Search Results

A few hours after the Atlanta presidential debate between President Joe Biden and his challenger for the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump, the reactions from the two sides are radically different. Joe Biden had one main task : to reassure voters that despite his advanced age, he still has the energy, stamina and mental capacity not only to run forPresident again but to perform the tasks of the presidency during the projected second term. And by all accounts, he failed miserably. During the first part of the debate, even his most fervent supporters had to admit that he was faltering, often confused and barely audible. For all account and purposes, Joe Biden's performance was an unqualified disaster prompting Sky News in London to state : "Excruciating Biden debate performance against Trump was among worst in presidential history - if not the worst". Former President Trump and President Biden on stage at Atlanta, June 27th 2024 Republicans were barely able to head their "schadenfreude". The Floridian Congressman and arch-Maga supporter Matt Gaetz declared that "I think at the end of this, we're going to have to identify Joe Biden by his dental records". Democrats are prone to hand-wringing and anxiety on a good day; a full blown panic has set in after Biden's performance on the debate stage and a clamour of voices from respected and not so respected political activists, specialists, pundits and Democrats from all sides saying out loud what was labourisouly kept as a secret up until now, namley that Biden has to be replaced on the Democrat ticket and leave way for a younger, more dynamic and ultimately a candidate who can actually beat Donald Trump. Even Joe Biden's most fervent supporters are talking about a "gut punch" and are openly contemplating the worst case scenario of having to change candidate at such a late stage in the campaign. The tragedy about all of this that the loud and overbearing discussion of Biden's performance and the Democrat's dire predicament has completely overshadowed the fact that Trump was not pitch perfect and as the evening progressed he became more and more extreme and flustered. His numerous and outrageous lies and unsubstantiated declarations went for the most part unchallenged and he was unable to offer a clear vision for the future. The only silver lining in the cloud for the Democrats is that Biden finished much stronger and regained his composure. But the damage has been done. At this juncture, it is necessary to put emotions aside be it of glee or of dismay and emphasise a few key points. There is no formal mechanism to replace Joe Biden at the top of the ticket. The only option is for Joe Biden to withdraw voluntarily. Despite the many calls for replacing the President no senior Democrat has - yet - expressed such an opinion. Replacing Joe Biden would just be the first step in the process and the next immediate question would be who would replace him? The obvious choice of Vice-President Kamala Harris does not seem to be unanimously supported as irrespective of her intrinsic qualities, many believe that the US is not ready to elect a black woman president. Other names such as California Governor Gavin Newsom or Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer are being touted. If Biden were to step down, the Democrats would be desperate to make sure that his replacement or replacements on the ticket were unanimously accepted and that their would be no power struggle that would irrevocably condemn any remaining chances of victory. Emotions are never good counsel and Democrats should not rush to a hasty decision. The democrats would be wise to take their time - though not too much time - and evaluate the reaction of the electorate through future opinion polls and focus groups. Joe Biden has been constantly underestimated and he is never so strong as in the face of adversity. Ultimately the risk of having Donald Trump as President is so great, that failure is not an option. Trump demonstrated even yesterday that he is unfit to be President. He is a text-book fascist and feeds on hatred, division and bigotry. But the only message that came out of the debate yesterday was Biden's disastrous performance and that he cannot beat Donald Trump. The tragedy is that Biden has truly been an excellent president and a man of honour and impeccable character. The Democrats need to own the moment. The stakes are too high for failure. Democracy must be protected and preserved at all costs. A careful evaluation has to be made by the Democrats in a rational, calm and balanced manner. At the end of the day, the solution may come from Joe Biden himself. As a man steeped in history and aware of the importance of saving America from fascism he may himself come to the conclusion that in the interest of the Nation and the country he is no longer the person able to defeat Donald Trump and that he needs to step down. We must continue to trust Joe Biden and have faith in his ability to make the right decision. He can surprise us all once again by stepping down in a yet to be defined manner. His legacy may be to save American democracy not by personally defeating Donald Trump but by ensuring that he never becomes President again by guaranteeing the conditions of success for a Democrat being elected on November 5th. Or alternatively he may use last night's disaster to frame the campaign in a different manner by addressing his age straight on and continue fighting the battle of his life with renewed energy and turn the spotlight on the absolute criminal crassness of Donald Trump that was likewise apparent for all to see on stage in Atlanta. Last but not least the Democrats as a party need to rally around their candidate and keep their trust in Biden. He alone knows if he is really up for the task or not and he will assuredly confer with his family and closest aides. If he determines that he is up for the task, then the Democrats shouldn't throw the older man out with the Presidential bath water. After all his opponent is the real whining baby here, albeit with considerable flaws of character that to put it in Trump's typical terminology, "the such you have never seen before".

In today’s turbulent world, fear is omnipresent and is particularly prevalent in the modern political discourse . I am amazed at the number of people convinced that a major conflict, the proverbial Third World War, is just around the corner. The politics of fear is at the core of populism not only in Eastern Germany with the rise of the far right or in other European countries, be it most recently in the Netherlands but across the globe, in South America where the song “Don’t cry for me Argentina” takes on a more ominous meaning and last but not least in the land of the free, home of the brave, the United States of America.  As Al Gore once said in his book “The Assault on Reason” and more specifically in the aptly named first chapter “The Politics of Fear”, “under the right circumstances, fear can trigger the temptation to surrender freedom to a demagogue promising strength and security in return ». Interestingly enough, he also mentions a few lines later that the Founders rejected the idea of direct democracy precisely “because of concerns that fear might overwhelm reflective thought”, a point of view that I submit is not absolute as illustrated by the Swiss political system.  It is not by accident that I mention Al Gore here. I remember vividly the 2000 US election that Al Gore conceded following the decision of the Supreme Court on December 12th 2000, whereby George W. Bush was declared the winner of Florida by an infinitesimal margin of 537 votes, guaranteeing him a victory in the electoral college of 271 to 266. 537 votes represented a margin of 0.009% of the 5.9 million votes cast in Florida. There is no better example to illustrate the importance of voting and the impact every vote can have. Secondly, I also believe that this is the most vivid example of the butterfly effect, where notably bad ballot design (unbelievably named the butterfly ballots) that confused voters in Palm Beach County spoiled 30’000 ballots and consequently led to the victory of George W. Bush. Imagine what would have happened if the Supreme Court had decided in favour of Al Gore (by allowing further recounts). How would Al Gore have handled 9/11 and the aftermath thereof? Would the War on Terror have been initiated, and what about the Iraq War? 537 measly votes had a major impact on world affairs.  The reaction of the US to 9/11 is today used as a counter-example for the Israeli reaction and war on Hamas following the heinous terrorist attacks on October 7th. Cool heads must prevail, and hasty emotional decisions are to be avoided. Unfortunately, based on the number of civilian deaths in Gaza over the past seven weeks, despite a short-lived cease-fire, it seems that the more extreme views of the Israeli government are not listening to more moderate calls from President Biden. The recent events in the Middle East have rightly focused the attention of the world on what is a tragic conflict where fear, hatred, tribalism and the worst impulses of human nature have been on display going back over a century to the First World War and the British Protectorate of Palestine. The passions unleashed today have reached new levels – provoking both islamophobia and antisemitism. Voicing an opinion as balanced and as nuanced as it may be is a perilous endeavour and there is little if no space left for moderation in this debate.  I hoped that the Covid pandemic would allow for a more consensus-based form of politics as I naively presumed that the once-in-a-lifetime advent of such a dangerous virus would bring people together from all political views and opinions. I couldn’t have been more wrong as very quickly, the crisis itself and the way to fight the virus became politicised.  Even today, the consequences of this radicalisation of what should have been a uniform and concerted response to a major healthcare crisis continue to have a far-reaching impact where the level of trust in government and vaccines, in particular, has plummeted. “To be or not to be” became “to wear a mask or not to wear a mask” and somewhat unbelievably, reason lost out once again to fear and to passion and more nefarious underlying motivations.

Style over substance. The notion of "appeasement" has forever been cemented in the history books in 1938 with the famous photograph of then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arriving back to London from the Munich Conference in Germany, where he had reached an agreement with Adolf Hitler concerning the crisis in what was then Czechoslovakia. Hitler was allowed to take over Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, where over 3 million ethnic Germans lived, thus preventing the threatened military escalation. Only Britain and France participated in the conference alongside Fascist Italy and, of course, Germany. Although the Czech government sent representatives to Munich, they were not allowed to participate, and ultimately, the agreement forcing Czechoslovakia to cede territory to Germany was accepted under strong diplomatic pressure, even if the Czechs felt that it represented the betrayal of a 1924 alliance treaty and 1925 military pact with France. Upon returning to London, Chamberlain brandished the signed agreement in the air at the foot of the aeroplane that had brought him back from Munich and declared that it was "symbolic of the of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again". Later at Downing Street, he remarked: "I believe it is peace for our time". The policy of trying to avoid war at all costs to preserve peace is known as "appeasement", and Chamberlain's announcement on September 30th 1938, is at best ironic given the war that broke out less than a year later. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on September 30th 1938 "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany, bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts". History has not been kind to Chamberlain after the Munich Agreement, even if it was later established that he was not as naive as he was initially perceived, as he knew that Britain was not ready for war and that he was essentially playing for time. Nonetheless, for a modern politician to be compared to Chamberlain is a blistering insult. Almost exactly eighty years later, on September 29th, 2018, at a rally in West Virginia, then-President Donald Trump, referring to his relationship with notorious Dictator Kim Jong Un (known as "the supreme leader in North Korea), proudly declared: "We fell in love. No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters". Trump is most definitely more familiar with the writings of Adolf Hitler (illustrated by Hitler's expressions and direct quotes he uses in his speeches) than those of the theoretician of Communism, Karl Marx, who once said, "History repeats itself. First as tragedy, then as farce." Trump is truly a master at such things, and in one fell swoop, he was able to be both tragic and funny. According to Human Rights Watch "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) remains one of the most repressive countries in the world. Ruled by third-generation authoritarian leader Kim Jong Un, the government responded to the  Covid-19   pandemic with deepened isolation and repression, increased ideological control, and by maintaining fearful obedience of the population by using threats of torture, extrajudicial executions, wrongful imprisonment, enforced disappearances, and forced hard labor". The notion that Kim Jong Un is Trump’s ideal bedfellow is the pinnacle of ignominy and repudiates the essence of American values and beliefs.  Talking about "love" with a ruthless and bloodthirsty dictator of this calibre can only be described as tragic. Funny because qualifying the relationship as one where the two protagonists exchange "love letters" like love-struck teenagers before prom is hilarious even if Trump doesn't quite understand that the joke is on him. Kim Jong Un and President Trump on June 30th 2019 during a meeting on the south side of the Military Demarcation Line that divides North and South Korea. The declared intention of Trump in organising the series of meetings with Kim Jong Un was primarily to achieve the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. However, even as the meetings took place, North Korea continued to produce nuclear fuel and build nuclear weapons as quickly as actively as ever, thus, in typical North Korean style, engaging in great deception at the expense of the United States of America. It did allow, however, for Trump to have a spectacular photo opportunity a few hours after the photograph above when he crossed over the demarcation line and officially entered North Korea and set foot in the so-called hermit kingdom. Given the lack of tangible results, Trump's efforts to appease Kim Jong Un appear to be more the victory of style over substance. On this record, Trump is more the natural bedfellow of the poor Neville Chamberlain than Kim Jong-un. 80 years separate these two photos; different times, same results

A Distinct "Fin de siècle" Feeling. July the fourth is famously "Independence Day" in the US and represents the celebration of the Declaration of Independence of 1776. The current British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak will hope that the British people will also demonstrate their independence by re-electing his conservative Tory party in the UK parliamentary elections that he has called for on the forthcoming July 4th despite the negative polls that see him trailing by double digits to the Labour party. Given the state of the campaign so far, his gamble for calling an election on such a memorable date seems to have backfired. A Tory victory is about as probable as Christmas in the middle of July, although miracles do happen, but on Elm Street, not in London or the Shires of bucolic England. Fourteen years of conservative rule have profoundly changed the UK, and the Tory record does not resonate with the British electorate. Five prime ministers since the Brexit referendum of 2016 (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak) and even more astoundingly three in a period of just two months in the autumn of 2002 does not reflect well on the British political establishment. When the tenure of a British Prime Minister is compared to the shelf-life of a lettuce, and the lettuce wins, then you know you are in hot water. The previous general election of 2019 was dubbed "the Brexit Election" and allowed Boris Johnson to stay in power with what was coined as a "landslide" majority of 80 seats. Johnson had campaigned on "getting Brexit done", a simple but powerful slogan that reached its audience. Johnson talked about "an oven-ready Brexit" and claimed that the future of the UK outside of the UK, based on his extreme view of Brexit, would be the best invention since sliced bread or, in this case, an oven-baked delicacy. Maybe that is why he was caught hiding in a fridge to avoid journalists as he was fastidiously putting all the ingredients together. The 2024 election is the "Nigel Farage Election," as the far-right politician's influence is overbearing, not only in terms of his typical obnoxious and hate-bating presence in the British media but, more importantly, in regards to his favourite theme, blaming all of the country's woes on immigration and in particular illegal immigration illustrated by the ever-increasing number of small boats crossing the English Channel with desperate refugees at the risk of their own lives. The current government had promised to "stop the boats", notably by shipping off unwanted immigrants to the African country of Rwanda, world-famous for its exemplary democracy and respect for human rights (the 1992 genocide be damned....). "As if by magic, the 2019's most urgent electoral theme has disappeared and even uttering the word "Brexit" is a risk too far, understandably for the Conservatives but less so for the Labour Party." The only people who pretend that Brexit was a success these days are ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and far-right acolytes such as the aptly named Jacob Rees-Mogg, who looks as if he was transported suit and tie directly from the nineteenth century where his Little England proclivities would be better understood and accepted. The British people have made up their minds, and most people regret Brexit, not only because of the long queues for British holidaymakers travelling abroad. In October 2021, the UK government's Office of Budget Responsibility calculated that Brexit would cost 4% of GDP per annum over the long term. Brexit has been an unqualified own-goal and disaster for the UK. You would have thought that the Opposition would jump on this abysmal failure and seek to reverse the most dire consequences of such a failed policy. But lo and behold, the Leader of the Labour Party has declared that Brexit is no longer on the agenda other than "making Brexit better." Nothing works better than giving aspirin to a terminal cancer patient. Sir Keir Starmer has ruled out any major concessions on Brexit, and his so-called red lines are tying him up in knots in a political straight-jacket that even Houdini would find difficult to get out of. Even joining the EU Customs Union is not an option, as per Labour's newfound European dogma, so the only options left are cosmetic at best and unrealistic at worst. Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Labour Party The only explanation for this dereliction of duty is that Labour is so desperate to get back into power that it doesn't want to take any risks. God forbid if it were to antagonise the 52% of "leavers" who voted for Brexit in 2016. Starmer is afraid of his own shadow and has pushed the concept of playing safe to new extremes at the risk of appearing feckless and a slave to political expediency. The prospects of the Tories staying in power are so limited that they verge on delusion, and Labour's political prospects will never be so auspicious as they are today. All the more reason to be bold and to address the Brexit Loch Ness Monster in the halls of Westminster. Starmer should take a leaf out of Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's book and propose far reaching reforms such as ensuring the independence of the Bank of England when New Labour came to power in 1997. In respect to the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland who voted in majority against Brexit and the large number of "remainers" a more progressive European policy is required. To those who say that trying to reverse the damage of Brexit would be a denial of democracy as it would be going against the 52% of citizens who wanted to split from the EU, it is necessary to remember that democracy and the will of the people are not immutable and frozen in time. The duty of a politician is to lead by conviction and to put country before party. The 2024 Labour manifesto states that "we will honour Brexit and be confident of status outside of EU". Being confident of being outside of the EU is akin to enjoy living in the garage next to the main house which has been burnt down to the ground instead of trying to rebuild. Who needs running water and electricity when a downgraded garage lifestyle focuses the mind on a more frugal way of living ? The Labour Party owes it to the British people in particular the younger generations who have been denied access to the European continent to study, work and travel freely and ultimately to history. To lead not in fear but to reestablish the essence of good governing, namely build conviction on a foundation of knowledge, passion where the emotional aspect of conviction is essential to inspire people, to act with purpose where the reasons, rationale and benefits of the outcome are clearly communicated and last but not least to demonstrate belief in the proposed vision , as without genuine belief divorced from any short term political expediency the policy is doomed to fail. Starmer would do well to listen to the European aspirations of the British people and act decisively to undo the mistakes of the past. Repeating the same errors and expecting different results is not a sign of intelligence but a sign of madness; a madness with no method; only a bottomless abyss of everlasting decay, degradation and despair. Turning a blind eye to one of the most fundamental important geopolitical and economic issues that will determine the future well-being of the UK will only ensure that the current "fin de siècle" vibes herald a more permanent "end of the world" situation leaving the United Kingdom an ever poorer Nation desperately trying to remain afloat off the coast of a stronger and more European continent.

Be Careful What You Wish For. Donald Tusk won the October 2023 parliamentary elections at the head of his Civic Coalition, confounding the polls and ushering in a period of change after eight years of far-right government dominated by the Law and Justice Party (PiS). Young people took to the streets of Warsaw to celebrate what they considered to be a vote in favour of Europe and democracy. Other liberal pro-democracy leaders around the world welcomed the return of Donald Tusk to frontline Polish politics as he had earned an excellent reputation as President of the European Council during the difficult negotiations with the UK during the successful Brexit referendum. The so-called "March of a Million Hearts" a few weeks before the election demonstrated the fervour and excitement generated by the then opposition parties under the banner of a three-party coalition where each party retained its own identity and the symbol of the heart in Polish colours cemented the pro-democracy vision of the Civic Coalition regaining the flag as a patriotic symbol that had hitherto been hijacked by the ruling far-right government. Donald Tusk during the "March of a Million Hearts" on October 1st, 2023. On December 13th, Donald Tusk was selected as Prime Minister by the Sejm (the Polish Parliament) and received his appointment and that of his new cabinet from the President of the Polish Republic, Andrzej Duda. In his first speech as Prime Minister, Tusk made an emotional and forceful presentation of his government's program centred around "100 proposals of the Civic Coalition". "I believe that 15 October will go down in history as a day of peaceful rebellion, a rebellion for freedom and democracy, and not the first of its kind. It is somewhat like 31 August 1989 or 4 June, when we regained our independence, our freedom, following Solidarity’s victory". Unusually for a modern politician Tusk also referred to the notion of "love" in politics, stating that he cannot "fathom politics without love". He called for unity and said that "unity is strength" is "no longer a slogan but the first political commandment". He asked to put the "brutal election campaign" behind us and to work together for the benefit of the nation. Only a few days later, just before Christmas, the atmosphere at the Polish broadcasting company's headquarters, TVP, was very different. Members of the former ruling party, PiS, including its leader Jarosław Kaczyński, organised a sit-in following the government's dismissal of the management of TVP and Polskie Radio, another public broadcaster, as well as of the Polish Press Agency (PAP). Cleaning up the Augean stables of Polish democracy with an "iron broom" took centre stage, and the takeover of public media left the country in no doubt of the new government's intention to act quickly and decisively against the backsliding of democracy and the erosion of the rule of law — so much so for love and unity. The "October 15th Coalition" has enjoyed undeniable success, notably with the release of the much-needed 57 billion euros previously withheld by the EU from the post-COVID recovery and resilience fund. Efforts have been made to bring the judicial system back in line with EU law and politically motivated investigations against judges initiated by the previous government have been terminated. However, passing the coalition's promised reforms is proving to be very difficult. Key institutions, notably the Constitutional Court, have been politicised after eight years of PiS control and are resisting change. Most importantly, Donald Tusk and his coalition partners must contend with President Duda, a stalwart right-wing figure and PiS loyalist whose term ends in August 2025. Duda has significant power to veto any legislative reforms. The government is reduced to forcing change by parliamentary declarations and ministerial orders, thereby bypassing formal legislative measures. Political lawfare reached new heights recently when the Constitutional Court declared that a bill passed in parliament was unconstitutional as two opposition politicians had been excluded from parliament following criminal convictions. The two politicians in question were adamant that their exclusion was illegitimate, as precisely President Duda had pardoned them. The ruling of the Constitutional Court will have far-reaching consequences as all other bills passed in parliament will likewise potentially also be declared illegitimate. The President has sent the government's 2024 to the Court for assessment as he has "doubts" as to whether it was adopted properly. The government is threatening to ignore the Constitutional Court's ruling (not for the first time) as, in their opinion, the Court "is acting on political orders". In addition to the lack of power to formally implement ambitious reforms, Tusk has to contend with his coalition partners from the left, "Lewica," and the centre party," Third Way," who have different views, notably on the important issue of the liberalisation of abortion, which was an important part of the coalition's electoral platform. The various parties do not see eye to eye on just how far the existing stringent law should be changed. Take into account the local elections in April and the European parliamentary elections in June, and it is easy to understand that the government has been in perpetual election mode. Despite Law and Justice (PiS) remaining the strongest party in the local elections, the Civic Coalition managed to improve their position by achieving majorities in 11 of the 18 regional assemblies as well as retaining and capturing new mayoralties, notably in Warsaw and other major cities. The European elections were an even more marked success for the Civic Coalition where for the first time it beat Law and Justice (PiS) in an election for the past ten years, albeit with less than one percent of the vote. The recent electoral performance of the Civic Coalition has shown that the new government still has the support of the voters and is benefiting from the momentum of the October 15th 2023 parliamentary elections. However, the opposition is close behind and is snapping at their heels, using their time in opposition to heal their internal wounds and muster their forces for future battles. The next battle is just around the corner, with the important Presidential elections that are due to be held on May 18th 2025 (the elections have to be held between 75 days and 100 days before the term's end). President Duda is not eligible for re-election. The Presidential Palace in Warsaw The battle for the presidency will focus most the political debate over the next months with the recently re-elected Mayor of Warsaw, Rafał Trzaskowski and the recent PiS Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki emerging as favourites for their respective camps with current the Speaker and the leader of The Third Way, Szymon Hołownia also a serious contender. However, it is important to stress that the respective parties have not yet formally named their candidates and much can change as aggressive political infighting and maneuvers are to be expected. The stakes could not be higher as the future of the fight for liberal democracy in Poland requires a common executive and legislative control by the Civic Coalition. It has been six months since Donal Tusk was appointed Prime Minister. If a week i famously a long time in politics, half a year is an eternity. The war in neighbouring Ukraine is omnipresent in the minds of the political class and the uncertainty of the US elections is also of great concern. Poland is a prime example of a country in transition that can resist democratic backsliding and promote the core values of democracy. The rise of populist extreme far-right parties in Europe is not unavoidable although Poland also has its won issues ot contend in this respect as an ever more far-right party  than PiS Confederation (Konfederacja) had a good run at the recent European elections with 12.1% of the votes (up from 7.5% in 2019) polling ahead of the Civic Coalition's partners The Left (Lewica) and The Third Way (Trzecia Droga) 6.9 % and 6.3 % respectively. Winning elections is one matter, governing is an entirely different matter. The Civic Coalition is facing constraints that are institutional in nature given the important role of the presidency, currently in the hands of a political opponent. France may soon follow suit with a cohabitation of its own if the far-right National Rally Party wins the forthcoming legislative elections. The challenge faced by the current government is to resist the normal erosion and attrition of governing whilst keeping the flame alive to win the battle for the presidency, thus allowing Poland to become a Reaganesque "bright city on the hill" and a genuine beacon for democracy in Europe and afar. All eyes will remain on Poland and its quest for regaining its deserved place in the pantheon of democratic nations; so that the bold predictions of Prime Minister Tusk's exposé upon his appointment on December 13th past do not remain in vain.

More Than Entertaining Shadows. In today’s turbulent environment, where political discourse is polarised to the extreme, where conspiracy theories populate social media as never before and where the end of the world is apparently right around the corner, new reporting and, more importantly, news analysis and political commentary is a treacherous profession where only a few and brave dare venture – That is not to say that political commentary is lost forever, on the contrary – everybody and their awkward uncle has access like never before to a public at large.   And herein lies the rub. Expressing opinions is available to everybody, and rightly so. However, facts do matter. They are the bedrock of political analysis, the solid foundation for our understanding of the world. Basing political analysis on opinions alone, without being grounded in facts, is like building a sand castle on the beach at low tide. The sand castle will be washed away as soon as the sea comes in, and nothing will remain. Photo : Géard Aimé. "Mai 68, Les Murs Ont La Parole" Political commentary is a pivotal force in changing public perception, and the most important quality required is ethical integrity.   Credibility and trustworthiness depend on ethical integrity. Commentators must adhere to principles of professionalism akin to those practised in well-known newsrooms such as the BBC. Analysis must imperatively be anchored in facts and devoid of bias or partisan agendas. This does not mean that a political commentator has to remain more neutral than a Swiss Guard at the Vatican. After all, intellectual honesty requires that political commentary present a specific point of view. "However, the starting point of any argumentation needs to be factually correct; otherwise, it is merely the expression of an opinion, however expertly it may be presented." For my part, I have to confess I have a clear bias and agenda; namely, I am clearly and definitively on the side of democracy and, to quote Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. This fundamental belief is not innocuous, as it is based on my observations of what works best for the average citizen. To be more precise, the more democracy, the better and in this respect, unperfect as it may, the semi-direct model of direct democracy as practised in Switzerland is a system that delivers results for the people and, more importantly, whilst taking into consideration all political views is able to achieve a consensus that precludes any extreme positions to dominate. The underlying philosophy is the so-called principle of concordance democracy, where compromise and consensus are not bad words but rather represent the cornerstone of the system itself. One must admit that it works quite well for Switzerland, which has the unique characteristic of uniting three different cultures and languages (actually four if you account for reto-romanisch) under one national roof.   Unfortunately, Concordance democracy à la Swiss is the exception rather than the rule. Democratic confrontation is the preferred model, with political parties of different views taking turns exercising power and being pushed into opposition if they lose the periodic elections.   My natural instincts to reject any and all extremisms, or any ‘isms for that matter, dictate my approach to current events. In an ideal world, we would all get along together, and adversity would not necessarily imply unbridled confrontation to the bitter end. But one only has to look at what is happening in the United States, where one party declares that the 2024 election is nothing less than “victory or death” to realise that the reality is that division and hatred are gaining the upper hand. Rest assured, the United States is not the only nation that is experiencing such radical change; the recent results of the European parliamentary elections demonstrate that hatred, division and extremism are spoken all around the world in different accents.   What is the underlying reason for such a change in today’s political environment? I believe that the answer is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of technological advances (AI will kill us all), fear of immigrants, fear of the future. The US founding fathers recognised that “fear might overwhelm reflective thought”. The politics of fear can pave the way for a demagogue with unwieldy promises of strength and security in exchange for surrendering freedom. It is no surprise, therefore, that politicians with such ambitions paint the present as apocalyptic and deliberately exaggerate the severity of the present situation to promote better an idealistic future where unicorns and pink clouds abound, shrouded in some form of greatness or divine protection under their enlightened leadership.   Doom and the promotion of catastrophe are gaining traction in today’s political discourse, trading on negative emotions instead of rational thinking. It is high time that we fight back with hope, optimism, and positivity.   Political commentary that deconstructs the politics of catastrophe and doom and inspires a better world of hope and positivity is no easy task, but it is one that is worthy of undertaking with humility, determination, and resilience.   Welcome to the world of Devine Commentary, where facts matter and hope prevails.