A bad election for Theresa May was good for democracy, Besides the snap election, what else cost the Tories?, Macron party’s primary victory is hope for Europe, Biden and Clinton presidential tilts would be troubling, Nadal reserves a place in history

A roundup of global commentary for the June 26, 2017, weekly magazine.

Leon Neal/AP
British Prime Minister Theresa May, 4th from (l.), as she holds the first Cabinet meeting of her new team inside 10 Downing Street, in London, June 12, 2017.

The Economic Times / India

Why a bad election for Theresa May was good for democracy

“It turned out to be a terrible June for [British Prime Minister Theresa] May, but perhaps for democracy, the Conservatives’ unexpected loss marks the beginning of a warm summer,” states an editorial. “Another round of mid-term elections cannot be ruled out, as May’s leadership of the Conservatives and the party’s proposed alliance with an Irish party with a theological bent are both shaky.... [T]he election result strongly proves popular disapproval of the kind of hard Brexit that May had been planning.... But the June elections did bring their share of good news. There was a surge of youth voters. It did not mean good news for the Conservatives, but increased participation by young and new voters is good news for democracy.”

The Japan Times / Tokyo

Aside from Theresa May’s snap election call, what else cost the Tories?

“One debacle was [British Prime Minister Theresa May’s] claim that she had not reversed course when she decided to impose a cap on the total cost of social care bills to be borne by middle-class families...,” states an editorial. “More damaging still was support for hard Brexit, a move that won the support of hard-core UK Independence Party voters, but ensured the alienation of ... students.... If there is an optimistic note in this ballot outcome, it is that British voters rejected the feverish populism that got them into this mess. Finding an exit strategy will not be easy. May is the second British prime minister in a row to have been hobbled by misjudgments and hubris.”

Kathimerini / Athens

Why Macron party’s primary election victory is hope for Europe

“The victory of French President Emmanuel Macron’s party in the first round of parliamentary elections ... which came on top of his presidential triumph [in May] – inspires optimism about the future of Europe,” states an editorial. “Here we have a young politician who managed to dominate France’s political scene on the promise of a bold reformist agenda. He managed to win without descending into populism and swept aside the old political class because he chose not to rely on spent forces, but to set up a new movement. For us, Macron could serve as an example about how the country could pull itself out of the crisis: Having faith in reforms can only take you so far without some radical political decisions.”

Daily Monitor / Uganda

Why Biden and Clinton 2020 presidential tilts would be troubling

“Now, [Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden], of course, have the right to seek their country’s presidency,” writes Muniini K. Mulera. “They are very bright, seasoned politicians with a lot to offer.... However, when political parties repeatedly recycle their reconditioned politicians ... one questions the health of their countries.... Yet America seems to have a very small pool from which it selects its leaders. Well, that is until [Donald] Trump upset the cart and left America’s political blue-bloods dazed.... Now they are back, ready to reclaim what is theirs by right.... In Uganda, the competition for the presidency has settled down to two families – the Kagutas and Kifefes.... Ugandans, like Americans, will rally behind these political dynasties, all the while claiming that ... all men are created equal. Sweet but troubling.” 

Stabroek News / Guyana

Rafael Nadal reserves a place in history

“Rafael ‘Rafa’ Nadal won the French Open tennis tournament beating the Swiss Stan Wawrinka ... and in doing so, became the first player in the modern era (which began with the 1968 French Open) to win one Grand Slam singles event ten times...,” states an editorial. “How difficult is the French Open to win when compared to the Australian Open, Wimbledon and US Opens? It is the only Grand Slam tournament still entirely open to the elements.... The tennis season now shifts to the grass courts of England.... Can ... Nadal reach a sixth Wimbledon final, despite not having passed the fourth round since 2011? Rafa will be his usual self, slashing, and dashing all over the court ..., his place in tennis history already assured.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to  A bad election for Theresa May was good for democracy, Besides the snap election, what else cost the Tories?, Macron party’s primary victory is ho...
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today