Latest news with #HowDemocraciesDie
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
El Salvador's leader is autocrat to some, godsend to others
Homicides have dropped from several thousand a year to just over 100, according to the government — a rate lower than Canada's. So when lawmakers in Bukele's party abolished presidential term limits late last week, Salvadorans were far from uniformly opposed. Bukele's success in restoring safety has made him enormously popular, even as his tactics have raised alarms among human rights groups. But the question he seems to face, experts say, is how long that support can last as problems mount beyond the gangs. 'Maybe I'll feel differently if you ask me in 10 years; I don't know,' said Cecilia Lemus, who runs a nail salon in San Salvador. 'But for today, I have no problem with him being reelected.' Advertisement She added: 'I don't know if this is going to be like Venezuela; I don't think we're headed toward being Cuba, though I don't know.' Bukele may have chosen to solidify his power now for several reasons, experts said. His approval ratings are still soaring; his slow economy is humming along, albeit by borrowing heavily from the nation's pension fund. And President Trump is in office — happy to praise Bukele after sending him deportees and to dismiss human rights concerns. Advertisement A leader who solves a major crisis can 'become wildly popular, and the population will give you a blank check, for a time,' said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist who studies Latin America and is a coauthor of 'How Democracies Die.' 'Bukele is a smart guy, and he knows that a blank check isn't forever. He's had an incredible run; he has so much support, but no leader's popularity in the history of world has lasted forever,' he added. The electoral overhaul 'will protect him for the day that the electorate moves against him.' Bukele has sharply criticized Nicaragua and Venezuela for similar moves, but Sunday, he defended El Salvador's constitutional overhaul. Most 'developed countries allow the indefinite reelection of their head of government, and no one bats an eye,' he said on social media, drawing a comparison to European parliamentary systems, where lawmakers have the power to remove leaders. 'But when a small, poor country like El Salvador tries to do the same, suddenly it's the end of democracy.' Bukele's security strategy has won him admirers in the region — and a degree of imitation by other leaders battling drug gangs, like those in Costa Rica and Ecuador. But El Salvador's neighbors largely remained silent after his latest move. And some Salvadorans are starting to ask for more from Bukele, including economic growth, basic social programs, and help dealing with rising costs. Bukele has struggled to make changes economically, in particular, experts say, and has not released a comprehensive plan to do so beyond efforts to attract more tourists. Since he came to power in 2019, El Salvador's growth has lagged behind its neighbors, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Advertisement Last year, growth slipped to 2.6 percent from 3.5 percent in 2023, and it is expected to stall again this year, at 2.2 percent, according to the World Bank. About a third of the country lives in poverty. Bukele may have solidified his power before things could slip further, Levitsky and other analysts said. Another factor may be the occupant of the White House. During the Biden administration, the State Department denounced 'significant human rights issues' in El Salvador, spotlighting abuses in prisons after Bukele's mass arrests, which have left more than 80,000 people behind bars. But Trump has made clear he is not interested in policing human rights abroad, cutting State Department entities that work on those issues. This spring, Trump sent deportees accused of being gang members to Bukele's prison system. Along with abolishing term limits, the constitutional changes eliminate runoff elections, extend presidential terms to six years from five, and move up the presidential election by two years, to coincide with legislative elections in 2027. If Bukele is reelected that year and completes his term, he will have served for at least 14 years. A spate of protests this year may have been another driver in cementing Bukele's power sooner rather than later. His government has 'lost control of the narrative' in recent months, said Noah Bullock, executive director of Cristosal, a Salvadoran human rights group whose employees recently fled the country. First, the government ended a ban on metal mining. The decision, made despite strong public opposition, led to a rare reproach from Catholic bishops, who gathered 250,000 signatures asking for the ban's reinstatement. Advertisement The bishops were ignored, creating what Bullock called 'the sense that this government does what it wants, and it imposes its model of development on the population without listening.' Then a Salvadoran investigative outlet, El Faro, posted video interviews with gang leaders talking about a secret pact with Bukele's government to lower the murder rate. Bukele has long denied any such pact, but the interviews were broadly shared in El Salvador. The government issued arrest warrants for El Faro journalists, who fled the country. For the families of young men swept up in the mass arrests, the move to end term limits was particularly worrying. 'It means that now he'll never give up the presidency,' Reyna Isabel Cornejo said of Bukele. Her son was arrested at church a year ago for unknown reasons, she said, and she has not heard from him since. Two of her nephews have been imprisoned, too. She acknowledged that under Bukele, more people visit her pupusa restaurant and that it's safe to send orders out for delivery. But safety has come at a steep cost, she said. 'He's done a good job,' Cornejo said. 'But at the same time, behind the good things he's doing, there's a lot of evil.' This article originally appeared in
Asahi Shimbun
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Asahi Shimbun
VOX POPULI: Xenophobia gains ground in Upper House election
Some in the audience at a Tokyo rally of a party advocating tougher regulations against foreigners express opposition to racism on July 19. (Asahi Shimbun file photo) Front-page headlines in Japanese newspapers come in various forms. The more important or surprising the news, the more the headline shifts from the traditional vertical format (top to bottom, commonly used in most articles) to a bold horizontal layout (left to right). Major news stories also tend to use what is known as the 'beta-kuro shiro-nuki' format--white lettering set against a solid black background--stretching dramatically across the width of the page. In the latest Upper House election--where the ruling coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and its junior partner, Komeito, suffered a stinging setback--the largest headline now looms high above this daily column, which appears regularly at the bottom of The Asahi Shimbun's front page. When Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba appeared on television on election day, July 20, his expression was more tense and rigid than ever. This seismic shift in Japan's political landscape may well go down as a moment of lasting historical significance. At the same time, I can't shake the feeling that another, more troubling shift has taken place, one quite different from the 'political upheaval' captured by the headline. It is the rise of xenophobia. I have never witnessed an election in which fear of foreigners was so openly inflamed, nor one where discriminatory rhetoric was voiced with such blatant ease. Democracy is governance through speech. For elections--the very foundation of democracy--to function properly, it is essential that policy debates be grounded in facts. Yet, despite repeated media fact-checks exposing falsehoods in the xenophobic statements made by a certain party's candidates and its leader, that very party has garnered a significant number of votes. What, then, lies ahead? If the party continues to take the same stance on issues concerning foreign nationals during Diet deliberations, I fear that its rhetoric--used to legitimize prejudice--will gain broader acceptance in society, bolstered by its growing political influence. In 'How Democracies Die,' Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt warn that the erosion of democracy often begins with language. 'The process often begins with words,' they write. Am I reading too much into this? I can only hope that someday people will look back and say with a laugh, 'You were worrying for nothing.' --The Asahi Shimbun, July 21 * * * Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a popular daily column that takes up a wide range of topics, including culture, arts and social trends and developments. Written by veteran Asahi Shimbun writers, the column provides useful perspectives on and insights into contemporary Japan and its culture.
Los Angeles Times
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
How conflict with Iran could supercharge Trump's domestic agenda
A tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran has slightly dampened the threat that the United States could be further dragged into an international conflict. But many Americans are approaching the Fourth of July with a sense of trepidation if not outright fear — that such a war could still be on the horizon and that there is currently an increased risk of a terrorist attack in America because of it. For so many reasons, we are a nation on edge. Which is why we have to be careful to not allow our fears to overtake our commitment to civil rights. 'Autocrats almost always use emergencies, sometimes real ones, sometimes exaggerated ones, and sometimes invented ones ... to accumulate power,' said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and author of 'How Democracies Die.' None of the political experts I spoke with in past days said they thought President Trump planned the Iran bombing for his domestic agenda — that would be really extreme. But most shared Levitsky's concern that it is in moments of anxiety, when society is apprehensive of external threats, that authoritarians find the most fertile ground for increasing their domestic power — because too often, people willingly give up freedoms in exchange for perceived safety. Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA law professor who advised the Obama-Biden transition team on immigration policy, said that trade-off means 'the situation with Iran and Trump's immigration policy are very closely intertwined.' No place is more likely to see that intersection of international and domestic policy more bluntly than California, and Los Angeles in particular. Los Angeles is a 'test case,' Brad Jones told me, where the Trump administration is already pushing to see how far it can go. He's a political science professor at UC Davis. 'This is a very opportunistic presidency, and any opportunity that they can use to forward their immigration agenda, I think they'll take full advantage of it,' Jones said. We already have the Marines and National Guard on the streets, and under federal control, supposedly because Los Angeles is in the grip of violent chaos. Although Angelenos know this is ridiculous, the courts have, for now, sided with Trump that this deployment of troops on U.S. soil is within his power. And much of America, inundated with right-wing versions of current immigration protests, is seeing on a daily basis a narrative of lawlessness that seems to justify Trump's crackdowns — including the arrest or detention of Democratic lawmakers. Benjamin Radd is a professor at UCLA, an expert on Iran and a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations. He was featured in the documentary 'War Game' last year about how a military insurgency could play out in the United States. Not long ago — before the National Guard was deployed in L.A. against the will of Gov. Gavin Newsom — Radd was hired by a veterans group, which he declined to identify, to game out what would happen if Trump federalized the National Guard against the will of governors and turned them on the American public. 'And lo and behold, here we are now,' Radd said. In his simulation, the pretend Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that could further a president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. But in the real world, it's a concern that Trump would — either because of a genuine threat, or a Trumped-up one. Rudd said that would be a 'big red line.' 'I'm waiting to see if this Donald Trump will actually do that, because invoking the act will be able to give him more of those emergency powers that right now are being stymied at the courts,' he said. Los Angeles, Rudd points out, is home to a large community of Iranian Americans, of which he is a member. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to dream up a scenario in which the government sees this community as a potential threat if the conflict in the Middle East continues, as Japanese Americans were once viewed as a threat during World War II. Rudd said he didn't see the likelihood of a mass internment, but pointed out that the government has already detained and deported students speaking out on the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza. 'Who gets swept up in that when you're dealing with ethically diverse metropolises like Los Angeles that have a complex background and mix of people?' he asks. Already, the administration has announced the arrests of 11 undocumented Iranians across the U.S. in the last few days. 'We have been saying we are getting the worst of the worst out — and we are,' Homeland Security Department Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'We don't wait until a military operation to execute; we proactively deliver on President Trump's mandate to secure the homeland.' Trump's 'entire playbook on immigration has been to characterize immigration as invasion and immigrants as invaders,' Motomura said. 'Having a military conflict with Iran allows Trump to link any actions by Iran or its proxies as further evidence of invasion ... and as even further proof that he must take drastic emergency measures against foes both domestic and foreign.' Levitsky said that the 'Trump administration is clearly learning how useful it is' to portray immigration as a national security emergency. He points out that the deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador this year was supposedly necessary because it was depicted as an attack on America by members of the Tren de Aragua gang, although there was little evidence of such a planned incursion. But the narrative of immigration as a foreign offensive has stuck — remember when 'shithole countries' were supposedly purposefully emptying prisons and mental hospitals to send murderers and rapists to the U.S.? And so many people accepted whatever erosion of rights these deportations meant in exchange for the perception of living in safer communities — never mind that the reality is that most of those now trapped in that Salvadoran prison are not violent criminals. Success with that tactic has left the administration increasingly eager to capitalize on fearmongering and 'looking for ways to use language like insurgency or emergency that frees it from from legal constraints,' Levitsky said. 'And war is a great way to do it.' Jones warned that even just stoking concerns that 'there's cells or there's people on the inside' wishing to do us harm could be justification enough for more disintegration of rights. Although all of that sounds dire, it's important to remember that it hasn't happened yet, and it may never happen. And if it does, it does not mean there's no recourse to protect our civil rights — the people still have power. 'There isn't a single strategy, a single slogan, a single movement, a single group, a single leader, a single protest,' Levitsky said. 'There are literally 1,000 different ways for people to express their opposition to what's going on, and what's important is that Americans engage.' Part of that engagement is accepting that democracy is not a given, and that American democracy holds no special powers to survive, he said. 'Frankly, that's why we're losing our democracy,' Levitsky said. 'Brazilians don't have this problem. South Koreans do not have this problem. ... Germans don't have this problem. People in Spain don't have this problem. Chileans, Argentinians do not have this problem. 'All those societies have a collective memory of authoritarianism. All those societies know what it means to lose a democracy,' he said. 'Americans don't have an idea.' Our greatest threat right now isn't Trump or what he may or may not do. It's our inability to believe that authoritarianism really is creeping up on us, that it could happen here. And that all it might take is denial with a chaser of fear to topple a democracy that once felt unbreakable.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Chabria: Newsom's 'Democracy is under assault' speech could turn the tables on Trump
Frame it as a call to action or a presidential campaign announcement, Gov. Gavin Newsom's address to America on Tuesday has tapped into our zeitgeist (German words feel oddly appropriate at the moment) in a way few others have. 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,' Newsom said during a live broadcast with a California flag and the U.S. flag in the background. 'The moment we've feared has arrived.' What moment exactly is he referring to? President Trump has put Marines and National Guardsmen on the streets of Los Angeles, and granted himself the power to put them anywhere. Wednesday, a top military leader said those forces could "detain" protesters, but not outright arrest them, though — despite what you see on right wing media — most protesters have been peaceful. But every would-be authoritarian ultimately faces a decisive moment, when the fear they have generated must be enforced with action to solidify power. The danger of that moment for the would-be king is that it is also the time when rebellion is most likely, and most likely to be effective. People wake up. In using force against his own citizens, the leader risks alienating supporters and activating resistance. Read more: Mayor Karen Bass decries continuing raids, wonders if L.A. is a 'national experiment' What happens next in Los Angeles between the military and protesters — which group is perceived as the aggressors — may likely determine what happens next in our democracy. If the military is the aggressor and protesters remain largely peaceful, Trump risks losing support. If the protesters are violent, public perception could further empower Trump. The president's immigration czar Tom Homan, said on CNN that what happens next, 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters — I mean, they make the decisions.' Welcome to that fraught moment, America. Who would have thought Newsom would lead on it so effectively? "Everybody who's not a Trumpist in this society has been taken by surprise, and is still groggy from the authoritarian offensive of the last five months," said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at the embattled Harvard University, and author of "How Democracies Die." Levitsky told me that it helps shake off that shock to have national leaders, people who others can look to and rally behind. Especially as fear nudges some into silence. "You never know who that leader sometimes is going to be, and it may be Newsom," Levitsky said. "Maybe his political ambitions end up converging with the small d, democratic opposition." Maybe. Since his address, and a coinciding and A-game funny online offensive, Newsom's reach has skyrocketed. Millions of people watched his address, and hundreds of thousands have followed him on TikTok and other social media platforms. Searches about him on Google were up 9,700%, according to CNN. Love his message or find it laughable, it had reach — partly because it was unapologetically clear and also unexpected. "Trump and his loyalist thrive on division because it allow them to take more power and exert even more control," Newsom said. I was on the ground with the protesters this week, and I can say from firsthand experience that there are a small number of agitators and a large number of peaceful protesters. But Trump has done an excellent job of creating crisis and fear by portraying events as out of the control of local and state authorities, and therefore in need of his intervention. Republicans "need that violence to corroborate their talking points," Mia Bloom told me. She's an expert on extremism and a professor at Georgia State University. Violence "like in the aftermath of George Floyd, when there was the rioting, that actually was helpful for Republicans," she said. Read more: After images of unrest comes the political spin, distorting the reality on the ground in L.A. Levitsky said authoritarians look for crises. "You need an emergency, both rhetorically and legally, to engage in authoritarian behavior," he said. So Trump has laid a trap with his immigration sweeps in a city of immigrants to create opportunity, and Newsom has called it out. And it calling it out — pointing out the danger of protesters turning violent and yet still calling for peaceful protest — Newsom has put Trump in a precarious position that the president may not have been expecting. "Repressing protest is a very risky venture," said Levitsky. "It often, not always, but often, does trigger push back." Levitsky points out that already, there is some evidence that Trump may have overreached, and is losing support. A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 76% of Americans oppose the military birthday parade Trump plans on throwing for himself in Washington, D.C. this weekend. That includes disapproval from more than half of Trump supporters. A separate poll by Quinnipiac University found that 54% of those polled disapprove of how he's handling immigration issues, and 56% disapprove of his deportations. Bloom warns that there's a danger in raising too many alarms about authoritarianism right now, because we still have some functioning guardrails. She said that stoking too much fear could backfire, for Newsom and for democracy. "We're at a moment in which the country is very polarized and that these things are being told through two very different types of narratives, and the moment we give the other side, which was a very apocalyptic, nihilistic narrative, we give them fodder, we justify the worst policies" she said. She pointed to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when some protesters placed flowers in the barrels of soldiers' guns, and act of peaceful protest she said changed public perception. That, she said, is what's needed now. Newsom was clear in his call for peaceful protest. But also clear that it was a call to action in a historic inflection point. We can't know in the moment who or what history will remember, said Levitsky. "It's really important that the most privileged among us stand up and fight," he said. "If they don't, citizens are going to look around and say, 'Well, why should I?" Having leaders willing to be the target, when so many feel the danger of speaking out, has value, he said. Because fear may spread like a virus, but courage is contagious, too. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's ‘Democracy is under assault' speech could turn the tables on Trump
Frame it as a call to action or a presidential campaign announcement, Gov. Gavin Newsom's address to America on Tuesday has tapped into our zeitgeist (German words feel oddly appropriate at the moment) in a way few others have. 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,' Newsom said during a live broadcast with a California flag and the U.S. flag in the background. 'The moment we've feared has arrived.' What moment exactly is he referring to? President Trump has put Marines and National Guardsmen on the streets of Los Angeles, and granted himself the power to put them anywhere. Wednesday, a top military leader said those forces could 'detain' protesters, but not outright arrest them, though — despite what you see on right wing media — most protesters have been peaceful. But every would-be authoritarian ultimately faces a decisive moment, when the fear they have generated must be enforced with action to solidify power. The danger of that moment for the would-be king is that it is also the time when rebellion is most likely, and most likely to be effective. People wake up. In using force against his own citizens, the leader risks alienating supporters and activating resistance. What happens next in Los Angeles between the military and protesters — which group is perceived as the aggressors — may likely determine what happens next in our democracy. If the military is the aggressor and protesters remain largely peaceful, Trump risks losing support. If the protesters are violent, public perception could further empower Trump. The president's immigration czar Tom Homan, said on CNN that what happens next, 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters — I mean, they make the decisions.' Welcome to that fraught moment, America. Who would have thought Newsom would lead on it so effectively? 'Everybody who's not a Trumpist in this society has been taken by surprise, and is still groggy from the authoritarian offensive of the last five months,' said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at the embattled Harvard University, and author of 'How Democracies Die.' Levitsky told me that it helps shake off that shock to have national leaders, people who others can look to and rally behind. Especially as fear nudges some into silence. 'You never know who that leader sometimes is going to be, and it may be Newsom,' Levitsky said. 'Maybe his political ambitions end up converging with the small d, democratic opposition.' Maybe. Since his address, and a coinciding and A-game funny online offensive, Newsom's reach has skyrocketed. Millions of people watched his address, and hundreds of thousands have followed him on TikTok and other social media platforms. Searches about him on Google were up 9,700%, according to CNN. Love his message or find it laughable, it had reach — partly because it was unapologetically clear and also unexpected. 'Trump and his loyalist thrive on division because it allow them to take more power and exert even more control,' Newsom said. I was on the ground with the protesters this week, and I can say from firsthand experience that there are a small number of agitators and a large number of peaceful protesters. But Trump has done an excellent job of creating crisis and fear by portraying events as out of the control of local and state authorities, and therefore in need of his intervention. Republicans 'need that violence to corroborate their talking points,' Mia Bloom told me. She's an expert on extremism and a professor at Georgia State University. Violence 'like in the aftermath of George Floyd, when there was the rioting, that actually was helpful for Republicans,' she said. Levitsky said authoritarians look for crises. 'You need an emergency, both rhetorically and legally, to engage in authoritarian behavior,' he said. So Trump has laid a trap with his immigration sweeps in a city of immigrants to create opportunity, and Newsom has called it out. And it calling it out — pointing out the danger of protesters turning violent and yet still calling for peaceful protest — Newsom has put Trump in a precarious position that the president may not have been expecting. 'Repressing protest is a very risky venture,' said Levitsky. 'It often, not always, but often, does trigger push back.' Levitsky points out that already, there is some evidence that Trump may have overreached, and is losing support. A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 76% of Americans oppose the military birthday parade Trump plans on throwing for himself in Washington, D.C. this weekend. That includes disapproval from more than half of Trump supporters. A separate poll by Quinnipiac University found that 54% of those polled disapprove of how he's handling immigration issues, and 56% disapprove of his deportations. Bloom warns that there's a danger in raising too many alarms about authoritarianism right now, because we still have some functioning guardrails. She said that stoking too much fear could backfire, for Newsom and for democracy. 'We're at a moment in which the country is very polarized and that these things are being told through two very different types of narratives, and the moment we give the other side, which was a very apocalyptic, nihilistic narrative, we give them fodder, we justify the worst policies' she said. She pointed to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when some protesters placed flowers in the barrels of soldiers' guns, and act of peaceful protest she said changed public perception. That, she said, is what's needed now. Newsom was clear in his call for peaceful protest. But also clear that it was a call to action in a historic inflection point. We can't know in the moment who or what history will remember, said Levitsky. 'It's really important that the most privileged among us stand up and fight,' he said. 'If they don't, citizens are going to look around and say, 'Well, why should I?' Having leaders willing to be the target, when so many feel the danger of speaking out, has value, he said. Because fear may spread like a virus, but courage is contagious, too.
