Anti-Vaxxers haven’t ‘learnt their lesson’ when it comes to surviving the pandemics | Simon Schama

Turkey’s Election Is a Warning About Trump

 

OPINION

BRET STEPHENS

Turkey’s Election Is a Warning About Trump

May 30, 2023

A close-up of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with two red banners with white stars and crescents partly obscuring his face.

 

Bret Stephens

By Bret Stephens

Opinion Columnist

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/opinion/turkey-election-erdogan-trump.html

 

“The totalitarian phenomenon,” the French philosopher Jean-François Revel once noted, “is not to be understood without making an allowance for the thesis that some important part of every society consists of people who actively want tyranny: either to exercise it themselves or — much more mysteriously — to submit to it.”

 

It’s an observation that should help guide our thinking about the re-election this week of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. And it should serve as a warning about other places — including the Republican Party — where autocratic leaders, seemingly incompetent in many respects, are returning to power through democratic means.

 

That’s not quite the way Erdogan’s close-but-comfortable victory in Sunday’s runoff over the former civil servant Kemal Kilicdaroglu is being described in many analyses. The president, they say, has spent 20 years in power tilting every conceivable scale in his favor.

 

Erdogan has used regulatory means and abused the criminal-justice system to effectively control the news media. He has exercised his presidential power to deliver subsidies, tax cuts, cheap loans and other handouts to favored constituencies. He has sought to criminalize an opposition party on specious grounds of links to terrorist groups. In December, a Turkish court effectively barred Erdogan’s most serious prospective rival, Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu of Istanbul, from politics by sentencing him to prison on charges of insulting public officials.

 

Then, too, Kilicdaroglu was widely seen as a colorless and inept politician, promising a return to a status quo ante that many Turks remember, with no fondness, as a time of regular economic crises and a kind of repressive secularism.

 

All of this is true, as far as it goes, and it helps underscore the worldwide phenomenon of what Fareed Zakaria aptly calls “free and unfair elections.” But it doesn’t go far enough.

 

Turkey under Erdogan is in a dreadful state and has been for a long time. Inflation last year hit 85 percent and is still running north of 40 percent, thanks to Erdogan’s insistence on cutting interest rates in the teeth of rising prices. He has used a series of show trials — some based in fact, others pure fantasy — to eviscerate civil freedoms. February’s earthquakes, which took an estimated 50,000 lives and injured twice as many, were badly handled by the government and exposed the corruption of a system that cared more for patronage networks than for well-built buildings.

 

Under normal political expectations, Erdogan should have paid the political price with a crushing electoral defeat. Not only did he survive, he increased his vote share in some of the towns worst hit by, and most neglected after, the earthquakes. “We love him,” explained a resident quoted in The Economist. “For the call to prayer, for our homes, for our headscarves.”

 

That last line is telling, and not just because it gets to the importance of Erdogan’s Islamism as the secret of his success. It’s a rebuke to James Carville’s parochially American slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Actually, no: It’s also God, tradition, values, identity, culture and the resentments that go with each. Only a denuded secular imagination fails to notice that there are things people care about more than their paychecks.

 

There is also the matter of power. The classically liberal political tradition is based on the suspicion of power. The illiberal tradition is based on the exaltation of it. Erdogan, as the tribune of the Turkish Everyman, built himself an aesthetically grotesque, 1,100-room presidential palace for $615 million. Far from scandalizing his supporters, it seems to have delighted them. In it, they see not a sign of extravagance or waste, but the importance of the man and the movement to which they attach themselves and submit.

 

All this is a reminder that political signals are often transmitted at frequencies that liberal ears have trouble hearing, much less decoding. To wonder how Erdogan could possibly be re-elected after so thoroughly wrecking his country’s economy and its institutions is akin to wondering how Vladimir Putin appears to retain considerable domestic support in the wake of his Ukraine debacle. Maybe what some critical mass of ordinary Russians want, at least at some subconscious level, isn’t an easy victory. It’s a unifying ordeal.

 

Which brings us to another would-be strongman in his palace in Palm Beach. In November, I was sure that Donald Trump was, as I wrote, “finally finished.” How could any but his most slavish followers continue to support him after he had once again cost Republicans the Senate? Wouldn’t this latest proof of losing be the last straw for devotees who had been promised “so much winning”?

 

Silly me. The Trump movement isn’t built on the prospect of winning. It’s built on a sense of belonging: of being heard and seen; of being a thorn in the side to those you sense despise you and whom you despise in turn; of submission for the sake of representation. All the rest — victory or defeat, prosperity or misery — is details.

 

Erdogan defied expectation because he understood this. He won’t be the last populist leader to do so.

 

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

 

Bret Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook

Turkey under president Erdogan to act as a bridge between NATO and Putin

Serbs gather again in northern Kosovo after clashes • FRANCE 24 English

Why do Kosovo-Serbia tensions persist? • FRANCE 24 English

What is the standoff between Covid inquiry and Cabinet Office about?

 

Explainer

What is the standoff between Covid inquiry and Cabinet Office about?

 

As dispute over Boris Johnson’s notebooks and WhatsApp messages continues, we look at the key points

 

Aubrey Allegretti

@breeallegretti

Tue 30 May 2023 12.45 BST

 

Wrangling over Boris Johnson’s notebooks and WhatsApp messages continues in earnest, with the government and the official Covid inquiry locked in a standoff over what should be shared.

 

What has the inquiry asked for?

A vast trove of documents was requested by Heather Hallett, the chair of the public inquiry into the government’s handling of Covid.

 

On 28 April, she ordered the Cabinet Office to hand over all messages on the phones of Johnson and a No 10 aide, Henry Cook, concerning the pandemic. These included WhatsApp messages sent from and to other senior figures in government – stretching from ministers, such as the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, to special advisers, such as Dominic Cummings, and officials all the way up to cabinet secretary level. A bundle of about 24 notebooks kept by Johnson was also requested.

 

Lady Hallett originally set a deadline of 12 May, but the Cabinet Office pushed back and asked her to reconsider. A new deadline of 4pm on 30 May was set, but that too has been pushed back, to 1 June.

 

Why did the government object?

Though Hallett specifically said she wanted the “entire contents” of the documents, the Cabinet Office disagreed with what information was relevant to her inquiry.

 

Normally, communications between ministers – which in previous generations would have been committed to a letter or fax – stay secret. The “30-year rule” ensures that no such messages would see the light of day until long after several administrations have come and gone. It is argued that this ensures ministers and officials have the privacy to discuss and debate policies.

 

A public inquiry has rights to request more contemporaneous information, but it must be judged to be “potentially relevant”. The Cabinet Office disagreed with Hallett that information it redacted was relevant. It is also nervous about sharing such an extensive set of messages with a non-government body, potentially losing control of its ability to guarantee the confidentiality of the contents.

 

The Covid inquiry will not necessarily publish every piece of evidence it receives, however.

 

How could the impasse be broken?

The Cabinet Office admitted at the last minute before the latest deadline that it did not have Johnson’s notebooks or his WhatsApp messages.

 

Hallett has given it two more days to comply, setting a new deadline of 4pm on Thursday. She has also demanded a senior civil servant give a statement setting out further facts. Hallett wants the Cabinet Office to produce any correspondence with Johnson and his office about the notebooks and WhatsApps, and say whether it has been in possession of the notebooks at any time over the past three months. She also wants answers over whether the messages by Johnson were on a personal or government device.

 

Downing Street said the Cabinet Office did not currently have the material but admitted it had previously been given to government lawyers. Johnson’s spokesperson said they had not been asked by the government to hand over the documents again and he had “no objection” to them being passed to Hallett’s inquiry.

 

If the Cabinet Office resists doing so, it could take legal action to challenge the inquiry chair’s ruling. Jonathan Jones, a former head of the government legal department, said that if Hallett does not cave, she and Whitehall mandarins could reach a compromise so that some information is handed over while other parts remain redacted.

 

If it fails to comply with her demands then the inquiry could start criminal proceedings against the government or seek an enforcement order from the high court.

 

What role is the Cabinet Office minister playing?

Relations have broken down between Johnson and the Cabinet Office after lawyers supporting him during the Covid inquiry felt obliged to refer some details in the former prime minister’s diaries to police.

 

Oliver Dowden is the deputy prime minister and the most senior minister in the Cabinet Office. Given Hallett has specifically requested Johnson’s messages with other ministers, he is likely to be nervous about irking colleagues by agreeing to hand over their WhatsApp messages, too.

Sunak accused of trying to cover up ministers’ actions during pandemic

 

Sunak accused of trying to cover up ministers’ actions during pandemic

 

PM challenged as Cabinet Office battles to withhold Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages from Covid inquiry

 

Rowena Mason, Ian Sample and Aubrey Allegretti

Tue 30 May 2023 21.30 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/30/sunak-accused-of-trying-to-cover-up-ministers-actions-during-pandemic

 

Rishi Sunak has been accused of attempting to cover up the actions of ministers during the pandemic as the Cabinet Office intensified its battle to withhold Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages from the Covid inquiry.

 

The prime minister insisted his government has been cooperating with the investigation but is facing increasing calls from experts and MPs – with some coming from within his own party – to hand over evidence without redactions.

 

Both Labour and the Lib Dems accused the government of a potential cover-up, while relatives of those who died in the Covid pandemic questioned what ministers have to hide.

 

The inquiry, led by retired judge Heather Hallett, has used its sweeping powers to request unredacted notebooks, diaries and WhatApp correspondence between Johnson and 40 senior government figures.

 

But the government is opposing the request on grounds that it wants to protect the privacy of ministers and officials, and is considering legal action to prevent disclosure.

 

Two sources with knowledge of the inquiry’s requests said the Cabinet Office was resisting handing over the material from Johnson and his aide because they fear giving in will mean all other evidence from ministers, including Sunak himself, will have to be submitted in an unredacted form.

 

Hallett has given the government another two days to hand over the unredacted information in relation to Johnson and one of his senior aides, Henry Cook, with the material now due by 4pm on Thursday. Refusing to comply with the inquiry’s order is a potential criminal offence.

 

A spokesperson for Johnson said he had “no objection” to his 24 notebooks and WhatsApps being given to the inquiry, and claimed government lawyers had already been given access to them.

 

But the Cabinet Office released a new statement on Tuesday holding firm against giving the Covid inquiry uncensored material, with the government still considering the possibility of a legal challenge.

 

A spokesperson said: “We are firmly of the view that the inquiry does not have the power to request unambiguously irrelevant information that is beyond the scope of this investigation. This includes the WhatsApp messages of government employees which are not about work but instead are entirely personal and relate to their private lives.”

 

However, Bloomberg reported it had seen leaked legal advice from the government’s most senior lawyer, Sir James Eadie, which suggested officials have been withholding evidence for the inquiry based on political sensitivity, rather than just personal details.

 

It reported that the advice said: “We would be concerned by any approach which appeared to concede the principle that Cabinet Collective Responsibility material should be disclosed as a matter of course.” The advice added: “That material will concern a number of ministers still in office, and potentially in the same office. On any view, it will be extremely recent and of the greatest political sensitivity.”

 

The government does not routinely retain WhatsApp messages between ministers and officials unless they contain government decisions.

 

No 10 refused to comment on whether Sunak and current members of the government have yet been asked to hand over their correspondence and documentation in full to the inquiry.

 

John Bell, a leading government adviser during the pandemic, said Hallett should be able to see communications between senior government figures.

 

He added: “First of all, give her access. These are people who are working for the public. If there’s something deeply private and personal they shouldn’t have been using their official context for that. This should all be accessible to the inquiry. But then the inquiry should be a bit careful that they don’t get sucked into a load of sideshows which are not really central to what they are trying to do, but they’ll be able to work that out.”

 

Others to question the government’s actions include Conservative MP Caroline Nokes, who said the apparent “reluctance” by the government to hand over what was requested “seems a nonsense”.

 

Speaking to TalkTV, she added that as much contemporary evidence as possible was vital to ensuring the inquiry could look into serious issues about the handling of the pandemic.

 

She said Hallett “doesn’t look like a woman who’s about to roll over … probably rightly so” and added there would be “less pain for the government if they hand [the files] over quickly”.

 

Labour said the situation had the “whiff of a cover-up” while the Lib Dems said this “dog ate my homework-type excuse from the government simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny”.

 

Susie Flintham, a spokesperson for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign group, said the lengths the Cabinet Office is going to in order to prevent Johnson’s material being shared “should alarm everyone”.

 

“This inquiry needs to get to the facts if it is to learn lessons to help save lives in the next pandemic. So why are the Cabinet Office standing in their way? Our members are wondering what they are hiding?” she added.

 

Bob Kerslake, a former head of the civil service, told the BBC there was “some cover-up going on here to save embarrassment of ministers”, as well as the Cabinet Office in his view wrongly “fighting for a principle of confidentiality”.

 

Jonathan Jones, a former government lawyer, suggested the government’s actions were ultimately not likely to work because Hallett’s inquiry has wide powers. “It might be viewed as an attempt to avoid handing over material which the government would prefer not to, but it’s not likely to work because ultimately it will be for the courts to decide. So if it’s a cover-up, it’s not likely to be successful,” he said.

 

The controversy appears to have done nothing to smooth tensions between Sunak’s government and Johnson, after the former prime minister was reported to police last week by Cabinet Office officials after the government-appointed lawyers found potential evidence of more lockdown-breaking parties in his diaries. Johnson has denied this.

 

The prime minister and his predecessor were meant to have peace talks this week over issues such as the Covid inquiry and Johnson’s long-awaited peerages list but this phone call has been cancelled.

 

Sunak said on Tuesday the government was cooperating fully with the Covid inquiry and No 10 denied the suggestion of a cover-up, with the Cabinet Office highlighting 55,000 documents, 24 personal witness statements and eight corporate statements given to the Covid inquiry. The government argues that handing over unredacted notebooks and WhatsApp messages would be an affront to the privacy of officials and ministers, as well as hindering policy discussion.

 

However, the inquiry has also requested proof in the form of testimony from a senior official that the government does not hold any WhatsApp messages or notebooks from the former prime minister. It asked for records of searches conducted and correspondence with Johnson to be provided.

 

It is now two weeks before the first public evidence sessions and a new schedule released by the inquiry shows some matters such as vaccines, procurement and care homes will not be concluded until 2026 – after the next election.