Foreign Affairs: National Memory in Ukraine

The charge of censorship derives from one of the four “decommunization” laws that Ukraine’s parliament adopted in mid-2015. It states that insulting the organizations, groups, parties, and movements deemed “fighters for independence” is illegal, but it fails to specify what the legal mechanisms for dealing with such views might be. It’s clear to me and most Ukrainians that the injunction, legally daft as it is, is exclusively exhortative. In any case, Viatrovych’s institute didn’t write that law; the son of one of the commanders of the Ukrainian nationalist underground did. [...]

Especially striking is the way in which these critics implicitly equate Ukrainian national identity, in even its most innocent forms, with a potentially virulent fascism. The historian Stephen Cohen provides a plethora of examples, having fully agreed with the Putin regime’s characterization of the demonstrators during the 2013–14 Euromaidan protests and the post-Yanukovych government as fascist. To be sure, the organized nationalist movement of the interwar period was not democratic. Some Banderites flirted with fascism; others were true believers. But the vast majority were indifferent to questions of regime type and instead were willing to sacrifice their lives for the one tenet that all Ukrainian nationalists, and indeed all nationalists, have in common: the liberation of the nation and the construction of a national state. [...]

By the same token, it is important to remember that Ukrainian nationalists are not just cutthroats and murderers; they are not just victimizers. They are also victims. And most important, although most banal, they are human beings who deserve to have a voice like any other people. Like all marginalized people, the Ukrainians should be able to participate in the writing of their own history. A fully open and frank discussion of all of Ukraine’s history thus requires that the grand narratives that have stifled freedom of expression in the past be reduced to mere points of view that must compete in the marketplace of ideas.

read the article 

The Guardian: Turkish authorities hold anti-coup rally in Istanbul

No official estimate has been provided, but Turkish media said millions had gathered for the rally.

Religious leaders and two of Turkey’s three opposition parties were attending, sitting next to the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who arrived in a helicopter with his wife, Emine. The pro-Kurdish People’s Democracy party, or HDP, was not invited. [...]

Erdoğan told the rally he would approve the death penalty if parliament voted for it, following the failed coup. In his speech he said the network of US-based cleric Fethullah Gülen, who he blames for the coup attempt, must be destroyed within the framework of the law.

A 60-metre (200ft) stage was flanked by two platforms and draped with massive national flags and banners depicting Erdoğan and Turkey’s founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. A roll call of those who died opposing the coup was read out as the event began. [...]

The government has launched a sweeping crackdown in the coup’s aftermath, targeting followers of Gülen’s movement. Nearly 18,000 people have been detained or arrested, mostly in the military, and tens of thousands of people have been suspended or dismissed from jobs in the judiciary, media, education, healthcare, military and local government.

The scope of the crackdown has alarmed European countries and rights groups, who have urged restraint. Erdoğan has lashed out at such criticism, and complained of a lack of support from the west for his government to survive the coup.

read the article 

Reuters: Politicians concerned over Ankara's influence on Turks in Germany

German politicians voiced concern on Sunday about the growing influence of Ankara on people with Turkish roots living in Germany.

Germany has seen violence in the past between nationalist Turks and militant Kurds and officials fret that tensions in Turkish society following last month's attempted coup could spill over onto its soil.

Thousands of demonstrators from Germany's Turkish community turned out in Cologne last Sunday to show their support for Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan at a rally that ratcheted up diplomatic tensions between Ankara and Berlin. [...]

Gokay Sofuoglu, chairman of Turkish Communities in Germany, told Reuters last month that a hotline number was circulating on social media that supposedly called on people to notify Turkish authorities about Erdogan opponents.

read the article 

The Guardian: South Africa has broken the post-colonial narrative. It’s a thrilling turning point

The country now enters a new era of competitive politics in a terrain where once the ANC’s struggle credentials ensured it unparalleled success. Malema, the energetic young founder of the EFF, has won 8% of the national vote and is a kingmaker in Johannesburg and Tshwane. Malema says he predicts the ANC will not be governing South Africa when the country takes to the polls in the 2019 national government elections. [...]

What does it mean? The post-colonial African story is replete with tales of liberation movements that have stayed in power with one leader and one party despite losing the support of the people. Zimbabwe, just to the north of us, is a painful example of such a country; Mugabe and Zanu-PF have been in power for 36 years.

South Africa has broken with that narrative. First, Zuma is the fourth president of the country since 1994. Mandela broke with the “strong man” tradition by stepping down after one term. Now, with these results, a future where South Africa could be run by an opposition party is beginning to emerge. We could see this in the next national election in 2019 or in 2024.

read the article 

The Atlantic: Why Are Some Conservative Thinkers Falling for Trump?

Instead, more than a year after Trump announced his presidential bid, his support among intellectuals has grown. Of course, many prominent conservatives—from George Will to William Kristol to David Brooks to Erick Erickson—oppose him militantly. But another cluster of writers and thinkers have declared themselves supportive of, or at least open to supporting, Trump. Among Trump’s critics, the predominant explanation for this openness is opportunism: Supporting the Republican nominee can have professional benefits. But a deeper dynamic is at work. It’s just hard to recognize, because American intellectuals haven’t felt the allure of authoritarian, illiberal politics this strongly in a long time. [...]

Read the intellectuals who are supporting Trump—or are open to supporting Trump—and you notice a few themes. First, they admire his campaign’s raw, unbridled energy. The Trump movement, according to the Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, radiates “dynamism.” His supporters “are just about the only cheerful people in politics … They’re having a good time.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an even more unabashed Trump booster, explains, “There is no model here … It is a Donald Trump unique, extraordinary experience. And you have to relax and take it for that kind of a unique experience.”

Next, pro-Trump intellectuals chastise political elites for disrespecting his exuberant, impassioned followers. “Those who oppose Mr. Trump should do it seriously and with respect for his supporters,” Noonan writes. “No one at this point needs your snotty potshots.” In fact, Trump’s intellectuals argue, elites have, due to their own incompetence and corruption, lost all grounds to lecture Trump supporters about individual rights and the rule of law. In his relationship to the Washington “establishmentarians,” says Gingrich, Trump is “like the boy who says the emperor has no clothing.” [...]

Why should we care about pseudonymous musings on a now-defunct website? Because the notion that Trump’s role as tribune of the people invests him with a kind of revolutionary authority over the institutions of the old order has echoes throughout pro-Trump commentary. In February, Noonan wrote, “There’s a kind of soft French Revolution going on in America, with the angry and blocked beginning to push hard against an oblivious elite.” In May, she wrote that Trump’s fans want him to be “a human bomb that will explode by timer under a bench in Lafayette Park and take out all the people but leave the monuments standing.” These are ghastly metaphors. Obviously, Noonan is not endorsing revolutionary violence. But she’s writing sympathetically about the people’s supposed desire for it. And she’s doing so on behalf of a candidate who incites actual violence.

read the article