News Media of Istkalen
-
Republic
Ikalsser and Raadik demand withdrawal from negotiations
Makketis Ikalsser and Eliise Raadik, who led the National Republican Party from March 2022 to February 2023, have called for the party to withdraw from government negotiations, arguing that it must completely rule out the "austerity-minded" Communist Party in order to "defend the welfare of the Istkalenic people."
"The National Republican Party," a joint statement authored by the two reads, "has always stood against those who seek to undermine our Istkalenic solidarity. Every attempt to chip away at our welfare state and republican economic tradition it has resisted. It must not stop now, at this most crucial of points in history. The government that is to be formed will be the first government of a new era in Istkalenic politics - and thus, in the decisions it takes, definitive. Its composition and the direction it takes will affect not just us, but our children, and their children as well. To acquiesce to an austerity government - the almost certain result of supporting a Communist-led coalition - would be to betray them. Let us keep to our party tradition then; let us remain stalwart against the threat before us."
Ikalsser and Raadik further insisted that the party return to the basic principles and redlines they set at the beginning of their tenure as leaders - protection of National Duty and the Public Distribution Service, restoration of the indecency laws of the prewar period, and opposition to legal business incorporation - in order to "preserve the country for the generations after us."
The debate reflects a growing division within the ex-communists who have become the majority within the party, with strict nationalists, like Ikalsser and Raadik, on one side and pragmatists, like current leaders Kaisa Malk and Grete Reiner, on the other. Though united in nationalism and a strong commitment to economic egalitarianism at the time of their mass departure from the Communist Party and entrance into the National Republican fold, the past year has seen increasingly harsh friction within their ranks, especially at times when, like now, government participation in exchange for ideological concessions is a likely prospect.
The party's mainline leadership has not yet responded, nor is it expected to ever do so.
Uskeled releases notes, recordings that suggest Arkalis to be primary drafter of unpopular economic reform
Former Prime Minister Indras Uskeled, most notable for her unpopular economic and welfare reform that abolished pensions, replaced all welfare with flat, universal cash allowances, and allowed the state to forcibly move workers between sectors, has published, ostensibly for the sake of "transparency," a collection of notes, journals, and recordings written and made during her tenure in office.
The vast majority have to do with the formulation and drafting of the reform, and implicate many of the figures involved in current government formation - especially Antras Arkalis, Uskeled's Minister of Finance and the Communist candidate for the Prime Ministership - in the development of its worst aspects.
"We have to do away with it all," Arkalis is heard saying on one recording, dated 26 December 2022. "We are in over our heads. It's unsustainable. We have to cut now, and we have to cut hard. We can't afford anything else."
Arkalis went on to insist upon the total abolition of all welfare, with only a meager basic income - "perhaps 200 to 250 ketsels, and then limited only to the bottom half of all earners, or even the bottom quarter, or even the bottom eigth" - taking its place. Though the actual welfare reform would be significantly less harsh, the influence of this remark - particularly in its proposal of a basic income to replace traditional welfare =- can be seen.
Arkalis, in another recording, also appears to have been the first to suggest the idea of seizing and abolishing pensions in order to service state debt.
"What use," he can be heard saying, "is there in showering money, in such an unequal way as well, upon the unproductive? It's a money hole, that's what it is, a money hole and nothing more. And we have nothing to spare. I think we ought to take this money we're essentially burning and spend it on something more pressing."
He becomes, in later recordings and notes, the loudest and most enthusiastic advocate for the measure.
Uskeled, for her part, appeared to have served as a foil to Arkalis. Though she consistently supported reform and outright austerity in her notes and in her recordings, she also consistently refused his radicalism, and generally acted as the most fiscally generous of the cabinet members.
"It needs to be social, it needs to be equal, it needs to be sustainable. That is our exigence on the welfare question," she is heard responding to Arkalis on the 26 December recording. "We must cut, but we must cut with a bit of sense, not willy-nilly but in a way that affects the Istkalenic people as little as is possible."
The proposal she goes on to make is one that is more generous than the ultimate reform, ending most of the in-kind welfare system, but replacing it with a low universal basic income, which she terms a "basic allowance," on top of which would be created vaguely Western-style, if spare, systems of social insurance for health, retirement, disability, and under or unemployment. It is one that she holds to until the last stages of the drafting of the reform, where she finally concedes to Arkalis in the wake of the conflict in Svarna Surya.
The public has received the collection with shock, but also skepticism. While there has been an immediate turn in opinion against Arkalis, the vast majority appear to believe that the extremity of his suggestions - and the apparent softness of Uskeled's - has been either exaggerated or taken out of context.
No political forces, including Arkalis, have yet commented.
-
Republic: An interview with Kalju Ilves
I: Thank you for having agreed to meet with us, Mr. Ilves.
KI: It's my pleasure.
I: Now, you headed the country's cabinet at some of the most turbulent times in its history: through the transition away from socialization, through the aftermath of Rikkalek's resignation, through Orlich's "restoration of order," through the NSC period. Your competence, your record, in doing so has - continues to be - very hotly debated among the public. What, then, is your own evaluation of your tenure?
KI: I don't think anyone sane disputes the necessity of my administration's actions towards the socialization - it was a poorly thought out mess from the beginning that I am very proud of having forced an end to - so I think I will turn to the issue of my leadership after that particular episode.
What people have to understand is that Rikkalek's departure threw the state into complete disorder. He had spent his tenure dividing its branches and sectors against themselves so as to enshrine himself as the only uniting factor, and so, of course, as soon as he left, everything fell apart. Governance became virtually impossible. That my administrations were able to hold the country together in any sense was a miracle, and I think people should be more appreciative of that. There is much that I regret - but at the same thing I think I, I think my administration, ultimately did as good as a job as was possible under the circumstances.
I: But the NSC -
KI: I had no power during the NSC period. No one in the civilian cabinet did. I think it's ridiculous to bring anything that happened then as an indictment of me or those in my administration.
I: Alright, then. As much as you say that nothing better was possible, people don't seem to believe it. They look back to the relative successes of the Social Democrats in '05 or '06, when the internal situation was much more fraught, or to Communist rule after '89 and the certainly more fruitful efforts of that administration to maintain stability and basic welfare, and then back to your government, and they can think only that, well, if these other people were able to do so much better, in considerably worse conditions, then why can't these people do the same now?
KI: I don't think there's any comparison to be made here. We did not have a state apparatus; they did. Again, I do not think people quite understand the damage that Rikkalek did. He destroyed all the bonds and institutions that had defined Istkalenic governance for decades to put himself in their place, and then decided to vanish and leave us with the burnt out shell he left behind. No one else has ever had to deal with this; only us.
I: But people do know that Rikkalek did these things. There is a reason why his approval rating is currently in the sewer; there is a reason he had to disappear. It simply is that much worse has happened to the country - look at the chaos of '96, or of '03, for example - without the government failing quite as it did under your watch.
KI: You prove my point. What he did was worse than '96 and '03, but people don't understand that.
I: In what way?
KI: He destroyed the civil service. He pitted the workers' associations against the courts and the Censorate. He constantly shifted state power between this faction and that solely to create disorder and to force everyone to rely on him. We have never had a head of state so egotistical and destructive as this in our modern history.
I: I don't think there's anything more to say on this subject, so let's move to another. You left the Social Democratic Party recently for the Statebuilders; why?
KI: Ms. Meier has led the party away from its foundations and towards an extreme liberalism. She has effectively abandoned its committment to the social state in favor of promoting austerity politics and the type of uncontrolled, libertinian behavior that undermines the trust needed to maintain a solidaristic society. I will have nothing to do with it. The future of true social democracy in this country, I feel, lies not with her but with Ministers Uklertal and Laakonen, who are far truer to the original principles of the ideology and who I trust to lead it back to power.
I: You yourself supported "austerity politics," at least in the eyes of the people, during your leadership of the party; why the change?
KI: There has been no change; I never supported them. I believed - still believe - in a more active state that provides people basic insurance complementing what the mutualities and workers' associations offer. That is the opposite of austerity politics; it is an addition, not a substraction, that brings togther, not takes apart, our society.
I: And the difference between this and what Ms. Meier proposes?
KI: Ms. Meier wants to abolish the mutualities and workers' associations in favor of a very weak, Western-style welfare state, and one, at that, whose primary principle will not be the people's welfare but instead "fiscal sustainability." Hers is an attack on the social state, it is an attack on all social principles, it is a path towards egotism, poverty, and collapse. It is the perfect distillation of austerity politics; I don't see how one can conflate it with any of my proposals.
I: Nevertheless, the Statebuilders don't make the same distinction; they have called politics like yours "austerity politics."
KI: That is not true. I don't know where you got that from.
I: "There are social politics, and there are money-politics. There is no overlap between the two. Whoever speaks of such things is an austeritymonger." So said Kondres Uklertal just last month.
KI: I don't see the relation.
I: I think it's very clear: Uklertal - and by extension the Statebuilders - believes that there is no place for money in the solution to the social question. They believe, in fact, that anyone who even suggests that there is is a proponent of austerity. Your proposal is to involve money in the Istkalenic welfare state; you, then, in their eyes, support austerity politics.
KI: This is a very gross misinterpretation of what Kondres said. He was expressing what is a very common social democratic sentiment, that profit - money-politics - has no place in our social system.
I: I've never heard of "money-politics" being used to refer to profit. I've only seen it used to refer to the literal usage of money as a solution to political issues.
KI: Then you don't get around much, not in politics, at least. What a shame, I used to believe Republic had a higher caliber of staff. Regardless, even if the Statebuilders did genuinely believe me to be an advocate for austerity, what difference would it make? It's a matter of semantics; regardless of what they think or do not think, I am not a supporter of austerity, and can only be made one through the distortion of definitions.
I: You and your new party criticize Meier and the Social Democrats as they stand under her direction for being supporters of austerity politics solely because of their desire to intoduce cash-transfers to the welfare state, before then advocating for very similar policies which you claim are different because of but a few minor details. Isn't the hypocrisy of this clear?
KI: Firstly, our proposals are hugely divergent from those of the Social Democrats, we are not for a replacement of the social state with money, we are very much for the opposite. I don't see how anyone sane could see it otherwise. So you are making things up wholesale; perhaps we are hypocrites in this fantasy world you have created, but certainly not in the real one. Secondly, what on earth does this have to do with the issue of whether or not I myself am a proponent of austerity? Stop with these diversions.
I: Well, I'm sorry, but that seems to be time. Thank you, again, for having come, it was very enlightening.
-
Republic: Polling 30/12 - 6/1
conducted by Kaitmulen, 2011 responsesParty Preference (+/- 10/11 - 17/11 poll)
Communist Party (left-wing to far-left): 27,1% (-8,2)
Social Democratic Party (center-left to left-wing): 17,0% (-0,2)
Statebuilding Party (center-left): 14,7 (+0,4)
Agrarian Union (syncretic): 10,5% (+4,4)
Farmer-Green Alliance (center-right): 10,3% (+4,0)
National Republican Party (right-wing to far-right): 10,2% (+1,1)
Union/Progress (center-right): 9,3% (-2,2)
*other; 0,9%Government Approval
- approve: 91,0% (+0,5)
- disapprove: 7,1% (+2,1)
- no opinion: 1,9% (-2,6)
-
Republic: Environment Ministry to be split
Prime Minister Ursula Orlich has announced that she intends to split the Ministry of the Environment, currently led by Kondres Uklertal, into three new ministries: a Ministry of the Climate, a Ministry of Resource Management, and a Ministry of Conservation.
"The Environment Ministry," she wrote in a statement released earlier today by her office, "handles a bevy of increasingly unrelated tasks. It is responsible for almost everything related, even if only tangentially, to the issue of the environment, from assessing the carbon intensity of supply chains both domestic and international to maintaining national conservatories. It has become, as a result, excessively bloated and difficult to manage."
"In the interests of effective governance, then," she continued, "the government has prepared a bill to divide it into a number of more specialized ministries. This will considerably simplify its work, reducing bottlenecks in organization and allowing for considerably more efficiency and transparency."
If created, the Ministry of the Climate will assume the responsibility of setting and levying emission taxes, the Ministry of Resource Management of creating regulations and setting fees around natural resource extraction, and the Ministry of Conservation of managing conservatories and other protected areas held by the government.
The decision has been praised by environmentalists and civil service reform activists alike as a major step forwards for both green policy and bureaucratic efficiency, and is expected to pass the National Assembly by a wide margin, with all political parties having expressed their support for the reform. Nevertheless, many have their doubts.
"There have been rumors," said a clerk for a prominent deputy in the National Assembly, "that [one of the parties] in the National Assembly is, or was, planning to bring a motion of no-confidence against Orlich. It is quite likely, at least in my opinion, that this is her trying to create sinecures for the party's leaders in order to head off this threat and preserve her own position."
Others raised concerns about the future repercussions of what is nominally a caretaker government making major political decisions.
"It began," said a trade unionist who wishes to remain anonymous, "with National Duty, and it continues here. This government, which we were told was to be one of transition alone, is making decisions on the important political questions of the time. It is usurping what should be the responsibility of a genuinely democratic government. I fear the precedent this may set; will we have, in the future, demissionary governments, technocratic caretaker governments, making impactful policy, doing this and that, without a democratic mandate, as Orlich has?"
With support for the government so broad, and with this decision in particular being so uncontroversial among the political class, however, this opposition is unlikely to gain ground.
The bill is scheduled to be voted on the 31st of January, 2024; if passed, the process of implementation will begin on 1 February and end on the same date next year.
-
Nation: An interview with the Statebuilding Party's Luke Kareskenet
Luke Kareskenet, trade unionist, Catholic leftist, and former partisan of the shortlived party "The Center," has emerged as a leading figure in the nascent Statebuilding Party, an environmentalist and softly nationalist split from the Social Democrats that is currently the country's third most popular political party. Though he is far from its most popular figure - that position goes to Kalju Ilves, who served as the country's foreign minister from July 2019 to April 2021 and as Prime Minister between May and December of 2022 and February and July of 2023 - he is nevertheless a force in his own right. Much of the current clamor around the party can be attributed to him: he was the primary drafter of its popular manifesto, "New Security for Istkalen," centered around green investment and the defense of Istkalen's current welfare state, while his identity as the de-facto head of the royal House of Kareskenet in the wake of the disappearance of his cousin, Vistek Rikkalek, has given the party an important, symbolic anchor in the country's increasingly mythologized and idealized past.
Our correspondent, Kestalas Milresile, spoke with him yesterday, discussing his party, the country - and a bit of family drama.
KM: Thank you for agreeing to this interview. Let's get right into it. A lot of people think it's strange that you - especially given your political and religious background, you are traditionally someone who has belonged to the liberal center, in the current of the old radicals, and of course, you are a Christian - are a member of a firmly social democratic, laicitist, and nationalist party. And so I wanted to ask - why? Why the Statebuilders above, say, the Farmer-Green Alliance, which has absorbed most of your old colleagues, including your sister, Mary, or the Social Democrats, who have become something of a pole around which anti-laicitists have gathered?
LK: I believe, above all else, that the state must respect and preserve human dignity. It must support the natural communities that allow for dignity's realization - the mutualities, the workers' associations, and, for me and for many others in this country, the family. And it must work against those conditions that erode dignity - poverty, inequality, the degradation of the environment. This was why I participated in the Center, and it is why I am now with the Statebuilders. It was and is only them, at least as I see it, who genuinely hold to and are willing to defend these principles.
KM: Why do you think others who believe the same things you do, like, again, your sister, have chosen otherwise?
LK: The Statebuilders have a very statist inclination. It doesn't matter much to me because I think the type of statism, of centralization, they espouse is necessary - there can be no real defense of the community, of the person, without the exercise of state power - but it puts many other people off, and not without reason. In our country, the state has often victimized intermediary bodies, victimized people, trampled on their rights in favor of very material, pagan ideals; I do not blame, then, my friends and colleagues for being so wary of it.
I also think that their positions are being slightly misconstrued, misinterpreted, by the public. I know that my sister, for example, has criticized some of the excesses of the Farmer-Greens, publically as well - she does not like their opposition to our social state, she does not like their criticism of the community, their affinity for the mechanical contract. And I know that a lot of others close to us, of our background, agree with her. They aren't wholeheartedly agreeing with the movements they have joined; in many cases they are very far from the actual positions of those movements, and have only joined them because they fear state power and see other state-critical parties as being too far away from their ideals.
KM: How do you think they might be convinced to change their minds?
LK: We would need to prove in practice that an active state can help and preserve communities, can respect the essential freedoms of the person. This distrust has formed over a very long period of time, and words alone will not make it go away.
KM: Moving on, you are a fairly major figure in the Statebuilding Party. You drafted its current manifesto, you sit on its central committee, and you are one of its negotiators in the government talks. Given your position, given your knowledge, what would you say are your party's main priorities for the immediate future?
LK: We want to hasten the re-establishment of National Duty and the Public Distribution System and to create an investment fund, or agency, to equalize the levels of development across the country and expand our green industry and energy. Our country suffers from slow growth and severe regional inequality; the collapse of our welfare system has also immiserated many people, especially in rural and blighted urban areas. These conditions have denied many Istkaleners the dignity they are entitled to, and so, naturally, we want to push forwards policy to work against them - to invest in growth that will put our country on par with the rest of Europe, in development that will end the shameful differences we see between Kirelesile and the countryside, in solidarity that will relieve those who have been left to starve by past, negligent governments.
KM: How successful would you say the party has been in negotiations to this point?
LK: Very successful. I don't want to say anything more.
KM: Who would you say have been your primary partners, or allies, we might say, in the negotiations?
LK: The Agrarian Union. They, of course, only joined after we did - but they have been very supportive of the vast majority of our goals, from regional investment to even smaller things, like our push to preserve the autonomy of the workers' associations. I am not sure whether we would have had quite the same success without them - in the few days we were in negotiations without them, we certainly saw much more pushback against us than we see now.
KM: A lot of people are under the impression that you are closest to the National Republicans - you yourself, for a while, were part of that party, as was Uklertal, while your stated priorities, at the very least, are very similar.
LK: This has not been the case. It was surprising to us as well, we believed that we shared much in common, but the National Republicans, in reality, are the most opposed to our participation out of all the parties in negotiations. They have become a party of culture war, hysterically so. They have no priorities other than fighting what they call "foreign influence." And they see us, along with the Communists, as a party completely loyal to a foreign ideology, completely beholden to foreign interests. So we have ended up as their enemy number one, policy similarities notwithstanding.
KM: Why do you think this is?
LK: We are committed to the environment, for one. That, for them, is a non-starter; they see green politics as something alien to this country. They also see Laakonen and I as unacceptable. Laakonen favors cultural autonomy too much, which they see as some form of treason, his otherwise fairly ardent nationalism notwithstanding. I, for my part, am Catholic, and so they think that I am an agent of the Vatican sent here to place this country under Papal rule.
KM: Do you think they will be willing to cooperate with you in government?
LK: No. But they will almost certainly form a government with us. They will do anything in their power to dilute our influence; to remain in opposition would leave them powerless. Our cabinet, however, would absolutely not be functional.
KM: Is a government without them possible?
LK: Yes. The Farmer-Greens are not as irreconcilable, in my opinion, as they seem to be; they are very amenable to compromise. And with them, there is a path to a majority without the National Republicans.
KM: Moving on, I wanted to talk about your cousin, our dear former Head of State, Vistek Rikkalek. What on Earth has happened to him?
LK: None of us know. We were not particularly close to him; he was the black sheep of our family.
KM: Any ideas?
LK: None at all. He does a lot of things on a whim, though, he was always very capricious. I suppose he might have gotten it in his head to disappear into the woods or something, or to flee to somewhere else, perhaps on another identity - but nothing really concrete.
KM: Who do you think might know where he is?
LK: Haven't the faintest clue. He had no friends, never had any. He was like that.
KM: I'm afraid that's time. Thank you for having come.
-
Nation: Isteresskemar fishes for far-right support
Irenet Isteresskemar's Farmer-Green Alliance - her right-wing alternative to the increasingly progressive Agrarian Union - has fallen on hard times. As it falters in polls in the aftermath of its withdrawal from government negotiations, its local affiliates and units have begun to abandon it in favor of other parties - particularly the Statebuilders and National Republicans - that they see as having a better chance at holding broad influence over policy and the population in the future. Meanwhile, infighting has broken out in its ranks as reformists within the party, led by ex-National Republican Liris Vesek, seek to seize control of the party apparatus and move it towards the center.
Isteresskemar, it seems, is thus taking a stand in an effort to reunite the party and recoup its losses. Yesterday, at a rally in Kirelesile, she made a speech calling for a special party congress to develop a new manifesto, demanding a move to the radical, populist right.
"Let us return," she said, "to our true Istkalenic values; let us stand stalwart in their defense, against the compradors who want to sell us to the Reitzmics and the Vards, against the foreign liberalisms that seek to tear our country apart. Let us fight for our freedom, our independence, our roots; let us be real patriots, who will go down in the memory of our people as heroes in a time of extraordinary distress."
Among other things, she argued that the party should officially endorse a rapid transition, through massive investment and unfavorable taxation, away from industry to what she called, "green, national craft," coupled with the "radical democratization" of both workers' associations and people's committees, the abolition of the Censorate, courts of examination, courts of justice, and traditional civil service, and the pardoning of "political prisoners" arrested in the 14th December operation against far-right extremists.
Her proposals parallel, almost perfectly, those previously championed by Andrus Liiv, former presenter for the banned "National Radio" and founder of the National Resurrection Movement, in their strong opposition to the West - especially Western industry - and to the traditional Istkalenic state, a part of the same, novel current of right-wing populism that emerged in the aftermath of the occupation.
Given that there is no legal party, as of now, that supports these positions, her intentions are clear: move the Farmer-Greens as close as is possible to Liiv so as to occupy this empty space and gain support among currently demobilized right-wing populists, stopping the bleeding of support while curbing the ability of moderates like Vesek to act against her without causing the implosion of the party.
Whether she will be successful, however, remains to be seen. Isteresskemar's current support within the party is unclear; a congress could very well weaken her and lead to Vesek's faction taking control. It is also doubtful whether her proposals, if put into place, would gain the party any support among the factions of the far-right she seeks to court; in the relatively short time they have existed as an influential political force, they have been intensely distrustful of parliamentary and party-politics, near-uniformly preferring to act "directly:" violently and extra-legally.
No clear reaction has yet been made by any political force; the party's central committee will vote on calling a congress in two days.
-
Republic
Ikalsser, Raadik deliver ultimatum to National Republican leaders
pictured: Eliise Raadik in Revolution Square in Kirelesile
Makketis Ikalsser and Eliise Raadik, who led the National Republican Party from June of 2022 to February of 2023, have issued an ultimatum to the party's current leadership, demanding that it refocus itself on defending what they term the "social state" - the welfare state and the continued social ownership of heavy industry - or risk them, currently the two most popular figures in the party, leaving to begin a movement of their own.
"The party's current approach," the two wrote, "has been disastrous. It has alienated those who might have otherwise been our most stalwart partners, has marginalized us in political discourse; it risks leaving us a party of the fringe, perpetually unpopular and outside of power. We have traditionally been a party of government, a serious, respectable party that can be trusted to rule in the service of the common good. For the sake of the Istkalenic people, we must reject the current course and remain so."
They further claimed that they had the support of the "majority" of the party's parliamentary faction, as well as the "lion's share" of its local and regional affiliates, and that they and their allies would "not hesitate to" abandon the National Republican Party if leadership refused their demands.
Their threats come after months of infighting between their nationalist faction, hardline and "idealistic" in its support for laicitism, opposition to decentralization, and advocacy for "syndicalist" socialism, and the "pragmatic" party mainstream, which has sought to moderate the party in order to appeal to the elitist, civic-nationalist sensibilities of the "mainstream" Istkalenic right; they are the apparent culmination of repeated clashes over the future direction of the party, especially as regards its participation in government negotiations.
Whether party leadership will respond is as of yet unknown.
Sepp leaves Union/Progress, joins Statebuilders
pictured: Minister Sepp outside of the Imperial Palace in Liresile
Eliise Sepp, the incumbent Minister of Defense and the longest serving of any official in the current Istkalenic government, has announced that she will be leaving Union/Progress to join the nascent Statebuilding Party.
"I have had enough," she wrote in a statement released yesterday, "of the corruption, the nepotism, the entitlement. I joined Union/Progrses in service of a vision of a better country - a democratic, progressive, forward-looking Istkalen, free of the feudal, clerico-statist mentalities that had plagued its past. The past few years, however, have proven to me that they have no interest in democracy, no interest in progress, no interest in any kind of improvement. I have watched, again and again, my colleagues, who speak with grand words before the public, promising great reform, snuff out any and all real promise of change. And I can watch no longer.
"I am therefore," she continued, "leaving Union/Progress. I will no longer lend my name, lend my work, to a clique so full of the self-serving and the treacherous. I intend to join the political project of the Statebuilders, whose leaders I have long admired and whose commitments - to development, to the climate, to the cause of the rule of law and to democracy - I find myself in alignment in."
Sepp had been widely viewed as one of the founding members of Union/Progress, having been a part of the clique of SDP-affiliated technocrats that formed its nucleus. Her role in helping consolidate the authority of the Republic and funnel the social change of the 18th of April "revolution" into the "Internal Revolution" of Kerel and Ikomar only deepened this association in the public eye. Her decision thus came as an extraordinary shock to many, both within and outside of the party.
It was, however, not entirely unexpected. While she was generally seen as a party stalwart, it had long been rumored that she disliked the party mainline, especially as regarded the questions of public sex segregation and LGBT rights, both of which she was well-known to hold progressive positions on. Her work to democratize the military, coupled with her longtime friendship with Lauri Laakonen, co-leader of the Statebuilders, Minister of Culture, and head of the Istkalenic secret police, had also been seen as inclining her towards the positions of the moderate left that the Statebuilders currently represent, rather than the ardent elitism that Union/Progress has come to be associated with. Loyal as she appeared to be, she nevertheless had long been showing signs of disagreement; a break was by no means ever thought an impossibility.
Her decision is likely to broaden the Statebuilder base, giving it appeal among voters of the moderate right who may be unsatisfied with the populism of the NRP and Farmer-Greens and the ultra-elitism of Union/Progress, while also possibly bringing some local affiliates and machines loyal to her person into its fold. Paradoxically, Union/Progress is unlikely to be strongly affected; its core base is strong and highly loyal, and a genuine fracture in its ranks is unlikely.
-
Republic
Raadik, Ikalsser register "New Syndicalists"
Eliise Raadik and Makketis Ikalsser have filed paperwork to re-establish the "New Syndicalists," the political organization the two originally founded in May 2022 to represent anti-socialization and anti-incorporation forces on the left in the wake of the failure of Vistek Rikkalek's Second Act on Socialization.
While the two did not initially publically announce this, they confirmed it at a joint press conference held earlier today, claiming that the continued refusal of National Republican leadership to respond to their demands for change "necessitated" the establishment of a "political alternative."
"What else can we do," said Raadik, "when our leadership is so unresponsive? The Istkalenic people need someone to defend their real interests - now. We can no longer wait, wait, wait for Malk and Reiner to make their decisions; the threat of an austerity government is immediate. There must be an iron barrier against all those who seek to loot and degrade our social state; if the National Republicans are unwilling to provide it, then, as we have said so many times before, we will look for it elsewhere."
Several prominent politicians have already expressed their intention to join the new party, including Katharina Beck, current Minister of Agriculture and the leader of the NRP's women's wing, and Mihkel Kangur, who sits on the presidium of the national Miners' Association and is a member of the NRP's central committee. Nevertheless, Raadik and Ikalsser insist that its foundation is still "tentative," and that it will only be formalized if the NRP leadership continues to ignore them.
"We do not," said Ikalsser, "want a split. We would much prefer a united movement, a united and strong front against the specter of neoliberal communism. It is only out of desperation that we pursue our new movement at all; we would be happy to stand down if Malk and Reiner agreed to at least listen to us."
The New Syndicalists, if formally founded, are likely to take on a syncretic character, supporting "leftist" and populist positions like civil service reform, the democratization of the people's committees and workers' associations, and a "moderate" socialization alongside strongly "right-wing" ones, particularly social conservatism and the preservation of both the Public Distribution Service and National Duty.
Liris Vesek calls for Farmer-Greens to "defend liberalism"
In an apparent response to leader Irenet Isteresskemar's demands for a drive to the right, Liris Vesek, widely seen as the head of the Farmer-Green Alliance's moderate faction, has called for the organization's members to stand behind liberal and centrist principles as they elect delegates to a special party congress meant to develop and approve of a new party manifesto.
"We are," she said at a rally held in Milesile yesterday, "the party of freedom. We are the party of dignity. We are the party of democracy. We are a bulwark of liberalism - and we must remain so for the sake of all Istkaleners. For this is the time of the demagogues, who call for the destruction of our polity in favor of Caesarist dictatorship, a time of great, great danger - and it is up to us to be the vanguard that defends the people against them."
Vesek went on to denounce "Liivists," "Mindrestekists," "Rikkalekites," and "other such fools and manipulators" as "senseless populists" who "exploit the Istkalenic people for their power" and would, if given said power, "turn the country into a massive graveyard." She claimed that they had joined together to "seize control" of the Farmer-Greens - evidently referring to Isteresskemar and her radical plans - and that, to prevent a "second J-TAI," party members should vote "decisively" for moderates and liberals in the upcoming party elections.
Vesek further promised that she would personally endorse and support every "liberal" and "democrat" running for the party congress, announcing a new website, "regeneration.il," that would serve as a "virtual headquarters" to coordinate her chosen candidates' efforts.
Candidates will have until 18 February to present themselves; the internal elections will be held on 10 March.
Ilves becomes PM-designate as controversy around Arkalis grows
Following repeated demands by the National Republicans, Agrarians, and Statebuilders, Elizabeth Ikrat has removed Antras Arkalis as PM-designate, replacing him with Kalju Ilves, former Prime Minister and member of the Statebuilding Party.
"We need a new government quickly," Ikrat said at a press conference held earlier today, "and I will do anything and everything to that end. We cannot go on with a caretaker government forever; we need democratically appointed and accountable leadership for the sake of the country. If that means designating someone else, even from another party, as PM, so be it."
The decision follows weeks of intense criticism of Arkalis's "neoliberal" proclivities. Arkalis, though respected as a long-time partisan for democracy, is a strong supporter of deregulation and "shock therapy" as a way to ensure fiscal sustainability and abolish what he sees as "feudal" remnants in Istkalenic society, an inclination that led him to push for some of the most extreme measures of Indras Uskeled's employment and welfare reform that abolished pensions, legalized market-based employment, and significantly cut welfare in favor of a flat, universal allowance. This has caused him to be distrusted by many traditional Istkalenic politicians, who are wary of the effects a movement towards market-capitalism could have on their own power and on popular welfare.
While fear of Ikrat's extreme positions on foreign policy, especially her often radical antipathy towards the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia, initially led most to prefer him as Prime Minister, the passage of time - alongside a number of notes and recordings published by Uskeled herself - caused the majority of party leaders involved in negotiations to again turn against him, and call for his replacement.
With few other figures in the Communist Party prominent or competent enough to take the position he otherwise would have had - Ikrat herself remains unacceptable to most, while Marianne Seguy, the only other major communist figure with the requisite experience to handle the premiership, has point-blank refused it - Ikrat was effectively forced to choose a figure from another party. With Ilves being the closest to her positions - he, like her, is a left-wing, socially progressive, and "democratic" reformist - as well as being fairly popular, he was the natural choice.
Most party leaders are supportive of the appointment; whether it will quicken the process of government formation, however, is still unknown.
-
Nation
Raadik, Ikalsser, and 15 others expelled from NRP
pictured: Makketis Ikalsser
The Central Committee of the National Republican Party announced yesterday that it had made the decision to expel Eliise Raadik, Makketis Ikalsser, and 15 members of its parliamentary faction for "fomenting chaos" in the ranks of the party.
"This was not," read a statement the Committee released, "a decision taken lightly. It was made after many weeks of deliberation, and only when the situation had escalated to such a point that there was no other solution. We pursued every other course of action available to us: we negotiated, bargained, begged. But still these seventeen refused all but complete capitulation - and then, in spite of our continuous efforts to reach some sort of reconciliation, claimed that we had ignored them completely. We must have both order and democracy in our party; there can be no tolerance for wreckers who sow division wherever they may go in order to impose their will above that of the majority of membership."
The expulsion follows an attempt by Raadik and Ikalsser to form a party of their own, the latest escalation in a long-running argument between them and the party leaders over party redlines and participation in government negotiations.
The 15 expelled MPs have since founded a new parliamentary group, the "Republican Syndicalists," which they claim will be dedicated to defending and furthering "the freedom of the nation;" that is, preserving an egalitarian distribution of property and the "social state," completely abolishing the current bureaucracy, and replacing it with a "republican government of producers' associations."
Raadik and Ikalsser themselves, while they have not yet made fully clear their intentions, appear to have signaled that they intend to fully cooperate with this grouping; they have moved for their "New Syndicalists" to bear the same name going forwards.
Raadik and Ikalsser are the only prominent party members among those expelled; while several other ministers and party "frontbenchers" had previously openly sympathized with their aims, most prominently of which was Minister of Agriculture Katharina Beck, the Committee made no reference to or mention of them.
Demirkol leaves Union/Progress, joins Statebuilders
pictured: Yasemin Demirkol
Yasemin Demirkol, Minister of Public Distribution and Union/Progress's lead candidate in the 2022 parliamentary elections, has announced that she is leaving Union/Progress for the Statebuilding Party, citing an environment of "elitism" and "racism" that she claimed made it "ineffective" and "unsuitable for anyone serious about governing."
"I have no desire," she said at a press conference earlier today, "to further associate myself with these people. They represent the worst of our country, a disgusting cross-section of the rot and the corruption and the chauvinism that have come to pervade it. I thought, once upon a time - clearly, I see now, foolishly - that they could serve as a vehicle for the reform of the country. But one cannot reform with rusted tools - and that is, ultimately, what this faction is, a collection of rusted, broken-down tools, useless for everything except for poisoning and sickening our Istkalen."
"You would not believe," she continued, "the amount of abuse that has been hurled at me - even at me, one of its thankfully now former leaders - by the horrid things that form the membership of Union/Progress. They belittled me for my culture. They insulted me for having come into their ranks by merit and merit alone, and not whatever bizarre process of selection they have made for - and self-congratulate for so making - themselves. Day in and day out, an unending stream of this garbage. Who could take it? Certainly not them, in any case, who scream and throw fits whenever someone dares criticize them."
"The Statebuilding Party," she ultimately concluded, "is where the future of this country lies. They are the only party committed to sane, measured, and truly progressive reform; the only party I can see delivering our Istkalen from the morass of degradation it has found itself in into an era of growth and change."
Demirkol follows one of her colleagues, Eliise Sepp, in her decision, for broadly similar reasons; however, as, by far, the party's most prominent and popular figure, her departure is likely to weaken Union/Progress and strengthen the Statebuilders by a considerably more significant degree. ;
Union/Progress itself almost immediately responded to her announcement; its leader, Ilest Kerel, made a statement mere minutes later claiming that Demirkol was born in Nyetthem and had been considered by Governor [name] to serve either as Istkalen's Councillor to replace Iras Tilkanas or a token Istkalener on the J-TAI because of her hatred for her own country and love for Vayinaod.
Demirkol has since called Kerel an "idiot" whose "nonsense does not deserve the response I am giving it."
Meier rules out participation in gov't negotiations
pictured: Inge Meier
Inge Meier, the current leader of the Social Democrats, has again ruled out the idea that her party might join government negotiations, refusing participation in a political system she accuses of being "hopelessly corrupt."
"The Social Democrats," she wrote in a statement directed at Elizabeth Ikrat, who had asked that the Social Democrats enter negotiation in order to bolster the "progressive cause," promising significant concessions on a number of economic issues in return, "will not be propping up any governments of elitists and anti-democrats. We refuse to play any part in the defense of a hopelessly corrupt system that continually sucks away at the people and denies them their right to self-determination. We will only even consider governing if we are sure that it will lead to real change - to the overthrow of the Lirisian orders that hold our country hostage, to a complete legal purge of all the corrupt civil servants and patrons who refuse any and all movement forwards, to the end of all the retrograde restrictions that exist only to maintain the continued dominance of a few above the whole."
Neither Meier's refusal, nor her maximalist demands, were unexpected; she has consistently been perhaps the single most consistent and extreme opponent of the political and economic systems that prevail in Istkalen throughout her political career. It nevertheless comes as a significant disappointment for other progressives in Istkalenic politics, from Ikrat and her Communist Party to the Agrarian Union and the Statebuilders, who had been hoping, in spite of its improbability, for an alternative to the increasingly uncooperative NRP.
-
Nation: Polling 5/2-6/2
Party Preference
Communist Party (left-wing, in gov't formation): 27,1%
Statebuilding Party (center-left, in gov't formation): 18,3%
Social Democratic Party (left-wing): 17,5%
Farmer-Green Alliance (center-right): 10,6%
Republican Syndicalists (far-right): 8,4%
National Republican Party (right-wing, in gov't formation): 6,2%
Agrarian Union (far-left): 5,8%
Union/Progress (right-wing, in gov't formation): 5,1%
other: 1,0% -
Republic
Séguy and Liiv jointly announce entry into Republican Syndicalists
Marianne Séguy, the de-facto leader of Istkalen's far-left, and Andrus Liiv, the so-called "prophet" of its far-right, have jointly announced their entry into the Republican Syndicalist Party.
At a surprise press conference held earlier today, the two appeared together to denounce their old movements and positions as "decayed" and "not fit for purpose" and to anoint the Republican Syndicalists as the future of radical populism, left or right, in Istkalen.
"The Communists have become a swamp of liberalism," said Séguy there. "The Republican Syndicalists have taken from them the historical mission of protecting the dignity and welfare of the common person. And so it is the Communists I reject and the Republican Syndicalists I now join."
"We live in a world," continued Liiv on from her, "that is collapsing in on itself. The state is decaying, our society is decaying. The common good has become lost in growing egotism, this dissonant chorus of the "I" above all that is drowning out the "we" that once held us together. The right I once supported is too lost in its anachronisms to realize this; the left that was once the most stalwart defender of cohesion, of responsibility, has become, as my friend has said, now a morass of liberalism, of destroying, corrupting libertinianism over all. And so I, as she has, am turning to the new alternative - to the the Republican Syndicalist Party."
Séguy, joined by nine other Communists, has already left the Communist parliamentary faction and applied for membership in the Republican Syndicalists'; Liiv, for his part, appears to have directed his Northern Radio, as well as its magazine, Awakening, to begin broadcasting and printing messages in support of Republican Syndicalist aims and policies.
This shocking decision is nothing short of an absolute victory for the Republican Syndicalist Party. With Liiv's open endorsement, the party will almost certainly secure for itself almost all of the demobilized voters of the populist right; Séguy's endorsement, for its part, is likely to give the party more of an air of respectability, endow it with deep connections to left-trade unionism, and add to its base those parts of the radical left that are dissatisfied with the recent drift of the Communists and Agrarian Union towards the liberal positions of the Social Democratic Party.
It may, however, also mark the beginning of ideological change that the party's founders may not necessarily be amenable to. Ikalsser, Raadik, and the 15 deputies in the party's parliamentary faction ultimately created the Republican Syndicalists in an explicit attempt to provide a more right-leaning, "authentic" alternative to the conservative National Republicans. Though they have dressed themselves and their words in a thick coat of populism, they are thus all, nevertheless, conservatives at their core. The introduction of more genuinely radical elements, from both right and left, may, however, force their political project into a considerably more "anti-elitist" space, more honestly committed to the abolition of the bureaucracy, the full secularization of the state, and the "syndicalization" of society and economy - something which almost certainly was not their initial intention, and which they are likely to resist.
As of now, the party's leaders have been generally supportive of their new members, wholeheartedly celebrating their decision to join the party.
-
Nation: Polling 5/3-6/3
Party Preference (+/- 5/2-6/2)
Communist Party (left-wing, in gov't formation): 20,1% (-7,0)
Republican Syndicalist Party (syncretic): 15,2% (+6,8)
National Republican Party (right-wing, in gov't formation): 12,6% (+6,4)
Agrarian Union (left-wing, in gov't formation): 12,1% (+6,3)
Social Democratic Party (left-wing): 10,4% (-7,1)
Radical Democratic Party (center): 9,5% (NEW)
Statebuilding Party (center to center-left, in gov't formation): 8,1% (-10,2)
Farmer-Green Alliance (center-right to right-wing): 5,9% (-4,7)
Union Party (right-wing to far-right, in gov't formation): 5,1% (-)
other: 1,0% (-)by camp
the Left (Communists + Agrarians): 32,2% (-0,7)
the Liberals (Social Democrats + Radical Democrats): 19,9% (+2,4)
the Right (Farmer-Greens, Statebuilders, Republican Syndicalists, National Republicans, Union): 46,9% (-1,7)Government Approval
- approve: 87,3%
- disapprove: 10,2%
- no opinion: 2,5%
-
Republic
Ikrat promises "corporativist and social republic," rule modeled on "Lunon and Primo de Rivera"
Elizabeth Ikrat, both leader of the Communist Party and Istkalen's new and controversial prime minister, delivered her inaugural speech yesterday morning, detailing her plans for the country.
In the tradition of the progressive left, she dedicated her government to the "forgotten poor," promising to defend and invest in Istkalen's lowest two classes - its "manual laborers," a class of people for whom labor is theoretically illegal completely, and its "self-dislocated farmers," a group composed of those born in rural areas who illegally moved to the cities and were, as punishment, deprived of the vast majority of their legal and economic rights - in order to make their conditions, legal and material, equal to those of the majority.
In a less orthodox vein, however, she appeared to plot the path to this equality through the thoroughly middle-class workers' associations, calling for them to "dominate the Republic," praising them as "the organs of material and social progress" and the "future engine of an economic socialization both moral and literal," and, perhaps most bizarrely of all, taking the historically radical-right position of demanding a corporatist reform of state, society, and economy with them as base.
"The driving purpose of my government," she proclaimed, "what has been the driving force of all progressives in this country since the revolution of the 18th of April, what is the surest path to true and firm equality and liberty for the Istkalenic people, is the quick establishment of a corporativist and social republic: a government of the people, built upon the workers' associations, concerned with the maintenance of the social welfare, of justice and equity at all turns."
Ikrat further veered into eccentricity by simultaneously claiming inspiration for her ideal state from the far-left Lunon, the founder of the original iteration of the UNSR, and the right-wing Miguel Primo de Rivera, who ruled Spain autocratically in the 1920s.
"Our models," she said, "are Lunon and Primo de Rivera. We shall go forth, as they did, in establishing national progress, national unity, national justice; in overturning and reforming and building until we have made our Istkalen a nation of plenty, of great and common prosperity."
Ikrat's words were not necessarily a deviation from the line of the Istkalenic Communist Party, which has long been close to similar syncreticism in its endorsement of many aspects of the Istkalenic economic system - seen by more orthodox Marxists as a form of petty-bourgeois or conservative socialism - as progressive and communistic.
They were, nevertheless, deeply unusual and strange in terms of the extremity of the melding of right and left they suggested; with them, Ikrat became the first Communist figure in Istkalen to openly call the workers' associations progressive, and almost certainly the first person of left-wing inclination since the 1930s - perhaps of any inclination, anywhere - to simultaneously praise the Lunon and Primo de Rivera dictatorships as ideal.
However, though unusual, they were not necessarily unexpected. With the government being composed of parties from both the far-right and far-left, the development of unusual syntheses was almost certainly a necessity in negotiation - and thus one in actual policy and its presentation.
How the creation of Ikrat's "corporativist and social republic" will proceed in practice remains to be seen.
-
Republic
An interview with Katharina Beck
Katharina Beck is an aberration. She is an ardent Women's Committee-er, and yet also a staunch National Republican; a young and university-educated activist, and yet also the most prominent leader of the party with the oldest average age and lowest average level of education in Istkalen; a "political dinosaur," according to her colleagues, and yet also one of the most popular and electorally successful politicians in Istkalen.
Now set, joined by influential trade unionist Riina Kruus, to become the co-leader of the National Republicans in the wake of the resignation of Kaisa Malk and Grete Reiner, she promises a "political renewal" just as unusual as she is: a "return," she claims, to the syncretic history of her party, to "progressive conservatism" and "democratic anti-parliamentarianism."
Our political correspondent, Kestalas Milresile, now interviews her in hopes of getting to understand her - and her future plans - better.
KM: Thank you for having agreed to this interview.
KB: And thank you for having given me this opportunity to speak. It isn't often that I get to speak in this sort of environment - one-on-one, without the terrible theater, all the camera-clicks and cheering and jeering and so on, of rallies or press conferences.
KM: Yes. As you probably know - and I'd like to apologize in advance for it- I'm a very direct person, and so I'd like to get right into it. How did you get into politics?
KB: I actually got interested in it a lot earlier than is often said about me. I grew up in the German Territories, under that theocracy, and so everyone, I think, assumes that I was tabula rasa, a baby, at the time of the war and the invasion, and only really gained consciousness, political consciousness, after that. But that isn't true at all - I'm not even sure why so many people think it is.
My mother had me secretly enrolled in a girls's school - illegal - run by the Communists, when I was very young - 4, I think. I have to be clear, they provided a very good education, entirely non-ideological; I wasn't coerced or brainwashed into anything. But at a certain age - I was 15 or 16, something like that - I realized what their party was doing for me, and that they were doing it against the Arian regime and the state that tolerated, at times actively supported, it.
So from then to a bit after the surrender to Reitzmag, I was a devoted Communist. I don't regret it. They gave me so much - I felt obligated to give back, to them and to the future generations, as a matter of moral duty, and would be ashamed, would still be living with that shame, had I done nothing and gone on passively.
I was very active with them. I was a part of their youth wing, I eventually got some local leadership position; when I got older, I helped run their school while taking courses at this underground university, and then after that did trade union work at a textile workshop. In the year leading up to the occupation I was actually doing partisan work. And then came -
KM: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm curious - how did you go from that, from being a Communist for what, 15, 16 years -
KB: 16, I think.
KM: Yes, from being a Communist for that long, from being so devoted to that cause that you were a partisan on its behalf, to becoming a National Republican - from ardent leftist to ardent rightist?
KB: There are two things I want to say, but let me begin with the reasons for my switch between parties.
The Communists, at the time of the collapse of the Federation, were very supportive of, and certainly very heavy participants in, the people's and women's committee movements. They were very much in line with the theory the party had developed in regards to social development and revolution in our country, they had a great deal of popular support, they were carrying out many progressive reforms - economic redistribution, women's liberation, prosecution of "patrons" - they were very much a dream come true.
Very quickly, they gained a huge deal of influence over the committees. They were very much the leaders and coordinators of the movement; the ball was in their court.
And so when Kerel announced elections for the 5th of May, we expected them to call for non-participation. There had been some collaboration before that, and we, the party cadres, accepted that as necessary against the more pressing threat of the occupation forces and their nebulous plans for the country, but we still saw the Kerel government as being a continuation of the old regime, and their elections as being an attempt to re-establish it in a more acceptable form, and believed that those above agreed. But leadership went along, completely, with it and called for the unity of the people's committees and the national government - for the redirection of all this extraordinary energy among the people into the defense of what we saw as reaction.
It was then that I made my break. I saw the decision as an immense betrayal, as it has, with all the disaster and tragedy we have seen over the past few years, turned out to have been; I simply could not carry on.
The National Republicans I joined not much later. Here is where I must come to the second thing I wanted to say.
The National Republicans, with the exception of the Linek period - and even that we can debate, because many of Linek's proposals were made with very progressive intentions - had hitherto been seen as a left-wing force in Istkalenic politics. And during the occupation, when Lawrence Ketist was at the helm of the party, I think they were, very decisively, still left-wing. They wanted radical economic reform - the complete liquidation of the "patrons," the end of the state occupational unions and workers' societies that had at that point become organizations whose sole purpose was to keep new workers out and allow their members to cheat their clients - and were quite strongly against the full restoration of the Censorate and the Courts of Examination.
For me, then, it was not a decision to go from left to right; it was a simply a choice between two left-wing forces. Even now, I still do not see myself as a rightist - I, as my party now does, still support the same reforms, the same policies, on exactly the same lines, as I did then.
KM: Hmm. Do you think people - the media, academicians - are wrong to label the National Republicans right-wing?
KB: Not necessarily. If they had done so in 2021 - yes, absolutely, they would have been well beyond wrong. But things have changed, drastically, since then. The left has implemented the vast majority of its original proposals, and has moved on to others - subsidy and pension reform are two fairly major ones, and another is, of course, the debate on business incorporation - so the parts of it that refused to similarly move on have become the right.
It's also true that there are elements in the National Republicans that would have been right-wing even then. Kaisa Malk and Grete Reiner presented far more reactionary positions, on both political and moral issues, than even the old social democrats held - the two did it under pressure, of course, but the existence of that pressure quite obviously points to very right-wing currents within our party. And that's not to mention Makketis and Eliise, who, in the short time they have been outside of the party, have begun collaboration with every single banned far-right formation there exists in our country.
KM: As an aside, didn't you support those last two?
KB: Yes. It was a mistake. I was dissatisfied with Malk and Reiner's approach to leadership; I wanted change. Evidently what change might have been wrought from what might have been accomplished would have been in the worst possible direction. But I didn't know that at the time. I was blind, and to be honest a little willingly as well.
KM: Moving on, you've effectively become one of the party's leaders, alongside Riina Kruus, and it's fait accompli that you'll formally ascend to the co-leadership as soon as the party holds an extraordinary congress - what do you intend to do with your power?
KB: I want to return to basics. That's what I, with Riina and Lawrence [Ketist], did when we were charged with running the campaign in the recent associational elections, and it's what, I think, led us to perform so strongly. So - return to the issues that used to define us: further reductions in licensing and the barriers to work, further work against corruption, clientelism, and patronism, and further strengthening of our central state. And return to the old ideological framework in order to bring these all together into a coherent whole - the republican and decidedly anti-fascist corporatism that was for so long our standard.
KM: Corporatism hasn't been republican or anti-fascist for quite some time, if ever, in fact, here or abroad; very much the opposite on every count. Why this term?
KB: I don't see any reason not to call it what it is. It's the proper term; many others, liberals, agrarians, even a few socialists, have used it - why should we be forced to surrender it to reactionaries?
KM: It makes you seem reactionary, don't you think?
KB: No.
KM: Recently, the Prime Minister proclaimed her support for it, and the whole public seemed to think she was very reactionary for having done so.
KB: There's a difference between saying that you support a corporatism that is republican and anti-fascist and saying that you love a foreign right-wing dictator, one who was incompetent, unpopular, and the parent of several fascists to boot. I was personally very taken aback by what she said, to be clear.
KM: But you, too, though you haven't praised foreign dictators, have called for dictatorship. Yesterday, you called for the abolition of the parliament and its replacement with a "more authoritative and harmonious system." That, combined with your corporatism, seems to mark you as reactionary.
KB: I didn't call for the abolition of the parliament; I called for the abolition of parliamentarianism. I don't think it is good for any country to be ruled by a small group of out-of-touch politicians who bicker among themselves constantly; I would like a system that incorporates more democracy, with more room for initiatives and referenda, while also encouraging more unity in government, with a permanent, assured grand coalition that prevents excessive instability and ensures both consensus and sane policymaking.
KM: Moving on, the National Republicans made a number of unexpected alliances with the Farmer-Greens for association control; most media believed that they would unite with the liberal Radicals, who seem closer to them ideologically, but they seem, instead, to have universally preferred you. Why do you think this was?
KB: It was odd, I think, that anyone thought they would ally with the Radicals in the first place. The Farmer-Greens do not support that type of "liberalism;" they are not for respecting so-called subsidiarity which outsources governance to various corrupt, rent-seeking groupings. Their politics are simply a less pragmatic, more rurally focused version of ours. They are, in essence, to us as the Agrarian Union is to the Communists; for them not to ally with us would be as likely as the Agrarian Union deciding, suddenly, to ally with the Union Party, an impossibility.
People see, I think, that they have a more decentralized base, that they are more libertarian on social and cultural issues, and conclude that the Farmer-Greens must simply be a rural version of the Radicals. But look at the actual proposals and there is a world of difference; almost no similarities in ideology at all, in fact.
KM: Quite inversely, the National Republicans were rather cold to the Statebuilders in the few associations where a coalition might have been possible, in spite of the general perception being that the two are virtually identical - why, again, do you think this was?
KB: Grudges. The Statebuilding Party has effectively become Yasemin Demirkol's latest attempt to fuse the traditional National Republican ideology with wonkery. She has been at it for years, first with Progress, then with Union/Progress, and now with this, and, to be entirely honest, many in our party are upset with it. It seems to them - and even to me - that it's some odd tantrum on her behalf that she has thrown for two years now because she is still upset that leadership overruled her, when she was still a member, in deciding to move towards populism. It's just irritating, I think, to many.
KM: But your party nominated her - with her full consent - as an "independent guest" to occupy the position of Minister of Public Distribution, as you did for all of the other Statebuilding leaders - Uklertal, Sepp, Ilves, Laakonen...
KB: They're all very effective ministers who align with us ideologically; we want them in our fold.
KM: Do you think a full merger is likely?
KB: Fait accompli.
KM: Well, that's all the time we have, unfortunately. Thanks for having spoken with us, and all the best of luck in your future endeavors.
KB: You too. Thanks, again, and farewell.
-
Nation
Polling 5/4-6/4
Party Preference (+/- 5/3-6/3)
Union Party (right-wing to far-right, in opposition): 40,3% (+35,2)
Social Democratic Party (left-wing, in opposition): 20,3% (+8,9)
Communist Party (left-wing, in gov't): 10,6% (-9,5)
National Republican Party (right-wing, in gov't): 7,5% (-5,1)
Agrarian Union (left-wing, in gov't): 6,5% (-5,6)
Republican Syndicalist Party (syncretic, in gov't): 5,2% (-10,0)
Statebuilding Party (center to center-left, in gov't): 3,8% (-4,3)
Radical Democratic Party (center, in gov't): 3,5% (-6,0)
Farmer-Green Alliance (center-right to right-wing, in gov't): 2,1% (-4,8)
other: 1,0% (-)Government Approval
approve: 5,1%
disapprove: 94,0%
no opinion: 0,9% -
Republic
Kalessed refuses the removal of Íkrat: "I am the guarantor of the republic"
Head of State Ilmaras Kalessed has announced that she will not comply with the Censorate's decision to remove Elizabeth Íkrat as Prime Minister, and will take "all necessary action" to ensure that the current coalition government maintains in office.
"This government," she said at a press conference held earlier today, "is the highest expression of the will of the Istkalenic people. It derives its legitimacy from the parliament they elected; it is formed out of the parties they freely placed their confidence in; it is carrying out the agenda they chose at the last election. I am the guarantor of the Republic: our constitution gives me full power and responsibility to keep Istkalenic government a public matter, a democratic matter. And as guarantor, as Head of State, I will not let - I am bound not to let - a small and anti-democratic clique run amok over the affairs which rightfully are the people's. Ms. Íkrat's government will remain until parliament - until the representatives of the people - withdraw their confidence in it. This is absolute and final - and I will take all necessary action to ensure that it remains such."
Kalessed's announcement is a radical break with thousands of years of Istkalenic political tradition, which has traditionally ascribed to the courts and the Censorate absolute power over government affairs. While her action is theoretically legal - the Head of State is indeed given broad and absolute power to determine the exact form of the Istkalenic government and ensure its "republican nature" - it is nevertheless so contrary to the principles that have historically guided the country that it may very well be an act of treason.
The Censorate itself has not yet responded, but is expected to do so later today. Most experts predict that it will move to remove Kalessed from office.
Íkrat claims existence of "reactionary-technocratic" coalition conspiring against her
Elizabeth Íkrat, Prime Minister, has claimed that a "reactionary-technocratic" coalition has been conspiring against her government to put to an end her corporatist program for Istkalen, blaming it for recent poor polling number as well as for the Censorate's recent attempt to remove her from office.
"Istkalen," she said at a Communist Party rally held yesterday, "is beseiged by reaction. The Reitzmics and Vards outside conspire to reduce us to colony; the compradors, the capitalist roaders, and the religious reactionaries within have joined together to bring to an end popular government. Even now they sit in their offices, their mansions, their palaces, here and abroad, planning my downfall - the end of our movement for reform, justice, democracy. Let us stand against this cabal! Let us smash this coalition of reactionaries and technocrats and bring to full flower in our Istkalen a people's regime!"
In the few days she has been Prime Minister, Íkrat has been faced with massive and uniform public opposition to her agenda, a politically bizarre syncresis of the corporatism of the Istkalenic right and the welfare-levelling of the Istkalenic left that finds itself entirely incompatible with either. She has found herself with almost no allies in civil society; her statement is likely an attempt to regain their confidence by appealing to their general opposition to the dominance of the Istkalenic judiciary over the state.
However, while her legal removal at the hands of the Censorate has proven similarly unpopular, it has not in any way aided her popularity or legitimacy; her allegations are therefore unlikely to gain her any additional sympathy.
With popularity in free-fall, the Ecologists, New Agrarians, Farmer-Greens, Radical Democrats, and Statebuilders come to an agreement to create a new Agrarian Union
The Agrarian Union has - yet again - been refounded, now as a coalition between the Ecologists and New Agrarians - the members of the old Agrarian Union - the Statebuilders, the Radical Democrats, and the Farmer-Greens. In its new incarnation, it will be led by Esketal Indretek, and be an "agrarian and solidarist movement" which will work primarily for "social justice," "regional levelling," and "auto-development."
Its program is modelled on that of the 1970s and 80s Agrarian Union, focusing on a transformation of economy, society, and polity on corporatist lines coupled with a full, if gradual, return to traditional methods and organizations of industry, abandoning even those few Western innovations that have found their way into the country since the beginning of the occupation in order to pursue a "full independence" on the economic front. However, the new Union will also maintain a firmly socially progressive line, as well as a more intense commitment to environmentalism and opposition to nuclear power.
Formed as its constituents decline sharply in polling as a result of their participation in government, the Agrarian Union seeks to bolster moderation and stability in the country by consolidating pro-government and reformist forces under a single, ideologically coherent umbrella. As the center flees, however, to more radical opposition parties, like the Union Party and Social Democrats, in its strong opposition to the radical incoherence of the Ikrat government, whether this strategy will be successful is unclear.
-
Republic
Polling 10/4 - 17/4
conducted by Kaitmulen, 2.445 respondents
Party Preference
Social Democratic Party (banned)/Bloc of National Reform (refounded SDP) (left-wing to far-left): 36,1%
Union Party (right-wing to far-right): 34,5%
National Republican Party (right-wing): 12,1%
Republican Syndicalist Party (right-wing): 9,8%
Communist Party (left-wing): 4,5%
Agrarian Union (left-wing): 1,2%
other: 1,8%Government Approval
approve: 4,1%
disapprove: 91,9%
no opinion: 4,0% -
Republic
Internal debates over the future of the Communists
The Communists of Istkalen are at a loss. The 18th of April robbed them of ideology, the occupation of opportunity, and now their own government of any and all legitimacy. Currently polling under the threshold, and likely to fall even further as even those who were once their most stalwart partisans flee them for Inge Meier's Bloc of National Reform or Katharina Beck's National Republican Party, they stare oblivion in the face.
With so existential a threat so near, they have retreated from the wild experiments in organization and ideology they have been conducting since the capitulation to Reitzmag and returned to the solid, time-tested tradition that unites all Communists: infighting. Though they currently have only 12 deputies in parliament, the support of but a few mutualities, and effectively no activist base, they have found themselves divided into four factions, none of which can find common ground with the others and all of which claim that it is them and only them who have the ability to guide the party back towards its former popularity and dominance.
The largest is led by Antras Arkalis, former Minister of Finance and current Minister of Energy, who calls for the party to become a defender of Western-style capitalism. Claiming that the country continues to suffer under "feudalism," he demands a break with the old doctrine of "socialism with Istkalenic characteristics," which suggests that "the concentration of existing industry" under the auspices of the workers' associations is the surest and most possible path towards socialism. It is, he insists, a reactionary position, one out of accord with communist principles - for him, it preserves too much, when the aim of the communist and workers' movements ought to be to destroy so as to level.
To take its place he would like most his own "market socialism," involving a legalization of incorporation, the creation of a legal framework for joint-stock companies and a stock market, subsidies for voluntary collectivization in the agricultural and crafts sectors, and privatization of most "non-social" assets, particularly factories, currently owned either by the state or by associations - the establishment on firm ground, in essence, of a fully Western economy in Istkalen. This, he insists, is the only way to sweep away the patrons, the courts, and all their companions, and to develop the country, both socially and economically, to a point where it can be ready for a "realer socialism on the Czech or Nicoleizian style," in his own words.
The second largest is that of Iras Tilkanas, Istkalen's sitting European Councillor, the only Communist figure with net-positive approval ratingsand the last of the public figures of its once-dominant right-wing. Her call is for a fuller embrace of "socialism with Istkalenic characteristics:" she insists that the party, to remain relevant, must "moderate and become a party of the broad left," in essence move closer to the more popular "economic federalism" and "corporate statism" of parties like the National Republicans and Republican Syndicalists.
She wants the party to embrace the politically authoritarian designs of the Istkalenic right, from their support for ultra-presidentialism to their schemes to abolish the legislature, as well as their approach, founded on layered duties, the worker to the association and the association to the state, to the economy; she would like conservatism on all things except for environmental, cultural, labor, and subsidy-related issues.
The third is of Indras Irakemar, the sitting Minister of Finance. Her insistence is that the party must adopt planning as the solution to all problems. It is planning, she says, will drive forth economic development, planning that will prevent overconsumption, planning that will cure Istkalenic of all its ills - planning, planning, planning. She envisions a great planning board dictating and the associations mobilizing in service; this is her socialism, her democratic economy, the future ideal she believes the Communists must promote above all.
And the fourth, the smallest, is that of the floundering Ms. Ikrat herself. It has but one belief - that the Communists must remain in power for as long as possible.
With no party congress in sight, and with Ikrat and her colleagues dominant over the central committee, the struggle between these four will not be fought in any formal environment. There will be no ousters of committeemen and commiteewoman, no sudden purges of liaisons with mutualities; none of that. But it will, nevertheless, be an obvious struggle.
Those involved are among the most powerful men and women in Istkalen. Though they may not be able to change the party through formal mechanisms, they nevertheless will have a broad array of tools available to them to intimidate and therefore, perhaps, to force change. There will be rallies, there will be great speeches, there will be public, emotional ultimatums with threats of splits and betrayals - these, the methods of mass manipulation and mobilization, will be, in the place of backroom arguments and long ballotings, the mechanisms of this intraparty struggle.
It is a form of politics entirely new to these politicians, and certainly to the country; how successful it will be, especially in the face of such intense public opposition to the Communist Party, remains to be seen. The opportunity for revival and change, not merely of and to the Communist Party but to the greater Republic, is, nevertheless, clear and present.
-
Review of the Two Worlds
The failure of elite politics
The Statebuilding Party is dead. Almost all of its leaders have been discredited completely in Istkalenic politics; the organization itself has been absorbed by the already moribund Agrarian Union. The "moderate social democracy" it claimed to represent has been left without support popular or institutional; in every way, the project it spearheaded has failed. And the few of its most prominent figures who remain influential and popular - Yasemin Demirkol, Lauri Laakonen, Eliise Sepp - have spurned it completely.
Political commentators say, now, that this extraordinary collapse was entirely predictable - that it was easy to see that the Statebuilders were doomed from the very beginning. But this was not the tune they were singing but two months ago. Their insistence, which they claim now only the foolish could have believed, was that the Statebuilders were not on the path to implosion but instead ascendant - that their politics, a synthesis of the reformist and moderate left with the technocratic, law-and-order right, were the future of an Istkalen disillusioned, through the misrule of Vistek Rikkalek and the NSC, with populism and extremism. Only with the failure of the 4 March elections, in which the Statebuilders, defying polling that had pointed to them being the country's second most popular party, failed to make any significant showing outside of the associations of the elite - of the civil service, the security service, and the financiers, merchants, and economic planners of the Commerce Association - did they even begin to change their minds.
The mirage of Statebuilder-success, in essence, was one that was, at the time, very convincing to all - and not without reason. The popularity of the technocratic government of Ursula Orlich, the rapid decline of the far-right, and, above all, the rapid growth of the Statebuilders themselves in polling at the time painted a clear picture of a new Istkalen, an Istkalen that had grown to hate the old parties and politicians, an Istkalen entirely eager to embrace order and firm authority.
Why then, a mirage and not reality? With everything pointing so clearly to the inevitability of change, why did change ultimately not happen?
As the political commentators now quite correctly insist, the answer is simple.
The Republic of Istkalen is an oligarchy. It is a state in which politics is conducted by unaccountable elites, in smoky backrooms, for their own benefit; a state whose republicanism is nothing more than a paper-thin facade meant to obscure a reality of corruption and authoritarianism.
It is because of this that populism-as-strategy has been so enduring; there being no real democracy in Istkalen, its politicians, fearing retribution, must create with their words a facsimile of it, radical enough in its appearance to distract from its obvious falseness.
Everyone with real power pretends to be a populist; no one who shies away from this mask has any hope of remaining in office. Even women like Ursula Orlich, the President of the Censorate and an example par excellence of the closed and elitist nature of governance in Istkalen, center in their words a people fighting against an elite of patrons and compradors and now, in the aftermath of the occupation, Reitzmic and Vardic spies, a brave people who must be defended, who must be represented, who must be helped and strengthened so that they may win their struggle and thereafter establish a state of their own over and against their erstwhile oppressors.
The Statebuilders saw simply that those who had held power before and through the NSC period, who had been left without support, had attempted to portray themselves, as all Istkalenic politicians had been wont to do, as populists, and so tried to reject that same populism to avoid the same fate.
And without a populist approach, they could come across as being nothing more than, like the Union Party, active and open supporters of corruption, authoritarianism, and reaction in Istkalen. In a period still characterized by widespread fear of punishment for dissent, this is enough to create the appearance of widespread public support - but not enough to produce the same in a secret ballotage held among and for a population wanting, however secretly, nothing more than reform, opening, and democracy.
Now, as this same elitism, in the face of the deep unpopularity of Elizabeth Ikrat and her government, seems to make a resurgence, it is important to keep this experience in mind. The most aristocratic and authoritarian aspects of state remain, as they were just a few months ago, deeply unpopular; though the idea of order may now be in demand, Istkaleners do not cry out for a dictatorship of the courts. An embrace of elitist rhetoric and appearance continues to be politically suicidal; politicians, especially those in the opposition, internal or external, would do well to remember this in order to avoid being consigned to the same fate as the Statebuilders.
-
Nation
Mea Culpa
Irenet Isteresskemar
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
This is what and all I must say to those who have stood with me through the past few years. It is - yes - my fault, and my fault alone, my fault in the highest, that your long work has been for naught, that your hopes have suddenly been crushed, that our efforts to bring the voice of the countryside to Kirelesile have ended in failure.
I gave you, unnecessarily, to extremism. I pushed your cause to the fringe. And I staked out a position that could never find itself with real power and influence.
With these mistakes, I betrayed you, and I am now, in the aftermath, bound to make right what I have done wrong.
I am therefore retiring from electoral politics. I will not take part in the refoundation of the Agrarian Union, and will resign from all positions I hold in the apparatus thereof.
I will continue to hope for your victory, so that your work is protected against the advance of foreign industry, so that our independence is safeguarded, so that our democracy is maintained and strengthened. But I will limit myself to this and nothing else.
I will retain only my position as Minister of Foreign Affairs, as a nonpartisan. Only here, I feel, have I been able to do any productive work, and only here would my loss be more of a burden to the country and the movement than my continued presence. I will therefore remain to continue to chart a non-aligned, internationalist, and resolutely national course for our Istkalen in the world.
To the people of Istkalen, its real heroes, to whom I owe my life, to whom I address all my possible apologies and respect, then.
Irenet Isteresskemar.
