Democratic prospects for the election

Thanks to the financial crisis over the past month and a half, the Democrats now have a chance to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so initiatives from the House can finally be passed and progressive objectives have a chance of being accomplished. To grab this 60th Senate seat, the Dems need to pull it through in a red state like Kentucky, Georgia, or Mississippi.

Meanwhile, the Republicans re-toning message to convince voters that there needs to be a "break" against the Democratic influx in Washington, but its the GOP's own fault. There are plenty of examples, even in the south, of congressional seats to be won from conservatives by Democrats thanks to Obama's popularity. As a result of this election, the GOP may be thrown back to pre-1994 days. The good: more can be done in Congress. The bad: less checks within the government (assuming Obama wins).

Today's the day!

After all these years of waiting, it all comes down to this one day: election day 2008. The turnout is high, as expected; let's hope Obama is voted in as the next president of the United States. Get out and vote if you haven't already!

Electoral excitement!

In just a few days (can't wait until Tuesday!), Barack Obama should win the race for the American presidency. National polls show him comfortably ahead his rival, who grows increasingly desperate — and right-wing. That's not to say this election is won, of course. Anything can happen. But if one just tinkers with the electoral map one finds a McCain victory at this point is incredibly unlikely. McCain asserts he can win, however, even if he carries Ohio (there's a chance) and Pennsylvania (Obama's looking fairly strong there), as well as most all of the toss-ups, including Florida, Obama still wins by over 30 electoral votes! Even if we then give McCain North Carolina Obama carries the election. To win, McCain would not only have to pick up every toss-up state, but grab some of those big states leaning towards Obama. It's possible, but certainly not as likely as the McCain campaign would like people to think

One week until Obama hopefully wins...

Around a week from now, results from the election of America's next commander-in-chief will be coming in, election day being 4 November. At the moment, Obama has a decent lead over McCain (roughly a 7 percentage point spread) in the polls, but the election should be close. Take a look at a nationwide electoral projection map here.

Zimbabwe's democratic test

Zimbabwe held elections today. The south African state has been led by dictator Robert Mugabe for decades now, who has used his country's colonial past as an excuse for isolation from the West and extremist domestic programs. The octagenerian has, however, fallen out of favor with many Zimbabweans.

Opposition claims unlikely victory in Zimbabwean election
The opposition has claimed a win in this probably-rigged election.

Defying a government order, Zimbabwe's main opposition party released its election results on Sunday, claiming an early victory for their presidential candidate.

Sunday's announcement sets up a showdown with Zimbabwe's government, which will release the results of its count on Monday.

Leaders of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have already dismissed the government's results -- expected to show a victory for President Robert Mugabe -- as rigged in favor of the incumbent leader.

There are concerns that if each side claims victory, tensions could ignite and violence could erupt.

At a news conference in Zimbabwe's capital, Harare, MDC leaders said their candidate Morgan Tsvangirai has won 67 percent of the vote, based on one-third of the returns, journalists inside Zimbabwe told CNN.

The party did not explain how it arrived at those results.

The Zimbabwean government has denied CNN and other international news organizations permission to enter the country to report on the elections. Read about reporting on the elections.

MDC Secretary-General Tenda Biti has accused the ruling Zanu-PF party of chasing its party's agents away from polling stations.

We'll see the full extent of the election as results are released tomorrow. Whether the opposition really takes power depends on Mugabe, who shows no sign of letting is country be truly democratic.

Putin wins Russian election!

Wait, you may say, I thought Dmitry Medvedev won Russia's election today. True. But who is this mysterious Medvedev, who current President Vladimir Putin chose as his successor back in December. Simply put, Medvedev is a smaller version of Putin; he is the "nano-president".

As I said, Medvedev is slated to win the rigged election today.

Vladimir Putin's handpicked successor Dmitry Medvedev was cruising to an easy victory in Russia's presidential election Sunday, a result expected to give significant power to the outgoing president.

The Central Election Commission said that returns from 15 percent of Russia's electoral districts showed Medvedev with about 65 percent.

Some voters complained of pressure to cast ballots for Medvedev, and critics called the election a cynical stage show to ensure unbroken rule by Putin and his allies.

Sunday's vote came after a tightly controlled campaign and months of political maneuvering by Putin, who appeared determined to keep a strong hand on Russia's reins while maintaining while maintaining the basic trappings of electoral democracy and leaving the constitution intact.

Medvedev is expected to formally take over as president in May, and Putin has agreed to be his prime minister.

It will interesting to see Putin as PM. He will no doubt continue to weld power as presidential puppet-master. His popularity continues in Russia as he has brought the former Soviet republic new power by letting Russia's energy resources dominate his policy — petropolitics, it is called.

Major issues facing Russia right now are its relationship with the West, namely in terms of energy; its own economic diversification, including its hope to join the WTO; internal instability; the situation in the Balkans with Kosovo's new independence; the country's (limited) support for Iran, also straining relations with the West; and trouble Chechnya. The new president will also face increasing criticism in areas such as Iran and Russia's limiting of gas supplies to Ukraine. When you're dealing with Russia, many foreign policy issues deal with geopolitics.

The end of Musharraf?

Pakistan held elections today, the results of which are flowing in as we speak...

The Times:

President Pervez Musharraf’s supporters conceded defeat last night in a landmark parliamentary election that could seal his political fate and resurrect democracy in Pakistan after eight years of military rule.

But while the two main opposition parties appeared to have swept the vote, neither was expected to win an outright majority, setting the stage for a coalition government in this chronically unstable country.
...
Final results are not expected until tomorrow, but preliminary figures suggest that the PPP will win the most seats followed by the Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister.

One can only hope an opposition party will emerge as winner in this election, and that the dictatorial Musharraf will finally face impeachment. Most Pakistanis want him out anyway.

Meanwhile, a NYT op-ed warns that instability in Pakistan is a problem to all of us — the south Asian country holds active nuclear weapons (not to mention that it's a hotbed of Islamic terrorism).

America isn't the only country with an election this year

We seem to get so wrapped up in the US election sesson ever time the presidency is up for grabs — there are still eight or so months until election day!

2008 is a big year for a number of countries. Will Pakistan's February election see turmoil? How will the handpicked successor to Vladimir Putin in Russia fare as yet another political puppet? Will Robert Mugabe maintain his iron grip on power in Zimbabwe as citizens go to rigged polls (like in Russia) in March? Can the elder statesman continue his near three decades of rule? And what about Iran, where the fiery Ahmadinejad will have to defend his place as Iran's president as legislative elections come in March and presidential in 2009.

Russia's undemocratic election

So it looks like Putin has rigged — and won in — yet another Russian election. United Russia appears to have won the parliamentary election overwhelmingly, with turnout up to a suspiciously high 98-99% in some regions. There are many parallels being drawn between Putin's current authoritarian rule and the Soviet era. Come to think of it, Russia — like China — has never really been democratic.

The New York Times:

A day after his party secured an imposing victory in parliamentary elections, President Vladimir V. Putin today declared that the results were a “sign of trust” that had conferred new legitimacy on the government. But European monitors and opposition parties harshly criticized the balloting, saying that it had been neither free nor fair.

The final tally showed that Mr. Putin’s party, United Russia, received 64.1 percent, giving it roughly 315 seats in the 450-seat Duma, or lower house of Parliament, which would be enough votes to amend the constitution. Far behind was the Communist Party, with 11.6 percent, or 57 seats. Two other parties allied with Mr. Putin — the Liberal Democrats and Just Russia — are also to receive seats.
...
The end of the parliamentary campaign is expected to intensify discussion in Russia about who will be the next president. United Russia is holding a meeting in two weeks at which Mr. Putin might designate a candidate to run in the presidential election in March, and whoever he names will automatically be the front-runner.

Mr. Putin cannot run again because of a constitutional term limits, though United Russia’s strong performance on Sunday renewed speculation that he might ask the Parliament to amend the constitution.

If he does not, what he will do after March remains a mystery. He has said he wants to continue wielding influence over the nation, but how he will do that — and what his relationship will be with the next president — is unclear.

Even as Mr. Putin was hailing the election, European monitors on Monday were taking a different view, contending that there had been “a clear abuse of power and a clear violation of international commitments and standards.”
...
Luc van den Brande of Belgium, leader of the mission from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said Mr. Putin had improperly used the Kremlin to help United Russia. “There are a lot of concerns about the evolution of democracy in the country,” Mr. van den Brande said.
...
With the nationalistic Liberal Democratic Party clearing the 7 percent threshold to enter Parliament, one of its new leaders, Andrei K. Lugovoi, is expected to receive a seat.

Mr. Lugovoi is a former K.G.B. officer accused in Britain in the fatal radiation poisoning of Alexander V. Litvinenko. Britain has sought Mr. Lugovoi’s extradition, but Russia has refused. Once he enters Parliament, Mr. Lugovoi would have immunity from prosecution in Russia.
...
Overall in Russia, the turnout was about 63 percent.

After the rise of Putin and his ex-KGB buddies, it is no surprise Lugovoy, the prime suspect of an important murder investigation (Litvinenko, the Russian dissident and ex-spy killed mysteriously last year in London), is going to win a parliamentary seat, thus making him immune to any investigation.

Election results have been highly contested and the elections, like many of the happenings in modern day Russia, bare resemblance to those of the Soviet era.

President Putin recently replaced the prime minister with a man people know little about, but is suspected as being just another puppet for the president, who cannot run again this coming election as that would exceed term limits. Even though Putin may make an effort for the presidency during 2012 election, the Russian political elite is already working on a successor to the man who has transformed 'new Russia' into a power worthy of respect — or fear — because of its energy resources.

Rudd beats Howard

After over a decade of rule, John Howard is no longer the prime minister of Australia. Howard, noted for being a major Bush administration supporter on issues such as climate change, terrorism, and the Iraq war, conceded defeat to his opponent, Kevin Rudd, last night. Rudd's Labor Party looks like it will take a majority in parliament over Howard's Liberal-National Party. Rudd, who will probably be sworn in next week as PM, told of his center-left agenda following his win at the polls.

Rudd looks like someone who will take action on the environment and Iraq, so this is good news, along with the fact John Howard wasn't a great person anyway (it's good to have as few tools of the White House as possible in major political positions).

Rise and fall of the European far right

As Latin America has largely taken a turn to the left recently, Europe's right-wing has been on the rise, fueled in part by xenophobia and fear of the "Islomofascism" — a politically-charged, misleading, and ambiguous term which I personally avoid — descending upon their continent.

Good and bad political news came out of Europe over the past few days. The good is that Poland's far-right, nationalist Kaczynski brothers were defeated in the Polish polls by the center-right Civic Platform party. These rightists exploited fears of the EU among other things.

Meanwhile, the racist (xenophobic at the least), far-right Swiss People's Party (SVP) won a plurality in a parliamentary election. Running on an anti-foreigner platform...

the populist campaign was dominated by the single issue of immigration.

His party's election posters featured three white sheep standing on a red and white Swiss national flag kicking a black sheep out of the country. Alongside ran the slogan "More Security!"

How could these maniacs be in control of one-third of Switzerland's federal legislature? Still wondering whether they're anti-everyone-but-white-native-Swiss-people?

The party also wants to enforce a ban on the building of minarets.

Interestingly enough, over one in five Swiss people are foreigners, making this electoral victory even more sad.

Musharraf 'wins' one-man election

Gen. Pervez Musharraf has apparantly won Pakistan's presidential election, although, as usual in a controversial way. Even if this wasn't a one-man race, I doubt the election would be fair, considering the precedent as well as Musharraf's lack of respect for the democratic process.

NYT:

President Pervez Musharraf easily won the presidential election today, but an opposition boycott and pending hearings in the Supreme Court, which still has to decide on his eligibility to stand for election in uniform, left him with an incomplete victory.

The vote, by national and provincial assemblies, ended up as a one-man race after other candidates withdrew. All opposition parties refused to take part and only legislators from the ruling coalition, plus a few independents voted.
...
General Musharraf had been widely expected to win the vote because the government coalition holds a majority in all but one provincial assembly.

Pakistan's president has been facing many troubles lately, not least the failed attempt at power sharing with ex-PM Bhutto or the rise of extremism since his authoritarianism has pushed out the moderates. Engineering an election doesn't seem to be one of Musharraf's problems. He has defied the courts, ran in uniform, and always makes sure the vote goes his way (in this case, a boycott by the opposition led to the lack of, well, opposition). I wonder what the Supreme Court will say on this issue. More importantly, will Musharraf follow their decision, and what consequences lie ahead for Pakistan's people? Will 'war on terror' ally America recognize this election for the undemocratic sham it is, or will it turn (another) blind eye?

Date set for major Pakistani election

Pakistan's presidential election will take place on 6 October, the official electoral commission stated today.

Pakistan's election commission Thursday named October 6 as the date for a presidential poll in which embattled military ruler Pervez Musharraf will seek re-election in uniform.

Musharraf has a history of trickery when it comes to elections. He will probably run in uniform, as the above article says, which directly contradicts a previous ruling by the Supreme Court. If challenged, he will either temporize more, or declare martial law and reshuffle the government only with people he likes. He already deported former PM Nawaz Sharif after he dared to come back to his country earlier this month after the courts ruled he could. Musharraf is like any other dictator: he likes power, and will hold on to power for as long as he can, doing whatever it takes to maintain the presidency.

General Musharraf will not worry about this. He wants to cling to power, and he has two options. First, he can seal a deal with Ms Bhutto.
...
The army, and it alone, is General Musharraf's constituency and the source of his power. By stripping himself of its uniform he reasonably fears that he would be an emperor without clothes.

His alternative is to go it alone. He already has a simple majority in Parliament, which is sufficient for a presidential re-election. Without the PPP, he will not have the two-thirds majority necessary to make constitutional changes. In effect, that means that if his re-election were challenged on legal grounds—as it surely would be—General Musharraf would be at the mercy of the Supreme Court.

On recent form, the judges might rule against him. If so, General Musharraf would probably then declare martial law. This would allow him to re-run the events that followed his 1999 coup: he would gut the Supreme Court of dissidents, ask the remaining sycophants to rule on the legality of his suspension of democracy, then hold elections. So long as a fair portion of the opposition participated in these, they would probably pass muster with America. But how would Pakistanis respond?

Will the election be free and fair, as America and others wish? Don't count on it. What happens next could be more clashes between the courts and Gen Musharraf, but it looks like he will stay in power -- for now. Pakistani politics are notoriously hard to predict.

A voter intelligence test, and other thoughts on democracy

This post is part of my new blog post series, Ideas about Democracy.

Since I am likely to raise more questions than I answer in this post, let me just throw some out before hand...
Would education for voters be found against democracy — the right to vote — or for it? Would it help or hurt? It would allow voters to make educated decisions, thus helping themselves, their government, and the system. On the other hand the education could run the possibility of being politically-charged by whomever is in power; plus might it impede with the central 'one man, one vote' pillar of democratic voting? We don't let children (people under 18, or various other ages) vote, isn't that blocking democracy as much as voter education would? There are plenty of under-18s more educated on the issues and who is running in an election or what's on the ballot than those who can vote. How do we measure who can and cannot vote? Could the voter intelligence test, if created, become the next poll tax? Could it be a tool easily manipulated by politicians against their enemies, or to help themselves? How could the change in the voting system come about? I'm sure new and future voters would be OK with it, but couldn't current voters feel oppressed in one way or another? Could the campaign for voter education turn into one of those blind-patriotism kind of programs? Could the campaign result in a nasty political battle taking the attention away from real, pressing political issues?

Although I support the democratic system of government as the finest and most efficient form of government in this modern age, I do have a problem with the stupidity of the masses. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic society is the voters.

How best can we solve the problem of voter (in)education? Much of the solution is simple: education in history, civics, politics, etc., which is why American schools, for example, should teach politics — comparative, theoretical, United States, and overall historical — in secondary school especially. Here are an outline of some of the steps I've thought of so far:

education on government open to the public;

socio-economic and politics (practical and otherwise), and civics, classes in middle and high schools;

higher literacy rate and government-sponsored ads encouraging political education and voting;

a limit and non-partisan regulation of political advertisements (France has a good system on things like this, as some do other Western European countries like the UK).

A mandatory voter education course and voter intelligence test combined are perhaps the most extreme steps, and are probably best perused by theoretical means to find other aids to educating the public.

A more educated public — especially on politically-relevant topics — not only aids the political system and government, as I mentioned above, but also helps prepare people for the real world, especially in the case of secondary school students. Education is essential to working towards better politicians and keeping the economy running strong.

Sarkozy's UMP a winner in France

So ends France's series of 2007 elections...
France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had a modest win in the French polls over the weekend.

His conservative UMP party won the most seats in France's parliament, but did not live up to the high expectations placed upon it for this election. Europe seems to be continuing its turn to the moderate right, just as South and Latin America see a more populist left transformation.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party says it will press ahead with wide-ranging reforms, after winning a majority in parliamentary elections.

Although the centre-right UMP failed to secure a predicted landslide, it said it had a mandate to implement change.

Its plans include tighter immigration laws, tax cuts and longer jail terms.

Since it is a pain to write out all the election numbers, here is what the seat composition of the French National Assembly looks like by party (source: BBC News):


Crunching the numbers
So the Socialists gained seats, going from 141 in 2002 to 185 in this past election. Its chief rival and the only party with more seats is the center-right UMP, which had a weakened majority compared to in 2002: UMP lost 43 seats. By my tally there are 577 total seats in the parliament, and approximately 349 belong to right-leaning parties, 226 to left-leaning ones, and 2 others to spare. The two biggest parties, UMP and the Socialists, have 499 seats combined. UMP has a 54.42% majority overall.

Royal couple split
On another note, Sarkozy's former Socialist challenger in the presidential election election earlier this year, Segolene Royal, has revealed she is splitting with the Socialist party leader Francois Hollande for personal reasons. They were partners for 25 years and have four children. Royal also announced she is running for the position of party chair, which Hollande currently occupies. Oddly enough, this further development of the rift on the left side of French politics ousted Sarkozy's election win from the top news story. Kind of like how the announcement of Apple's iPhone (ooh, shiny and cool!) overshadowed Bush's much-awaited Iraq troop "surge" speech?

Sarko hearts 'reform'
Hopefully Sarkozy will reform France's restricted economy. The public sector is far too large; government intervention makes growth hard; and the economy needs to be liberalized overall. The cabinet might now be shuffled and additional aspects of the new government ironed out.

As expected Sarkozy aligned himself with US President Bush at the G8 summit earlier this year — to an extent. He also worked with his fellow world leaders to push Bush into a wall on climate change, resulting in at least a half-hearted attempt at jabbing the issue. Apparently the French leader was also caught drunk at the G8.

Le prochain président de la France: Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy is the winner of France's presidential election, say early results.

Sarkozy has vowed for change. His Socialist challenger, Segolene Royal, has conceded defeat and thanked the 17 million who voted for her.

BBC News:

Mr Sarkozy is estimated to have won 53% of the vote, compared to 47% for socialist Segolene Royal.

The turnout was the highest in decades at 85.5%.
...
Mr Sarkozy has promised to try to reform France to face the challenges of the 21st century, with putting the nation back to work at the top of his agenda.

But the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says he will have to work hard to unite the French, and try to win round those who voted against him.

More than 3,000 police have been deployed in Paris and its multi-ethnic suburbs in case Mr Sarkozy's victory sparks a repeat of the riots seen in 2005.

technorati tags: nicolas+sarkozy, segolene+royal, france+president+electio+2007

France: voting for change

Sarkozy v. Royal comes to an electoral close in less than two hours...

Some French voters think Sarkozy would do a better job at changing France for the better; some think Royal would. Sarkozy would be more likely to make tough, necessary changes, but his policies are sometimes undesirable and he has been courting the far right in order to ensure a win in this election. Royal, on the other hand, may be too weak and politically inexperienced to enact the change France desperately needs, and she still sticks to her old left foundation — something she, and France, needs to move away from. Job security and market liberalization are two issues at hand, as are immigration and law enforcement. The reform of the government structure in general is also needed. Royal spends too much; Sarkozy invades privacy and uses power too much.

As of now, over 75% of voters have cast their ballots for either Sarkozy or Royal in the second and final round of the French presidential election. This is the highest turnout in decades. The first round also brought out near-record turnout.

Some are pessimistic about whether this election will bring change. No matter who wins, they need to be open to defying protests and what seems like the defiance of the public to reforms for the greater good. Current President Jacques Chirac was too afraid to follow through on his initiatives for change, and many French politicians flinch every time they see protests against the reforms they wish to pass. Whoever wins has the support of the public, and should use that support to actually change whatever needs changing — and many things do. On the other hand, the winner does not want to turn into a dictator by public choice, per se.

This election has been full of controversy and debate, bringing the French seemingly closer to the politics France is known for. However these are politics with a new face: voters, forced once again to choose between left and right, are not following traditional voting labels. One memorable event has been Royal warning that her left-wing supporters could riot if Sarkozy wins, which can either be taken as a political threat or a misunderstood musing. Riot police and extra law enforcement have been sent to Paris to avoid mass riots (remember 2005?) if political tempers flare as the result of a Sarkozy win, especially among the poorer suburb dwellers and immigrants.

In France, the president is a very powerful figure, and one could only hope Sarkozy or Royal will not abuse that power. So will it be the traditional leftist with a new spin, Socialist Segolene Royal, or the center-right (neo-)Gaullist, Nicolas Sarkozy? I’m guessing the latter. Although he has the will power to pass the reforms France needs, he also has a tendency to misuse power. Royal just doesn’t seem cut out to be the leader either.

Nonetheless its not my choice that counts, the votes of the French people will decide who the next leader of France will be, and those votes are important indeed. Bolstering France in the international community will be yet another task for the next president; and globalization is a huge issue at hand, politicially, culturally (immigration), and economically (trade and jobs). For example, both candidates have been bad-talking the EU, an overused scapegoat for poor government policy and an 'evil' Sarkozy or Royal are trying to make voters think they could fight against and protect France. This protectionism will certainly not help France's troubled economy.

Early results will be announced later today, and official results will come on 10 May. Several polls from very late on 4 May put Sarkozy 10 percentage points in front of his challenger.

Centrist Francois Bayrou, who lost the first round, has seen his popularity skyrocket and may yet be able to form a moderate political coalition with his weak UDF party. Go Bayrou!

Wikipedia has an extensive article on the election.

Update:
Early results claim Sarkozy as the winner of this second round vote. Royal has admitted defeat and police are preparing for political unrest in case rioting brakes out as a result of Sarkozy's electoral triumph.

technorati tags: france+election+2007, french+presidental+election, nicolas+sarkozy, segolene+royal, in+the+news, france+reform+politics, globalization

Scottish nationalists get what they want

As a follow-up to this post on Scottish independence and the state of the Union of the Great Britain...

Reuters:

Scottish nationalists committed to independence from Britain became the biggest party in the Scottish parliament on Friday in elections which left a political headache for Prime Minister Tony Blair's successor.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) ended 50 years of Labor dominance in Scotland in Thursday's vote and Labor suffered heavy losses in local council elections in England and lesser losses in elections to the devolved Welsh assembly.

With Blair expected to announce next week he is stepping down as prime minister after a decade in power, he leaves a poisoned chalice to finance minister Gordon Brown, the 56-year-old Scot who is almost certain to succeed him.

The confusing victory for SNP was riddled with technical difficulties. The Nationalists have a very thin majority: 47 to Labour's 46 in the Scottish Parliament. Political analysis of these latest developments reveal a great fracture in the political climate in Britain.

The future of Scotland, and the state of a Union

It would be hard to believe that the land united for hundreds of years with England and Wales could become independent some day soon. But it may be a reality.

Although the Scottish Parliament is weak compared to the British parliament, one might compare the power to that of an American state, albeit more deluded, England does not have its own separate legislature — just Westminister. Therefore lies the argument by English nationalists: Scotland gets more powers from political devolution, and England has even less of a say. Put simply: Scotland has its own MPs in the House of Commons, it also has its own parliament; England just has its MPs in the Commons. They both also have representation in the mostly-symbolic European Parliament. Do only the Scots deserve partial domestic rule, or should the other parts of the union of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland get similar devolution too, as odd as it sounds. I'll discuss that — the fairness, practicality, and my 'solution' — later.

The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), an up-and-coming political force in Scotland, may at first sound right-wing, like BNP. However, it is a progressive center-left party whose primary goal is Scottish independence. I skimmed through their policies and other writings on their website, and I must say I'm impressed. One issue might be if Scotland does reach independence, what's to keep the SNP from not following through on its bold promises? What will it have to work for — besides reelection? Right now SNP is working hard for Scottish independence, not just pressing for devolution yet also not being militant about it. When their primary goal is accomplished — if ever — how do we know they will act as they promise when their basic political premise has been accomplished. (Alas, therein lies the problem with party politics.) People ranging from businessman Sir Tom Farmer to world-famous actor Sir Sean Connery have voiced their support for SNP, and Connery has provided plenty of funds also — that is, until regulations prevented him from doing so. SNP is doing well in the opinion polls.

The SNP may even take power in the Scottish local and Parliamentary elections on 3 May. The election ironically falls two days after the 300th anniversary of the union of England and Scotland (i.e., with Wales, the United Kingdom). If SNP stays in the minority, a referendum on splitting the union — one that could officially take place as early as 2010 — would be pointless. As of now, no other major political party supports such an independence referendum, and even though SNP is up in the polls, no party is likely to come out with a clear governing majority.* Gordon Brown*, British chancellor of the exchequer, heir-apparent to the prime ministry later this spring, and a Scotsman himself, has stated a Scottish split from the union would be devastating economically for Scotland. Others seem to view the same of the SNP's proposed economic policy. I guess he also wouldn't have a constituency in the British parliament if Scotland were independent... At least England would be an independent Scotland's 'biggest pal'.

In my mind, if further Scottish devolution is to take place, why shouldn't England, Northern Ireland, and Wales* get their own parliaments? They would only deal with local matters, and be pretty powerless. Britain is a unitary state, with a central government; if there would to be devolution for lands other than Scotland in the Union, maybe there'd be less resentment to the Scots and xenophobia in England, and less problems between Westminister and Wales and N Ireland. It seems only fair. Either that or a push for Scottish independence. But a 300-year union is a hard one to break. Let's see how things play out at the polls in a couple of weeks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has emphasized the upcoming Scottish election's importance. He is right to do so: the state of the Union is at stake.

Update:
One of the Nationalists' primary goals is entry into the EU and UN as a proper nation-state, of course that is yet another barrier for those yearning for an independent Scotland. Might their dreams look better on paper and manifestos than as a reality?

***Corrections:
Thanks to Anonymous for informing me that Wales 'already has devolution', it is the Labour Party that has a deal with the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, and that I once again misspelled "Brown" (I am used to spelling it 'Browne' on account of a family name).

technorati tags: scotland, SNP, scottish+nationalists, tony+blair, gordon+brown, scot, united+kingdom, britain, england, politics, news, westminister, scottish+parliament+elections

Sarkozy v. Royal: the final chapter begins

Some new updates on the presidential election in France...

Although votes in this close election, which has enjoyed high turnout, are still being tallied, it looks as if there will indeed be a left-right battle in the second round of the French presidential election.

Centre-right Nicolas Sarkozy will meet Socialist Segolene Royal in the run-off of France's presidential election on 6 May, according to initial results.

Mr Sarkozy, a former interior minister, came first with 30%, ahead of Ms Royal, who is bidding to be France's first woman president, on about 25%.

Centrist Francois Bayrou got 18%, and far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen 11%.

Voting throughout the day reached record numbers, with turnout put at 85% - the highest for nearly 50 years.

On a bright spring day, disillusionment with politicians and their promises did not translate into apathy, reports the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

For such a close election, these results look almost identical to what the candidates were polling in the days leading up to today's vote.

Campaigning will restart on 27 April, with the second round of voting on 6 May and the final results coming four days later. One should prepare for an intense campaign as left meets right in the nation that came up with the political identifications of "left" and "right" — a country that shows that history in its oft-partisan politics.

Royal, according to the aforementioned preliminary results, polled higher than previous opinion polls had speculated, in part because of the old-fashioned manner polling is done and the fact Royal has many young supporters.

It is very good that turnout was so high, as a politically apathetic France would hardly be the France we know. In a democracy the people must take action and that's what we've seen — for better or for worse — today in France. And even though centrist, left-right bridging Bayrou did not make it to the second round, his decent support has shown a politician in the middle can make it somewhere. Maybe someday that gap between left and right will be bridged for the Fifth Republic, whether by Bayrou or by someone else. It would have been interesting if Bayrou could have made it to the run-off. He was polling higher than Sarkozy in head-to-head polls before the election.

More worrying, however, is the support for extreme rightist Le Pen: one in 10 voted for him. At least this time he didn't make it to the second round, though. The fact Le Pen still enjoyed such support only illustrated further the political repair France is in dire need of.

Now: I am still torn between the gaffe-prone, old left-styled Royal and the xenophobic, right-wing-courting, 'mini-Bush' Sarkozy.

Update:
It's official...

FIRST ROUND RESULTS
Nicolas Sarkozy - 30.78%
Segolene Royal - 25.32%
Francois Bayrou - 18.47%
Jean-Marie Le Pen - 10.89%
Source: French Interior Ministry at 2100 GMT

technorati tags: france+presidential+election+2007, nicolas+sarkozy, bayrou, sarkozy, segolene+royal, royal, election+france, president+france, french+politics, news, voting, le pen, polls