Reflecting about democracy

 Democracy cannot be make-believe

Victor Ângelo

 

In the most developed societies, we are witnessing an acceleration in the digitalisation of all dimensions of citizens' lives. The pandemic has contributed enormously to this digital revolution. But more is coming.  The ability to process millions of pieces of information through new methods of artificial intelligence and advances in automation will allow the control - and, in many cases, manipulation - of people in a way never seen before.

The new digital age brings numerous challenges, and even threats, for democracy. Think, for example, of the role of robots in the multiplication of propaganda, fake news, and the creation of echo chambers, which give the impression of massive political support for some, and build around them all sorts of illusions, alongside the harassment of others, the opponents, with thousands of hostile messages from fake profiles. But the most immediate aspect concerns participation in the electoral act. If a citizen can pay his taxes or renew his identity card while sitting at the kitchen table, why is he not allowed to vote by computer link-up, also from home? Going to a polling station, going through crowds of people, queuing up and wasting time seem like procedures from another time, even if people like Donald Trump try to discredit electronic voting.

Already this week, the French have thrown another challenge into the debate. The abstention rate in the regional elections reached a record high. Two-thirds did not vote. Worse still, around 9 out of 10 of 18–24-year-olds were not ready for the hassle. They just ignored the election calls. Analysts were baffled. In discoursing on the reasons for such indifference, they fell into the same simplism that Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and other political personalities had already shown on election night - it would be the fault of the citizens, who found the inconvenience not worth it. And they launched cries to the heavens to lament that such a trend could lead to the death of democracy.

All that is television talk. People - especially young people - do not vote because most of the political class doesn't mean anything to them, doesn't inspire them, has no new ideas, is just more of the same, with too much hubris and too few ethics. This is what is happening in France and other European countries. The main threat to democracy does not come from apathy among citizens. That is the consequence. The cause lies upstream, in the political parties - there are always exceptions - which are generally nothing more than a club of opportunists or fanatics, enlightened by short-sightedness.

The question of democracy is also on the agenda of the European Council meeting that has been held since yesterday, marking the end of the Portuguese presidency. The big question, which has been a long time coming and so far, unanswered, is what to do about the authoritarian governance currently practised in Hungary and Poland. The leaders in these two countries have long systematically violated Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which defines the fundamental values on which the EU is based - freedom, democracy, separation of powers and human rights. The lack of an adequate response to these violations is another fuel to the fire that is consuming away the citizens' confidence in democracy and politicians.

Less talked about, but equally important for the vitality of democracy, is having a capable system of administration of justice that is independent of politicians. Citizens need to have confidence in the speedy and efficient functioning of the courts, as a means of defending their rights and correcting injustices. In the age of "digital totalitarianism" this is even more essential. In member states where justice is slow, ill-equipped, and inefficient, we have a problem almost as serious as the authoritarianism that exists elsewhere. Those states have a lame democracy. They should also be the subject of criticism in the European Council. Without effective justice, democracy is an illusion. And the citizens, as the French have now shown, are no longer so easily deceived.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

Summits and dangerous choices

The turmoil they want us to get into

Victor Ângelo

 

The UN General Assembly is today expected to re-elect António Guterres for a second term. The first one was not easy, for various reasons, including the fact that Donald Trump has been president of the United States four of the last five years. Trump had not the slightest interest in multilateralism. He was, moreover, unpredictable and oddball in matters of international politics. To appear to be going against his theses would be a kind of political suicide. This greatly reduced the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. Guterres then focused on four major areas: the parity agenda, particularly within the organisation, where he successfully implemented a policy of promoting women to senior posts; climate change; humanitarian response; and finding solutions to crises in countries where it did not clash with the permanent members of the Security Council. He also carried out some internal reforms, notably of the UN's organisation chart and representation at country level.   

The second mandate will be even more difficult. The summits of the last few days - G7, NATO, US-EU, Biden-Putin - have shown that we have entered a very complex phase in the global power games. Several conclusions can be drawn from what has been said. None of them puts the United Nations where it belongs, as a platform for convergence between opposing interests. At these summits, certain players have adopted a confrontational line, and others have allowed themselves to be dragged along. Even when the tone is calm, as was the case at the meeting between Biden and Putin, we cannot fall into illusions: each maintains his positions and sees the other as the hostile side. It is a new era of distrust and direct conflict between the superpowers, outside the established international order.

More specifically, bringing the rivalry with China into the military field and openly including it in NATO's agenda is a mistake. It is true that the two paragraphs dedicated in the final communiqué to relations with China are softer than the messages disseminated before and during the meeting. But in essence, we are giving Beijing reasons to strengthen defence cooperation with Moscow and to increase its participation in joint military exercises with the Russians, including in regions close to the European Union's borders. If we have criticisms to make, in the areas of human rights and freedom, of unfair commercial competition, or even when China pushes certain countries into excessive debt, with investments in infrastructure that serve, above all, its own interests, let us make them in the appropriate political forums. 

When you gamble, as you have done all week, on confrontation and bloc politics, you are almost irretrievably compromising the functioning of the United Nations Security Council. The veto then becomes the standard practice. The result is the weakening of the UN and the marginalisation of its leaders, starting with the Secretary-General. And all this is in contradiction with the repeated promises to strengthen multilateralism, which appear in the documents approved at the G7 and NATO meetings.

Soon after his investiture, Biden decided to bring his country back to the United Nations Human Rights Council, as an observer and to make it more relevant. This is a wiser decision than going ahead with the intention of convening a conference of democracies, an issue that was again on the table during summits with allies. Such a conference, which should include the good guys and exclude the bad guys, according to Washington's criteria, would further divide the international community and put the UN in an extremely delicate situation. To help the multilateral system and help defuse the turmoil looming on the horizon, the European Union should not support such an initiative. Nor should it be towed along by any superpower. It is precisely to avoid this that there is a common project and so much talk of deepening European sovereignty. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Writing about the G7 Summit

A very special G7 summit

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 summit number 47 starts today in the UK. Although the British Prime Minister will be the host, the biggest star will be Joe Biden, who chose the occasion to make his first trip abroad. He will spend a long week in Europe, thus showing that the European continent remains an important stage for diplomacy and the strengthening of American foreign alliances.

This has everything to be an outstanding summit.  The statements made in the last few days confirm the concerns that I have already expressed here in this newspaper a month ago, at the time of the preparatory meeting of the foreign ministers. Biden's intention seems to be to transform the G7 into what the UN Security Council cannot be: a platform for understanding between the great liberal democracies, able to give a coordinated response to universal issues and to face up to China's global ambitions and the threats posed by Russia. In essence, it is about seeking to safeguard American hegemony, not in an isolated way as Donald Trump advocated, but with the USA's most solid allies.

To make this alliance more effective, they associate South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India to the group. This addition is strange and incomplete. It leaves out many important states. It is true that this is not the time for vast face-to-face meetings.  It is also true that the decision on who comes to sit at the table is up to the host. But the other members would also have a say in the matter. Nobody insisted that Mexico, Brazil, or others be invited. The reading that can be made leaves little doubt: Latin America is in crisis and counts for little more than nothing on the international stage. It is, in any case, in the North American sphere of influence. It would not need to be heard.

Africa was represented at previous summits by three or four countries. This time it was almost left out. The presence of Cyril Ramaphosa, the South African president, can be seen as the British lending a hand to maintaining stability in South Africa in order to reassure certain sections of its population. The rest of the continent is of lesser concern. Incidentally, the UK was the only G7 country that decided to cut its cooperation budget on the pretext of the pandemic. The cut is £4 billion. It will have a considerable negative impact at a time when the least developed countries need exceptional support.

Regarding the Middle East, nobody wants to hear anything about Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the general in charge in Egypt, let alone about Recep Erdoğan or Mohammed bin Salman. From the perspective of the G7, the Middle East is losing strategic relevance. On the other hand, Iran has moved into China's orbit - on 27 March, a mutual cooperation agreement for the next 25 years was signed, thus opening a way out for the Iranians, who have become freer from American and Western sanctions.

In Asia, the big bet is centred on India. It is, however, a complex and risky gamble. Narendra Modi is a radical Hindu nationalist who is dragging the world's largest democracy into an intense civil crisis. He is also a protectionist, unwilling to open the economy to foreigners. He does, however, offer one illusion: that he could become an important counterweight to China. 

China is, moreover, the main concern that Biden has in his baggage. He wants to turn the G7 into a dam against Chinese expansionism. We will see if he succeeds, apart from the mention in the final communiqué. As for Boris Johnson, the banner that would allow him to present the meeting as a success would be a resounding declaration of support for vaccination campaigns in the poorest countries, so as to have 60% of these populations vaccinated by the end of 2022. If there is a commitment to that, then this G7 will have been useful. Leaders will be able to sing victory, even though December 2022 will mean another year and a half of uncertainties and restrictions. In that perspective, helping others as quickly as possible is in the vital interests of us all, starting with the G7.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Lowering the tension between Russia and the West

Russia and us: maximum prudence and lots of diplomacy

Victor Angelo

 

There are some intellectuals out there with a broken compass. They have shown again this loss of reference points in the way they have reacted to the criticism made to Alexander Lukashenko, the post-Soviet relic who controls the destiny of Belarus since 1994. A character who meets all the requirements that characterize a dictator. He will not have the stature of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, nor the madness of Kim Jong-un, or a strategic vision that goes beyond the simple obsession with perpetuating himself in power. He is a tiny tyrant who, at his manner, ruins the freedoms and the lives of his fellow citizens. This evidence escapes some. With their gaze fixed on the past, they play at being progressive and see in him a heroic survivor of the communist era, a would-be resistor to the imperialist designs of the West. And they swallow all the falsehoods that this variant of Salazar, a version with a moustache and a brute, invents to justify his actions. In particular, the criminal action against the Ryanair commercial flight, and the lies built around Roman Protasevich. They ignore, at the same time, everything that the European leaders have said on the subject. 

The same has been true of the propaganda coming from the Kremlin. For some of our bewildered people, Putin is always right, when he attacks our part of the world. The explanation is the same, although in a strengthened dose, that the Kremlin has a more symbolic meaning and touches the soul of those nostalgic for the Soviet Union more than Minsk.

The truth is different, however. Putin is a threat. Like other despots, his power strategy is to create an external enemy, so as to allow him to appear, in the eyes of his own, as the defender of the homeland, its traditional values, and its nationalist projection as a great power. In this plan, everything that emerges as internal opposition, and that could jeopardize Putin's future, is accused of being at the service of foreign powers and pursued with all ferocity.

The external target par excellence is NATO. And the rhetoric from Moscow, which some here faithfully echo, attributes to the Atlantic Alliance the design of wanting to camp along the Russian borders. It is the alleged eastward expansion of NATO. There are four member states that share border lines with Russia: Poland and Lithuania, which are neighbours of Kaliningrad, a highly militarized Russian enclave, plus Latvia and Estonia. These countries joined NATO by their own will and because they meet the conditions required by the organization: a democratic political system, based on a market economy and respect for people's rights; and the existence of an effective defence structure duly framed by a legitimate political power. It is essentially about democracy and sovereignty. It is this sovereignty - the ability of each country to decide freely on its foreign alliances - that Putin does not want to accept being practiced by Georgia and, above all, Ukraine. Since he has no such right, he uses intimidation, trickery and, when necessary, force as an alternative. 

Those who live in an outdated ideological labyrinth do not understand these things. They pay no attention to the voices coming from the European camp, even though our leaders have the democratic legitimacy that dictators lack. Nor do they care that our side has unsuccessfully sought to revive the NATO-Russia Council, an essential consultative body for détente. The last meeting of that Council took place in July 2019. Further, Russia was invited to send military observers to the allied exercise SteadFast Defender 2021, which is taking place across Europe and with a special focus on the Black Sea. It did not respond to the invitation.

The current conjuncture is worrisome. Tension between the two sides of Europe is as it has never been in the last 30 years. In such a context, the summit planned for June 16 in Geneva between the American and Russian presidents is going to be very difficult. It is urgent to defuse the existing dangerous situation, so this meeting will require maximum diplomacy and prudence.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)