Elections

Paris, France – After nationwide protests turned violent, French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday night tried to strike a balance between acknowledging the concerns of students demanding changes to the education system and criticising rioters.

“Those who have destroyed property must pay. Those who have looted must reimburse their victims. Those who sought to bring down the republic will be held accountable,” Macron said.

But the president’s speech was not what Yanis, a 20-year-old from Ivry-sur-Seine, a suburb just southeast of Paris, wanted to hear.

“He gave his usual ‘bla bla bla speech’ without putting forward anything concrete,” he said. “We’ll be back on the streets anyway. There will be one demonstration after another until something changes – every weekend, without a break”.

As France grapples with widespread anger that bubbled over in the form of violent protests last weekend, appetite – at least among the country’s youth – for centrist politics of the kind that Macron represents appears to be rapidly shrinking.

The unrest in France comes months before the country’s 2027 presidential election and has further sharpened political divisions, with parties seeking to present themselves as the answer to the frustration visible on the streets.

The populist-left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon has embraced the student movement with enthusiasm, while far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen has focused on the disorder that came with the demonstrations, framing it as a crisis of security and authority. The centrist Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu has accused the extreme left of instigating violence as a “warm-up round” for the presidential election.

Polling before the election points to a contest in which both the far left and the far right could play a central role. But while the country is demanding change, there is little consensus on what that change should look like. Macron, who has been in power for two terms, will need to step aside after the election, as the constitution bars him from running again.

“Candidates have no choice but to take a stand and address young people,” said political analyst Beligh Nabli, a professor of public law at UPEC-Paris XII. “They have a political obligation to have a message aimed at young people. That message must not be empty, but it will have to answer their demands.”

Since launching their protest in mid-September, students have demanded better schools, more teachers and a more equal system. But the movement quickly spilled out of the schoolyards and into the streets, tapping into broader social and economic anxieties.

The protests have brought these issues to the centre of the political debate in a way that might not otherwise have happened, given young people’s comparatively low electoral participation and the tendency of political campaigns to focus on older voters and issues such as pensions, say analysts.

“If it wasn’t for this mobilisation, it would have been business as usual,” Nabli said. “We would have seen a kind of relative indifference from the candidates towards young people because they are not the social group that mobilises the most in elections, in contrast with those over 60.”

France Unbowed – La France Insoumise (LFI) in French – the left party led by Melenchon, has strongly supported the student movement to the point that critics have accused the party of spurring youth resentment and exploiting the unrest for political gain. Yet the party’s appeal among young voters predates the protests. Its programme addresses several of the movement’s central grievances, including investment in education, teachers’ pay and the abolition of Parcoursup, an online platform students must use for higher education applications that many say lacks transparency.

According to an OpinionWay poll for Les Echos, published on Thursday, Melenchon leads among voters aged 18 to 24, with 49 percent backing him – a 10-percentage-point increase compared with 2022.

For some young protesters, support for Melenchon reflects both opposition to the far right and frustration with the political centre.

“I’m going to vote for La France Insoumise to counter the far right, the National Rally, and the centre, which is basically going to give us a repeat of Macron’s policies,” said Lydia, 21, a student at the Ecole du Louvre who took part in a protest at the museum on Monday.

But she said she was under no illusion that the party would necessarily solve France’s problems. She also criticised what she sees as the demonisation of LFI by critics, arguing that even moderately left-wing positions are increasingly labelled extreme. “It’s becoming rather exceptional to have empathy; it’s becoming something extreme left-wing,” she said.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Le Pen and her National Rally party have sought to make the unrest a question of law and order, accusing the government of failing to be able to control the country, and its main competitor, Melenchon, of stoking violence. Le Pen remains the leading contender in the presidential race with 32 percent of the vote, while the National Rally ranked second among voters aged 18 to 24, behind France Unbowed.

“Yesterday, you saw our cities, our streets, and our country mistreated, battered, and looted,” Le Pen said in a video message on Sunday night. “We are experiencing a profound crisis of trust and authority – one that poses a threat to our democracy.” She added that France was “caught in a vice – effectively held hostage – between violence and powerlessness”.

Caught between these competing narratives is the centrist bloc of Macron, whose presidency began amid the Yellow Vest protests and is now approaching its end against the backdrop of another major wave of social unrest. That earlier movement, initially triggered by a rise in fuel taxes, grew into a broader revolt against the cost of living and what demonstrators saw as Macron’s favouring of the elite.

One of the differences between now and then is that any government coming next will not have the fiscal room to quell the unrest by handing a cheque. Last year, the government recorded a deficit of 5.1 percent of France’s gross domestic product, one of the highest among European countries. By contrast, the European Union average is 3.1 percent. Any future president will have to deal with Macron’s headache: How to save money without deepening public anger.

The current mobilisation has exposed a wider sense of disillusionment with the political establishment. The president’s popularity stands at 15 percent, the lowest ever.

In his speech on Sunday night, Macron blamed “insurrectionists from fringe far-left groups, joined by numerous criminals” for the violence. But he only briefly spoke about the students’ demands and offered no specific new policy measures to address them. Instead, he tasked Lecornu with bringing together students, teachers, unions and elected officials to develop proposals in the coming days, while promising a tougher response to violence.

The unrest presents an opportunity for his opponents to argue that his presidency has failed to address deep-rooted inequalities. At stake is the support of a generation of young people who feel let down by the state and increasingly disconnected from the political establishment – and who all sides of the political spectrum are poised to woo in the coming months before the election.

With more than one million votes counted, about 76 percent supported remaining in Canada.

Alberta residents have voted to remain ⁠part of Canada in the province’s first-ever referendum on separation, in a much-needed win for Prime Minister Mark Carney as he ‌attempts to unify the country amid an ongoing trade war with the United States.

With more than one million votes counted, about 77 percent supported remaining in Canada, compared with 23 percent who backed beginning a process that could lead to separation, early results showed on Tuesday.

The vote was not a direct referendum on independence but would have set oil-rich Alberta on a path towards a future vote on separation from Canada.

Carney welcomed the result and said Albertans had made a “clear choice” in favour of unity.

“They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other,” he said in a statement on X.

Jeffrey Rath, a top leader of the secessionist Alberta Prosperity Project, told reporters his push for an independent Alberta will “absolutely” continue, despite the result from Monday’s vote.

“We’ve learned a lot of lessons from this fight,” he said.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a conservative, said she voted against independence but called the referendum to settle an issue that has divided the province.

She has said a win for the federalists would close the secession question.

Alberta has the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves, and much of the secessionist momentum has been driven by anger over oil industry management.

Smith has blamed Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau for igniting the secessionist fire, accusing him of trying to crush oil production to advance his pro-climate agenda.

Alberta’s independence push has also drawn sustained interest from the allies of US President Donald Trump, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who called Alberta Washington’s “natural partner”. Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and eminent Trump supporter, also posted on X that Alberta “should separate”.

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, has worked to improve relations between the province and Ottawa since taking office last year. He has partnered with Smith on advancing a new pipeline to export more Alberta bitumen overseas, a project considered a nonstarter during Trudeau’s tenure.

Israelis go to the polls on October 27 to elect the 26th Knesset, in the first general vote since the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the wars on Lebanon and Iran.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history, with 19 years in office, is seeking another term while standing trial on corruption charges. His Likud party and the far-right coalition it leads are locked in a close race with a Jewish-led opposition bloc, with neither side appearing on track to win an outright majority in the 120-seat Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

About 7.3 million people aged 18 and above are eligible to vote, according to Israel’s Central Elections Committee. Most polling stations open from 7am to 10pm, and anyone still queuing when they close is entitled to vote. Election day is a national holiday.

Any party clearing an electoral threshold of 3.25 percent enters parliament, which sits for a four-year term. There are no term limits for a prime minister.

How voting works

Israelis vote for a party, not a candidate.

A majority requires 61 of the 120 seats and no party has ever won that outright. Finishing first does not guarantee power. Parties then have 28 days, with a possible extension of up to 14 days, to assemble a coalition reaching 61. If nobody manages it, the country votes again.

Seats are shared out in proportion to each party’s share of the national vote, so a party winning 30 percent of votes takes roughly 30 percent of seats. The votes for parties failing to secure 3.25 percent are discarded, which explains why small parties routinely merge before every election.

Who can and cannot vote?

About 7.3 million Israeli citizens are eligible to vote in this election, but they are not the only adults living under the government they choose.

Roughly three million adult Palestinians in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem have no vote in the government that controls their borders, movement and legal status.

Jewish Israelis and Palestinian citizens of Israel, who number about 1.2 million, can vote. So can adult settlers among the more than 750,000 Israelis living in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem, who help elect the parliament that legislates over the land they live on.

Most Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem hold Israeli residency, not citizenship. They can vote for Jerusalem’s city council but not for the Knesset.

The result is a sharp anomaly in the occupied West Bank, where a settler votes and a Palestinian family living nearby, under the same military authority, does not.

Most Israeli citizens living abroad also cannot vote, because Israel has no general absentee ballot and requires voters to be physically in the country on election day. Diplomats and state emissaries are the exception, casting their ballots at Israeli missions on October 20.

What are the main issues?

Israelis are dealing with a series of domestic and international issues this election cycle, including:

• October 7 security failures – Three years on, the government is yet to form a state commission of inquiry into the events of October 7, 2023, when a Hamas-headed attack led to the killing of some 1,200 people, with about 250 taken captive. Israel launched the genocidal war against Palestinians in the wake of the attack, killing at least 74,000 people and leaving most of the besieged territory in ruins.
• Ultra-Orthodox draft exemptions – Supporters of the exemptions say they protect full-time Torah study, but critics argue they place an unfair military burden on everyone else.
• Judicial reform – Netanyahu’s push to curb the Supreme Court’s powers, which sparked mass protests before the war on Gaza, remains a deep fault line. Critics see it as a threat to democracy, while supporters argue that the court has overstepped its authority.
• War and security – The public wants stability but remains wary of concessions in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon. Netanyahu promised “total victory”, but Hamas and Hezbollah remain operational.
• Cost of living – High prices and modest wages are being further squeezed by soaring defence spending. Since 2023, Israel’s defence budget has doubled, increasing pressure on public finances.

Israel’s outgoing government

Netanyahu’s coalition held 60 of the Knesset’s 120 seats when parliament dissolved in July. It comprised Likud with 32 seats, Shas with 11, Religious Zionism with seven, Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit with six, and New Hope with four. Shas left the government in July 2025 but remained in the coalition and New Hope will merge into Likud for this election.

The opposition held 59 seats: Yesh Atid with 24, Blue and White with eight, United Torah Judaism with seven, Yisrael Beiteinu with six, Hadash-Taal and Raam with five each and Labor with four. Noam’s single seat was unaffiliated.

Who are the main contenders?

Netanyahu is seeking re-election while facing a trial on corruption charges, which he denies.

His far-right coalition is up against a bloc comprising of four major Jewish-led opposition parties, whose leaders have signed a declaration promising not to attack each other ahead of the vote and to join forces in forming a government after the polls.

Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot is viewed as the opposition’s most likely candidate for prime minister, with his new Yashar party evenly matched with Likud in the opinion polls.

The opposition alliance includes the Together list, led by former Prime Ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid; Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu and Yair Golan’s Democrats.

Other key players include far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, the ultra-Orthodox parties, and the Arab-majority lists Ra’am and the Joint List.

Last month, Israel’s Central Elections Committee voted to bar Ra’am and the Joint List from the election, but the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the bans on October 2, ruling that the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for exclusion.

Sami Abu Shehadeh, a Palestinian citizen of Israel who leads Balad, one of the parties in the Joint List, withdrew from the race after the court signalled that a majority of its judges would uphold his disqualification.

The Arab-led parties could hold the balance of power after the vote, but most leaders of the Jewish-led opposition bloc have ruled out joining forces with them.

Sixth election in seven years

October 27 will be Israel’s sixth national vote since 2019, but the first in 38 years to arrive at the natural end of a full Knesset term.

The instability began in April 2019, when Netanyahu’s Likud party and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party tied on 35 seats each. A second vote that September produced another deadlock, with Blue and White on 33 and Likud on 32, and neither round yielded a coalition able to reach a majority.

A third election in March 2020 gave Likud 36 seats to Blue and White’s 33, and produced a Netanyahu-Gantz unity government that collapsed within a year. In March 2021, Likud won 30 seats to Yesh Atid’s 17, but an eight-party coalition led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid that also included Ra’am, an Arab party, ended Netanyahu’s 12-year run. It lasted a year.

Netanyahu returned in November 2022, with Likud on 32 and Yesh Atid on 24, at the head of what has been described as Israel’s most right-wing government. Polls now show neither bloc clearly reaching 61.

Israel’s prime ministers

The state of Israel has had 14 prime ministers since its foundation in 1948. Netanyahu is by far the longest-serving, with 19 years in three separate stints: 1996 to 1999, 2009 to 2021 and from 2022 to now

Only David Ben-Gurion, who led the country from 1948 to 1954 and again from 1955 to 1963, comes close.

Whatever happens on October 27, Netanyahu stays on as caretaker prime minister until a new government is sworn in.

Hegseth has travelled to Israel to meet Netanyahu ahead of a closely contested election, Axios reported, citing sources.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an undisclosed visit to Israel, according to Axios.

The meeting between the hawkish ally of US President Donald Trump and the veteran Israeli premier facing a knife-edge election occurred on Monday, Axios reported, citing two sources with knowledge of the matter.

The Reuters news agency could not immediately confirm the visit. The Pentagon and Israel’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and there was no immediate indication of what they discussed.

Trump endorsement

President Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday to endorse Netanyahu in next week’s parliamentary election, the first vote since the Hamas-led October 7 attacks in 2023 and Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza began.

Trump praised the prime minister for being an ally of the US in its war on Iran. He added that Netanyahu had his “Complete and Total Endorsement”.

“BIBI NETANYAHU WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump wrote.

Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist coalition is projected to lose its governing majority, although the opposition may also struggle to form a government, opinion polls suggest.

US Vice President JD Vance, however, declined to endorse Netanyahu in an interview earlier on Monday, saying he was not getting involved in Israeli elections.

“I endorse American candidates, and that’s where I’m focused on is the midterms,” Vance, who travelled to Budapest and endorsed Viktor Orban in Hungarian elections earlier this year, said in an interview with digital media outlet 2WAY.

“I’m not anti-endorsing him, but I’m not pro-endorsing him; I’m not getting involved in Israeli elections,” Vance said.

The extension of the custody of the CJP activists comes amid a crackdown on near daily protests against the government.

An Indian ‌‌court has extended the detention of two leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

The extension for Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das on Monday comes amid a crackdown on near-daily protests against the government.

The two activists from the youth-led movement were arrested as they demonstrated at a historic protest venue despite a ban. Their jailing provoked a new protest in New Delhi on Friday.

The CJP is a major force behind the protests, which have demanded the resignation of India’s election chief over a controversial revision of voter lists that critics say favours Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya ⁠⁠Janata Party (BJP).

Ranka and Das were ⁠⁠among 14 protesters who climbed over barricades last week to enter the Jantar Mantar observatory, the day after it was removed from a list of approved demonstration sites. A court later sent the activists to prison for five days.

Indian media reported on Monday evening that they had been detained for two more days after police requested extra time to question them. Delhi ‌‌Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is an absolute mockery of the judicial system,” the CJP’s legal head, Ratna Singh, told reporters outside the court, adding that the party would challenge the order in a higher court.

The CJP, alongside opposition parties and left-wing student organisations, has led near-daily protests this month demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, after 130 million names were removed from voter lists.

The Election Commission has said that the lists included 28 million people who have died, 63 million who have relocated, and 30 million who could not be traced. It denied favouring any party and said ⁠⁠wrongly deleted voters can re-enrol.

The BJP has accused rivals of trying to undermine democracy by wrongly questioning legitimate electoral processes.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, student leaders and several of their supporters were also detained on Friday as ⁠⁠hundreds poured into central Delhi for a protest in support of Das and Ranka.

However, the youth-led movement insists it will not back off. A sit-in by the CJP and its supporters earlier this year forced the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over exam paper leaks.

Chuck Schumer urges FCC to reject petition allowing AI robocalls ahead of key November midterm elections.

United States Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York has urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to approve a petition by the conservative group Club for Growth to allow AI-generated robocalls ahead of the November midterm elections.

“Under this change, campaigns could use their opponents’ voice to send out a message that is, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, a blatant lie,” Schumer said on Monday.

The petition was originally filed on August 31, and the public comment period began on September 4 and expires on Monday.

Earlier this month, Anna Gomez, the Democratic member of the FCC, urged her colleagues not to allow consideration of the petition brought by the national conservative fiscal policy organisation.

Her concerns echoed Schumer’s. “[If] the FCC allows a dark money group to flood Americans’ phones with AI-generated robocalls they never agreed to receive, it would bring chaos so close to Election Day,” commissioner Gomez told the Reuters news agency at the time.

There is precedent for the concerns being raised. In the 2024 presidential election, ahead of the New Hampshire primary, voters received an AI-generated version in the voice of President Joe Biden, the then Democratic incumbent, telling them not to vote. The FCC said that a political consultant working with longshot primary challenger Dean Phillips was responsible.

At the state level, Louisiana, Tennessee and Vermont passed laws this year requiring disclosures for AI-generated campaign phone calls. While robocalls have been used in political campaigns for years, FCC rules prohibit such calls to cellphones without prior consent, but the restrictions do not apply to landlines.

Club for Growth’s president, David McIntosh, in a statement earlier this month, said that the group is asking for “the FCC to treat First Amendment-protected political speech the same way it already treats wireless calls about package deliveries, bank accounts, and doctor’s appointments”.

“There is no one at the FCC that has expressed any interest in moving to an order on this or any of the petitions, and there are zero plans to do so. The FCC seeks comment on petitions that come in as a matter of normal procedure,” a spokesperson for the FCC told Al Jazeera.

In the rest of the world, the Israeli PM is often blamed for the Iran war. His opponents say he hasn’t been tough enough with Tehran.

When Israel launched a sweeping military assault on Iran with the United States in February, the Israeli government enjoyed overwhelming support from the Jewish Israeli public.

Opposition parties lent their support to the army and backed the audacious step. Enmity towards the government in Iran is an issue mainstream Zionist parties agree on.

Then in June, Israel’s role in the confrontation halted abruptly with an announcement from US President Donald Trump, who said Iran and Israel had agreed to stop attacking each other.

That announcement – and Netanyahu’s decision to abide by it at the time – were unpopular in Israel. According to the Israel Democracy Institute, 65 to 70 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that stopping the war did not serve Israel’s national security interests.

As Israelis prepare to vote in national elections on October 27, Iran remains an important election issue for many. Opposition parties present Iran as an example of what they say are Netanyahu’s many failures. They promise to reset security and foreign policy if they’re elected.

The frontrunner, Gadi Eisenkot, says the conflict is unfinished. While saying that a change in Iran’s government was an unrealistic goal, Eisenkot accuses Netanyahu of doing little to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme. In September at the inauguration of his new party, Yashar, Eisenkot told supporters: “Ultimately, it must end in the destruction or dismantling of the Iranian nuclear programme, a goal not yet achieved with 440kg [970lb] of highly enriched uranium already there, which could quickly be turned into several nuclear devices.”

Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who is now the head of the opposition in the Knesset, accuses Netanyahu of a strategic failure. He recently told the Atlantic Council that toppling the administration in Tehran is a realistic objective that requires a military escalation: “What Israel should do or the alliance should do is bomb all the energy facilities, especially on Kharg Island, but other places as well in order to make sure that the Iranian economy is demolished. And the reason is that it’s the only thing that will overturn the regime.”

Bombing this civilian infrastructure was actually something Netanyahu had lobbied for himself. An international outcry about such bombings likely constituting war crimes and Trump’s refusal to offer backing put the brakes on the plan.

Naftali Bennett, another former prime minister, says Israel must ensure its military dominance over the entire region. For Bennett, toppling the government in Iran and crushing it is a must. But he says that is not enough. The right-wing politician calls Qatar an “enemy” and says Turkiye is “the new Iran”, going as far as saying that military confrontation with the NATO member was inevitable.

“We will build an alliance of moderate forces in the region against the Islamist forces, against Iran, against Qatar, Turkiye and all the radical forces. We will take proactive actions to shape the region,” Bennett recently told supporters.

Eisenkot and other opposition leaders do not rule out renewed confrontations. They focus on their confidence in the military and security establishment in assessing the dangers and dealing with them appropriately.

But opposition leaders have voiced concern that Netanyahu might resort to military escalation before the elections to tilt the balance in his favour or even disrupt them altogether – even though the prime minister said last week that he did not plan to attack Iran before the vote.

Those fears were elevated after Netanyahu posted a video from the Tel Nof Airbase warning that Israel’s enemies might attack before the elections. Other news reports said Netanyahu has shared intelligence on new threats from Iran with the US president.

Netanyahu was quickly rebuked by opposition leaders, who accused him of “political fearmongering”.

Lapid openly questioned Netanyahu’s motives. Lapid also accused him of using the Israeli military and bases as “backdrops” for election campaign videos.

Ultimately, most Israeli opposition parties and leaders aren’t opposed to war with Iran, and many are in fact even more hawkish in their approach towards Tehran than Netanyahu. They just don’t want a new military escalation before the elections.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro fired off a barrage of personal attacks during their first debate a week before a tight presidential run-off.

In a chaotic exchange on Sunday, the two men called each other “liar” multiple times, accused each other of corruption, dragged up various scandals, and clashed on issues from public security to healthcare.

Lula said Bolsonaro was “a habitual liar” and a “thug”, and physically distanced himself on stage from the candidate he called a “militiaman”, alluding to his alleged ties to Rio de Janeiro’s paramilitary groups.

Bolsonaro, who led the first-round election with 47 percent to Lula’s 45 percent, said it was better to keep Lula at a distance “because my wallet could be stolen”.

Throughout the debate, Bolsonaro, 45, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, paced behind Lula, shaking his head, smirking and scoffing as his adversary spoke.

The 80-year-old Lula, who is seeking a fourth term, demanded an explanation regarding a corruption investigation involving the older Bolsonaro, a question his opponent dodged.

The younger Bolsonaro responded by calling Lula a “clown”, and then parried by bringing up a potential corruption case involving one of the president’s sons.

Jair Bolsonaro has been under house arrest while serving a 27-year sentence connected to efforts to overturn the 2022 election, which he lost to Lula.

Cost of living, public spending in focus

Flavio Bolsonaro hammered away at the top concerns of Brazilians, such as the cost of living and crime, and accused Lula of “reckless spending” to get re-elected, referring to various social measures the president has announced during the campaign.

Lula countered by asking Bolsonaro about his plans to emulate the drastic public spending cuts implemented by Argentina’s right-wing president, Javier Milei.

Bolsonaro dodged the question throughout the debate and pivoted to different topics.

When his father’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic came up, Bolsonaro admitted that this “wasn’t an area where we saw the best results during Bolsonaro’s presidency. I’ll offer a mea culpa here.”

Lula also sought to portray his opponent as out of touch with poor Brazilians, saying Bolsonaro had never used the country’s public healthcare system or taken a bus.

“My opponent only knows about buses from books. He has never even stepped foot on one. He has no idea what the world of work is like,” Lula said.

Voters show their colours

Ahead of Sunday’s debate, supporters of each candidate gathered en masse in public to show their allegiance.

Pro-Bolsonaro crowds wearing Brazil’s national colours of yellow, green and blue packed Paulista Avenue in Sao Paulo’s financial centre, where the candidate addressed the crowd.

Lula supporters wearing red, symbolic of his Workers’ Party, filled Brasilia’s plaza of government buildings, while students backing the president protested against Bolsonaro in Rio de Janeiro.

“We need the current government to remain in power. If another government comes in, we’re, excuse my language, screwed,” said Lula supporter Sonia Maria at the Brasilia rally.

“I don’t like bandits. Out with Lula!” said Bolsonaro backer Vera de Sousa in Sao Paulo.

Also on Sunday, Brazil’s federal police asked the country’s Supreme Court to open an investigation into Bolsonaro over a money laundering accusation involving a lawyer close to him.

The presidential candidate is already under investigation for his links to Daniel Vorcaro, a disgraced former banker who financed a movie about Jair Bolsonaro’s life.

Lula spent 580 days in prison in ⁠2018 and 2019 on a corruption conviction that was later annulled over flaws in the investigation and legal proceedings.

Polls suggest a close race for the October 25 run-off, with Flavio Bolsonaro holding a slight advantage after finishing nearly 2 percentage points ahead of Lula in the first round on October 4.

Both candidates hope to engage the 33 million voters who stayed home in the first ⁠round, equal to about one in five eligible voters.

Sunday’s debate was the first between Lula and Bolsonaro after the candidates both ⁠declined previous opportunities. A second debate is scheduled for October 23, just ahead of the runoff.

An alliance of Venezuelan opposition parties has reaffirmed its commitment to exiled Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado as its leader.

On Sunday, members of the opposition’s Unitary Democratic Platform (PUD) agreed in a meeting in Caracas to “recognise and support the leadership of Maria Corina Machado”.

The coalition also renewed its demand for free elections in Venezuela, following a series of contested presidential votes in 2024 and 2018.

Sunday’s statement included 14 proposals for a democratic transition, including freedom for political parties, the release of all political prisoners and the safe return of those who went into exile.

The announcement also increases pressure on authorities to allow Machado’s return. She has been living in exile since leaving Venezuela last December to receive her Nobel Prize.

“The will of the Venezuelans must once again govern the destiny of our nation,” the opposition’s former presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez wrote on social media supporting the proposals.

“We will not accept political prisoners, persecution or a governing power that disregards the mandate of its citizens. Living in freedom and under a genuine constitutional order is a legitimate demand of our society.”

No election set

Venezuela has yet to declare a date for a new presidential vote. Since January 3, the country has been led by interim President Delcy Rodriguez of the long-governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

PSUV leaders have been accused of carrying out human rights abuses against political dissidents, including arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.

Still, after the United States launched a military operation to abduct and jail former President Nicolas Maduro, the PSUV has remained in power with the support of the White House.

US President Donald Trump has backed Rodriguez’s leadership, despite her having been Maduro’s vice president.

His administration has maintained an active role in Venezuela, exerting control over its oil resources and pressuring the Rodriguez government for reforms.

But critics point out that Trump has been reluctant to push Rodriguez for new elections, opting instead for a three-phase plan that focuses first on stabilising the country and economic recovery before pursuing a political transition.

Machado, meanwhile, has told The Financial Times she would like to see Venezuela hold elections by July next year.

“The US government and the Venezuelan people all agree ⁠⁠that the only way to make ⁠⁠this sustainable and ⁠⁠a real victory is to turn Venezuela into a stable democracy,” she told the newspaper earlier this month.

A thwarted return

Venezuelan authorities blocked Machado’s repeated attempts to return to the country, according to her party, Vente Venezuela.

Machado has also reportedly attempted to petition the Trump administration for help re-entering Venezuela.

Separately, she gifted Trump her Nobel Peace Prize in January, during a visit to Washington, DC. Media reports, however, have suggested friction between the Trump administration and Machado.

In interviews with Reuters and Axios, US administration officials have anonymously expressed frustration with the opposition leader’s repeated efforts to return home, particularly after a pair of deadly earthquakes in Venezuela last July.

Axios quoted one official as calling Machado’s push “political opportunism”.

Machado, however, remains one of the most popular figures in Venezuela’s opposition.

In October 2023, Machado won the opposition coalition’s presidential primary, but in January 2024, Venezuela’s courts blocked her from running in the upcoming race.

The courts upheld a 15-year ban on her holding public office, reportedly due to her support of US sanctions against the Maduro government.

Gonzalez ultimately replaced Machado as the opposition candidate in the 2024 race. Maduro claimed victory for a third term as Venezuela’s president in that election cycle, despite widespread criticism that the vote did not meet democratic standards.

The opposition released vote tallies that appeared to show Gonzalez had won the race.

The US had recognised Gonzalez as the country’s rightful president-elect and denied the legitimacy of Maduro’s election claims.

Machado was previously removed from the National Assembly in 2014, due to her activism against the Venezuelan government.

A third round of talks between the Rodriguez government and the opposition began in Venezuela this month.

But instead of including Machado, the negotiations have involved members of the 2015 National Assembly, which was led by the opposition and dissolved under Maduro.

Still, in a statement this month, the US State Department praised the talks as aiding the Venezuelan government’s reform.

“Political reconciliation talks between the interim Venezuelan government and 2015 National Assembly representatives are producing tangible reforms in civil liberties and political rights, laying the groundwork for credible elections and a democratic transition,” the State Department said.

Cory Morgan has spent more than 25 years fighting for Canada’s oil-rich province of Alberta to become an independent country. On Monday, Albertans will head to the polls to vote on the issue for the very first time. But even if the answer is no, Morgan said he’s in it for the long haul.

“I would respect the will of the voters,” he told Al Jazeera. “If they’ve decided it’s not time to go that route yet, then so be it. But that doesn’t mean I’ll stop.”

Morgan, the founder of the advocacy organisation Pathway to Independence, is among a group of longtime separatists who have managed to push what was once a fringe idea onto the ballot.

Monday’s provincial referendum asks Alberta residents to weigh whether they would like to pursue a binding resolution in the future on the question of independence.

Polls indicate the pro-independence side has little chance of succeeding, with four of five people in the province saying they want Alberta to remain a part of Canada. But Morgan’s focus is on the one in five who don’t.

“That’s not a movement that’s leaving,” he said.

What the referendum will mean for the separatist movement and for Canada as a whole, however, is a more complicated question.

What exactly are Albertans voting on?

Monday’s ballot gives Albertans two options: to remain part of Canada or begin the legal process for holding a future referendum on separation.

A vote in favour of the second option doesn’t mean Alberta immediately becomes an independent country.

Any province that tries to secede would first have to go through complex negotiations with the federal government in Ottawa, other provinces and Indigenous peoples who live in and around Alberta.

Some separatist organisers have been using that distinction to encourage people to vote for the referendum — even if they don’t necessarily want independence.

“Strategic separatists and their leaders have been using that ambiguity, that lower-bar threshold, to entice folks to vote not to leave, but rather to send Ottawa a message that Albertans need to be heard,” said Jared Wesley, a political science professor at the University of Alberta.

He told Al Jazeera that the message may be resonating with some voters.

Data collected by Viewpoint Alberta, a University of Alberta-based research initiative, suggests that two-thirds of voters who support the referendum say they’re doing so for strategic reasons, to send a message to Ottawa.

These are people Morgan calls “reluctant separatists”, people who are “at the end of their rope” and simply want Ottawa to pay attention.

But Prime Minister Mark Carney has warned Albertans against this strategy.

“Don’t be fooled by the idea you can ‘send a message’ with your vote,” he told a pro-Canada rally in Calgary on Thursday. “This is not poker. A vote against Canada is a dangerous bluff that will lead to years of deep division and great uncertainty.”

What’s driving Alberta’s separatist movement?

Monday’s referendum has been decades in the making. Separatists have long felt that Alberta, home to the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves, sends too much money to Ottawa, subsidising the rest of the country while receiving little in return.

They also take issue with federal energy policies that they feel limit the potential of the province’s oil industry.

For Morgan, the resentment stretches back to the 1980s when the National Energy Program was introduced by the government of Pierre Trudeau, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s father.

The policy used price controls, taxes and ownership rules to keep Canadian energy affordable while directing more of Alberta’s revenues to Ottawa.

It has since become a central symbol of “Western alienation”, a term used to describe the sense of disenfranchisement felt among Canada’s westernmost provinces.

Those tensions resurfaced decades later under Justin Trudeau, whose term began in 2015. His climate policies, including a national carbon tax and a limit on emissions, angered Alberta’s oil sector.

“We’ve been fighting about the same things for 50 years,” said Morgan.

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts say demonstrations against health restrictions mobilised a new generation of conservative activists, breathing new life into Alberta’s separatist movement.

Trudeau ultimately resigned as Liberal Party leader and prime minister in 2025, amid sinking poll numbers. Carney was elected his replacement.

Last year, under growing pressure from separatist groups, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government made it easier to start referendums, helping bring the question of Alberta’s independence onto the political agenda.

For Wesley, the moment is less about growing public support for independence and more about pressure from within Smith’s governing United Conservative Party, whose members show higher support for separation than Albertans generally.

“We’re having a referendum because Danielle Smith wants us to have a referendum,” Wesley said. “She is looking to solve internal party matters by throwing a question to the broader public.”

Though she called Monday’s referendum, Smith has said she opposes the independence effort, and on October 14, she announced she had voted against seceding.

“In my view, now is not the time to give up hope in our country, not when we have fought so long and come so far,” Smith said in a social media video, explaining her vote.

Could defeat make the movement stronger?

Smith’s political gamble has drawn comparisons with the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, including from Carney.

At the time, then-UK Prime Minister David Cameron called a vote over whether the country should leave the European Union, in hopes of settling a debate dividing his own Conservative Party.

Voters ultimately chose to leave the bloc, triggering years of political unrest.

But Ian Cooper, a political scientist who grew up in Alberta and now lives in Ireland, says a more useful comparison might be a different UK referendum in 1975, when British voters chose overwhelmingly to stay in what was then known as the European Economic Community.

That vote, he said, did little to deter those who wanted the country out.

“The activists who were in favour of Brexit — this is before anybody called it Brexit — they really played the long game,” he said. “It took them 25 years, but they finally achieved it.”

Cooper suspects that, even if Alberta separation is roundly defeated, separatists could take a similar approach, pursuing the issue over the long term to gain prominence and support.

“My impression is that they really are true believers, and it’s really ideologically driven,” he said.

If Monday’s separatist vote fails, Morgan said separatists would need to take a hard look at why they had fallen short and work towards making a stronger case for independence in the future.

He does not believe the underlying grievances can be resolved by working within the Canadian system or by electing a more sympathetic federal government.

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, acknowledged at Thursday’s rally that “the frustrations that many Albertans have felt are real”. He added that Ottawa had made people in the province feel “like our resources weren’t our own”.

The prime minister has tried, amid an ongoing trade war with the United States, to improve relations with Alberta, including through commitments to building a new pipeline to Canada’s west coast and major infrastructure projects.

Morgan admits that, for those whose goal is simply to get more leverage in Ottawa, “it’s pretty clear the movement has been effective”.

“We’ve seen more love from a federal prime minister in the last year than we’ve seen in the last 10,” Morgan said. “The problem though, when it comes to stubborn independence folks like me, is nothing has changed in the system.”

Prime ministers come and go, he added. “We’re just one election away from another hostile one.”

Why the other referendum questions matter

But the referendum could also offer an opportunity to challenge the premise that Alberta’s grievances cannot be addressed within Canada.

The independence question is just one of 10 on Monday’s ballot. Other proposals include restricting temporary residents’ access to healthcare and education, as well as allowing Alberta to choose its own judges.

Smith has encouraged Albertans to vote in favour of the nine other proposals, arguing that they will give her more negotiating power in Ottawa.

“Many Albertans I speak with tell me they want to send Ottawa a message, and I would suggest the best way to do that is to give us a strong mandate on the other nine questions,” she said on social media.

If Albertans back those proposals but Ottawa refuses to make concessions, Cooper, the political scientist, said the movement would have fresh ammunition to argue that meaningful change within the current system is impossible.

“Buried in the nine other questions are the seeds for a future referendum,” Cooper added.

What could keep the movement alive?

Not everyone agrees, however, on whether the separatists can emerge from the vote as a united force.

Wesley explained that people have been drawn to the separatist cause for a variety of reasons.

If there’s a sense that independence is not a realistic prospect, there may be little to keep that group of activists together, he said. They could turn their attention to other conservative issues, such as immigration.

Other experts question whether Alberta’s separatist movement, which is united more by economic grievances than by a shared cultural identity, can endure the way Quebec’s has.

Just two weeks ago, the largely French-speaking province elected the separatist Party Quebecois, which has promised a third referendum on independence after Trump leaves office.

Morgan, however, argues that Alberta does have a distinct culture, shaped by generations of people who have moved to the province in search of prosperity.

“The type of person drawn to do that is often an individualistic type of person,” he said. “They want the opportunity to go out and succeed or fail on their own.”

“And that builds a kind of a distinct culture on its own, even if it’s not a long-built one, as you would see in a distinct area like Quebec with a linguistic difference or in another country.”

Even if Albertans reject separation, he believes the movement has succeeded in forcing Ottawa to take the province’s frustrations more seriously.

“Hopefully some people understand that eventually something has to give,” he said. “So whatever the results are … I do hope, at the very least, they’ve served as a wake-up call to a lot of people.”

In a social media post ahead of Israel’s October 27 election, Trump calls Netanyahu a ‘Strong, Brave, and Brilliant’ leader.

United States President Donald Trump has issued an endorsement of Israel’s incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing a close race in parliamentary elections scheduled for October 27.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump praised the Israeli leader for being an ally of the US in its war on Iran. He added that he was giving his “Complete and Total Endorsement” to Netanyahu.

“BIBI NETANYAHU WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump wrote.

The US president’s backing comes nine days before the Israeli election — and after speculation that it might not come at all.

Trump had refused to endorse Netanyahu earlier this month, when asked repeatedly about the Israeli leader’s job performance in an interview with Time magazine.

Instead, when pressed by his interviewer, Trump avoided the subject, shifting the focus instead to his own popularity or security in the Middle East.

The two leaders have met more than a half dozen times since January 2025, but there have been reports of disagreements, including over the war against Iran and other conflicts.

In June, Trump acknowledged calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” in a phone conversation where he expressed frustration about Israel’s attacks on Lebanon.

Trump had reportedly asked Netanyahu not to take further action in Lebanon, in an apparent attempt to preserve a short-lived April ceasefire with Iran.

The two leaders had jointly launched a war against Iran on February 28, but the conflict has cost Trump domestic support.

The war has upended the global oil and gas supply, with no clear end in sight.

A Pew Research Center poll found this month that roughly two-thirds of US voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war, which has driven up consumer fuel prices and raised concerns about draining military stockpiles.

Trump’s Republican Party is facing a critical midterm election on November 3 that will decide whether it maintains control of the US Congress, as well as other key state and local offices.

Experts have speculated that Trump’s prior reticence to endorse Netanyahu may have come from public perception that Israel may have coaxed the US into the war.

Netanyahu’s Likud Party and its far-right coalition are also facing the prospect of losing the October contest to an opposition bloc led by Yashar party head Gadi Eisenkot.

In his endorsement on Sunday, Trump said it was only a matter of time before Iran would have attacked both the US and Israel.

The war, Trump argued, had already left Iran “systematically destroyed, both Militarily and Financially, and unless they change their ways, rapidly, we will soon finish the job”.

“If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so,” Trump wrote.

“Bibi Netanyahu has been Strong, Brave, and Brilliant in the face of tremendous opposition, including that coming from even Israel, itself.”

Data show a 42 percent drop in forest clearance from a year earlier, giving Lula a boost before the election run-off.

Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1988, according to official figures that give a boost to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva days before a presidential run-off.

Brazil’s space research agency, Inpe, said on Friday that 3,335 square kilometres (1,288 square miles) of forest were cleared in the 12 months through July, about 42 percent less than the year before.

The previous record low was 4,571 sq km (1,765 sq miles) in 2011-12, while annual losses peaked at nearly 30,000 sq km (nearly 11,600 sq miles) in the mid-1990s, according to Inpe’s Prodes satellite programme, which measures from August to July because cloud cover is lower in mid-year.

“It’s an absolutely stratospheric drop…it’s like a dream,” Environment Minister Joao Paulo Capobianco said at a news conference in Brasilia.

Marcio Astrini of the climate advocacy group Observatorio do Clima called the figures “a historic achievement” and said they show that “with political will, it is possible to curb deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions”.

President Lula wrote on X: “Our goal is to achieve zero illegal deforestation by 2030.”

Lula took office in 2023 pledging to end illegal deforestation by 2030, after clearing soared to a 15-year high under his far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro. The Amazon lost about 11,600 sq km (about 4,480 sq miles) a year on average during Bolsonaro’s 2019-2022 term, almost 60 percent more than in the previous four years.

Deforestation has fallen every year since 2022 and is down 71.2 percent over four years. The AFP news agency attributes the drop to greater monitoring and stiffer penalties for illegal logging.

Lula faces Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, in the election run-off on October 25, with polls showing them neck and neck.

Flavio pledged in his manifesto to strengthen environmental oversight in the Amazon, focus enforcement on organised crime rather than extractive workers and small farmers, and end “illegal deforestation” by 2029.

He has also praised his father, who is serving a 27-year sentence under house arrest for coup plotting, for opposing what he calls a “radical environmental agenda”.

Deforestation in the Cerrado savanna, south of the Amazon, also fell by about 24 percent, to 5,517 sq km (2,130 sq miles), the lowest since records began in 2001.

The messages, reported by a Brazilian daily, say the platform recommended Bolsonaro’s profile and his WhatsApp channel.

Employees at Meta have acknowledged in internal communications that the Instagram accounts of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were negatively affected by restrictions during the country’s election, media reports say.

The messages, reported on Friday by Brazilian daily Folha de S Paulo, also acknowledged the platform recommended the profile of Lula challenger Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, as well as his WhatsApp channel. Folha, the Sao Paulo-based paper, cited messages it had reviewed.

Meta told the Reuters news agency that the technical issues cited in the report were already public and the conversations it referenced related solely to the severity of the issues, not political interference.

“Any suggestion that Meta favors one side is false,” it added in a statement.

Lula, the left-wing incumbent, will face right-wing challenger Bolsonaro in a presidential runoff on October 25, following a stronger-than-expected performance by the senator in the first-round vote earlier this month.

Friday’s report came on the heels of a Brazilian court ruling on Thursday that ordered Meta to immediately adopt measures to provide equal treatment of the two candidates ahead of the runoff.

The ruling by a judge in Brazil’s top electoral court was made shortly after Lula filed a complaint that accused the tech giant – which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp – of using biased algorithms and AI restrictions to favour opposition candidate Bolsonaro ahead of the election.

Justice Marco Aurelio Bellizze ruled that Meta cannot reduce the distribution of political content, restrict searches or remove posts in a way that creates an imbalance between Lula and Bolsonaro. His ruling also orders the company to ensure its artificial intelligence tool applies identical criteria to both candidacies.

Bellizze said in his ruling that Meta must pay a fine of 500,000 reais ($98,700) per day if it fails to comply.

According to Lula’s party, some of his posts appeared without a share button and had reduced reach. Options for reactions, sharing, audio or accelerated speed were also missing.

Poll shows right-wing candidate with two percent advantage over Lula going into second round of voting on October 25.

A new poll has found that right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro maintains a slight lead over President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as the two candidates seek an edge ahead of Brazil’s tense October 25 run-off vote.

A Quaest poll released on Thursday found that Bolsonaro, son of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, would receive 46 percent of the vote compared to Lula’s 44 percent, a difference within the two-percent margin of error.

Bolsonaro outperformed expectations during the first round of voting on October 4, beating Lula by less than two points despite most polls suggesting that the leftist president was on track for a marginal first-round win. Neither candidate secured a majority that would have avoided a run-off.

The poll, the first released by Quaest since the initial round of voting, shows that Bolsonaro has held onto his lead and remains the favourite heading into the second round.

Lula has sought to rally his supporters after the October 4 loss, holding large rallies that have drawn millions of people onto the street.

While Bolsonaro has remained ahead in the polls, analysts have pointed out that he has not benefitted as much from the elimination of several conservative candidates, whose supporters would presumably prefer him to Lula, as might have been expected after the first round.

Bolsonaro has made progress securing endorsements from right and centre-right parties, however, seeking to consolidate support from conservatives and build a coalition friendly to business interests and a policy agenda sought by investors.

Brazil’s Senate approved a constitutional amendment on Wednesday reducing the country’s maximum workweek from 44 to 40 hours per week without a reduction in pay, delivering a key priority for Lula as the president presses his case to an electorate that is anxious about cost-of-living issues.

“Today is a day to celebrate a historic achievement for millions of workers,” Lula said in a statement. “This means having more time to live, rest, be with family, watch your children grow up, take care of yourself, and enjoy life. Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve to have time to live.”

The president also recently banned sports betting, which had caused an explosion of gambling addiction and contributed to surging household debt across the country.

Widespread voter disillusionment and pocketbook anxieties set a volatile stage for the GOP weeks before election night.

Voter sentiment across the United States is increasingly negative towards US President Donald Trump’s domestic and foreign policies, according to a new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll.

In the closing weeks before the November 3 US congressional midterm elections, 80 percent of Americans polled said the country needs substantial change or “complete and total upheaval” in how it is run, according to the survey of over 1,100 US adults released on Thursday.

Democrats and independents are much more likely than Republicans to want a total overhaul of the country’s direction, the survey found, but even Republican voters are still looking for some change. Slightly fewer than half, 45 percent, want substantial change, while 13 percent are seeking upheaval.

The results point to a pervasive appetite for legislative realignment that poses a risk to the Republican Party’s power as it looks to keep control of both houses of the US Congress.

Fuelled by soaring living costs, everyday economics is driving a majority of the electorate, with 85 percent of respondents saying the economy is one of the most significant issues in weighing their vote in the upcoming election. About eight in 10 registered voters disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living, and about three-quarters disapprove of his performance on the economy.

Only about one-third of registered voters overall have a “very” or “somewhat” favourable view of the Republican president, and a similar share approve of his performance as president.

More voters want Democrats to win control of Congress and have a more negative view of Republicans.

Immigration and crime rates are also top concerns for some voters, according to the survey results, with 45 percent of voters identifying them as top priorities, though the two issues are prioritised disproportionately by Republican voters who reference them more frequently than Democrats. Conversely, Democratic voters are more prone to name healthcare as their top priority.

Emerging cultural and technological concerns drew less immediate alarm across the board: 35 percent of voters ranked artificial intelligence as a substantial issue, while transgender issues sit significantly lower at 12 percent.

Healthcare is also considered a top issue for 69 percent of voters, while 64 percent cite the war on Iran as top-of-mind.

Despite their grievances, a majority of voters across both major American parties still value civic engagement.

About two-thirds of registered voters in the survey say it’s “extremely” important to vote in the upcoming election, while about two in 10 say it’s “very” important. Seventy-five percent of Democratic voters view it as “extremely” important, compared to roughly 60 percent of Republican respondents.

President Trump has recently developed a renewed appreciation for the importance of elections. Unfortunately for Venezuelans, he seems to have discovered it in Ukraine. Last week, he called for Volodymyr Zelensky to face voters, apparently unconvinced that an ongoing Russian invasion and martial law constitute sufficient reasons to postpone an election. In Venezuela, where his administration removed Nicolás Maduro nine months ago, elections would apparently be premature.

There are legitimate reasons to prepare carefully for elections, particularly given the condition of Venezuela’s electoral institutions. But nine months into the transition, the more interesting question is no longer simply why Delcy Rodríguez and Washington might prefer to postpone them. It is whether other actors, including some of those who have spent years demanding political change, are developing reasons to prefer the current arrangement as well.

Results amid uncertainty

Every additional month gives the ruling elite more time to influence the terms under which its own future will be decided. Cooperation in the oil industry is advancing, economic relations are being restored, and American companies have opportunities that were largely unavailable before Maduro’s removal. An election would introduce uncertainty into a relationship that has become increasingly useful to the Trump administration. That does not mean Washington has abandoned the idea of elections, but it does mean that postponing them carries fewer immediate costs than it otherwise might.

The calculation is not limited to governments and foreign investors. Venezuelan businesses are also beginning to see opportunities in the new environment. The prospect of renewed oil production, investment in electricity infrastructure, fewer financial restrictions, and improved international connections offers reasons to invest in a country that many had spent years trying to leave.

What happens if Venezuelans begin to associate the present arrangement with the prospect of economic recovery?

For a sector of Venezuelan society, the appeal may be even simpler. After years of economic collapse, shortages, political confrontation, and mass emigration, the possibility of a more normal life matters enormously. People want reliable electricity, decent wages, functioning businesses, and the ability to travel, save, and plan for the future. 

What happens if Venezuelans begin to associate the present arrangement with the prospect of economic recovery? A Venezuelan can continue supporting María Corina Machado while becoming increasingly reluctant to jeopardize the economic opportunities that Washington’s accommodation with Delcy appears to offer. And those opportunities do not even have to materialize fully for the calculation to change. Businesses make investments based on expectations, families make plans around the possibility of better incomes, and people who have spent years waiting for conditions to improve may be understandably hesitant to embrace another period of uncertainty. Their political preferences may remain exactly where they were, even as their willingness to bear the costs of political change begins to diminish.

The model of a tolerable status quo

This creates a peculiar possibility for Venezuela’s transition. The government could become more difficult to dislodge without becoming more popular. Economic normalization could make the existing arrangement increasingly tolerable to people who would still vote to replace it if given the opportunity. And the longer elections are postponed, the more time those expectations have to develop into economic interests that depend, or appear to depend, on the continuation of the status quo. Supporting political change and accepting the practical benefits of the present arrangement are not mutually exclusive.

This distinction matters because Delcy does not need to become popular for her government to become easier to live with. Nor does chavismo need to recover the support it enjoyed under Hugo Chávez. It may be enough that Venezuelans who would prefer a different government become increasingly reluctant to risk the improvements they are beginning to anticipate.

For traditional opposition parties, parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections offer opportunities that a presidential contest does not.

That creates a problem for the opposition. Machado may retain considerable popular support, but popular support does not automatically translate into pressure for an election. People can agree about who they want to govern them while disagreeing about how urgently the question needs to be settled, particularly when the alternative appears to involve another period of uncertainty.

The negotiating opposition may have reasons of its own to be comfortable with a slower timetable. For traditional opposition parties, parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections offer opportunities that a presidential contest does not. These are elections in which established party organizations, local networks, and political machinery matter considerably more than the popularity of any single national leader. Holding them before a presidential election could allow those parties to rebuild their institutional presence and strengthen their negotiating position within the opposition, including in relation to Machado. That does not mean they necessarily oppose her becoming president, or that they are deliberately working to postpone an election. But the order in which elections are held could have significant consequences for the balance of power within the opposition itself.

A frozen trip to democracy

There is, of course, another possibility. Economic recovery could strengthen civil society, give independent businesses more room to operate, and make a democratic transition easier. The return of investment and international connections need not come at the expense of political freedom.

The trouble is that nothing about economic normalization guarantees democratization, particularly when the institutions that determine whether elections take place remain under the control of the existing government.

Today’s Venezuelan authorities have taken a different approach. Elections are something to be held after the necessary reforms, agreements, and guarantees have been secured. Some of those conditions are reasonable, but without a deadline there is little to prevent the process from continuing indefinitely. The government can always identify another problem to resolve, Washington can always find another reason to prioritize stability, and some businesses and private sector leaders can always argue that the country needs more time to consolidate its recovery.

The danger is not necessarily that Delcy Rodríguez herself intends to remain interim president forever. It is that an arrangement nobody originally expected to last may become sufficiently useful, or simply tolerable, that ending it stops being an urgent priority.

Venezuelans do not have to choose between economic recovery and democracy. But unless elections become a concrete part of the political process, they may find themselves enjoying some of the benefits of a transition without ever reaching its intended destination.

Los Angeles County voters are concerned about a host of voter fraud issues that could disrupt the Nov. 3 general election, even though they have a high degree of confidence in local elections officials, according to a new poll funded by the nonprofit California Community Foundation.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents expressed concern that false rumors and misleading information online could confuse voters or make them believe that their vote won’t count, the poll found. Other top concerns included politicians interfering with the election and mail-in ballots getting lost, stolen or delayed.

Still, most of the voters surveyed expressed confidence in the county’s handling of election proceedings, with 68% saying L.A. County does an excellent or good job at running elections and counting ballots.

Once presented with information about how the county handles elections, that number rose to 72%. Around three-quarters of respondents also believe that the upcoming election will be fair, secure and accurate, the poll found.

The online poll was conducted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 by Tulchin Research, a San Francisco-based public opinion firm. It surveyed 500 voters in L.A. County considered likely to cast ballots in the Nov. 3 election and has a margin of error of 4.4%.

“Voters feel good about the local officials running their elections. So, reinforcing the fact that that is who’s in charge of the election and how the process works is reassuring to folks,” said Ben Tulchin, the polling company’s president. “It … reduces their anxiety about some of the outside criticism that California, L.A. County faces.”

The poll was funded by the California Community Foundation, which awards millions of dollars in grants to local charitable groups, to support the “A Count You Can Trust Coalition,” an initiative aimed at enhancing trust in local elections.

Recent polling has suggested that potential federal interference in the Nov. 3 election is a top concern statewide for California voters. The local poll was administered to shed light on how L.A. County voters feel, said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who co-chairs the A Count You Can Trust group with Miguel Santana, who leads the California Community Foundation.

“This is the epicenter of the California vote,” Villaraigosa said. “The concern is not as great as it is statewide. Here in L.A. County, people seem to trust the vote to a greater degree.”

A recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 61% of California voters identified interference by the Trump administration as a “major concern.” President Trump has fueled doubts over election integrity, spreading unverified claims of widespread voter fraud in blue states such as California.

Young voters and Latino voters expressed the lowest levels of confidence in how the county runs elections, the new poll found. The findings suggest those demographics need “a lot more reassurance” that elections are safe and that their votes matter, Tulchin said.

“It’s not surprising at all, and it means we’ve got work to do,” Villaraigosa said. “We got a lot of work to do to communicate to those people and to make it clear that, in fact, this vote can be trusted.”

Villaraigosa said he plans to focus his efforts on social media engagement and creating video content with poll workers to speak on how vote-counting works in the county.

The poll also asked respondents whether “things in Los Angeles County are going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?” Most — 62% — said wrong track, and 26% said right direction.

Among voter concerns in the upcoming election, 18% listed the economy, the cost of living and inflation as their biggest worry, followed by election integrity, fraud and interference at 17% of respondents. Concerns about Republicans and Trump “winning or retaining power” came in third, with 16% of respondents saying that is their biggest concern.

Homelessness and immigration, two issues that have been prominent the L.A. mayoral race between incumbent Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, ranked low in the list of concerns for the surveyed voters. Tulchin noted that the focus of the survey was on election integrity, which could have had an effect on what issues were top of mind of respondents.

The survey findings indicate that L.A. County voters seem to trust the county more than voters statewide. Still, just over 30% of surveyed voters have a fair or poor view of how the county runs elections, Villaraigosa said.

“They’re concerned, but what we found in this poll is that there are a number of people who, while concerned, do trust this county,” he said.