While the President of the Italian Republic Sergio Mattarella was giving his exemplary end-of-year speech, the values of peace and constructive interaction between peoples and nations were highlighted on a global level as were the ever-topical issues of health, work, education, equal rights and the fight against gender violence on a national level. Around the same time (décalage horaire aside) other Heads of State and Government, representatives of authoritarian regimes, of so-called "competitive authoritarianism" and countries in a state of war, were interested in communicating very different principles and priorities in their objectives in their respective speeches over the airwaves.
In particular, the indefinite continuation of ongoing conflicts until the "total destruction" of the adversaries was evoked almost in unison both by presidents Putin and Zelensky, in relation to the Russian/Ukrainian war now approaching its third year of devastating existence, and by the leadership of Israel and Hamas, engaged in bloody military operations since 7 October, in which - as evidence of their barbarity - the number of civilian victims far exceeds those in combat.
This makes any temporal prediction on the duration of hostilities, in both cases, practically impossible, since the "annihilation" of the rival, due to its radical character, represents a much more complex result to achieve than, let's say, the (re)conquest of a territory or even the political/military downsizing of the opposing army. As an inevitable consequence, this inflexibility is bound to spread like wildfire, involving other areas already characterized by strong instability, as is the case of Yemen, a territory from which the Houthi rebels (with the support of the Iranian ayatollahs) are seriously threatening the security of the Red Sea shipping route, essential for the international trade of European countries (and not only), with terrorist action.
Among the not exactly reassuring announcements at the beginning of the year is evidently that of Chinese President Xi Jinping, due to the references - without the need for too much detail - to the circumstance that China will be "certainly reunified" and that Taiwan will be "brought back under the control of the motherland." Even if it has already been made explicit on previous occasions and even if it lacks references regarding implementation dates, it is still - and as such has been interpreted by international observers - a "strong" announcement, not surprisingly reiterated by inaugurating an important year in the history of the People's Republic of China, that of 2024, in which the seventy-fifth anniversary of its existence will be commemorated (and will certainly be adequately celebrated).
Equally significant appears to be the fact that Xi's televised speech took place just a few days after the presidential and parliamentary elections were held on the "rebel island" of Taiwan (this is the name given to it by Beijing). The clear affirmation, in the presidential elections, of the current vice-president and candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), William Lai, the most convinced supporter, among the three contenders for office, of a clear line of autonomy, obviously represented the more unwelcome result for the Dragon, which would have instead hoped for the success of Hou Yu-in, exponent of the Kuomintang (in opposition) and theoretician of an approach based on greater cooperation towards the People's China. For the latter, a reason for partial consolation appears to be represented by the vote for the renewal of Parliament, where the DPP did not obtain an absolute majority of seats. However, it goes without saying that even for William Lai the term "independence" is banned from political jargon, and is replaced by the more realistic "maintenance of the status quo".
It should also not be forgotten that, in the (failed) attempt to influence the outcome of the polls, Beijing had not hesitated, until the eve of January 13, to combine political pressure with other forms of intimidation, such as the adoption of restrictive economic measures and the use of ostentatious military provocations, specifically a targeted "mix" of aerial overflights, repeated passages of significant naval forces in the Strait and cyber-attacks aimed at Taiwanese infrastructure.
More generally, after the vote which took place at the beginning of January in Bangladesh, that of Taiwan represented the second part of an epic electoral year which will see around 2 billion people involved over the next 12 months (basically half of the electorate worldwide) spread across over 70 countries on the planet. In the first months of the year, it will be Asia that will be mainly called upon to renew (or confirm) its leadership (with the very important Indian general elections scheduled for April), while, subsequently, the attention of governments, media and public opinion will be destined to move to Europe (European Parliament elections in June) and, in the last part of the year, to the United States, where, the "primaries" recently started, with the same candidates from 2020 possibly competing as representatives of the Democrats and Republicans.
In this very broad electoral round it will obviously be necessary to accept the inevitable, that is to say that both in Belarus and the Russian Federation (called to vote in February and March respectively) nothing can be changed with respect to the continuation, for yet another mandate, of the dictatorships of Lukashenko and Putin.
Nor can "better" results be expected in other contexts equally dominated by today's regimes in power, such as the cases of Venezuela, Iran and, above all, North Korea. What appears important is that wherever the elections are expected to be fair and free and, even more so, in geographical areas other than Europe (Asia itself, Africa, Latin America), the parties and movements that place the values of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights at the top of their respective political manifestos are rewarded by the electoral bodies.
In this way, the result of refuting the image, dear to autocratic regimes, of an increasingly marked detachment from said values which characterizes the societies of those continents will also be achieved.
In support of this argument, the direct contrast of the West against the Rest is often cited which would find concrete expression, according to this interpretation, also during the vote of the United Nations General Assembly in New York and precisely in relation to the two main conflicts in progress.
To counteract this misleading interpretation, it should not be forgotten that economic growth, the progress of science, widespread well-being and technology within everyone's reach are, within each individual country, strictly connected to democratic government systems, capable of combining the freedom of markets to social protection measures and open, above all, to international dialogue and cooperation. A state model, in other words, completely unacceptable for regimes solely interested in prolonging their own, unquenchable thirst for power indefinitely over time, escaping any "serious" electoral verification.
Also for these reasons, the Taiwanese vote in mid-January which, in rewarding William Lai clearly reiterated Taipei's belonging to the "team" of democracies, is destined to have an even greater importance, although certainly not secondary, than the territorial context in which the island is inserted. "We have only one hope, to continue living according to our democratic and free model" were the first words of the new president in the message of thanks to his voters. The hope is that these statements, evidence of a virtuous system in which an exchange of roles between the majority and the opposition is conceivable at every single passage from the polls, may meet with an abundance of proselytes also on the occasion of other political disputes of this, electorally so important, year of grace 2024.
Reggente Marco Marsilli, Foundation President
