ON THE BRINK - AGAIN

On April 1, Israel bombed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria, ostensibly targeting a meeting between Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants. The strike killed a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, six Guard Corps soldiers, five Iran backed militants, one Hezbollah fighter, one Iranian advisor, and two civilians. What was unusual of this attack was not that it was executed within the volatile middle eastern war zone. What was unusual was that, while previous Israeli operations inside Iran had been covert, this one was openly admitted to by the Israeli government. Besides, while previous strikes within Iranian territory would have been communicated with U.S. counterparts prior to execution, this one remained secret until Israeli planes were already airborne. Moreover, while virtually all covert attacks in the past were well out of its territory, this attack was well within the country's diplomatic premises, which, according to article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in 1961, was accepted as inviolable. This meant that an attack on an embassy or consulate is considered an attack on the country it represents. So, given the situation on the ground, it would not seem unreasonable to anticipate impending responses to an openly admitted fatal attack. Iran's massive response, firing 170 weaponized drones and 150 cruise and ballistic missiles, may not appear to have been proportionate. However, it also appeared calibrated, measured, and was communicated in advance. Given the 620 miles separating the two adversaries multiple more aggressive strategies could have been employed. Its response was not meant to do much harm to civilians or significant damage to infrastructure. A well prepared, collaborative effort at preventing potentially significant casualties and damage successfully kept things calm. The question remained, why did we go through this at all? As a cynic - not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu, nor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s theocratic government, the answer is not militarily, it is political. Both adversaries are extremely familiar with their respective military strength. However, each one should also be aware of domestic political dynamics. Let’s face it, it does not take a genius to calculate prospective responses to an admitted fatal attack. So, what were they thinking? Mr. Netanyahu seemed to have calculated that the U.S., even if not informed in advance, would support Israel no matter what the response from Iran would be. Given that only 15% of Israelis want him to keep his job following the war with Hamas, its continuation was essential for the prime minister’s political survival. Simultaneously, more than 60% of the Iranian population has polled to be opposed to the current regime. With elections to be completed on May 2, domestic imperatives were dominant when deciding on effective retaliatory responses. In both cases domestic political considerations may have featured in considering aggressive actions. Mr. Netanyahu has a history of exploiting national security belligerence to stay in power. During the run-up to the 2019 elections the “Washington Institute” observed that “to win reelection, Bibi Netanyahu is waging “wars” at home and abroad, launching air strikes against multiple middle eastern countries” With greatly diminishing popular support, and in need of shifting some of the international focus from the carnage in Gaza, it is not surprising that he continues to flaunt national security prowess to shore up his political acumen. His critics describe him as either a master strategist in complete control, or a hysterical politician in the twilight of his reign, doing everything he is able to to maintain his grip on power. Similarly in Iran, having been aggressively, fatally and openly accosted, the Ayatollah regime could not sit back and absorb Israeli aggression without losing significant support at home. But, having demonstrated its resolve and capability, the Iranian government notified the world that it is not seeking a further escalation with Israel after its retaliatory attack. At this writing, Israel’s war cabinet is still considering its options. Allies urge restraint. President Biden made it clear that the U.S. will not offer support for any retaliatory action by Israel. The Israeli Defense Force vows to retaliate. Israel Katz, the country’s foreign minister is busily posting on social media leading a diplomatic attack. House Speaker Mike Johnson outlined a plan to pass aid for Israel through Congress, separating it from support for Ukraine and Taiwan. The rest of us will keep our fingers crossed in anticipation of politicians deciding which way to move forward. Theo Wierdsma

FROM VISIONARIES TO FUNCTIONARIES - LACKING INSPIRING LEADERSHIP, THE E.U. COMES UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE

War, migration, post pandemic recessions and farmers furious at climate change measures have turbo charged an accelerating populist advance in many of the 27 member European Union. What was once a committed supranational organization led by inspired and inspiring leadership is gradually losing political power under assault by nativist forces. Between June 6 and 9 its member states will select more than 700 representatives to the E.U. Parliament, an election which outcome could prove to be of vital importance to the efficacy of the union. As a supranational union, an international organization which is empowered to directly exercise some of the power and functions otherwise reserved to states, the European Union, in contrast to previous attempts at unification, has been remarkably successful. However, its successful transformation into an organization predominantly maintained by functionaries executing decisions and decrees emanating from compromises reached in the parliament and the European Council may also be its gradual political undoing. Prior to the post World War II period, virtually all attempts at unifying Europe were driven by hereditary authorities or military forces led by a political elite with pretentious visions. Examples include the Roman Empire essentially launched by Julius Caesar's adopted son Augustus in 27 BCE; the Holy Roman Empire, introduced by Charlemagne, king of the Franks, which lasted from 962 to 1806; and Napoleon's custom's union, essentially initiated to embargo the import of British goods. Following a series of annihilating European wars, a number of visionary leaders began seriously discussing the need to change Europe's landscape. During the 30 year war (1618 to 1648) 20% of the European population had perished. During the first World War an estimated 10 million European casualties were recorded. And the total number of military and civilian victims resulting from World War II was estimated at 20 million in Europe alone. From resistance fighters to lawyers and parliamentarians, the E.U. pioneers consisted of a diverse group of people who shared the same ideal: create a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe. The objective was to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible, in contrast with the destructive nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries that began in glorious patriotism and ended in war. Outstanding leaders of this group included: Alcide de Gasperi, prime minister of Italy who mediated between Germany and France; German chancellor Helmut Kohl and French president Francois Mitterrand; Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, French politician Jean Monnet and others. These were inspired professionals delivering an inspirational message. Although they did not necessarily conform to the traditional image of charismatic leaders, they were able to convince much of the electorate in prospective member countries that this was the way out of the doldrums of perpetual war. They were preaching to the choir while the devastation of war was still omnipresent. Their vision quickly took shape. The European Coal and Steel Community was initiated in 1951; the Treaty of Rome, which launched the European Economic Community was signed in 1957; the European Parliament came into being the following year, and further developments followed in rapid succession. Currently the bloc covers 27 nations, 450 million people and accounts for one-sixth of the global economy. It features deep political, economic and social integration, and includes a common market, joined border control, a common currency for most, a Supreme Court and regular popular elections. While its early successful growth spurt borders on being revolutionary, recent political developments in multiple member states threaten to diminish the bloc's continued political power. Countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, Belgium and The Netherlands all elected right-wing populist or nativist leaning governments. The core issue for these is migration. This also happens to be a major challenge for the European Council, the Council of Ministers, which represents the individual members' governments and defines the E.U.'s overall political direction and priorities. The Council's attempt at forging an agreement on redistributing asylum seekers within the bloc is substantially opposed by these political movements which fear a further dilution of conventional traditions and cultures in their home countries. Since policy positions about sensitive issues require unanimity on the Council, its progress has effectively come to a halt. This issue illustrates the quandary the bloc's supranational decision making powers is facing. In 2014, 28% of representatives elected to its parliament were counted among those identified as Eurosceptic, opposed to increasing the powers of the E.U. and intent on reforming the union from within. This already considerable faction is predicted to grow significantly as a result of the upcoming elections. Consequently, the European Union's ability to construct foreign policy choices may well become diminished going forward, which, in turn, could affect its association with traditional political partners across the globe. The Union's charismatic underpinning has shifted from visionary idealists during the formative period to lackluster political support championed by charismatic native leaders who want to restructure the union or break it up from inside and ultimately reduce it back to simply become a common market again. Theo Wierdsma

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

After being incarcerated on death row for 35 years, and after surviving a multiple hours long botched lethal injection attempt 16 months earlier, on January 25 Kenneth Smith became the first person in the world to be executed with nitrogen gas. Alabama state officials described his execution as a model for other states looking for alternatives to lethal injection. Even though most witnesses to this morbid event, which took 22 minutes, described it as profoundly disturbing, several states began considering laws to adopt the use of nitrogen gas in their executions. A moral person might ask not how, but why? What really is the objective when we, as a society, decide to carry out a death sentence as punishment for crimes, even for those that cause irreparable harm like murder, sexual crimes and crimes against children? Typically, we recognize four purposes for punishment: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and retribution. Deterrence is rooted in the idea that incentives modify behavior. If a crime is followed by a severe enough punishment, the offender will think before committing that crime. However, if people perceive that the odds of getting caught are low, they are less likely to be deterred. Incapacitation involves physically preventing an offender from committing a crime. Opportunities are limited in prison. They are expensive and temporary. Rehabilitation aims to change offenders into law abiding citizens through education, vocation training and other programming. However, some behaviors and individuals are more susceptible to rehabilitation than others. Retribution, really the only objective attributable to the death sentence, is effectively "an eye for an eye." It strives to impose a proportionate punishment validating victims and expressing societal condemnation of behavior beyond the pale. It is essentially "revenge." Thinking about the purpose for punishment can be a powerful mental tool to discuss whether something should be a crime and, if so, what type of punishment will effectively serve the interest of society. American culture assumes that crime deserves punishment. But if punishment is not tailored to serve a purpose it ends up being pointless suffering. Suffering for the offender and expensive for the tax payer. Over the centuries political elites have used the threat of punishment to control their adversaries. From the Roman and Greek time to the Middle Ages potential culprits faced the threat of stoning, burning, quartering, whipping, drowning and other violent acts. Subsequently, well into the 18th century, dominant elements used horrifying torture methods, like "brazen bull," "iron maiden" and "the rack" to force confessions, punish the accused and strike fear in the minds of potential offenders. Governments became gradually more civilized in their approach to punishing crime. For a long time the primary focus of state administered punishment became banishment or exile. Incarceration was not widely used to detain prisoners before trial or for imprisoning people without judicial process until relatively recently. In 1689 England even adopted a Bill of Rights which prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment." In December of 1791 the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution did the same. Today we are one of 55 countries in the world which still imposes the death penalty. We are joined by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as the countries that execute the most people. Several other states, especially in Africa and Asia that apply a Sharia-based criminal code also continue the process - sometimes even for offenses like homosexuality. Most countries in our sphere of influence have rejected the practice. The European Union routinely reaffirms its "strong and unequivocal opposition to the use of the death penalty at all times, and under all circumstances." None of its member states will even consider extraditing criminals to the United States if they could face the death penalty in our system. Twenty-seven U.S. states still keep the ultimate punishment on their books. They tend to argue that it is legal punishment, which deters crime, and that, essentially, retribution is appropriate. Although opponents vehemently disagree, the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." (1976 - Gregg v. Georgia). It is difficult to argue, however, that the mere ability of the state to execute offenders for certain crimes is a deterrent. Typically, death row inmates spend a decade or more on death row prior to execution. (Kenneth Smith was incarcerated for 35 years before he was killed.) Nearly a quarter of inmates on death row in the U.S. die of natural causes while awaiting execution. And then there is the issue of convicting innocent people - in some cases to satisfy the need of a prosecutor to show results regardless of the facts. Since 1973 at least 197 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated. According to the Academy of Sciences, 4.1% of people currently on death row are likely innocent of committing the crimes they have been sentenced for. Again, revisiting our objectives when establishing the type of punishment we mete out for certain crimes should generate a wake-up call. Case in point is the situation in The Netherlands. For the past two decades crime rates in that country have fallen spectacularly thanks to its approach to law enforcement which prefers rehabilitation over incarceration. Dutch prisons are being converted into hotels and apartments because of the lack of prisoners. According to Rene van Swaaningen, professor of criminology at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam: "The Dutch have a deeply ingrained pragmatism when it comes to regulating law and order. Prisons are very expensive. Unlike the U.S. where people tend to focus on the moral arguments for imprisonment, The Netherlands is more focused on what works and what is effective." Theo Wierdsma

NAVALNY'S ASSASSINATION FOLLOWS WELL ESTABLISHED PATTERN

Seventeen years after he began his anti corruption, anti Putin campaign in Russia, Alexei Navalny was murdered on February 16 in the "Polar Wolf" penal colony in Kharp, about 1200 miles north east of Moscow. Those who revile the dictator ultimately responsible for this crass assassination used social media and political commentary to utter their venom about this, not entirely unexpected, turn of events. For those who revere the Russian dictator, silence has been deadly. A photograph depicting Navalny on a protest poster asked succinctly: "Who is next?" It is quite clear that Vladimir Putin is no longer concerned about keeping lethal pursuit of his critics and political opponents under wraps. This was already apparent when, in 2020, during a flight from Siberia to Moscow, Navalny collapsed after being poisoned with the nerve agent novichok. The entire world watched. Navalny's longevity in Russian detention centers may well have benefited from his strategic use of public media. Many others were not so fortunate. Putin's blatant, consistent and, to some extend traditional approach to silencing his critics profited from his career in the KGB (currently FSB). His rank of Lieutenant Colonel provided access to a cadre of professional assassins, and he made use of them. Some of his lethal targets included: Alexander Litvinenko - a former Russian spy who defected and became a prominent Putin critic. He was poisoned with Polonium 210 and killed in London. Boris Nemtsov was shot dead on a bridge near the Kremlin. Human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Barburova were assassinated. Pavel Antov, a Russian tycoon, fell from a hotel window in Rayagada, India. Yevgeny Prigozhin, mercenary leader of the Wagner group and failed coup leader, was killed in a plane crash. Mikhail Lesin and Dan Rapoport were both killed in Washington D.C.. And the list goes on. Putin prides himself on being the second longest serving leader of his country since Joseph Stalin. He has no qualms about using political assassination as a means of silencing his critics. His approach is considerably more subtle than that used by Stalin, who openly executed 750,000 during a two year period in the mid thirties and sent a million more to the Gulags. However, he is still effective. His political apologists in the U.S. seem to care less. After all, San Francisco is 6,000 miles away from Moscow. Political assassinations have been part of social reality since the emergence of communal social frameworks, as the leaders of tribes, villages and other types of communities constantly needed to defend their privileged status. The Egyptian pharaoh Teti during the 23rd century BCE, is thought to be the earliest known victim of assassination. During the Roman Empire, which lasted about 1,000 years, 37 known emperors - including Caligula, Claudius and Julius Caesar, were assassinated. During the Middle Ages several European monarchs and other leading figures were killed during religious wars or by religious opponents. We are obviously also not immune to this method of eliminating political adversaries. After the Civil War a wave of political violence swept the nation. Between 1865 and 1877, 34 political officials were attacked, 24 fatally. All in all, nine of our presidents have been targets of assassination attempts, along with one president-elect and three presidential candidates. Although the CIA has steadfastly denied that neither its personnel nor their directly controlled foreign agents, personally killed any foreign leader, it is undeniable that the agency featured prominently in deposing a string of political leaders outside of our borders. Some of the most notorious of the CIA's operations intended to eliminate foreign leaders included attempts on the life of Fidel Castro. During that ultimately failed operation operatives became very imaginative , using exploding cigars and a poison-lined scuba diving suit. Other attempted, but not executed plots, involved Patrice Lumumba, prime minister of the Congo, who was later assassinated by Belgian partisans, President Sukarno of Indonesia, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. After a Senate investigation, President Gerald Ford, in 1976, signed an Executive Order banning political assassinations. Subsequently, the CIA redefined their efforts by coining assassination as "murder for religious, ideological, political or emotional gain," prohibited under U.S. law. International assassination attempts were hence identified as "targeted killings - intentional killing by a government or its agents of a combatant who is not in custody, either out of self defense or because the target is a combatant in armed conflict." Our currently preferred method of execution is with the use of drones. Estimates are that we have killed hundreds, if not thousands of militants in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Libya. Exact numbers are difficult to come by. However, the method is not always precise and many non-combatants need to be counted among those killed by these modern weapons. So yes, Putin is an unprincipled killer. His termination of political opponents speak to our sense of civility. During a different century he might have gotten away with it without anyone noticing. Today, social media, even in Russia, will keep his feet to the fire. Somehow, however, we are more confident calling out individual situations. Navalny's murder is a focal event, much easier to concentrate on than the 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers that were killed and the 90,000 Russian soldiers he sent to their deaths, for which he is solely responsible. We tend to turn a blind eye to mass killings. Too many for us to consider, or have we become numb to these statistics? Sadly, there are those among us, elected or not, who apologize for this wannabe czar. By doing so, they are complicit. They should be held accountable. Theo Wierdsma

DEMOCRATS HAVE A MESSAGING PROBLEM

Special Counsel Robert Hur released a long anticipated report concluding his 15 - month investigation of President Biden's possession of classified documents when serving as vice president. While he opted against bringing criminal charges against the president, he did manage to ignite a political firestorm when he described the president as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Prior to being appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Hur served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland during most of the Trump administration. Unsurprisingly, the president's supporters attacked the characterization of President Biden as a political hack job. Vice President Kamala Harris slammed the report, calling it "politically motivated" and "gratuitous," more of a political assault than an unbiased legal document. During a hastily scheduled news conference following its publication, President Biden dismissed criticism of memory lapses and diminished mental acuity. Under the circumstances his need to respond may well have been the right approach. However, he did not do himself any favors by his less than forceful stage presence and by feeding concerns about cognitive decline when, during an interchange with assembled reporters he identified Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi as the president of Mexico. For Democrat operatives struggling to distinguish the substantive differences between their candidate and the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, the message ought to be clear. A recent NBC - News poll indicates that 59% of voters expressed major concerns about the current president not having the necessary mental and physical health to be president for another term. This compares to 34% of voters who had major concerns about former president Trump, who, by the way, is only three years the president's junior. Multiple backers of President Biden have pointedly suggested that Trump's gaffes significantly exceeded those accredited to Biden. Conservative attorney George Conway, during an interview with Anderson Cooper, claimed that he could easily produce a "five hour clip" or "weekend special" of "absurd, embarrassing and inaccurate statements" uttered by candidate Trump. He, for instance, confused Nikki Haley with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; he claimed that Biden could plunge the world into World War II; he confused Biden with President Barack Obama - stating that he was leading Obama at election polls; and he incorrectly identified Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban as prime minister of Turkey. The difference is not the content of the message, it is the messaging and the messenger. President Biden has a plethora of substantial accomplishments to flaunt. Donald Trump has nothing but bombast and empty rhetoric. Yet, his base supports whatever he produces. Years ago, during the run-up to the 2016 election battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I published a column discussing the power of charisma. My point of reference was sociologist Max Weber's work on charismatic authority. He identified three forms of charismatic leadership: traditional, charismatic and rational. Then, as well as today, traditional charismatic leadership, which focuses on patriarchy and hereditary leadership, like the monarchy, is irrelevant for our discussion. Charismatic authority, in Weber's analysis is based on the perceived, extraordinary characteristics of an individual fed by charm and personality. Perception being the operative concept. Leadership based on rational charisma is derived from significant hands-on experience developed during extensive bureaucratic and political involvement. This equates to competence. During that election Clinton clearly filled the "rational" category. She was the most competent candidate for the job. However, whatever other strategic decisions she has been accused of, her campaign suffered from what Time Magazine at the time coined "boredom." She came across as canned, unauthentic. programmed and robotic - a technocrat. Donald Trump, without a public record of policy and legislative competence, flaunted a more magnetic personality, enhanced by choreographed imagery and supported by, what has been called a grandiose narcissism, was able to have his followers "drink the Kool-Aid." As predicted, his charisma, even devoid of competence, won the election The message ought to be clear. While some dynamics have clearly changed during the past seven years, for the Democrats to have a chance at winning the upcoming election, referring subtly to the major accomplishments of the Biden administration won't do it. People not only need to know, they need to believe wholeheartedly. Biden supporters can't hide behind esoteric media reports that won't even stand the scrutiny of less inquisitive voters. Most of us want personality and ability. Historically, though, charismatic candidates survive lack of scrutiny and win elections. Charisma trumps competence during the selection process, while experience and ability become desirable in the candidate we ultimately choose. We have many months to go to the next election. However, for some involved in this process, there is no time to waste. Theo Wierdsma

TIME TO CONSIDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Fifty-six years ago, when I entered this country and when I first encountered U.S. politics, I remember thinking that our system of electing representatives to Congress did not seem very democratic. Granted, I was naive and I did not appreciate the intricacies of the "winner take all" system we used to select many of our political leaders. A few years later I struggled to explain this system to an international audience when I covered the 1972 electoral contest for a Dutch newspaper. This was the same year when Richard Nixon and George McGovern battled each other for the presidency. To an audience that grew up with "proportional representation," our system appeared archaic, unrepresentative and not terribly inclusive. Fast forward to the present, to partisan gridlock, popular exhaustion and even anger at the state of our political union. Polls are beginning to indicate that the majority of those participating appear ready for a change. A new national poll conducted by"Citizen Data" on behalf of "Project Democracy" finds that two-thirds of respondents wish that they had more political parties to choose from. Less than half feel closely represented by their congress person, and two-thirds don't feel represented by Congress at all. Our method of selecting representatives to Congress employs single member districts. Each state carves up its territory into the same number of districts as it is constitutionally allocated. After an election, in each district the candidate with the most votes wins and is elected to represent the entire district. This system has been the norm since 1842, and its use became law when the Uniform Congressional District Act was adopted in 1967. However, its implementation is not a constitutional requirement. While our Constitution specifies that each state will be apportioned a number of representatives proportional to its population, it does not specify how those representatives should be elected. More than 100 countries use a form of proportional representation as their method of allocating delegates to their governmental institutions. This system aims to ensure that the number of seats won by each party is proportional to the number of votes it receives in an election. While there are different variations of this system, they all work by dividing the country into multi-member constituencies and apportioning seats to parties based on their share of the vote. In this system citizens vote for a party, which typically publishes a list of individuals that are elected in rank order based on the number of seats the party wins as a result of the outcome of the election. Both of these systems emerged from its own political history. Their relative selection at some point depended on the objective each country's political elite pursued. They each have their pros and cons. Our system of selecting representatives benefits from its simplicity. It usually gives a clear, quick election result, which traditionally allowed for stable government. Its disadvantage is that minority political viewpoints are shut out or have a reduced role. These outcomes result in a large number of "wasted" votes - one winner, but many, frequently frustrated and disgruntled losers. Proportional representation systems tend to produce greater participation by the electorate. Minor parties, or out of mainstream ideas, have a better chance of being represented. These systems are systemically more resistant to gerrymandering and other forms of manipulation. And, especially in developing democracies, inclusion of minorities in the legislature can be essential to establish social stability and to consolidate the democratic process. With the exception of electoral thresholds - the minimum percent of the vote any party needs to procure to gain representation, usually 3-5% - virtually all votes convert to seats in government. This results in far fewer wasted votes, and provides an outlet for minority viewpoints. A principle objection to P.R. systems is that they almost always result in coalition governments. This can give extreme parties a foothold in Parliament. Very small parties can act as "king makers" holding larger parties ransom during coalition discussions. However, supporters see coalitions as an advantage, forcing compromise between parties and cement agreements at the center of the political spectrum. This process tends to produce greater continuity and stability, fewer wasted votes and more democratic outcomes. Given that many of us have become frustrated by the inability of our current system to accomplish cooperative results, we ought to consider the advantages of a viable alternative. Theo Wierdsma

REFLECTION, ANTICIPATION AND TRANSITION

Traditionally, when one year transitions into the next, we are enticed to reflect on the past 12 months and attempt to project what might be in the offing going forward. We know what happened last year. However, since we live in a uniquely volatile period in history, predicting what we should anticipate during the next dozen months may prove to be challenging. It seems appropriate to begin by citing a few statistics which we are not excited about. Countrywide, last year, our homeless population surged to 653,000. This amounted to a 12% increase over previous years - the highest recorded increase in history. (Wall Street Journal). The number of gun related deaths exceeded 40,000 in 2023. All of these were carried out with weapons nobody envisioned when the Second Amendment was ratified in December of 1791. This was the tenth year in a row that the number of gun related deaths exceeded 39,000. Nobody expects this horrific statistic to change much this coming year. On the bright side, we escaped the recession many analysts predicted, even as the inflation rate dropped more than 50%, to 3.14% against 7.11% last year. In fact, during the final months of 2023 most economic indicators registered significant improvements. The stock market ended up at an all time high. The Consumer Confidence Report, a measure of how Americans feel about business conditions and the job market, rose to 110.7 - up from 101.0 in November - the largest one month jump since July. Overall, 71% of consumers polled said they felt positive about 2024, up from 64% a year earlier. Real GDP - a measure of the value added created through the production of goods and services - rose by 2.8%, better than expected. And consumer spending during the 2023 holiday season increased by 3.1%, the most significant change in years and in line with pre-pandemic spending levels. All this while, by historical standards, unemployment remained low. For most of us these latest statistics should be comforting, if not exciting. However, for those who view our socio-economic development within a political framework, this economic upturn may throw a monkey wrench into already well established electoral campaigns that are infused with a deep-rooted "negativity bias." Our highly charged political actors routinely tend to reject positive data which their perceived opposition is likely to flaunt. Resolution of significant geopolitical issues during the coming months will prove complicated and, while desirable, are not immediately expected. Tensions around the world can lead to trade disruptions, political instability and supply chain disruptions. All of these have the potential to erase some of the economic plusses of the past several months. The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza continues unabated. The Gaza strip is devastated. Nearly 70% of the housing units have been destroyed or damaged. More than 22,000 Palestinians, more than half women and children, have been killed in the aftermath of the murderous rampage experienced by Israel on October 7, which killed around 1,200. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political survival, promises that the war could continue for several more years. Attacks by Iran backed, Yemen based, Houthi rebels on international shipping in the Red Sea further destabilizes the situation in the region, and threaten to expand the conflict beyond the current combatants. These have already affected supply chain issues. The war between Ukraine and Russia will soon enter its third year, while support for Ukraine appears to be dwindling among its Western supporters. No end in sight, while Putin is again running for president in Russia's mid-March election. Domestically we are confronting challenges on multiple fronts. Our Southern border continues to encounter what amounts to the greatest mass invasion of migrants since the Italian Diaspora in the late 19th and early 20th century. During 2023 alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents encountered nearly 2.3 million migrants. Most come from Central America, Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti, attempting to escape conflict, persecution, or large-scale human rights violations. Politicians point fingers, but they seem unable to agree on measures to stem the flow. Our political stalemate about these and other issues conveniently segues into the potential implications of the culmination of the current election year. A majority - 75% - of U.S. adults believe that democracy as we know it could be endangered. Although most disagree which one of our candidates poses the greatest risk. Almost 84% of Democrats foresee ominous consequences of the threat from a reemergence of a Donald Trump presidency, while 55% of Republicans believe democracy is already broken. More haunting is that 23% of those surveyed expressed the believe that "American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country." (33% of Republicans, 22% of Independents and 13% of Democrats). (Brooking Institute, Oct. 2023). Over half of the world's population, some 4 billion people in 64 countries and the European Union, will hold national elections. This is the biggest global election year in history. For many these will prove consequential. Far-right, functionally anti-democratic, parties are predicted to gain significant support. In at least eight European countries extreme right populists are already either the dominant or second most popular political party in their respective country. Anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim platforms makes you wonder if we are about to come full circle since the Fascist years of the mid-20th century. Democracy is on the ballot almost everywhere. Maria Ressa, an investigative journalist from the Philippines who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021, was very blunt when she suggested that "We will know whether democracy lives or dies by the end of 2024." Happy New Year - may the force be with us. Theo Wierdsma