Moving On

I have made a couple of decisions: one, to move my blogging to Wordpress and two, to fold my blogs into one—“Views from the Beltline.” You can now find me under that title at http://bill-longstaff.ca. I hope you’ll join me.

Glen and the Greens

I first took note of Glen Murray when he was mayor of Winnipeg. I was active in my community in inner city Calgary and Murray seemed to share my sense of what cities can and should be. Now he aspires to lead the Green Party of Canada and this strikes me as an excellent match.

Murray has a long list of environmental achievements. Prior to politics, he started one of Winnipeg’s first environmental small businesses, a company that helped other small businesses reduce energy and shift to recycled resources. As mayor, he undertook a major expansion of Winnipeg’s recycling and resource recovery programs.

After moving to Ontario, he was appointed by Prime Minister Paul Martin to chair the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Returning to politics at the provincial level he served, among other ministries, as Ontario's environment minister during which time he led the development and implementation of the province’s cap-and-trade system, and played a founding role in the Quebec-Ontario-California carbon market. After the Liberal's election defeat he left politics to served as executive director of the Pembina Institute, a leading energy/environment think tank, and has since moved back to Winnipeg to join Emerge Knowledge, a software company that helps government agencies track recycling and garbage-collection data.

Murray's credentials extend well beyond the environmental. For example, he was reconciling before “reconciliation” became politically fashionable. As mayor of Winnipeg, he worked closely with indigenous people on new approaches to jobs, recreation, and public safety. He formulated the city’s urban Aboriginal Policy and championed Thunderbird House which serves as a place of healing and cultural preservation. For his efforts, First Nations leaders awarded him an Eagle Feather, their highest honour.

He was a founder of the Canadian AIDS Society and has been involved in HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention throughout his life. In 2003, Egale Canada presented him an award for "Fighting for LGBT Justice & Equality."

In addition to the above he has received a long list of awards, including the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for his outstanding contributions of citizenship and public service and the President’s Award from the Canadian Institute of Planners. He has served as chair of the Big City Mayors’ Caucus and as CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute.

I could go on at length. The point is that this is a uniquely talented person with solid accomplishments in a number of fields including those of greatest importance to the Green Party. For the party, this is an opportunity to acquire a gifted leader to replace the redoubtable Elizabeth May. He's theirs for the taking.

Will the "Red Menace" Work in the 21st Century?

During the Cold War, conservative politicians could always be relied on to trot out the “red menace,” accusing opponents of being soft on communism. It was usually good for a few votes—in the U.S. for many votes. It was, of course, just a version of one of the oldest and most reliable political strategies—exploiting an enemy, or if necessary creating one, to draw voters around yourself as defender of the faith.

Communism, particularly Soviet communism, was a reliable enemy. However the Cold War has now been over for 30 years, Soviet communism is dead and Chinese communism has been subsumed by capitalism, so we might think that particular enemy would have lost its value.

But judging by the Trump administration's railing against China these days, one can't help but wonder if the eastern giant, capitalist-modified though it may be, isn't being revived as the red menace. In the tradition of accusing enemies of being soft on communism, the Trump campaign increasingly accuses Joe Biden of being soft on China.

Trump has laid responsibility for his country's COVID-caused misery at the door of China, with the World Health Organization thrown in as aider and abettor. People around Trump promote the antagonism and his most anti-China hawk Peter Navarro steadily gains in stature. Trump was of course engaging in China-bashing well before CORVID. The bug has now added a new element to his diatribes.

As to whether or not the strategy will work, the odds are favourable. Polls indicate that Americans overwhelming blame China for the pandemic and are deeply angry with the Chinese government. Certainly Congress is on side, introducing a number of bills that would direct the manufacture of critical supplies away from China. Various states are even seeking ways to sue China for their COVID costs.

Trump may not be quite as enthusiastic about making China-bashing central to the campaign as some of his advisers. It could cost him a multibillion-dollar trade deal, and then there's his apparent admiration for Xi Jinpeng. Trump never met a dictator he didn't like. Nonetheless, the audience for an anti-China message is there. The strategy looks good.

The rest of us should hope he doesn't pursue it too vigorously. Two superpowers engaged in escalating hostility, when the leaders of both are fervent nationalists, could lead to catastrophe, even of the nuclear variety. The coronavirus pandemic is providing more than enough catastrophe at the moment.

Democracy Amid COVID

As COVID-19 advances around the world, political opportunism is not far behind. This is to be expected. The pandemic, like all crises, presents a combination of circumstances that is ripe for exploitation. As fear escalates, people look for leaders to bring calm and maintain order. And with publics constrained by social distancing, authoritarians in particular are in a position to exploit the crisis.

They are even using the pandemic itself to legitimize power grabs. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán gained the extraordinary right to rule indefinitely by decree, dutifully granted him by the country's legislature. New restrictions on journalism that the government deems harmful to the coronavirus response have made it harder to report on the scale and his handling of the pandemic. Vladimir Putin, in the midst of revising the constitution to in effect let him rule Russia indefinitely, has used COVID-19 as a reason why there needs to be stability at the head of government. His government has also increased its surveillance capabilities using the rationale of enforcing a quarantine. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte trotted out his infamous answer to the drug problem, threatening that those opposing coronavirus directives could be “shot dead.”

Various illiberal populists exploit the pandemic even though some initially dismissed its seriousness, even calling it “fake news.” Indian author Arundhati Roy observes “One of the greatest crises that's faced any of us, certainly in the modern Western world, comes at a time where the most toxic, low-IQ, totalitarian men are in power.” She specifically referenced Donald Trump, Narendra Modi and Viktor Orbán. Fake news or not, some authoritarians have come to realize its political possibilities.

Democracy, however, has not been entirely missed out on the rewards. Wednesday's national assembly election in South Korea had the highest turnout of any parliamentary election since 1992. Millions of Koreans, wearing masks and standing at least one metre apart, moved slowly into polling stations to vote in the first national election to be held since the pandemic began.

Prime Minister President Moon Jae-in's left-leaning government had been down in the polls prior to COVID with the PM's approval rating falling to a low of 30 percent. However, South Korea has been one of the most successful countries in tackling the pandemic, and the electorate showed their appreciation for the government's efforts by giving Moon's party and its smaller affiliate the biggest majority since the country transitioned to democracy in 1987. That tens of millions of citizens would brave the bug to exercise their rights is a testament to the strength of democracy in the face of crisis.

Support for the Moon government was due is no small part to its transparency during the crisis and its responsiveness to the people. South Korea drew on its strengths as a liberal democracy to deal with the pandemic, a powerful comparison to early days in China which were characterized by evasion and cover-up.

Here at home, democracy is holding its own. When the Liberals first proposed Bill C-13, the COVID-19 emergency legislation, certain sections, such as that giving the finance minister at least 19 months of extraordinary legislative powers, were referred to by opposition parties as a “power grab.” They dug in their heels and the bill was dramatically pared back. Furthermore, all 13 premiers firmly rejected implementing the federal Emergencies Act when queried by the prime minister. Such is the behaviour of a mature democracy, or perhaps the behaviour of a democracy with a minority government. In any case, despite ominous developments in too many places, democracy is by no means folding in the face of the bug.

So Long Bernie, It's Been Good to Know Ya

So Bernie Sanders has packed it in. As someone whose views commonly fall within the ambit of social democracy, I could have easily voted for Bernie—if I was a citizen of his formerly great nation. The U.S. is desperately in need of some of his views, especially on growing inequality and the domination of wealth in politics, but there is a bigger challenge than even these. That, of course, is getting rid of the world's most dangerous man, he of the orange hue, and I feel, like most Democrats apparently, that Joe Biden, good old reliable, mainstream Joe, is a better choice for that job.

Bernie was always a risk for the party. Many of his views are definitely not mainstream and he would have been a major target, and an easy one, for the big money that's corrupting America. Now much of that wealth and its attendant power may very well swing behind Joe.

And I don't find Biden that hard to take. Just the fact he is a decent human being makes him a huge improvement over the incumbent. And his climate platform, the most important policy area, isn't half bad, in contrast to the suicidal policies of Trump. Greenpeace gives Biden's platform a B+. They gave Bernie's, which of course included the Green New Deal, an A+.

So the big race is now on. Politics is rarely a simple choice between good and evil, usually more a matter of degree, but this election gets pretty close. If it isn't between good and evil, it's at least between pretty good and evil. The future of all of us rests heavily on the shoulders of Joe Biden, and I believe he has the shoulders to carry the load, but I will always feel a little wistful about Bernie's political potential.

Democracy's "Island of Contentment"

The 2020 version of the Global Satisfaction with Democracy report, issued annually by the University of Cambridge, concludes that “democracy is in a state of deep malaise.” The researchers found that since they began their work in 1995, dissatisfaction with democracy has “risen over time, and is reaching an all-time global high, in particular in developed democracies.” This conclusion was as depressing as it was consistent with other studies.

The report did, however, find an “island of contentment,” a select group of countries in which less than a quarter of the public expresses discontent with their political system. In Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, for example, satisfaction with democracy is bucking the trend and reaching all-time highs. Austria, Ireland and Luxembourg round out the contented few.

The researchers used “a new data set combining more than 25 data sources, 3,500 country surveys, and 4 million respondents between 1973 and 2020 asking citizens whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with democracy in their countries.” They created four categories to represent the range form dissatisfaction to satisfaction: crisis, malaise, concern and contented. The latter two include countries where at least half the population is satisfied with their democracy. Canada was at least well across that threshold, sitting in the “concern” category, better than the U.S. which sits in the “malaise” group.

What, one wonders, do the chosen few have in common that might lead them to the contented isle. One answer of course is that they are all rich. But that alone is obviously not the answer. All the Anglo nations are rich but none made the cut. The contented countries also have solid social welfare systems and that must surely help. Knowing that your society has your back will no doubt boost your confidence in your governance.

And then there is another commonality that may be an important factor—they all use proportional representation (PR) voting systems. Even among the Anglo nations, the one that uses a PR system (New Zealand) showed the greatest satisfaction. Is it possible that if your government is democratically elected, i.e. election results accurately reflect the will of the people, you have a greater confidence and greater satisfaction with democracy? Now there's a thought.

From Emperors to Emperors and Tsars to Tsars—Plus ça change

The French proverb plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same) most aptly describes what has been happening at the pinnacle of government in China and Russia.

Two years ago, the Chinese Communist Party, completely dominated by its 64-year-old president Xi Jinping, would drop term limits on the presidency. After Mao's lengthy dictatorship, the Party moved away from one-man rule toward a consensus system where power was shared by a handful of high-ranking Party officials. This worked until the ascent of Xi, who was declared "core leader" as state media increasingly sung his praises. He has consolidated power and now with the end of term limits he becomes, in effect, president-for-life. A new emperor.

In China's vast neighbour to the north, we have recently seen similar developments, perhaps inspired by Xi. The Russian parliament is proposing constitutional changes that could leave Vladimir Putin in power until 2036. He is currently required to step down in 2024 when his most recent term ends. If, as is highly likely given his grip on the nation, the constitutional court gives its blessing to the changes and they are backed in an April referendum, he could be president until he's 83, essentially for life. A new tsar.

When the former communist regimes in these two giants came to an end, with the death of Mao in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union under its own dead weight, some of us had great hopes that democracy might root itself in both. Instead it seems as if the tumultuous revolutions that birthed communism, and the carnage and oppression they engendered, ultimately changed nothing. Just passing chapters to be endured. They were ruled by dictators before, they are ruled by dictators now, and they were ruled by dictators in between. Plus ça change.

Are the Blockades Backfiring?

If the objective of those protesting the construction of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline through Wet’suwet’en territory was to bring attention to the issue, they have certainly done that. If their objectives were to gain support for reconciliation and opposition to the pipeline, they appear to not only have failed but achieved the opposite.

A survey published by Angus Reid reports that 80 percent of Canadians feel that reconciliation has been negatively affected, and support for the pipeline has risen over the last two weeks from 51 percent to 61 percent. Almost 80 per cent also believe the blockades have hurt Canada’s reputation as a place for investment.

As to ending the blockades, Canadians are split. Half say use patience and half say use whatever force is necessary. NDPers overwhelmingly support the former and Conservatives the latter.

Few have much good to say about the politicians. Only one-in-five Canadians say the Prime Minister has handled the situation well. He isn't alone. Only 18 percent of British Columbians feel Premier Horgan has done a good job. Premier Kenney, however, did get the support of most Albertans.

The poll results aren't surprising. While I suspect most Canadians believe peaceful protest is a healthy part of democracy, most find the use of force unacceptable. Blockading railroads and burning tires simply crosses the line. And, as Angus Reid's survey demonstrates, they can produce contrary consequences.

The Iranian Pseudo-election

Last week, Iran held an election for members of its Islamic Consultative Assembly, the country's Parliament or Majlis. The Majlis is something less than a ruling body. To begin with, candidates are screened by a council which answers ultimately to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. In addition to screening all candidates, the Guardian Council holds veto power over all legislation approved by the Majlis.

Despite this subservience to the supreme Leader, turnout for parliamentary elections has consistently been above 50 percent. Until last Friday that is, when it dropped to 43 percent. In the capital, Tehran, it was only 25 percent, half its previous average.

Khamenei blamed the low turnout on Iran's enemies, claiming they were exaggerating the threat of the coronavirus, but there were in fact a number of more plausible reasons. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the country’s clerical rulers and the state of the economy, suffering under intense sanctions pressure from the United States.

The reformist and moderates bloc, associated with President Hassan Rouhani, faced a highly disappointed public. In 2016, the bloc were given a parliamentary majority on the back of the landmark nuclear deal that offered relief from global sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear program. The bloc had promised greater freedoms and international engagement. But the Americans withdrew from the deal, reimposed sanctions, and the economy went into free fall. According to Zohreh Kharazmi, an assistant professor of American studies at Tehran University, "Many people were not very satisfied with [the bloc's] economic policies and their investment in [the nuclear agreement] rather than in domestic [issues]." The Guardian Council disqualifying thousands of reformist and moderate candidates didn't help.

Conservative voters, on the other hand, were keen to show their support for the regime and their anger at the Americans' assassination of Qassem Suleimani.

The result was a sweep for hardline conservatives, including all Tehran ridings. The victory was soured, however, by the low turnout. If the election illustrated anything it was the frustration, or even hopelessness, of a people victimized by the combination of a corrupt autocratic government and an uncompromising enemy.

The EU Declares War

I apologize for the alarmist headline. The European Union hasn't actually declared war, more a case of having recognized a war, a shadow war. Vera Jourova, Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency, claims Russia and China are engaging in a "digital war" with fake news and disinformation in order to undermine European democracy. She is all about fighting back.

She is right to be alarmed of course. There is no greater enemy to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping than democracy. If anything causes them sleepless nights, democracy is it. With massive militaries including nuclear weapons, they've got the external threats covered. But if their people start to think seriously about choosing their own leaders, the regimes could collapse from the inside. Both Putin and Xi know about that.

Ms. Jourova, who is all too familiar with dictatorship, having grown up in communist Czechoslovakia, has been assigned to develop the European Democracy Action Plan. She intends to set clear goals: in addition to fighting disinformation the plan will aim to strengthen the media sector, make platforms more accountable and protect the democratic process.

Jourova reports the EU is "getting better at detecting and countering disinformation. We have set up a Rapid Alert System ... to facilitate the sharing of data and assessments of disinformation campaigns and enable alerts .... We have pushed the digital industry to sign up to the Code of Practice on Disinformation for online platforms and the advertising sector."

She insists this isn't enough. "We need to enlist the whole of civil society, including media, academia and fact-checkers," she declares, "This is why we have funded ... a digital service infrastructure ... to support co-operation between fact checkers and academia. This is why ... we have proposed the Creative Europe Programme 2021-2027 to support quality journalism."

In a speech to a recent conference in Brussels on disinformation, she emphasized the unfortunate fact that "Disinformation and foreign interference are a soft underbelly of our democracy, because they attack one of our dearest values—freedom of speech and the right to information." And quoted Hannah Arendt to outline the goals of Russia and China: "The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist." She could be describing the world of Donald Trump.

In a nice take on Mark Zuckerberg's attitude, she summarized her approach to social media, "I want the platforms that have contributed to breaking things ... to fix them." With a warrior like Ms. Jourova on their side, the EU should be well-equipped to deal with the enemy.

Is the U.S. Returning to Its Imperial Roots?

In 1776, the United States declared its independence of Great Britain. The Americans had had their fill of aristocracy and monarchy. Once they had defeated the British, they wrote a constitution that would establish and constrain the federal government. The head of state, for example, now a president rather than a king, would be limited to enforcing laws that an elected Congress enacted.

Constitution or not, the country seems to be looking more and more like the United Kingdom under George III. While it doesn't have an aristocracy of nobles, it certainly has an aristocracy of great wealth, both earned and inherited. And, with the help of the Supreme Court, this aristocracy in combination with corporate interests now has more power than the people.

This isn't exactly what the founding fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, declared “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Well, in fact, that aristocracy that so concerned Jefferson has prospered mightily and now dominates government.

And although the U.S. doesn't have a king, it does have an increasingly imperial president. As the power of the country has grown, so has the power of the presidency, especially since 9/11. The Constitution determined that the power to initiate a war belonged to Congress, but the president has acquired more war powers despite the Constitution. He reigns supreme in foreign policy and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so the massive buildup of the military has in itself greatly expanded presidential power. Being able to go to war would seem to be a kingly privilege.

And the power of the president is by no means restricted to foreign affairs. He can exercise great influence over the economy as we have seen with Donald Trump, who has managed to throw the whole world economy into confusion with his arbitrary actions. And through his cabinet appointments he can greatly influence other areas, such as the environment, an area Trump is also undermining.

Indeed, Trump apparently believes that Article II of the Constitution allows him to do anything he wants as president. And one of his impeachment lawyers, Alan Dershowitz of O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein fame has stated, "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." Considering that every politician considers his election to be in the public interest, that would seem to give the president carte blanche. Are we edging toward the divine right of presidents?

One wonders where the people are in all this. They continue to play a role, of course, but an increasingly diminished one. They seem to be almost back to where they started, subject to a king and his nobles. Has American history come full circle?

Citizens' Assemblies Gaining Favour

Democracy has been producing some perverse results recently. A prime example is our neighbour to the south. In 2016, the American people elected Hillary Clinton, one of the most qualified candidates they have ever been offered for president, but they got Donald Trump, undoubtedly the least qualified candidate they have ever been offered. The people were overruled by an eccentric institution called the Electoral College. A similar result elected George W. Bush over Al Gore in the 2000 election. The Electoral College, it seems, has a soft spot for incompetents.

Another example is the Brexit referendum in Britain. I have written in a previous post about the perversity of referendums in general and of this one in particular. That post also presents the much more democratic alternative, the citizens' assembly—a set of citizens chosen randomly, to accurately represent the population, and then brought together to study the issue in depth. The group learns from experts and stakeholders, and consult and deliberate, before making their decision on the issue.

Fair Vote Canada pointed out in a recent article how citizens' assemblies are gaining favour. In France, the Citizens’ Assembly for the Climate is tasked with developing a climate plan that cuts carbon emissions by 40 percent before 2030. A Citizens’ Assembly in Scotland will make recommendations to guide Scotland's post-Brexit future. In the UK, the Citizens’ Assembly on Climate will direct the government on how to meet its goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The Irish Citizens’ Assembly will propose legislative changes to advance gender equality. Irish Citizens’ Assemblies, which have done groundbreaking work on gay marriage and abortion, are an international model for citizen participation. All the above will be reporting on their deliberations in 2020.

The German-speaking region of Belgium has even formed a permanent Citizens' Assembly. All six parties in the region's parliament endorsed the bill that established the assembly. Parliament will be bound to respond to its recommendations. This tiny community is setting an example for all of Europe. At a time when anger and distrust is troubling a number of Western democracies, they would do well to take a close look.

As could Canada. Citizens' assemblies would be a useful addition to our governing institutions at all levels of government. Fair Vote intends to do everything possible to achieve a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform in the current Parliament.

Taiwanese Choose Freedom and Democracy

Last Saturday the Taiwanese re-elected President Tsai Ing-Wen. Tsai won more votes than any presidential candidate since Taiwan began holding direct elections for president in 1996. Her party also maintained a majority in the legislature. The landslide was not only a strong voice of support for the incumbent, but an equally strong rebuke of China, and specifically for the Communist Party. Tsai campaigned against unification while her main opponent backed closer ties with the mainland.

In her victory speech, Tsai declared, "This election is about whether or not we choose freedom and democracy. We must work to keep our country safe and defend our sovereignty." She didn't need to explain who they were defending their sovereignty against. China, which persists in claiming that Taiwan is part of the mainland, has been desperately employing both carrot and stick to encourage the Taiwanese to return to the fold. Mostly stick. Twice it sailed its new aircraft carrier through the Taiwan strait in the run-up to the election, and former paramount leader Hu Jintao has said Beijing would not rule out the use of force to bring Taiwan to heel. The intimidation didn't work.

China has little to offer but brute force to bring Taiwan onside. Economically, Taiwan is miles ahead with a GDP per capita over double that of China's. China has consistently achieved double-digit growth over the last 25 years, yet Taiwan remains well ahead despite economic restrictions imposed by its neighbour. One might expect at least a more equitable distribution of wealth in the communist country, but such is not the case. Inequality is much lower in Taiwan. Taiwan also provides better social infrastructure, including health care, with one-quarter China's infant mortality and five extra years of life expectancy. Not surprisingly, China's offer of the "one-country, two-systems" principle for unification, à la Hong Kong, falls on deaf ears. The Taiwanese have seen how well that works.


Last November, pro-democracy candidates won overwhelmingly in Hong Kong's district council elections. And, as in Hong Kong, younger Taiwanese were more likely to support the politicians who stood strong for democracy, not a welcome omen for Beijing.

China has now been twice rebuffed in recent months. Chinese people opting for democracy when it's on offer no doubt grates the Communist leadership in Beijing and helps explain their determination to bring Taiwan under their control. The Taiwanese, like the Hong Kongers, want none of it.

Defending the Indefensible Left and Right

People of the left and, one would hope, also many on the right, look on with horror as Republican politicians unconditionally support their degenerate president. Trump once boasted "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters," and it appears that he wouldn't lose the support of any Republican Members of Congress. It seems he can do anything, say anything, attack any people or institution, insult fellow members of his own party, abuse presidential powers, display a complete lack of common decency, and it matters not at all. The ranks hold.

This mindless loyalty is common on both sides of the political spectrum. We only need to look at the defense of men like Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro and Bolivia's Evo Morales by all too many Canadians leftists for ample evidence. Both of these men did good things, emphatically so in the case of Morales, not so much in the case of Maduro, but both eventually succumbed to their egos, to their lusts for power, and refused to go when their time was clearly up.

Their countrymen now pay the price. When citizens can no longer agree on basic values, polarization is inevitable, and indeed all three countries concerned above are experiencing dangerous divisions.

Political parties and political philosophies breed intense tribalism, and tribalism can overwhelm the noblest principles. In the case of Trump, Maduro and Morales, a disdain for democracy seems irrelevant to their supporters.

Trump shows contempt for key institutions of democracy, including the press, the courts and the rule of law; Maduro has manipulated and perverted democracy into an instrument to maintain his own power; and, most tragic of all, Morales, a gift to his people, abandoned his own constitution and its democratic safeguards. Yet large numbers of their supporters remain loyal to the man rather than to the principle.

Party members are, perhaps, beyond redemption, but citizens at large owe it to their principles to judge politicians objectively, regardless of which side of the fence they happen to be on. Naturally we will be more forgiving to those who are on our side, but when they violate fundamental principles, as the three above have, then they must be called to account.Whether they have done their country great good as in the case of Morales, or great harm as in the case of Trump, should no longer matter.

I am reminded of the case of Winston Churchill and the British election of 1945. Churchill is one of Britain's greatest heroes. He rallied his people from the brink of defeat to victory during World War II. Yet the war was barely over and in the 1945 election his people threw him out, handing the Labour Party a landslide victory. He had done his job, and the British people have long honoured him for it, but now they wanted something else so he had to go. This is the behaviour of a mature democracy, something the more ardent supporters of Trump, Maduro and Morales seem to have little interest in.