When Consensual Politics Fails

In theory, the Spanish electoral system is designed to introduce a consensual system of rule. Similar to its Europe peers, compromise and dialogue lie – again in theory – at the heart of doing politics. A disgruntled Britain has always frowned upon such suave tactics, promoting instead the traditional ‘win it gets it all’ type of system. A majority-one: I win, then you lose.

However, Spanish politics is not that consensual. It is not consensual at all actually. Since as democracy was restored in 1975, and the electoral system was defined, elections have persistently led to the rule of one of the two major parties. Never a consensual government composed of variations on the same left/right spectrum.

In the last general elections held in April 2019, the representatives of the main political parties did not even shy away from admitting this reality. The largest parties want to rule alone. No compromise, no coalitions, and no appeasement.  Although these elections were the first to see five parties major with national platforms competing in the election (rather than just the two largest national parties), one major party won, and one major party will form a government.

Three Spanish parties divided the vote on the right: the People’s Party (PP), previously in power, suffered the biggest loss; the centre-right Ciudadanos (Cs) gained some support; and the far-right, ultra-nationalist Vox party appeared on the national stage for the first time. On the left, the Socialists (PSOE) and left-wing Unidas Podemos (UP) slightly over-performed the polls, partly propelled by the fear of the rise of a neo-Francoism embodied by Vox.  

PSOE and its leader, Pedro Sanchez, were the election’s winner in the fullest sense, gaining 38 additional seats in the Congress of Deputies (the lower house of Parliament). PP and its young leader, Pablo Casado, were the clear losers, having lost around half of the party’s seats to both Vox and Ciudadanos. But does that mean that the left will reach out to the centre and centre right out of respect to the principles of the electoral system – one that attempts to give representation to all voices cast? After all, a large portion of the Spanish people opted for centre and right ideologies – albeit the subsequent fragmentation of the vote. Moreover, one can understand why the votes on the right were fragmented, considering the seriousness, strength, and viability of two of the parties represented on that spectrum (Vox certainly not one of them).

Sanchez’s strategy of a Socialist-only government might see the light of day, unless the local elections in May force him to seek tacit support from some other parties to pass key legislation. Ciudadanos would have been the logical ally, but its leader has categorically refused any post-election cooperation with PSOE due to the socialists’ stance on the crisis in Cataluña.

Funnily enough, incremental politics is a key feature in democracies. No matter how right or left one party is, there are principles of politics and a common set of beliefs and practices that supposedly protect democratic nations from erratic decisions and political manoeuvres. Even if Ciudadanos disapproved with PSOE, many other points being them together. It would have been nice to see politicians actually implementing the principles of dialogue, comprise, and humility. But it would be incredibly naïve to believe that an ideal is placed before personal interests.

Feigned Ignorance

"Nothing is easier than saying the words: I don’t know", my father used to say. Although his observation is very true, perhaps it also has an implicit passive dimension that employs ignorance to achieve hidden agendas.

Egyptian President Adbel Fatah Al Sisi made his first state visit to the USA on 9 April 2019 after being re-elected President in June 2018. The timing can’t be more opportune, considering that in a week or so, a referendum is set to take place to vote on the constitutional amendments that were passed in Parliament last February. The constitutional changes  would essentially allow the incumbent president to remain in power until 2034. The amendments will also give more prominence to the armed forces and hand the president the power to appoint judges.

Donald Trump welcomed Al Sisi and commended the improved relations between the USA and Egypt, and the enhanced efforts to combat terrorism in Egypt. However, when asked about the constitutional amendments in Egypt, the US President – who has an army of analysts and political aides to follow up on hot files – answered with a: I don’t know that there are any….or that there is a referendum. But what I know is that Al Sisi is doing a great job in Egypt.

One can blame his team of foreign policy experts who might have been selective in their reporting on Egyptian developments. Yes people are jailed, Muslim Brotherhood guys are hanged, censorship is in place, people are impoverished but de-politicized, human rights are breached but terrorism is curbed…all is well. Who cares about the level of democracy? Why mind that the Constitution would be amended for no purposeful reason? Let him rule until 2034…or until 2094. Let us balance national security interests and our rhetoric about democracy.

The fact remains that protecting national interests, at whatever expense it comes, is not ideal, but is somehow justifiable. What is not justifiable however is the double standards employed by the US government. Raising slogans of democracy and protection of human rights one side, and allowing an autocratic regime to remain in power on the other is not fine.  Threatening to bar politicians from entering the country over the murder of a journalists, and then sending more weapons that have proven to be used to killed innocent and defenceless children, is also unacceptable. Bashing an unpopular president for suggesting constitutional amendments, but supporting the same act that was executed by a favoured president should not be accepted. 

Not only has hypocrisy taken on a few form that embraces blatant favouritism and a ‘do what I say, and not what I do’ style, but now it is not necessary to even justify such double moral. Say you don’t know, that easy.

The only thing that worries me, really worries me, is whether this is in fact feigned ignorance.  If Trump is sincere about his lack of knowledge, rather than being intentionally disingenuous, then we have much bigger problems.

She is Ignorant Indeed

The confinement of officials to their realms of specialisation dictated by their assumed position in government serves a valid purpose: avoiding conflicting, damaging, and embarrassing incidents.  Iran’s Foreign Minister recently complained about the intervention of the Revolutionary Guards in foreign affairs, which led to damaging what has taken years to rebuild: trust in Iran as a rational and sensible actor in international affairs. In Saudi Arabia, Adel bin Jubair was sacked from his post as Foreign Minister following the works on Saudi intelligence that led to international recriminations an accusations of liquidating opponents in broad daylight. What Saudi Arabia had successfuly been able to mask in the past decades through top-notch diplomacy was also ruined by ruthless, abiding tools.

Whilst stepping out of your jurisdiction and assuming the role of a true authoritarian with limitless and reign-less powers is usually observed in the Middle East, Romania gave the world a fresh surprise.

Romanian Prime Minister Viorica Dăncilă told the AIPAC policy conference that was held in Washington, DC, that her country would seek to relocate its embassy to Israel’s alleged capital.  “I am pleased to announce that I, as prime minister of Romania, and the government that I run will move our embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel” were her exact words. Clearly, this came as a surprise to the entire Romanian government, whereby Romanian President Klaus Iohannis did not shy away from apologetically explaining that “The prime minister shows complete ignorance regarding foreign affairs”.

Last year, the Romanian government, supported by the speaker of its Parliament, adopted a draft proposal to move the country’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The proposal was opposed by the President who insisted on an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal as a preliminary step. Naturally, he and called for Dăncilă’s resignation. Naturally, she stayed put.

Now, the Prime Minister did not stop there, but also pledged to work to improve Israel-European Union ties, and setting up the embassy in Jerusalem was the first step, completely ignoring the EU’s opposition to the presence of diplomatic missions in the city. Perhaps the Prime Minister failed to see how such a move would impact Romania’s relations with the Arab and the Muslim worlds, and how it would distance neutral countries in its own neighbourhood, which chose a pacific, fair, and bilateral solution to the crisis, rather than the barbaric self-serving strategy followed by the US...and Guatemala. The first sign of Arab discontent was the cancellation of the state visit of King Abdullah of Jordan to Romania that was scheduled this week - the least to expect following such thoughtless statements.

It is also interesting to see how the history of a nation’s suffering can be easily forgotten in the heat of the moment. For an impoverished country that has lived under Communist control for long years, and finally breaking out of the shackles in an inspiring demonstration that demanded freedom, it is hard to imagine how acceptable it is to deny other nations this freedom.

Most importantly, a political system takes its form based on the power structures and their accorded division amongst players. Over stepping one's bounds will only justify their labelling as ignorant – very much rightfully so in this case. 

Talk Showrlament

The strongest justification to allowing Egypt’s probable constitutional amendment is the February 2019 proposal of one-fifth of the House of Representatives to propose legislative changes. The proposed amendment to Article 140 of the Constitution would extend presidential terms from four to six years, and would allow for running for re-election for another two terms – meaning that the incumbent Sisi could stay in office until 2034. The amendments would also grant the President authority to choose the Supreme Constitutional Court’s President and its new members, chairs of all other judicial authorities, and the Public Prosecutor. In other words, the power to choose key figures who play a substantial role in safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system.

On 13 February the Parliament will commence discussions to amend the Constitution, and will subsequently decide on behalf of over 80 million Egyptians whether their country would further entrench itself in military rule and political reprehension, or take a leap of faith towards democracy – with all the associated costs attached to a democracy that cannot be reigned.

But all of this did not happen overnight. Originally, Article 140 of the Constitution imposes a two-term limit, and Article 226 prohibits amendments to texts pertaining to the re-election of the president of the Republic…unless the amendment brings more guarantees.

What happened? How could one fifth of the Parliament manage to sway the remaining members to reconsider this change? How could a nation that has been through a difficult political, social, and ideological turmoil succumb to void rhetoric that insists on autocracy in return for national security.

In my modest opinion, the key to the success of this strategy is a clever technique that employed the media, the art of talk, and the power of emotions. One can easily flip through YouTube channels in search for talk shows – and a plethora they are. Most of the shows aired relate to one main theme: the polarisation of the society. The with and the against…the liberal and the conservative…the military and the brotherhood…the secular and the religious. Not only do these heated and fierce discussions engage the audience and flare their emotions, but they also subtly push the viewer to reach a logical conclusion: the Egyptians are divided, on everything, and somehow stability must be preserved, at any cost.

This strategy is not a novelty in the Arab world, whereby sentimentalism, prejudice, and the sense of community before God, have been key ingredients in feeding an insatiable people with a false sense of meaning, and security. However, what was previously exercised by security forces, the intelligence, and regulatory restrictions to human activity and thought, is not being artfully performed by journalists and talk show hosts. Bring in a charismatic representative on a school of thought and allow him to win over the public. Invite in a counter school representative and encourage an 'open' debate. The result is a screaming competition that is extremely engaging and entertaining - and most importantly, influencing. 

Circling back on the main argument on the Parliament’s quiet easy and successful mission to democratically invite undemocratic constitutional amendments, and the probable favourable vote in tomorrow’s discussions, one must conclude that the premise of divide and conquer has never been more successful than nowadays. Interestingly, instead of within the reams of Parliament, discussions were brought before viewers in direct TV drama. Is this proposal contested? Well, flick for a talk show check for yourself.

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of And Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East  said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well.

Well, here we are. 

Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a system, will have a high cost, as attested by neighbouring nations.

Tunisia will hold presidential and parliamentary elections in November 2019, while the conflict between the Prime Minister and the President is intensifying, whereby economic reforms and the privileges of the old authoritarian order are at odds. Public anger at the politicians’ failure to address the economic crisis and persistent unemployment is not promising.

The Western Sahara conflict persists, and diplomatic tension between Morocco and Algeria is likely to escalate.

Libya is still embroiled in conflict, and political violence will continue to plague the country and feed political and ideological radicalization, in a region that really does not need further instability or polarization.

Scandinavian tourists were murdered in Morocco in December 2018, signally that in spite of all efforts, terrorism has its feeding grounds in the region. And is acting out. 

Meanwhile, Egyptian politics is proving its futility…the CBS “60 Minutes” cancelled interview with the President speaks volumes of the embarrassing levels of incompetence, and denial of human rights situation in the country. 

As for Iraq, and in the words of Tanya Goudsouzian “This will be another one of those years of instability and uncertainty, and trying to predict with clarity what Iraq will look like in 2019 is a fool’s errand.”

The Lebanese cabinet formation is still in a stalemate.  It has spent nearly two and a half of the past 13 years without a government, and talks to form a new one have dragged on for over eight months. Sectarianism thank you very much.

Meanwhile, in Jordan, veterans and political opponents are being locked up for voicing their opinions, whilst price hikes are slowly, and passively, being accepted as the glue that brings people together – now that all other slogans have proven to be a coy lie.

Gazans are under file – same old same old.

Qatar still being treated as the estranged black sheep by its Gulf sisters, while Saudis are under pointless international scrutiny for their human rights misconduct. Naturally, a few arrests and a governmental reshuffles were the answer.

Syria will celebrate US withdrawal…and Kurds will not. The opposition has forgotten whose side they are on, and who their allies are, but they will probably come up with something creative to add more misery. After all, it was only 14 children who perished last night out of the cold weather conditions in the Syrian refugee camp on the Jordan-Syria border. All under the age of 1 year. All died alone, in the cold, in a tent, homeless, and hopeless.

Don’t wish us a happy new year. Wish us a new MENA.

The Building

It is very similar to an old, abandoned, shaky building. The case of Spain that is. Its different storeys and multiple apartments from within have no option other than to endure the troubles caused – purposefully or passively – by other tenants. Those on the lower floors are luckier, as they can avoid fifth floor drama by isolation and compartmentalization of their existence. Those on the fifth floor are also lucky in that they can blame all mishaps and malfunctioning on the basement, and its tenants. It would be physically impossible to pull an apartment out and relocate, but it is quite possible and common to create alliances and parallel systems to manage the unmanageable co-existence.

And that is what is happening in Spain.

The Catalan region decided to address its financial problems by blaming central mismanagement and southern hedonism. They have and still are demanding a divorce from the Peninsula, with amicable terms with the remaining neighbours. Meanwhile, the south has also decided to put an end to the northern liberal discourse regarding the moral duty towards the disadvantaged, and elected a government that is able to utter the dreaded NO.

Communal existence has long been a challenge. In the XV and XVI centuries, Europe was ruled by aristocracy and gentry who divided lands amongst themselves without the need for a central authority. Changes introduced in the political system were attributed to security purposes and the growth of liberal thoughts that assigned civil rights to the working class. The edification of a communal unit promised equality and efficiency to a system based on birth rights. But liberal thoughts flourished into freedom of thought, and soon, every person residing in a community had the right to exercise his/her freedom of thought. Ideologies were modelled upon convictions, and were used as a sworn-by medicine to all problems.

Now, while people residing in the upper parts blame poor infrastructure for the draining of water resources, the residents of the southern areas blame the higher tiers for allowing non-traditional and foreign solutions into their harmonious existence. A divorce seems inevitable, but technically impossible. 

Solution? Vote in representatives who enjoy the shameless audacity to carry out repairs their own way, without having to consult with the neighbours.  

Problems have roots, and have solutions. Multiple solutions. But the question remains: is a solution to a problem more important than maintaining co-existence? Is fixing a water leak more pressing than conserving the pillars of a building that keeps it intact? Maybe that is the issue to be addressed first and foremost. Otherwise, each can find a solution to clear out the rubble. 

Blondel's Prophecy and Iraq

Jean Blondel went into details in Political Parties – The Decline of Parties in Europe – about the perils of patronage in particracies. The exchange of favours and appointments in governmental bodies owing to party calculations and favour exchanges has proven ineffective and non-transparent, whether in majoritarian systems or those of a consensual nature. The mistakes committed by parties in continental Europe throughout the past century have been taken account of, with the hope that as party life develops and new organisational structures emerge, citizens can be spared the inefficiency of their elected governments.

What is being exported into the new member countries of the democratic club seems to miss out on these lessons. Theory trumps practicality and experience in the process of introducing democratic systems of governance in these countries. Iraq stands testimony to this very observation.

Iraq was ruled for very long years by an Arab-nationalist party that employed European-inspired rhetoric of socialism and nationalism. Parties of other ideological families also played a role in the political landscape – such as the Communist party, which have also been an offshoot of European parties established in the 1950s, or at least an offshoot of their intellectual school. When the USA liberated Iraq from years long of dictatorship in 2003, a new formula of party collaboration and political organisation was introduced.

Iraq was viewed as a nation of cleavages, and consequently, the system was organised in a similar fashion. It was agreed that the presidency was to be headed by a Kurdish leader, the Parliament by a Sunni leader, and the government by a Shiite leader. Parties were organised along the same cleavage lines, and so were the votes of the electorate. Most importantly, parties of the same ideological family – that of religious or ethnic affiliation – started to exchange favours under a patronage-supportive system.

Elections in Iraq in May 2018 envisaged drama. The prophecy was fulfilled. It took party factions and elected members over 4 months to select a prime minister. Lengthier time is expected when it comes to forming the government. The Blondel–feared party patronage prophecy took place. Parties started forming coalitions across cleavage-lines in hope of forming a majority and consequently form a government. Moqtada al-Sadr and Haider al-Abadi created an alliance that includes the blocs of Vice President Ayad Allawi and Shi’ite Muslim cleric Ammar al-Hakim, as well as several Sunni Muslim lawmakers and ones representing Turkmen, Yazidi, Mandaean and Christian minorities. A rival grouping led by militia commander Hadi al-Ameri and former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki formed another alliance. Bickering commenced, and so did implied favours and compromises on the hot files (Iran, Kurds, US relations to name a few).

In a surprising turn of events, Iraq’s new president tasked veteran Shiite politician Adel Abdul-Mahdi with forming a new government. Neutrality and independence will not facilitate the setting up of a government. Months after the country elected its new parliament the country is as divided and ungovernable as ever – and it is all attributed to a system that naively believed in consensual politics in an ethnically and religiously divided nation. The exchange of favours and the agreement of parties on their share of the pie will only entrench further factionalism and favouritism based on party affiliation, AKA in Iraq "religious affiliation". The new premier however astonished everyone by announcing that the public can apply for a ministerial post by sending an electronic application. He reportedly declined nominations by parties that were masked by independent slogans. Is that the end of patronage?

Whether this is a political stunt or an actual change in the modus operandi of Iraq politics remains to be seen. Blondel's prophecies might not find ground in the Iraqi government, or so one hopes.