Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Tuesday
Jan202009

Chris Emery on Israeli Elections and the Gaza Crisis: What Has Changed?

Chris Emery, a Ph.D. student at the University of Birmingham, offers a detailed reading of the effect --- if any --- that Israel's invasion of Gaza has had upon the contest to become the next Israeli Prime Minister.

The recent news that Benjamin Netanyahu remains firmly on course to become Israel’s next prime minister, draws into sharp relief the complex domestic political dynamics around the crisis in Gaza.

Though consistently cited as part of a more cynical motivation for the recent conflict in Gaza, the direct significance of the looming election on February 10 is not immediately apparent. Not least, that is because the man most responsible for launching and prolonging the war, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is not even standing. As Aluf Benn notes, Olmert has his eyes on his legacy rather than any electoral prize. Not so, of course, his ambitious foreign minister and more seasoned defence minister.



The surface reading is that Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, albeit incorporating different agendas, viewed a popular war as an electoral panacea to their increasingly perilous opinion polls. It was, after all, on the issue of security that Livni was perceived as most vulnerable to attacks from the Likud leader, Netanyahu. Partly on this basis, but more significantly on the issue of Olmert’s corruption and lingering criticism of his handling of the war in Lebanon, Likud had built up a sizable lead in the polls. By mid-December, Likud’s lead peaked at 14 seats. At the same time, Barak’s Labor Party looked to be heading towards electoral annihilation.

This is not the first time Israeli politicians have been accused of seeking political gain from military successes. In March 2006, Olmert's Kadima Party had recently dropped in opinion polls to 38 seats, still far ahead of its closest rivals, raising speculation that a coalition headed by Olmert would not be strong enough to push through his agenda. Olmert subsequently ordered a raid, in which Israeli troops seized the leader of a radical PLO faction, which had wide backing amongst hardliners in Israel. The next polls put Kadima up to 42-43 seats.

Recent polls suggested that the conflict had similarly boosted Labor and Kadima. Up to a few days ago, some polls indicated Kadima had cut Likud’s lead to between 2 and 3 seats. Labor, once the subject of media ridicule, now look to win 15 of the 120 parliamentary seats- an increase of at least 6 since mid December. With hostilities ceasing and campaigning about to begin in earnest it is, however, still Netayahu who remains clear favourite to be the next prime minister. How now then to explain the latest polls that put Likud ahead of Kadima by between 5 and 7?

There was of course always a limit on the extent Kadima’s malaise could be overcome. Many of the issues that placed Likud so far ahead of Kadima, up to late December, have not fundamentally changed since. Not least the underlining reason why there will be an election- a corruption scandal that forced Olmert to resign. Livni’s failure to forge a coalition that could have prevented an election was seen as further evidence of her inexperience in a critical area of Israeli politics.

The current conflict may have displayed Livni’s determination to confront Hamas and her refusal to contemplate the Sarkosy’s cease-fire or acknowledge a humanitarian crisis in Gaza increased her hawkish credentials. But it seems unlikely that she is now substantially better placed to beat the hard-line Netayahu on the grounds of national security. Reports that Livni had wished to end hostilities several days before the ceasefire was announced made her appear less hawkish than Olmert, and also excluded from the major decisions. It is doubtful that the vocal supporters of the war will see Livni as more likely than Netanyahu of protecting the gains they perceive Israel has made in Gaza.

It seems also that any drop Netanyahu did experience in the polls cannot be simply attributed to a surge in right wing support for Kadima following the present conflict. A possible explanation can be found in the controversy surrounding hardliner Likudnik Moshe Feiglin's election to the relatively high 20th spot during the party's primary election last week. Feiglin's ousting from a Knesset seat backfired, causing rightist voters to abandon Likud for sectarian and hardliner parties.

Commentary of the Israeli election had actually been hard to find in either the Israeli or international media. This is in part due to the fact that political campaigning was suspended by all candidates in Israel. Definitive political analysis appears to remain suspended at the Jerusalem Post, which today predicted that the result could be anything “from a Likud blowout to a surprising Kadima come-from-behind victory.”

The conflict is very unlikely to have prevented Netanyahu from becoming the next prime minister. The real political impact of the war in Gaza may be in preventing a Likud landslide. In the context of Israel’s complex political system of alliance building, this could itself make the conflict significant. Broadly speaking, Barak has faired fairly well, avoiding potential electoral disaster and almost certainly securing a top spot in the next administration. Livni has to some extent bolstered her security credentials but has been hampered by an exceptionally poor working relationship with both Barak and Olmert. Netanyahu has probably played his hand as well as he could, the suspension of campaigning has not allowed him to make any mistakes, and he knows he faces little threat from Livni on the grounds of national security.
Tuesday
Jan202009

Enduring America Special: A Tale of Two Inaugurations

David Dunn, Reader in International Politics at the University of Birmingham, was a Fulbright Fellow in Washington eight years ago. Watching from a distance this time, he has offered Enduring America his thoughts on the meaning of the day and on Presidents Bush and Obama.

Resident in Washington in January 2001 as a Fulbright Fellow I was determined to witness the inauguration of the new President. My American friends were much more sceptical – “You’ll freeze to death and won’t get close enough to see anything” was the common line. On both points they were partly right, the temperature never ventured above freezing and my feet turned to ice standing on the muddy grass of Washington’s Mall, mostly watching the event on huge screens, occasionally glancing at the pin sized figures beyond. None of them elected to come with me - in part also because they weren’t celebrating the new administration. And yet I got a better sense of the occasion than I would have got watching it on TV, and certainly enough to know that eight years later this will be a very different event.



While the weather and ceremony will remain points of continuity Obama’s inauguration will differ in many ways. Bush’s first inauguration was marked by massive protests with crowds chanting loudly about the stolen 2000 election. Viewing the police dogs and horses I decided against joining in, fortuitously as it turned out as the protestors weren’t allowed on to the Mall. Despite this, however, their cries of “Hail to the Thief” were a constant background to the relayed address to the assembled crowd. Despite what was seen and heard on TV the event represented a divided Washington and a divided country. By contrast the mood in 2009 will be one of universal celebration of the election of a candidate widely seen as the antidote to eight years of Bush and his administration’s policies.

The pre-event celebrations were also of a different order. While bands played on the Mall for Bush they did so to a smaller and to a much less inclusive crowd. Indeed in January 2001 the focus was on presidential balls not parades, events which were all cowboy boots, Stetsons and swagger, symbols of the Presidency to come which played squarely to its own political base rather than to the nation as a whole. There was a mood of the Texan Republicans taking over political Washington, not coming in to work with it. This time round with a 70% approval rating and a mood of national celebration the contrast could not be more marked. Obama’s inauguration is an all inclusive event. A celebration of what is possible through the democratic process, an event as much about out reach and inclusivity as it is possible to imagine.

Expectations of the inauguration address are also quite different. For the famously anti-intellectual and inarticulate Bush little was expected and the words were quickly forgotten. By contrast the world will hang on every word and phrase uttered by Obama. Part of the reason for this is the different word the two Presidents were bequeathed. Bush inherited a country at peace with a budget surplus and an economy enjoying the fruits of a long economic boom. For Obama the task is more demanding, America is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the American and world economies are in the largest crisis for seventy years. People expect more of Obama largely because they need to. The skills he displayed as a presidential candidate who came from nowhere to defeat first the Clintons and then McCain and the Republican Party show a wily politician and a shrewd strategist. They also show a leader focused on uniting his country and ending divisions internationally too. As well as the obvious celebration of the inauguration of America’s first black President this historic occasion of the first black president there is also what else that represents, that Obama optimises the antithesis of the cleavages that have divided America. He is the antidote to President Bush’s black and white approach to politics.

Watching the inauguration this time from a far reminds me what an unusual spectacle the occasion is. There is no real equivalent at home or elsewhere in Europe, accept perhaps in the very different form of a coronation which last occurred of course in the UK in 1953. In part because the event follows many weeks after the election itself it is also one irresistibly redolent with expectation. It offers a firmer sense of demarcation between governments than the furniture shifting at No 10 Downing Street. A more categorical punctuation mark between presidencies than would otherwise occur. And in 2009 more than most occasions it reinforces the power of democratic renewal in American and beyond.
Tuesday
Jan202009

A Farewell to George Bush: Play the Video Game!

Muntazar al-Zaidi, what have you started? As the 43rd President leaves office, you can send him on his way with shoes...and also candies, daisies, eggs, and weapons of mass destruction.

Or, if you prefer, you can help Dubya pack up the Oval Office (don't forget the Osama bin Laden dartboard).
Tuesday
Jan202009

A Farewell to George Bush: Does Torture Carry a Cost?

Before we close the door on the Bush Presidency....

For political reasons, there will be no enquiry into the illegal actions of the Bush Administration, let alone an attempt to hold its officials accountable before a criminal court. That makes it even more important that the public investigation --- first as a study of current politics and US foreign policy, later as history --- of how the Executive could bypass Congress, the US courts, and international law to sanction torture should be thorough, ongoing, and unrelenting.

Keith Olbermann, in his provocative and incisive manner, offers a summary: "Mr President-Elect, you have been handed the beginning of [our] future, use it to protect our children and our distant descendants from anything like this ever happening again."

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hOBbunLBW9w[/youtube]
Tuesday
Jan202009

Inauguration Day: America Is Getting Barack-Roll'd

Our little-brother site, The State of the United States, has put up a classic video combining the excitement of the new President, 1980s BritPop, and the power of the Internet.