat enjoyable pastime.

In this year of elections, with yet more to come, most notably the US Presidential election in November, we have seen turmoil and upheaval.

As I see it, there is always a tension between the primary reason that voters are driven to the polls, their economic and personal well-being and security, and the secondary cluster of reasons, those being appeals to religion, racism, hatred, enmity, alleged national security, and similar fancied threats magnified by politicians to look real. Often, we see immigration or terrorism as forces driving voters to the polls, and if one thinks about it, both involve race or religion as an underlying reason for the rejection of those involved.

Global political turbulence

Sometimes war, usually with a neighbouring country, plays a significant role. Most wars are fought for one of those clusters of reasons, although war can certainly have economic motivations that a skilled politician can translate into concerns about overall economic well-being and security.

This tension results in elections being swayed by different primary drivers at different times, but it is not unusual, and we should not be surprised, that a combination of economic and other factors can drive elections and referenda. So it was that the UK voted for Brexit. Some saw it primarily as an economic imperative to get away from the constraints of the European Union (EU).

Others saw Brexit as a mechanism to bring under control the immigration issue caused by the free travel and settlement rules of the EU. This, in turn, was seen as an economic issue driving workers from Eastern European countries to Britain, which resulted in greater competition for jobs and lower wages. Then there were those who saw Brexit as a means of lifting the yoke of the Brussels bureaucracy and the various European courts and regulatory agencies that many felt were stifling Britain’s independence and sovereignty.

After 14 years of rule by the Conservative party, the Tories, with British Prime Ministers appearing as frequently as hurricanes in the Atlantic, churning up the waters, blowing a lot, dousing everyone, and then exiting. Against this backdrop, Rishi Sunak is the latest mini cyclone to exit 10 Downing Street and Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader takes over.

What does this portend for the future? It is difficult to see the UK rejoining the EU full force. It will take some political skill to negotiate an economic treaty that allows both sides to reap the benefits of economic cooperation. Britain’s exports have suffered a staggering blow and the bureaucratic paper shuffling burdens caused by new customs and inspection regimens are wasteful and of little value. The EU has lost a valuable market. This is not lost on President Macron, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, or European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The UK may well have lost Northern Ireland in the process. Ultimately, in whatever manner Northern Ireland separates from the Mother Ship as it were, she will reunite with the historic Mother Ship to the south. How many years will that take? And can it be achieved without bloodshed? If any people can do it, the Irish can.

Elections and Upheaval

Meanwhile, in France, where they are rather keen about laughing at the troubles of the Brits, while the Brits laugh at the chaos that the French seem to generate with so much ease, President Macron called snap elections and France nearly snapped.

As one might expect from a chaotic French approach to elections, there was none of the British military precision of a let’s-get-done-with-it approach. No, the French had two rounds of voting, a week apart. After the first round, it appeared to be virtually certain that Marine Le Pen’s far-right party would win a hefty majority, perhaps even commanding control of the French parliament. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

As Aron Solomon, a long-time commentator on affairs French noted, in the run up to the final election session, the centrist parties (read Macron, et al) and the right-wing factions (read Marine Le Pen, et al) were seen as the likely contenders to form the next government. The far left, always vocal and passionate, was seen as a marginal player. He says that polls and pundits alike underestimated the depth of discontent and desire for radical change simmering among the electorate.

Their leader Jean Luc-Mélenchon spearheaded a campaign built on promises of reforms: social welfare expansion, aggressive climate policies, a staunch stance against economic inequality. He concludes that the profound resonance of this message, that of a fairer, greener, and more egalitarian society struck a deeply resonant chord, especially among the youth and urban working-class voters. Note the economic theme.

Solomon calls the result a political earthquake but cautions that the far right’s analysis of Sunday’s events might be right on — that while this was an unimaginably frustrating day, it might just be a delay of the inevitable, which is the shift to the right throughout Europe.

Whether that happens depends largely on how the new coalition government can capitalize on turning its broad-based support into action.

Some will note that what I have described, are often referred to as pocket-book issues in American politics.

Brexit, an economic disaster

The British elections had similar overtones. Brexit is largely an economic disaster for the UK. To the extent that Brexit was a success in curbing the free flow of European workers into and out of Britain, the pressure of illegal immigration continues much to the frustration of the British people and a hapless government unable to stem the tide. In a you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up comedy of errors, the British government tried to engineer a scheme to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Last Saturday, the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that the Rwanda deportation plan was “dead and buried.” Meanwhile, London had already paid Kigali GBP 240 million (US$306 million). The Rwandans, no fools, pointed out that the migrant deal with the UK did not stipulate the return of funds.

Keir Starmer’s challenges are not dissimilar to those facing Mélenchon. Priorities include boosting economic growth, reforming the social care system, and finding ways to generate revenue to fund local authorities. The economic theme runs large. But then there is the other driver: immigration. Although he has dispatched the former Tory government’s Rwanda deporting scheme, his Labour Party has promised a new border security command that will prevent small boats filled with immigrants from crossing the English Channel to the UK. Notably, the new legislation to authorize these measures is couched in national security and law enforcement terms as one granting new counterterrorism powers to tackle organized crime and people-smuggling.

Starmer’s messages clearly cater to the economic and personal well-being and security aspect of the drivers that got the votes out. Thus, he promises to reform Britain’s National Health Service, which is widely seen as a shambles, by promises to provide 40,000 additional appointments, scans, and operations a week. Of note is that he will have to negotiate a long-running pay dispute with the British Medical Association to raise compensation for healthcare providers.

Another example of problems facing Starmer is that prisons in England and Wales are filled to over 98% of capacity.

Starmer sees his task of nothing short of rebuilding Britain brick by brick. And that includes finding a way to live with the EU. That means greater cooperation and resetting the relationship with its European allies. They have much in common, priorities for both that are shared, the need to contain Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and aggression throughout Eastern Europe, the need to find a cohesive way to deal with China and hopefully direct it to engage as a responsible superpower.

Right-wing ideology gains traction

This left-right lurching in various countries was echoed in the European Parliament elections where, although Ursula von der Leyen’s party won the most seats, in the European Parliament, the pro-EU liberal, centrist, and environmentalist parties lost ground, and the right-wing and other anti-EU groups gained traction.

In the Netherlands, Prime Minister Rutte saw his fourth cabinet collapse due to disagreements among the members of his coalition on immigration policy. He called snap elections while declaring that he would not lead his party into the election but would retire from politics. He is now Secretary General of NATO.

The incumbent parties in the coalition all suffered losses as the right-wing populist Party for Freedom (PVV) led by Geert Wilders won enough seats in the Dutch parliament to become the largest party for the first time. This is viewed as one of the greatest upsets in Dutch politics in the last 80 years since World War II.

Meanwhile, Wilders will not be part of the government, but his influence will be massive as he leads his party from the wings in parliament. He was unable to claim the premiership because he could not strike a deal with coalition partners.

The drivers of this victory were religion and race based. Wilders is notoriously anti-Islam and anti-immigration. His willingness to step aside was a means to appease coalition partners concerned about his strident anti-Islamic rhetoric.

From the sidelines, Wilders, has vowed not to change his tone. Wilders has been living under tight security for 20 years due to Islamist death threats. His nominees to serve in the ruling cabinet are hardliners and include many who have expressed the view that the government is working to replace the Dutch population with immigrants.

The newly formed coalition government is expected to implement a clampdown on immigration and seek exceptions from compliance with EU asylum and environmental rules.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Wilders stated that his support for Israel is grounded in his broader defense of Western values. To combat rising antisemitism in the Netherlands and across Europe, he believes it is incumbent upon political leaders to halt open-border mass immigration and “reverse the cultural relativist failure to foster integration.”

Challenges ahead: From India to Iran

The Indian elections also yielded surprising results. Prior to the election, Prime Minister Modi and his supporters had predicted a decisive victory for the BJP. However, Modi’s party suffered a significant setback from Indian voters. Nevertheless, he is back as PM. The most stunning results came from Ayodhya itself, where the BJP lost despite overseeing the construction of the Ram Temple (Ram Mandir). The back story is that the homes of poor people surrounding the newly-built temple were razed and people were neither compensated for the loss, nor was alternate housing found for them. Here again, pocketbook issues trumped religious motivations.

In his first trip abroad since narrowly winning re-election, Modi has travelled to Russia. His arrival coincided with news of a missile attack by Putin’s forces that tragically hit a children’s hospital, resulting in multiple deaths. Modi expressed sorrow over the loss of innocent lives and later participated in a ceremony where Putin awarded him a chain of medals. This gesture sparked controversy, as it involved an embrace between the two leaders.

Argentina’s elections last year also yielded a surprise result. In somewhat of a surprise, the incumbent president Alberto Fernández and his vice president and former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner did not seek re-election. The ultimate victor was Javier Millei leading the Liberty Advances party. This party is seen as a mix of ultraconservative right-wing on social issues and ultraliberal on economic issues. But surprisingly, Millei won almost 56% of the vote in the runoff election and 14 million votes which is the highest total ever in Argentina’s history.

It remains to be seen where this will take us in Latin America.

Should we mention that Russia also had elections? But what’s the point? These were not elections but just a sham to give Putin another term.

And then there was the presidential election in Iran following the bizarre death of its president Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash.  Iran’s electoral system allows only candidates vetted by the powers that be to run. The winner and future president of Iran if and when he is sworn in to office, is Masoud Pezeshkian, described as a reformist candidate, who won in a second-round runoff.

Given Iran’s insularity and the fact that Pezeshkian was approved by the Supreme Leader, it is difficult to say what “reformist” means. But there are two signals. First, there might be an easing of restrictions on women since he has condemned Iran’s draconian laws on the wearing of the hijab. Second, he has promised to restart talks with the west about Iran’s nuclear program. The hope here is not that there will be an agreement tomorrow, but that Iran is willing to start the process.

Surely, he would not have broached the subject without the Supreme Leader’s sanction. Keeping in mind that Iran is now backed into a situation where it must either complete the process of deploying a nuclear weapon, or be viewed as full of bluster, perhaps this is not a step that the Supreme Leader wants to take. Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has promised that if Iran has a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will be compelled to have one too. This is not a productive scenario for either country. And, of course, there is Israel, widely reputed to have nuclear weapons. If the existential threat from Iran gets too highly ratcheted up, might Israel strike Iran’s facilities? Who wants to find out?

Iran has much to gain by becoming a responsible member of the world’s nations. It has a rich history and capable people. Nuclear weapons do not give it any options that it can sensibly use. The downside is too great.

And finally, we have the looming US presidential election in November. Let us leave that to another day, a discussion of the ramifications for Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the world writ large.

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 July 2024