Hassan Monday’s Post

Returning to this tonight, my last take (four weeks ago) on the South African election before it all went down yesterday. With the projections now giving a clear-ish picture of the result... well, in one important sense, this election was the dampest of squibs. That is, if you were hoping for democratic progress, the re-emergence of a state committed to accountability, decency and the rule of law. 2024 was certainly not 1994. The ANC and its wretched offspring, MK and EFF, look to have captured 2 in every 3 votes in an election with a pretty weak turnout, given the apparently 'historic' nature of this national vote. As for the micro democratic parties led by wannabee presidents... well, it is worth noting that not only did MK come out of nowhere and play a blinder, they were clever enough to understand what would bring in the votes: they didn't even bother with a manifesto. What was the point? Big, big disappointment. The only conceivable silver-lining possibility is that the ANC-DA go into coalition... and they forge something that works, warts-and-all. "At this moment, South Africa’s “most consequential election” since the advent of democracy is shaping up to be the dampest of squibs. It felt that way when I penned a piece for the Daily Maverick in January; it feels even more so on this otherwise glorious early May morning in Johannesburg, four weeks out from the vote. This Al Jazeera article says a lot, but not nearly enough. It mentions nothing of the intrepid male egotists who, under the cover of commendable if uninspiring democratic rhetoric, somehow convince themselves that they can all be President one day. This is a societal problem, not a political one. Nor does the article get even remotely close to explaining how, despite having years and years to prepare for this moment, SA’s sophisticated business elite could not join with democratic formations within society to create a viable alternative to the ruling party, unified around just a few broad principles. One of the new democratic parties, now seemingly tilting towards populist gesturing, exclaims that “South Africa NEEDS NEW LEADERS”. Perhaps, but the problem runs much deeper, as this election looks set to demonstrate with painful clarity. Vying for power at the end of May we have… micro-democrats straining to differentiate themselves; populists; tribalists; separatists; religionists; regionalists; and an incumbent stitched together by a Faustian bargain more enduring than probably anyone imagined. They say democracy is messy, but c’mon! Somewhere in the infinite wisdom of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation that “the central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself”… somewhere in there, I think, lies a way out of SA’s deep malaise”.

‘The centre is holding’ - this is what Ursula von der Leyen proclaimed on the evening of 9 June after the first projections of the European election results from the 27 European member states came in. 🗳️🇪🇺 She was proved right - the centre ground held: Ursula von der Leyen was re-elected Commission President on 18 July with a comfortable majority of 401 votes, presumably made up of votes from the pro-European centrist groups, i.e. the European People's Party (EPP), the Social Democrats (S&D), the Liberals and also the Greens, in a secret ballot. Her ‘declaration’ - a kind of candidature speech to the plenary of the European Parliament - was based on political guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, which had been published shortly before her speech. 📑 The weeks between the European elections and the election of the Commission President were characterised by transfers and movements between the parties as well as new group formations, confirming the thesis of the former Secretary-General of the European Parliament, Klaus Welle: ‘European elections are decided before, during and especially after the elections’. 📊 The movements between the parties made it almost impossible to predict the outcome of the Commission President's election, and it was unclear until the very end whether a stable majority could be achieved among the pro-European centre parties. In the end, it was probably mainly the votes of the Greens and not the right-wing conservative ECR group that were decisive for the solid result. Political observers see the re-election with over 400 votes as a sign of stability in regionally and geopolitically uncertain times. 🤝 The failure of Ursula von der Leyen's election would not only have slowed down the institution-building process after the European elections, but also had the potential to plunge the EU into chaos under extremely volatile conditions due to the lack of an alternative to a second term in office. Check out our latest country report (available in German) here: https://lnkd.in/eYkZmEJX 🙂

At his press conference after South Africa's new Government of National Unity (GNU) was formed following the country's seminal 29 May 2024 general election, former African National Congress and SA President Jacob Zuma disapprovingly said the ANC had joined the Multiparty Charter (MPC), the "Moonshot Pact". The MPC was a group of South Africa's opposition parties, including the Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party and ActionSA, which formed ahead of the 29 May 2024 general election to bring the ANC below 50% in the elections, and to try to form a national coalition government on their own. The founding agreement of the MPC was that it would exclude the ANC in any government it would form. The MPC also negotiated with other opposition parties which embraced the Constitution, non-racialism and who shared the MPC's core policy objectives, but who did not want to join the grouping before the 29 May 2024 elections, but who would join a government of the MPC, after the elections, if the MPC could not secure a governing majority. This was called the MPC+ arrangement. Following the 29 May 2024 general election, the ANC dropped to below 40%; but the MPC could not form a government because it would have meant aligning with parties such as Zuma's uMkhonto we Sizwe party (MK) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), that were opposed to SA's democratic Constitution. Following a meeting of the MPC, a decision was made that given the fact that the ANC dropped to below 40%, but the MPC did not have the numbers to form a national government, it would be in the best interest of South Africa for the MPC to form a government with the ANC, rather than having the ANC forming a government with the populist, anti-Constitutional MK and EFF, the so-called "Doomsday Pact". However, MPC members, ActionSA and the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), disagreed with the decision to partner with the ANC; deciding to rather go into opposition. The formation of a GNU between the ANC and the core members of the MPC in a way is a reconfiguration of the MPC: including ANC, but without former members ActionSA and the ACDP. So, there is some truth in Zuma's view that SA's new GNU was a reconfiguration of the MPC: an MPC that included the ANC, and opposition parties that had agreed to be part of a post-election MPC+ arrangement and the ANC. More importantly, the MPC had secured its objective of helping to bring the ANC to under 50% of the vote. Secondly, the MPC objective to form a national government was also reached, albeit, forming a government with the ANC, and not without it, and without members ActionSA and the ACDP. News24 "On The Record Summit" yesterday, on whether the GNU will be successful.

I hate headlines like this: "The Netherlands veers sharply to right with new government dominated by party of Geert Wilders." Sharply? Dominated? That's misleading. For those who haven't heard of him, Geert Wilders was dubbed the Dutch Donald Trump. He's the leader of the PVV, a right-wing party that recently won the most seats in their national election. If you read that headline thinking in Canadian political terms, you'd probably think he won a landslide majority. He didn't. His party won less than 30% of the seats. The Netherlands uses a form of proportional representation in their national elections. This system most often results in parties having to form coalitions if they want to govern the country. Unlike here in Canada, it's highly unlikely to have one party with one agenda form government in the Netherlands. Why does that matter? This new coalition government will be made up of four distinct parties each with their own agendas. These parties will have to negotiate amongst themselves and come to consensus on key issues if they want to remain in power as a government. The variety of opinions present in their decision making will likely result in policies that are nuanced and more accurately reflective of the public interest in the Netherlands. In other words, the results of a true democracy. Meanwhile, here in Canada we've had essentially one party and one leader rule for almost a decade. If the polls are right, Pierre Poilievre's CPC will win an overwhelming majority and have essentially free reign to steer Canada towards their vision for as long as they hold a majority of seats (with what will almost certainly be less than the majority of the popular vote). Little nuance, little debate, mostly just a singular agenda based entirely on one party's vision for Canada. All Canadians, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, should desire a move away from our first-past-the-post system. Not because you're for or against any specific party, but because you want better decisions from your government as a whole. We have a very complex nation defined by a massive landmass, broken up into mostly large provinces and territories each with distinct cultures, geographies and economies. We deserve an electoral system that can do it justice. And we really don't talk about that enough... Justin Trudeau Pierre Poilievre Jagmeet Singh Nathaniel Erskine-Smith dave meslin Althia Raj Andrew Coyne Paul Wells https://lnkd.in/g5gz5phj

Chapeau, M. le Président (Part I) A gamble? That is how some knowledgeable commentators have classified President Macron's instant calling of a national election on the very day of his party's defeat at yesterday's European poll. And indeed, Macron's decision involves risk; a political factor which German politicians in particular abhor and desperately try to minimize at almost any cost. Viewed from the German cradle of 'asymmetric demobilization', Macron's forceful response appears mysterious, if not outright alien: where a state of near catatonic inertia, presented as and taken for deliberate calm, is widely seen as the pinnacle of political wisdom, voluntaristic action does look like a baffling throw of the dice. A second look at risk ... Still, a second look at Macron's defiant move may not be out of place. To begin with, in this observer's mind, it looks much more profound than a simple doubling of the stake at the card table. Au contraire: It is nothing less than Macron throwing down a gauntlet in front of the French electorate's collective feet. His message is: this is your country, you are its sovereign. If you really want rabidly nationalistic policies - representing the direct opposite of what you have elected me to be your president for twice, in 2017 and 2022 - here is your chance. But you'll have to choose it expressly, and will therefore have to own it once you have decided. There may also be an element here of calling the electorate's bluff. Even more perhaps than other European voters, the French are known for seeing European elections as secondary, a mere opportunity to censor the current government's performance without any genuine political cost. It's what is known as the China Shop Rule: you break it, you own it. Even if you are the collective sovereign. At home, it applies fully, even if in Brussels it may sometimes not. Might there be yet another motive at play here? Again, from a German perspective, the idea seems more than fanciful. For in Germany, if you want to get anything substantial done in politics, the wisdom of asymmetric demobilisation requires you to sneak it by the political public's attention as unnoticed as possible: pass on, nothing to see here, business as usual. And yet, this being France, here goes: could it be that le Président, by taking the nationalist, anti-European challenge at face value, by confronting it head-on, with the French forced to fully and squarely own the stake, is merely treating the voters as reasonable grown-ups - perhaps in the eternal pedagogical hope that the less you infantilize your public, the more responsible their decisions become? Second part to follow Copyright Matthias Sonn 2024

2027 presidency: Atiku, Obi alliance can’t unseat Tinubu, declares APC The All Progressives Congress (APC) has expressed confidence that an alliance between former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Anambra Governor Peter Obi won't be enough to unseat President Bola Tinubu in the 2027 elections. APC's National Publicity Director, Bala Ibrahim, dismissed the potential alliance, stating that adding up votes from previous elections won't guarantee a win. The warning was given by the National Publicity Director of APC, Bala Ibrahim, in an exclusive interview with The PUNCH on Tuesday. Ibrahim was reacting to a statement by Atiku’s spokesperson, Paul Ibe, that both his principal and his Labour Party counterpart had learnt their lessons in the last general elections and would unite to kick out the “incompetent and clueless” administration of the APC. According to him, the combined votes of the two leaders, which would have amounted to 12 million, should have been enough to stop the President and prevent the hardship he has meted out to Nigerians. Ibe expressed his views on Monday’s edition of Channels Television’s Politics Today. Reactions have trailed the interview with major opposition agreeing that a coalition of forces or merger could indeed defeat the APC in the same manner as the one witnessed in 2015 when former President Muhammadu Buhari defeated a sitting President, Goodluck Jonathan. Atiku's spokesperson, Paul Ibe, had earlier suggested that a united front between Atiku and Obi could have prevented President Tinubu's election and the subsequent hardships faced by Nigerians. However, Ibrahim remains unconvinced, arguing that each candidate's aspirations and ego would hinder a successful collaboration. The APC's confidence may stem from its perceived strongholds, but opposition parties are exploring various strategies to challenge the ruling party. Some argue that a coalition between Atiku and Obi could provide a viable alternative, while others emphasize the need for younger, more progressive leaders. As Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections, the APC's declaration underscores the complexities of the country's political landscape. While alliances and coalitions may shape the outcome, the electorate's growing demand for accountability and effective governance will likely play a decisive role.

As the second round of the National Assembly ended up in creating a hung parliament, the different forces in power had to cope with an unusual situation in French politics. This week saw the election of the president of the National Assembly, which gave a first glimpse of what the different coalitions could look like. Despite still not being able to find a Prime Minister candidate, as LFI refuses every proposals coming from the Greens, the Socialists and the Communists, in a coalition that is now looking even more shaky, the left coalition (NFP, New Popular Front), came up with a unique candidate for the president of the National Assembly. The center was also divided on allying themselves with moderates from the left and the right, or only partnering with the traditional right. They eventually did the latter, clinching a victory and re-electing Yaël Braun-Pivet. As partnering with the right already helped them re-elect the former speaker of the parliament, one may think that further collaboration will make them the first coalition to have a majority to pass legislation. In this case, they could put pressure on the PS to negotiate on specific texts, so as to send the extremes back into their camps. On the result of the election on French Foreign policy, International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS) published a commentary, arguing that the dissolution ended up in a status quo. The far-left LFI did not increase their number of seats, while the Socialist and the Greens’ progress has led to a potential increase of France support towards Ukraine. The RN enlarged its sway on French politics, but their loss of the Prime Minister’s race will make sure not to impede commitments toward NATO and EU allies, and Ukraine. We had a foretaste of fascism in power between the two rounds and they will hope to capitalise on the momentum they built during this legislative election campaign for the 2027 General Elections.