Referendum

Referendum (pronounced ref-uh-ren-duhm)

(1) The principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislature or executive authority to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection; the submission of an issue of public importance to the direct vote of the electorate.

(2) A measure thus referred.

(3) The vote on such a measure.

(4) A poll of the members of a club, union, or other group to determine their views on some matter.

(5) In historic diplomatic use, a diplomat’s official's note to their government requesting instructions.

(6) In legal & diplomatic use (as ad referendum (To reference)), an indication that although the substantive issues have been agreed, some differences on matters of detail need still to be resolved.

1847: From the Latin referendum (something to be referred; that which ought to be announced), neuter future passive participle (gerundive) of referre (to bring back), the construct being the verb ferre (to bear, bring, carry) + re- (here used to mean “back”).  It was an inflection of referendus, gerundive of referō (I announce).  Modern use appears to have begun in 1847 to describe the voting process used by the Swiss cantons (provinces) to validate certain laws passed by a legislature and use extended to the English-speaking world in 1882.

The re- prefix was from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re- & red- (back; anew; again; against), from the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (again), a metathetic alteration of wert- (to turn).  It displaced the native English ed- & eft-.  A hyphen is not normally included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above.  As late as the early twentieth century, the dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt deliberately to affect the archaic.  Re- may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be” and the modal verbs (can, should etc).  Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or "backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure.  The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre (again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re- but the etymology was always murky.   In use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or "backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.  Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European ure- (back), which was related to the Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of “looking backwards”).

The word referendum illustrates the difference between the Latin constructs known as gerunds & gerundives and their English equivalents.  In Latin, gerunds are neuter singular nouns formed from verbs by appending -ndum to the stem whereas in English, gerunds are verbal nouns formed by adding an -ing.  The Latin legendum (reading) is for example formed from the verb legere (to read) while the English gerund is reading (read + -ing).  Because English gerunds are nouns, the preceding pronouns should take the possessive form (“we noticed him reading” (present participle)) but “we enjoyed his reading of that passage” (gerund).  By contrast, the Latin gerundive has the same form as a gerund but is used as an adjective and can take any number (singular or plural) and gender.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), there exists in English some sixty words which are unchanged from the original Latin (gerundives & gerunds) in a ratio of about two to one.  Some two-dozen are Latin phrases, noted from their continued use in legal jargon (such as capias ad respondendum (to enforce attendance at court) while the remainder are often from Medieval or Church Latin, unknown to Classical Latin.  Curiously, the OED was (at least earlier) ambivalent about whether referendum comes from a gerund or a gerundive but most agree a gerund it is and thus would have no plural in Latin so the rules of English plural construction would apply, creating referendums.  Were it a gerundive, the alternative plural in English could be referenda and that has attained some popularity but most authorities think this usually a misunderstanding based on the treatment of nouns (eg stadium & stadia). 

The meaning has of course shifted.  In Latin, a referendum was “a question to be referred to the people” but in modern European political discourse it was appropriated to describe the mechanics of the vote itself.  Had the original conventions of Latin be adhered to by those who followed. Such a thing would have been “a reference” but referendum is well understood and the original sense is now covered by the ubiquitous “terms of reference” and the preferred plural form is doubtlessly referendums although referenda is heard so often it may well have become an alternative unique to English.  Variations are actually not unusual: a neverendum is political slang for something which a government is never likely to submit to a vote and technically, a preferendum is a referendum in which more than two items or persons are being voted upon.

In modern use plebiscite has a similar meaning in modern use and by many is used interchangeably.  It was from the Latin plebiscita, which originally meant “decree of the Concilium Plebis (Plebeian Council)”, the popular assembly of the Roman Republic.  English gained the word from the Middle French plébiscite, from the Latin plebiscita from plebs & plebis (the common people) and the construct of the Latin plēbīscītum (decree of the plebs) was plēbī (for plēbis & plēbēī genitive singular of plēbs & plēbēs) + scītum (“resolution, decree”, the noun use of neuter of scītus, the past participle of scīscere (to enact, decree) (originally, to seek to know, learn)), inchoative of scīre (to know).  Despite some imprecision in modern use, there are places where some distinction is (at least to some extent) maintained, usually with a referendum being a vote binding upon a government whereas a plebiscite is merely indicative.  The initiative (usually in the form ballot initiative) is related in that it refers to a process (usually signatures on a form of petition) by which a matter may be submitted to a referendum.

Mr Putin’s use of referendums as an attempt to add a veneer of legal gloss to Moscow’s annexation of parts of the Ukraine are an example of the way dictators often are most concerned with the appearance of lawfulness in what they do.  As a general principle, for an annexation to be valid under international law it requires (1) that the borders be exactly defined, (2) that the nation asserting control be capable of defending the territory, (3) that the population is substantially in accord with the change and (4) that recognition is granted by the international community (these days through the mechanism of the United Nations (UN)).  Given the military situation on the ground, it seems unlikely any of these pre-conditions had been met at the time Mr Putin conducted his triumphal ceremonies in the Kremlin.  The substantial majorities reported as being in favor of annexation in referendums conducted in September 2022 were an echo of the result of the 2014 Crimean status referendum which (according to the Kremlin) validated the earlier Russian occupation.  As comrade Stalin noted in 1945 when assuring his allies that free and fair elections would soon be held in Poland, what’s important is “…not who votes in an election but who counts the votes”.

In this, Moscow’s referendums were to some extent similar to the infamous referendum conducted by the Nazis in 1938 to validate the Anschluss (joining) with Germany.  Although the reported result had some 99% voting in favor, it was not a vote which could be considered in any way free or fair although it may be a majority might have been achieved, based on the response of the population when the occupation was executed.  In some ways, the exaggeration of the yes vote by the Nazis worked to Austria’s long-term advantage, the improbability of the published result allowing the creation of the post-war narrative of Austria as the first of the Nazi’s victims rather than a nation which welcomed the incorporation.  The voting papers were headed Referendum and Greater German Parliament and the question was: Do you agree with the reunification of Austria with the German Reich that took place on 13 March 1938 and do you vote for the list of our Leader Adolf Hitler?  The choice was Yes or No.

When the political cartoonist David Low (1891-1963) drew his take on the Anschluss referendum, he called it a plebiscite, and included the Duce and the Western powers as complicit.

Much has changed since 1945 but the recommendations for the best way for the West to handle the Kremlin today are exactly the same as those included in a paper called Facts and Tendencies in Wartime, 1944, written by the socialist Ronald Matthews, Moscow correspondent of the Daily Herald (1942-1944):

"It is of absolutely paramount importance that the Western powers should be able to give Russia at the end of the war... a sense of security.  Though I think it is just as important from all points of view that they should be able to do so without making concessions to her which they feel to ne unjustified.  Such concessions would make only for further rankling ill-feeling; nor do I think the Russians will ever really trust us till we show firmness as well as conciliation in our dealings with them.  I may be wrong but I cannot help feeling that the effects of our giving in to them on points on which we feel we are right is doubly unfortunate.  First, it loses us their respect (the Russians respect and respond to tough bargaining).  And, secondly, it may well give them not confidence in us, but a sense that we are temporarily buying them off, just as the Germans and they bought each other off in August 1939 (the Nazi-Soviet Pact)".

Zollverein

Zollverein (pronounced tsawl-fer-ahyn (German) or tsawl-fuh-rahyn (English))

(1) A nineteenth century union of German states for the maintenance of a uniform tariff on imports from other countries, and of free trading among themselves (organized in the early 1830s under Prussian auspices)

(2) Casual term for any similar union or arrangement between states; a customs union.

1833: A Modern German compound word, the construct being zoll (custom, duty, tariff) + verein (union).  Zoll was from the Old High German zol, from the Proto-Germanic tullō (what is counted or told).  An alternatively etymology has been suggested: the Medieval Latin toloneum, from the Classical Latin telōnēum (from the Ancient Greek τελωνεῖον (telōneîon) (custom house) from τέλος (télos) (due, tax, toll) but most scholars prefer the Germanic.  Verein (a union, association or society) is another German compound, the construct being ver- + ein + -en, the colloquial translation being something like “joining one into many”.  Zollverein is a noun, the noun plural is plural Zollvereine (although Zollvereins might be expected in the English-speaking world, possible without the initial capital obligatory in German).

Mission Creep

Changes in the Zollverein (Prussia and the Second Reich), 1834-1888

In the second referendum run on the matter, in 2016 the UK voted to leave the EU (Brexit) and for a while the conventional wisdom was that one's position should be something like : "It may or may not be a good idea; it’s too soon to tell".  That moment has passed and it seems now clear it was a very bad idea.  What the UK joined in 1973 was the European Economic Community (EEC), a Zollverein created by the Treaty of Rome (1957) with the intention of achieving economic integration among its member states and, in the English-speaking world, usually referred to as the common market.  Following the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, the EEC was renamed the European Community (EC) to reflect the extension of the community’s remit beyond trade and economic policy, a structure which existed until 2009 Treaty of Lisbon which created the European Union (EU) a more overtly political entity.  The road to Brexit began in Maastricht, remembered in the lore of the Tory Party's many right-wing fanatics in the phrase of Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990): "A treaty too far".

One who can’t be blamed for the Brexit vote resulting in the UK’s departure from the EU was Lindsay Lohan who, in England at the time, operated as one of planet Earth’s more improbable Cassandras, tweeting during the evening in real-time as the vote count was announced.  Unfortunately, although she made a compelling (if at times idiosyncratic) case for remain, of the 72.21% of registered voters who on 23 June 2016 bothered to cast a ballot, 51.89% disagreed and the leave case prevailed.  As an EU pundit, Ms Lohan displayed a good grasp of the issues including the implications for the exchange rate of Sterling and the positive benefits the UK had gained from the adoption of EU workplace safety directives although despite have apparently for a time “lived in Manchester”, needed to ask “where’s Sunderland”, one of the places expected to be among the first to report a result.  Fortunately, for anyone who doesn’t know where Sunderland is, Twitter (now known as X) is the platform to post the question which was soon answered.  Manchester too proved a disappointment, voting to leave, something Ms Lohan seem to regard a personal affront given the personal connection.

Since Brexit, many have expressed the view that had the EU remained a Zollverein and not evolved into a quasi-federal state, there would never have been sufficient public pressure to compel the political class to stage a referendum but Euro-scepticism had quite a pre-Maastricht history in the UK and in June 1975 the Labour government conducted the nation’s first national referendum, asking whether the UK should remain in the EC.  The, there was cross-party support to remain and almost two-thirds of the electorate supported that but then, the movement of people across borders wasn’t the issue it has become and despite all of other matters raised in the 2016 campaign, it was essentially a referendum about immigration, lawful and not.  Those concerns show no sign of going away and for a variety of reasons, the movement of people towards the UK, the EU and the US is likely only to increase but the conditions which were the reasons the UK sought membership in 1963 are not wholly dissimilar to what prevails in 2023.  It seems now unthinkable that London could re-apply for membership but, as Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881; UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) famously observed “finality is not the language of politics” and Lindsay Lohan may yet be vindicated.

Cede

Cede (pronounced seed)

(1) To yield or formally surrender to another; to transfer or make over something (especially physical territory or legal rights).

(2) To allow a point in an argument, negotiation or debate (technically as a synonym of concede).

1625-1635: From the Old & Middle French céder, from the Latin cēdere (to yield, give place; to give up some right or property (and originally "to go from, proceed, leave”)), from cēdō (to yield), (from the Proto-Italic kesd-o- (to go away, avoid), from the primitive Indo-European ḱyesd- (to drive away; to go away), from ked- (to go, to yield).  The original sense in English (to go from, proceed, leave) is long archaic; the transitive meaning “yield or formally surrender (something) to another” dating from 1754.  The sense evolution in Latin was via the notion of “go away, withdraw, give ground” and cēdere, with the appropriate prefix bolted-on, proved extraordinarily in English, yielding forms such as accede, concede, exceed, precede, proceed, recede, secede, antecedent, intercede, succeed & supercede.  Cede (in one context or another) can be vested with specific meanings in law but relinquish, abandon, grant, transfer & convey can sometimes be used as synonyms.  Cede, cedes, ceded & ceding are verbs and ceder & cedents are nouns; the noun plural is ceders.

Senator Lidia Thorpe.

The “debate” between the “yes” and “no” cases for the upcoming referendum to amend the Australian constitution to include a “Voice” to make representations to the parliament and executive on matters concerning Indigenous Australians has evolved to the interesting position of the no case being split between (1) those who argue the Voice would have too much power and (2) those who claim it would possess not enough.  Politics being what it is, that split might be unremarkable except the yes case simultaneously is disagreeing with both while trying hard to avoid having to descend to specifics and by far the interesting position among the noes is that advocated by Lidia Thorpe (b 1973; senator (Independent though elected for the Green Party) for Victoria since 2020).  What Senator Thorpe describes as the basis of the “radical no case” is that (1) colonial settlement of the Australian land mass was effected by an invasion, (2) Indigenous Australians never ceded their sovereignty over that land mass and (3) Indigenous sovereignty is not only ongoing but exclusive and does not co-exist with the claimed sovereignty of the Crown (ie the construct which is the Australian state).  This is the position of the Blak sovereign movement (BSM) which says Indigenous Australians “…are the original and only sovereign of these lands” which would seem to imply the Australian government should be considered an “occupying power”.  Whether that’s an “illegal occupation” or the natural consequence of a successful invasion which extinguished Indigenous sovereignty depends less on what one thinks happened in the past and more on what one would like to happen in the future.  Either way, the Australian government is continuing to promise the matter of a treaty (or treaties) will be pursued “sometime” after the Voice referendum passes; any thought of a failed referendum seems to be unthinkable.  The spelling blak existed in Middle English and several Germanic languages; in all cases meant “black” and it’s used by the movement as a point of political differentiation, “black” being a “white” construct.

For something which is the fundamental tenet of the international order, the modern understanding of sovereignty is a surprisingly recent thing and though political arrangements which are recognizable as “nations” have existed for thousands of years, the concept of the nation-state began to coalesce only in the late Middle Ages.  In international law, sovereignty encapsulates the supreme authority and independence of a state but it depends not only on an assertion but also recognition by other sovereign entities.  Internally, it implies a government enjoys an exclusive right to exercise authority and make decisions within its borders, free from control or influence by other states but in its purest form it now rarely exists because so many states have entered into international agreements which to some degree impinge on their sovereignty.  Externally, it means that a state is recognized by other sovereign states and is thus able to conduct foreign policy, enter into agreements with other states and participate in international organizations.  It also implies non-interference in a state's domestic affairs by others.  All of this illustrates why sovereignty is so important and why the ongoing existence matters to the BSM activists.  Only sovereign entities can enter into legally binding treaties with others which is why Senator Thorpe observed: “Treaty is so important because we don’t want to cede our sovereignty. We have maintained our sovereign status in our own country since forever. We are not about to cede our sovereignty.”  However, as many “sovereign citizens” have discovered when attempting to evade their speeding tickets using arguments invoking everything from scripture, the writings of medieval natural law theorists and the Magna Carta, sovereignty is determined not by assertion but by recognition.

In the case of the Indigenous Australians, quite how a conception of their sovereignty at the point of the colonial invasion should be constructed is interesting, not only in the abstract but because the BSM wants treaty negotiations to begin rather than the creation of “a Voice” on the grounds the latter might be seen to imply an acquiescence to the sovereignty of the Australian state, thus extinguishing Indigenous Australian sovereignty.  The rapidity with which the government moved to assure all the Voice would not have this effect suggests not a statement of constitutional law but an indication they don’t take the BSM position too seriously.  However, sovereign entities can enter into treaties and although as a pre-literate culture, there are no pre-1788 written records (in the Western sense), the work of anthropologists has established the first peoples did have a concept of sovereignty over their lands.  Importantly though, implied in the phrase “first nations”, the peoples were organized into tribes (“mob” the preferred modern slang) and their understanding of sovereignty related to each of the tribal lands.  In a legal sense, that is thought not to be a problem because the Western concept of sovereignty is quite compatible and for treaty purposes could be considered equivalent (indeed there was nineteenth century colonial case law which said exactly that).  In a practical sense however, there is one sovereign Australian state and (at least) hundreds of first nations so the mechanics of the treaty process would seem onerous although almost all the other former colonies of the British Empire have managed, however imperfectly, to execute treaties.  However, it seem inevitable the Australian government would prefer to enter into one treaty, even one with hundreds of signatories but as the Voice discussions have proved (and the very existence of the BSM has emphasized), Indigenous Australia is not monolithic and a treaty process could be long and involved.

An outgrowth of a small music store which in 1976 opened in the Swiss town of Winterthur selling vinyl records and cassettes, the Music Box added Compact Discs (CD) and Digital Versatile Discs (DVD) as the new formats became available and in 1997 became one of the pioneers of Swiss e-commerce, launching CeDe.com (pronounced see-dee-dot-com) as an online shop.  That might have been a bad choice as the CD faded from use but CeDe gained sufficient market presence to become an established brand-name and has transcended its etymology.

Nexus

Nexus (pronounced nek-suhs)

(1) A means of connection, tie or link; a form or state of connection.

(2) A connected series or group (objects or concepts); a network or web.

(3) The core or center or a matter, discussion or situation.

(4) In cellular biology, a specialized area of the cell membrane involved in intercellular communication and adhesion.

(5) In digital anthropology, the world’s first web browser.

(6) In law in many North American jurisdictions, the relationship between a vendor and a jurisdiction taxation purposes.

(7) In formal grammar, a technical term in the work of Danish linguist Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) describing a group of words expressing two concepts in one unit (such as a clause or sentence).

(8) In the civil law of Ancient Rome, a person who had contracted a nexum (obligation) such that, if they failed to re-pay that obliged, a creditor could compel them to work as a servant until the debt was paid; an indentured servant.

1655-1665: From the Latin nexus (the act of binding together; bond), the perfect passive participle of nectō (bind) and past participle of nectere (to bind).  Nectō was from the primitive Indo-European gned & gnod (to bind) and was cognate with nōdus (knot), the Ancient Greek γνάθος (gnáthos) (a jaw), the Avestan naska (bundle), the Old Irish nascim (to bind), the Old Norse knútr (from which German gained knude, Norwegian knute, and Icelandic hnútur).  Related were the Old English cnotta (which survives in Modern English as knot), the Old English cnyttan (which in Modern English is knit), the Old High German knotto (knoten in modern German) and the Middle Dutch cnudde (the Modern Dutch knot).  The suffix created the Latin verb of action.  Nexus is a noun; the noun plural is nexuses or nexus although the Latin plural form (written nexūs or nexûs) is used in process philosophy, a highly technical branch of the discipline which administers the school of thought that change (ie alterations in the state of relationship(s) between things) constitute the only experience of life (the alternative schools focused on the process of change being understood as inadvertent or illusory).

Australia's defeated 1967 nexus referendum

Section 24 of the Australian Constitution provides for a numerical nexus between the House of Representatives (lower house) and the Senate (upper house):

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The senate chamber in the new parliament house, opened in 1988.  The scope of works given to the architects required that both chambers should be able (without major structural change) to be re-configured to accommodate up to twice the number of members.  The building is said to have an anticipated life of some two-hundred years so it would appear in the 1970s, nobody expected there was for centuries any possibility of breaking the nexus between the houses.  Despite the ominous prospect, Australians seem rarely to think the quantity of politicians is lacking although they are often sceptical about the quality.  

After an abortive attempt in 1966, a referendum was held the following year which sought to remove the nexus, thereby freezing the number of senators at ten per state (an increase from the original six triggered by the enlargement of the lower house in 1949).  The cabinet’s enthusiasm for curbing any proliferation of senators was prompted by concern an increase in the size of the upper house would make it easier for minor parties to win seats.  The referendum was defeated and the problem persists.  As the number of senators to be elected increases, the votes each needed to gain a seat (a quota) reduces and by the 1980s, a quota in a normal half-senate election was well under 20%; in a double-dissolution, less than 8%.  That, when combined with preferential voting, means votes surplus to a quota flow through the system and it’s become successively easier to succeed, a few senators having been elected with but a handful of first-preference votes.  Section 24 is not monocausal, there being many reasons for the decline in the share of the vote enjoyed by the major parties but the recent success of micro-parties would not have been possible without the operation of the clause.  For a generation, political excrement like the Democratic Labor Party (the DLP, a right-wing, predominately Roman Catholic breakaway from the Australian Labor Party (ALP)) was helped by the lower quotas demanded in a senate of sixty rather than thirty-six.  The modern senate of seventy-six is democratically more promiscuous still.

Lindsay Lohan in a lilac dress, desktop wallpaper available from Desktop Nexus.

In Australia, as in all modern Westminster systems, the major parties alternate in their roles as "His Majesty's Government" and "His Majesty's loyal opposition" but they are as one in their attempt to keep others out of the cozy little system they've designed for themselves and, ahead of the 2016 election, changes were implemented to stop preference arrangements between minor parties and independents producing results said to be "a distortion of the electoral process" (ie independents and those from minor parties being elected to seats the majors regarded as "belonging to them").  Further to advantage the majors, a form of optional preferential voting was introduced, said to have been done to assist voters but the most obvious beneficiaries were the major parties because it became harder for independents or minor party candidates to be elected to the Senate.

Voice

Voice (pronounced vois)

(1) The sound made by the vibration of the vocal cords, especially when modified by the resonant effect of the tongue and mouth; the sound or sounds uttered through the mouth of living creatures, especially of human beings in speaking, shouting, singing etc.

(2) The faculty or power of uttering sounds through the mouth by the controlled expulsion of air; speech.

(3) A range of such sounds to some extent distinctive to one person, or to a type of person or animal.

(4) The condition or effectiveness of the voice for speaking or singing (usually expressed in the phrases “in good voice” or “in poor voice” (although “in good voice” is also used sarcastically to refer to someone merely talkative or voluble).

(5) A sound likened to or resembling vocal utterance.

(6) Something likened to speech as conveying impressions to the mind (voice of the forest etc).

(7) Expression in spoken or written words, or by other means (to give voice); that which is communicated; message; meaning.

(8) The right to present and receive consideration of one's desires or opinions (usually in a political context, “the voice of the people” said to be expressed by voting in elections).

(9) An expressed opinion or choice (literally, electorally or behaviorally); an expressed will or desire, wish or injunction (“with one voice” meaning unanimous).

(10) The person or other agency through which something is expressed or revealed such as the notion of the Roman Catholic Pope being the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” and thus “The voice of God”.

(11) A warning that proved to be the voice of prophecy.

(12) In music, a substitute word which can apply to a singer, a voice part or that part of musical score which involves singing and (in harmony) an independent melodic line or parta fugue in five voices.

(13) In phonetics, the audible result of phonation and resonance; to pronounce with glottal vibration (and distinguished from the mere breath sounds heard in whispering and voiceless consonants).

(14) In grammar, a set of categories for which the verb is inflected in some languages (notably Latin) and which is typically used to indicate the relation of the verbal action to the subject as performer, under-goer, or beneficiary of its action; a particular way of inflecting or conjugating verbs, or a particular form of a verb, by means of which is indicated the relation of the subject of the verb to the action which the verb expresses.

(15) In grammar, a set of syntactic devices in some languages, as English, that is similar to this set in function; any of the categories of these sets (eg the English passive voice; the Greek middle voice).

(16) In the tuning of musical instruments, the finer regulation (expressed usually as intensity, color or shades of light), used especially of the piano and organ.

(17) To give utterance or expression to; declare; proclaim (“to voice one’s approval”, “to voice one’s discontent” etc).

(18) In sign languages, the interpretation into spoken language.

(19) In computers. of or relating to the use of human or synthesized speech (as voice to text, text to voice, voice-data entry; voice output, voice command etc).

(20) In telecommunications, of or relating to the transmission of speech or data over media designed for the transmission of speech (in classifications such as voice-grade channel, voice-data network, voice-activated, voice over internet protocol (VoIP) etc); in internet use, a flag associated with a user on a channel, determining whether or not they can send messages to the channel.

(21) A rumor; fame, renown; command precept; to vote; to elect; to appoint; to clamor; to cry out (all obsolete).

(22) In entertainment, to provide the voice for a character (as voice-over for purposes such as foreign translations).

(23) In literary theory (1) the role of the narrator, (2) as viewpoint, the position of the narrator in relation to their story & (3) the content of what is delivered behind a persona (mask), the most basic form of aesthetic distance.

1250–1300: From the Middle English noun voice, voys & vois (sound made by the human mouth), from the Anglo-French voiz, voys & voice or directly from the Old French voiz & vois (voice, speech; word, saying, rumor, report (which survives in Modern French as voix)), from the Latin vōcem (voice, sound, utterance, cry, call, speech, sentence, language, word (and accusative of vōx (voice)), from the primitive Indo-European wṓkws, root noun from wekw- (to utter, speak).  It was cognate with the Latin vocāre (to call), the Sanskrit वाच् (vāc) & vakti ((he) speaks), the Ancient Greek ὄψ (óps) (voice) & épos (word (and related to the later “epic”)) and the Persian آواز‎ (âvâz).  The Latin was the source also of the Italian voce and the Spanish voz. The Anglo-French borrowing displaced the native Middle English steven (voice), from the Old English stefn, from the Proto-Germanic stemno, from the primitive Indo-European stomen-.  The extension of use to mean "ability in a singer" dates from the early seventeenth century while the idea of "expression of feeling etc." (in reference to groups of people etc) was known as early as the late fourteenth century (and persists in uses such as the broadcaster “Voice of America”) The meaning "invisible spirit or force that directs or suggests, (used especially in the mental health community in the context of “voices in one's head” dates from 1911.  The verb was from the Middle English voysen & voicen, from the noun and emerged in the mid fifteenth century, initially in the sense of "to be commonly said" (familiar still in terms like “the Arab voice”) and from circa 1600s it was understood to mean "to express, give utterance to a feeling, opinion etc”.  From 1867 there was also the technical meaning "utter (a letter-sound) with the vocal cords", used often as voiced or voicing.  The spelling voyce is long obsolete.  Voice & voicer are nouns; voiced is a verb & adjective and voicing is a noun & verb; the noun plural is voices.

The noun voicemail (originally voice mail) dates from 1982 and was one of the bolt-ons to fixed-line telephony which was among the most popular features of the early cellular (mobile) phones but, interestingly, by the late 1990s users had come much to prefer SMS (short message service or text).  The adjective voiceless began in the 1530s as a doctor’s description of one who had “lost their voice” but within a century was used to refer to those who had no say in affairs of Church and state: The voiceless masses”.  It was first used in the sense of "unspoken, unuttered" to refer to non-verbal communication in 1816 and in phonology "unvoiced" dates from 1867.  In idiomatic use, the phrases include “at the top of one's voice”, chest voice, chipmunk voice. liking the sound of one's own voice, outdoor voice, raising one's voice, voice changer, voice coil, voiceprint & voice quality.  In formal grammar, there’s active voice, anti-passive voice, middle voice, neuter voice & passive voice.

The Australian Labor Party, the “Voice to Parliament” and the referendum process.

With great enthusiasm from one faction and a feeling of impending dread from the other, Australia’s brand new Labor Party (ALP) government has confirmed the election promise to submit to the people a referendum to append to the Constitution of Australia a “Voice to Parliament” for the indigenous peoples will be honored, the vote scheduled for the second half of 2023.  In Australia, even to submit a referendum is ambitious given that of the 44 submitted since 1901, only eight have been approved and the bar to success is high, demanding (1) an absolute majority of voters nationally and (2) a majority in at least four of the six states.

The “Voice to Parliament” does seem to be wholly symbolic given the consensus view among legal academics that it neither “confers upon Indigenous Australians any special rights” nor “takes away any right, power or privilege from anyone who is not indigenous”.  In other words, it will have the same constitutional effect as the words “…humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God” have had since being enacted as part of the constitution in 1901: Nothing.  The view seems to be that the voice will provide “a strong basis on which to conduct further consultation”, the implication being the creation of a mechanism whereby there’s a standing institution of communication between the political elite and an indigenous elite.  So logical and efficient does that appear, it looks like one of the classic colonial fixes at which the British were so adept under the Raj.  In India they were the key to minimizing troubles while in Fiji they worked so well even the British administrators were astonished.  There, the Great Council of Chiefs, an institution entirely of the Raj’s imagination became so culturally entrenched that within a generation, the chiefs themselves were speaking of the council as if it had existed a thousand years.

2023 Toyota Land Cruiser Sahara ZX.

The ALP government has been at pains to ensure there’s nothing to frighten the horses, repeatedly confirming the voice will have “no veto power over the functions or powers of the parliament or the executive” and is limited to a purely advisory role in “making representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters, including existing or proposed laws, policies or decisions that have a connection to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”  It also maintains the opportunity to make these representations will be “…available to any individual or organisation”.  That of course is unlikely to mean that all voices will be created equal and the government, like the Raj, will find the system most agreeable once it decides which are the Indigenous Australians whose representations prove most helpful and thus worthy of a salaried position, an expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  This will give the voice a coherent form and in a nice piece of political window-dressing, will likely include mostly (reasonably) tame “Brezhnev approved dissident” types there to protest just enough to seem edgy but not enough to forsake a salaried position, expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  Those who get ideas above their station will be offered a trip to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly or a six month "study tour" taking in Rome, Venice and Paris in the late spring; it will be a job for those "hard faced men and women who have done very well out of colonization".

The government has said “the ultimate model was still being debated by internal groups, and would be subject to negotiation” but given the need to create something which gives the appearance of being much yet has absolutely no constitutional effect, it difficult to see what the basis for discussion might be other than details about Toyota Land Cruisers.  Despite that, there is opposition, one source of which comes from within the ALP, certain figures convinced (and the history of referendums in Australia is not encouraging) it’s impossible to get a vote to pass unless both side of politics advocate a “yes” vote.  So sensitive has become the issue of race they fear a no vote would be damaging internationally so are lobbying to find some excuse to “delay” the vote, even arguing it would be better first to pursue a treaty, the theory being if the can is kicked far enough down the road, by the time the matter re-surfaces, they’ll be retired and it’s someone else’s problem.

The leader of the opposition has announced the Liberal Party will be advocating a “no” vote, something which has doomed every referendum submitted without bipartisan support.  The leader of the opposition didn’t articulate any coherent reason to oppose the voice but history suggests saying “no” when the government says “yes” can be a successful approach and Lord Randolph Churchill’s (1849-1895) dictum that “the duty of the opposition is to oppose” remains good politics.  Of interest too among those opposing the voice is their language: Eschewing the popular (if contested) phrase “first nations” to describe Indigenous Australians for “first peoples”, they are anxious to ensure that any notion of sovereignty can’t be part of the discussion although, given the indivisibility of the doctrine (as opposed to land title) under law, it’s hard to see how this could be part of the debate about the voice.  Perhaps they are fretting about negotiating treaties and perhaps they should.

Finally, there are the “black-letter lawyers” who, noting that judicial activism seemed to be fashionable on the bench of the High Court of Australia not that long ago, worry some judges might find in the words of “the voice” things which on the basis of the usual techniques of linguistic or judicial construction would seem not to exist.  The High Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters; what a majority there says the words of the constitution mean is what they mean and while parliaments can by legislative change impose their will upon laws, the only way the wording of a passage in the constitution can be changed is to have substitute words approved by referendum; a probably improbable prospect.

Still, it’s difficult to advocate anything but a yes vote.  Since white settlement, Indigenous Australians have at times endured dispossession, discrimination, conditions which can be described only as slavery and not a few instances of mass murder and it’s absurd to suggest the level of disadvantage so many continue to suffer is not a consequence of this history.  What’s remarkable is not that among them there are expressions of discontent but that so many manage to maintain such generosity of spirit and willingness to engage.  The Voice may appear, as the Holy Alliance seemed to Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) “a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense” but it’s worth remembering he anyway recommended Britain signed the thing on the basis that although too vague to achieve anything substantive, it was unlikely to make things worse.  Something good may come from the Voice while little good can come from rejecting it.

Lindsay Lohan in promotional interview for debut album Speak (2004, Casablanca Records-UMG).

Lindsay Lohan’s sometimes hoarse voice has attracted comment, some finding the gravelly tone sexy, others expressing concern the change might be lifestyle induced. The voices of actors and singers are after all their stock-in-trade so something so distinctive can limit the one’s range of characters or repertoire although notable artists such as Marlene Dietrich (1901–1992) and Marianne Faithfull (b 1946) made a signature of what used to called a “gin-soaked voice”.  Still, Lindsay Lohan’s vocal dynamics piqued the interest of Dr Reena Gupta, Director of the Division of Voice and Laryngology at the Osborne Head & Neck Institute (OHNI) and she provided some explanatory notes, noting that while inherent for some, hoarseness can be a serious matter for those whose living depends on their voice, the condition sometimes reversible, sometimes not.  According to Dr Gupta, a clear voice requires (1) straight edges of the vocal cords, (2) regular and symmetric vibration of the vocal cords, (3) no space between the vocal cords, (4) no mucous on the vocal cords, healthy lungs and (5) a healthy vocal tract (and that includes the mouth, nose, sinuses etc).  Hoarseness occurs when there is damage to the vocal cords that either disrupts the straight edge of the vocal cords or disrupts their vibration, the other factors more important for ease of voice use and vocal tone.

Many injuries can cause the vocal edge to be irregular, thereby inducing hoarseness including polyps, cysts & nodules but even when the edges are straight, scarring can also dampen vibrations and make them irregular, scarred vocal cords having lost their ability to vibrate due to a loss of the vibrating layer and there is currently no cure for the loss of vibration due to scarring.  The scarring can happen for many reasons but is almost always caused by vocal trauma which can be induced by (1) talking loudly or frequent yelling, (2) singing with a flawed technique, (3) smoking (any substance) or (4) a chronic cough or habitual throat clearing.  Any behavior that causes inflammation of the vocal cords will result in a higher likelihood of scarring and a videostroboscopy is the only non-surgical procedure which can confirm the presence of scarring.  There’s nothing unusual or concerning about a hoarseness which lasts only a day or so but if it persists beyond that, a professional evaluation should be sought and many of the causes of are treatable, almost all able to be at least to some extent ameliorated.

Celebrity site ETOnLine.com in 2016 noted the “darkening” in Lindsay Lohan’s voice and posted examples of the variations.

However, prevention being better than cure, Dr Gupta provided the following guidelines for caring for one’s voice and there’s probably no other aspect of our physiology which, despite being so important, is so taken for granted:

(1) No smoking (that’s anything, including vaping).

(2) No heavy use of alcohol, though in moderation it’s OK.

(3) When in a loud environment (restaurants, clubs, parties, sporting events et al), restrict the use of the voice use to a minimum and resist the temptation to shout except in cases of life or death.

(4) Hydration is especially important when in a loud environment (always carry water).

(5) If the voice has been subject to loud or prolonged use, rest the vocal cords the next day.  Under extreme conditions (towards the end of epic-length Wagnerian opera, the voices of even the most skilled will sound a little ragged) there will always be some damage, just as many athletes will tear a few things in competition which is why the recovery protocols must be observed.

(6) If scheduled to need one’s voice in perfect shape, do not the previous evening go somewhere one may be required to shout.

(7) Avoid recreational drugs; their effects are always uncertain.

(8) Learn correct voice use.  Although actors & singers often undertake professional voice training for reasons of articulation and projection, they also learn techniques to ensure damage is minimized and a clinical vocal exam prior to these lessons is advisable to ensure that physically, all is well.

President

President (pronounced prez-i-duhnt or preza-dint (plus many regional variations)

(1) The title of the highest executive officer of most modern republics.

(2) An official appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons.

(3) The chief executive (and sometimes operating) officer of a college, university, society, corporation etc.  Many corporate presidents function as something like a “char(man) of the board” rather than a CEO or COO.

(4) A person who presides.

(5) An alternative form of “precedent” (long obsolete).

1325–1375: From the Middle English, from the Old French president, from Late Latin praesidēns (presiding over; president of; leader) (accusative praesidentem) from the Classical Latin praesident (stem of praesidēns), the noun use of the present participle of praesidēre (to preside over, sit in front of).  The Latin word was the substantivized present active participle of the verb praesideō (preside over) while the construct of the verb was prae (before) + sedeō (sit).  The verb’s original sense was “to sit before” (ie presiding at a meeting) from which was derived the generalized secondary meaning “to command, to govern”, praesidēns thus meaning variously “the one who presides at a meeting”, “governor or a region”, “commander of a force” etc.  In English the construct is thus understood as preside + -ent.  Preside was from the Old French presider, from Latin praesidēre, the construct being pre- (before) + sedere (to sit).  It displaced the Old English foresittan which may have been a calque of the Latin.  The –ent suffix was from the Middle English –ent (which existed, inter alia, also as –ant & -aunt.  It was from the Old French -ent and its source, the Latin -ēns (the accusative singular was -entem), suffix of present participles of verbs in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th conjugations.  The word is used with an upper case if applied honorifically (President of Italy; President Nixon etc) but not otherwise but this is of the more widely ignored rules in English.  Modifiers (minister-president, municipal president, president-elect et al) are created as required.  The spelling præsident is archaic.  President & presidency are nouns, verb & adjective, presidentship & presidenthood are nouns, presidenting & presidented are verbs, presidential is an adjective and presiˈdentially is an adverb; the noun plural is presidents.  The feminine form presidentess dates from at least 1763 and is probably obsolete unless used in humor but that may risk one’s cancellation.

US politics in the last decade has had moments of strangeness so some things which once seemed unthinkable are now merely improbable.

In the US, “president” was used in the original documents of the constitution (1787), picking up the earlier colonial use as “officer in charge of the Continental Congress” and it had also been used in several of the colonies and that in the sense of “chosen head of a meeting or group of persons”.  During and immediately after the Revolution, the tile was adopted by the chief magistrates of several states but before long all instead settled on “governor”, emulating the colonial designation.  In the US, the most common slang shortening of president is “pres”, dating from 1892 although dictionaries note the earlier existence of “prex” which was student slang for the president of a university or college.  First recorded in 1828, as a Latin verb, it meant “a request, entreaty”.  The handy initialization POTUS (President of the United States) dates from 1879 when it was created as part of the “Phillips Code” a system devised by US journalist, telegrapher & inventor Walter Polk Phillips (1846–1920) to speed up the transmission of messages across wire services and reduce their cost (the services charging per letter).  Among those in the code was SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and later (long after the original rationale had been overtaken by technology) journalists and others started using VPOTUS (Vice-President of the United States), FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States) and NPOTUS (next President of the United States) the latter once applied to both Al Gore (b 1948; VPOTUS 1993-2001 & in 2000 the NPOTUS)) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013 & in 2016 the NPOTUS).  Word nerds, pondering nomination of the latest NPOTUS (Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS since 2021) as the likely Democrat nominee are wondering what will emerge to describe her husband should she become CMOTUS (Chief Magistrate of the United States), the options presumably FGOTUS (First Gentlemen of the United States) or FHOTUS (First Husband of the United States).  Presumably FMOTUS (First Man of the United States) won’t be used.

A full bucket of veep.

In the US during the nineteenth century there was a joke about two brothers: "One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were ever heard of again."  That was of course an exaggeration but it reflected the general view of the office which has very few formal duties and can only ever be as powerful or influential as a president allows although the incumbent is "a heartbeat from the presidency".  John Nance Garner III (1868–1967, vice president of the US 1933-1941), a reasonable judge of these things, once told Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) being VPOTUS was "not worth a bucket of warm piss" (which is polite company usually is sanitized as "warm spit").  For US vice-presidents, the slang veep (based on the phonetic V-P (pronounced vee-pee) is more commonly used.  Veep dates from 1949 and may have been influenced by the Jeep, the four wheel drive (4WD) light utility vehicle which had become famous for its service in World War II (1939-1945) with a number of allied militaries (the name said to be derived from an early army prefix GP (general purpose light vehicle)).  It was introduced to US English by Alben Barkley (1877-1956; VPOTUS 1949-1953), reputedly because his young grandchildren found “vice-president” difficult to pronounce.  In the press, the form became more popular when the 71-year-old VPOTUS took a wife more than thirty years younger; journalists decided she should be the veepess (pronounced vee-pee-ess).  Time magazine entered into the spirit of things, declaring the president should be Peep, the Secretary of State Steep, and the Secretary of Labor Sleep.  In the US, a number of VPOTUSs have become POTUS and some have worked out well although of late the record has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963, POTUS 1963-1968), Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961, POTUS 1969-1974) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025 (God willing)) 1963-1968 all ending badly, in despair, disgrace and decrepitude respectively.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei (b 1939; supreme leader of of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1989) hands Masoud Pezeshkian (b 1954, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 2024) the presidential seals of Office, Tehran, 28 July 2024.

Even in political science it’s not uncommon to see comparisons between “presidential system” and “parliamentary system” and while that verbal shorthand is well understood within the profession, it’s more accurate to speak of “presidential systems” because the constitutional arrangements vary so much.  Essentially, there are (1) “ceremonial presidencies” in which a president serves as head of state and may nominally be the head of the military but all executive functions are handled by a chancellor, premier or prime-minister (or equivalent office) and (2) “executive presidencies” where the roles of head of state & head of government are combined.  However, those structural models are theoretical and around the world there are many nuances, both on paper and in practice.  While there are many similarities and overlaps in presidential systems, probably relatively few are identical in the constitutional sense.  Sometimes too, the constitutional arrangements are less important than the practice.  In the old Soviet Union, the office of president was sometimes filled by a relatively minor figure, despite it being, on paper, a position of great authority, something replicated in the Islamic Republic of Iran where ultimate authority sits in the hand of the Supreme Leader (both of whom have been ayatollahs).  Many systems include something of a hybrid aspect.  In France, the president appoints a prime-minister and ministers who may come from the National Assembly (the legislature) but, upon appointment, they leave the chamber.  A US president appoints their cabinet from anywhere eligible candidates can be found but creates no prime-minister.  In the “ceremonial presidencies” there is also a spectrum of authority and the extent of that can be influenced more by the personality and ambition of a president than the defined powers.  One president of Ireland described the significance of the office as one of “moral authority” rather than legal power.

Some presidents who like being president.

(Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999).

Mr Putin was prime minister from 1999 to 2000, president from 2000 to 2008, and again prime minister from 2008 to 2012 before returning to the presidency.  The unusual career trajectory was a consequence of the Russian constitution forbidding the one person from serving as president for more than two consecutive terms.   Russia has an executive presidency, Mr Putin liked the job and his solution to (effectively) keeping it was to have Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (b 1965; president of Russia 2008-2012 & prime minister of Russia 2012-2020) “warm the chair” while Mr Putin re-assumed the premiership.  Generously, one could style this arrangement a duumvirate but political scientists could, whatever the constitutional niceties, discern no apparent difference in the governance of Russia regardless of the plaque on Mr Putin’s door.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (b 1954; prime-minister or president of the Republic of Türkiye since 2003), pictured here meeting Lindsay Lohan, Presidential Palace, Ankara, Türkiye, 27 January 2017.  Palace sources say the president regards this meeting as the highlight of his time in office.

Mr Erdoğan has been president since 2014 having previously served as prime minister between 2003–2014.  As prime-minister under Turkey’s constitution with a non-executive president, he was head of government.  After becoming president, he expressed his disapproval for the system and his preference for Turkey’s adoption of an executive presidency.  On 15 July 2016, a coup d'état was staged by the military and, as coups d'état go (of which Türkiye has had a few), it was a placid and unambitious affair and the suspicion was expressed it was an event staged by the government itself although there’s little evidence to support this.  Mr Erdoğan blamed an exiled cleric, his former ally Fethullah Gülen (b 1941), for the coup attempt and promptly declared a state of emergency.  It was scheduled to last three months but the parliament extended its duration to cover a purge of critical journalists, political opponents, various malcontents and those in the military not overtly supportive of Türkiye.  In April 2017 Mr Erdoğan staged a national referendum (which the people duly approved), transforming the Republic of Türkiye into an executive presidency, the changes becoming effective after the presidential and parliamentary elections of June 2018.

Reichspräsident (Reich President) Paul von von Hindenburg (right) accepts the appointment of Adolf Hitler (left) as Reichskanzler (Reich Chancellor), Berlin, Germany, 21 March 1933 (Potsdam Day).  Standing behind Hitler is Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945).

Of course, if one has effectively “captured” the state, one can just decide to become president.  When in 1934 Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) was informed Generalfeldmarschall Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934; Reichspräsident (1925-1934) of the German Weimar Republic 1918-1933) was dying, unilaterally he had replaced the constitutional procedures covering such an eventuality, the “Law Concerning the Head of State of the German Reich” (issued as a cabinet decree) stipulating that upon the president’s death the office of Reichspräsident would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor under the title of Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor of the Reich).  Thus, the leadership of the party, government and state (and thus the military) were merged and placed exclusively in Hitler’s hands, a situation which prevailed until his death when the office of Reichspräsident was re-created (by a legal device no more complex than a brief document Hitler called his “political testament”) as an entity separate from the chancellorship.  Interestingly though, in a manner typical of the way things were done in the Third Reich, although in 1934 there ceased to be a Reichspräsident, maintained as administrative structures were (1) the Chancellery, (2) the Presidential Chancellery and (3) what became ultimately the Party Chancellery.

Mercedes-Benz 600 Landaulets a 1966 short roof (left) and 1970 long roof ("presidential", right),  

Between 1963-1981, Mercedes-Benz built 2190 600s (W100), 428 of which were the long wheelbase (LWB) Pullman versions, 59 were configured as Landaulets with a folding roof over the passenger compartment.  Built in both six and four-door versions, the Landaulets were available with either a short or long fabric roof, the latter known informally as the "presidential" although the factory never used the designation.  Twelve of the presidentials were built, a brace of which were bought by Kim Il-sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994) and subsequently inherited (along with the rest of North Korea) by Kim Jong-il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1994-2011) and Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).

The 1970 Landaulet pictured was purchased by the Romanian government and used by comrade president Nicolae Ceaușescu (1918–1989; general secretary of the Romanian Communist Party 1965-1989) until he and his wife were executed (by AK47) after a “people's tribunal” held a brief trial, the swiftness of which was aided by the court-appointed defense counsel who declared them both guilty of the genocide of which, among other crimes, they were charged.  Considering the fate of other fallen dictators, their end was less gruesome than might have been expected.  Comrade Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980; prime-minister or president of Yugoslavia 1944-1980) had a similar car (among other 600s) but he died undisturbed in his bed.  The blue SWB (short wheelbase) car to the rear is one of the few SWB models fitted with a divider between the front & rear compartments including hand-crafted timber writing tables and a refrigerated bar in the centre console.  It was delivered in 1977 to the Iranian diplomatic service and maintained for Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (1919–1980; the last Shah of Iran 1941-1979).

Crooked Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) chatting with crooked Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969).  His credibility destroyed by the Watergate scandal, Nixon is the only US president to resign from office.

The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration but the name is derived from a break-in into Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) offices at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC on 17 June 1972.  A series of revelations made it clear the White House was involved in attempts cover up Nixon’s knowledge of this and other illegal activities.  He continued to insist he had no prior knowledge of the burglary, did not break any laws, and did not learn of the cover-up until early 1973.  Also revealed was the existence of previously secret audio tapes, recorded in the White House by Nixon himself.  The legal battle over the tapes continued through early 1974, and in April Nixon announced the release of 1,200 pages of transcripts of White House conversations between him and his aides. The House Judiciary Committee opened impeachment hearings and these culminated in votes for impeachment.  By July, the US Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that the full tapes, not just selected transcripts, must be released.  One of the tapes, recorded soon after the break-in, demonstrated that Nixon had been told of the White House connection to the Watergate burglaries soon after they took place, and had approved plans to thwart the investigation.   It became known as the "Smoking Gun Tape".  With the loss of political support and the near-certainty that he would be impeached and removed, was “tapped on the shoulder” by a group of Republicans from both houses of Congress, lead by crazy old Barry Goldwater (1909–1998).  Nixon resigned the presidency on 8 August 1974.

Mr Nixon assured the country he was "not a crook" although in that he was speaking of matters unrelated to the Watergate scandal.

One thing even his most committed enemies (and there were many) conceded of Nixon was his extraordinary tenacity and Nixon fought hard to remain president and the most dramatically Shakespearian act came in what came to be called the Saturday Night Massacre, the term coined to describe the events of 20 October 1973 when Nixon ordered the sacking of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox (1912-2004), then investigating the Watergate scandal.  In addition to Cox, that evening saw also the departure of Attorney General Elliot Richardson (1920-1999) and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus (1932-2019).  Richardson had appointed Cox in May, fulfilling an undertaking to the House Judiciary Committee that a special prosecutor would investigate the events surrounding the break-in of the DNC’s offices at the Watergate Hotel.  The appointment was made under the ex-officio authority of the attorney general who could remove the special prosecutor only for extraordinary and reprehensible conduct.  Cox soon issued a demand that Nixon hand over copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office; the president refused to comply and by Friday, a stalemate existed between White House and Department of Justice and all Washington assumed there would be a break in the legal maneuvering while the town closed-down for the weekend.

Before the massacre.  Attorney-General Elliot Richardson, President Richard Nixon and FBI Director-Designate Clarence Kelly (1911-1997), The White House, 1973.

However, on Saturday, Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox.  Richardson refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox.  Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned.  Nixon then ordered Solicitor General Robert Bork (1927-2012), as acting head of the Justice Department, to fire Cox; while both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to congressional committees they would not interfere, Bork had not.  Brought to the White House in a black Cadillac limousine and sworn in as acting attorney-general, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox; thus ended the Saturday Night Massacre.  Perhaps the most memorable coda to the affair was Richardson’s memorable post-resignation address to staff at the Department of Justice, delivered the Monday morning following the “massacre”.  Richardson had often been spoken of as a potential Republican nominee for the presidency and some nineteen years later, he would tell the Washington Post: “If I had any demagogic impulse... there was a crowd... but I deliberately throttled back.” His former employees responded with “an enthusiastic and sustained ovation.”  Within a week of the Saturday Night Massacre, resolutions of impeachment against the president were introduced in Congress although the House Judiciary Committee did not approve its first article of impeachment until 27 July the following year when it charged Nixon with obstruction of justice.  Mr Nixon resigned less than two weeks later, on 8 August 1974, leaving the White House the next day.

Lyndon Johnson (left) & Sam Rayburn (1882-1961, right), Washington DC, 1954.

Nixon’s predecessor also liked being president and few have assumed the office in circumstances more politically propitious, even if it was something made possible by the assassination of John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963).  Johnson had for over two decades worked to achieve control of the Senate and at the peak of the success of the Johnson-Rayburn congressional era the Democrats held majorities of 64-36 in the Senate and 263-174 in the House of Representatives.  In the 1964 presidential election (facing Barry Goldwater), Johnson won a crushing victory, securing over 60% of the popular vote and taking every state except Goldwater’s home state of Arizona and a handful south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  Relatively uninterested in foreign policy, Johnson had a domestic agenda more ambitious than anything seen since the US Civil War (1861-1865) a century before and what he achieved was far-reaching and widely appreciated for its implications only decades after his death but it was the US involvement in the war in Vietnam which consumed his presidency, compelling him dramatically to announce in April 1968 “…I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”  As a message, it was strikingly similar to that in July 2024 delivered by Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025), something nobody seemed to think a mere coincidence.  Also compelling are similarities between the two, both spending a political lifetime plotting and scheming to become president, having no success until curious circumstances delivered them the prize with which genuinely they achieved much but were forced to watch their dream of re-election slip from their grasp.

Nicolás Maduro (b 1962; President of Venezuela since 2013, left) and Hugo Chávez (1954-2013; President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 1999-2013 (except during a few local difficulties in 2002, right)).

Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) of course liked being president and the events of 6 January (the so-called "capitol riot") are regarded by many (though clearly not a majority of US Supreme Court judges) as an attempted (if amateurish) insurrection, something Mr Trump denies encouraging.  To the south, in Venezuela, Mr Maduro also really likes being president and is from the comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) school of democracy: “It matters not who votes, what matters is who counts the votes”.  Accordingly, in July 2024 there was some scepticism when the National Electoral Council (the NEC, controlled by Mr Maduro’s political party) announced the president had won the 2024 presidential election with 51.2% of the vote, despite the country being in a sustained economic crisis during which it had suffered a rate of hyper-inflation at its peak so high the economists stopped calculation once it hit a million percent and seen more emigration than any country in South or Central America not actually in a state of declared war.  For a country which possesses the world’s largest known reserves of crude oil, the economic collapse has been a remarkable achievement.  Mr Maduro came to office after the death of Hugo Chávez, a genuinely charismatic figure who took advantage of a sustained high oil price to fund social programmes which benefited the poor (of which his country had a scandalous number) who, unsurprisingly voted for him; Mr Chávez won his elections fair and square.  The decrease in oil revenue triggered a chain of events which meant Mr Maduro hasn’t enjoyed the same advantages and some claim his victories in the 2013 & 2018 elections were anything but fair & square although the numbers were so murky it was hard to be definitive.  Details of the 2024 results however are not so much murky as missing and although the NEC provided aggregate numbers (in summary form), only some 30% of the “tally sheets” (with the booth voting details) were published.  Interestingly, the (admittedly historically unreliable) public opinion polls suggested Mr Maduro might secure 30-35% of the vote and the conspiracy theorists (on this occasion probably on sound ground) are suggesting the tally sheets made public might have been selected with “some care”.

In the way these things are done, the regime is sustained by being able to count on the reliability of the security forces and the conventional wisdom in political science is this can be maintained as long as (1) the members continued to be paid and (2) the percentage of the population prepared to take to the streets in violent revolt doesn’t reach and remain at a sustained critical mass (between 3-9% depending on the mechanics of the country).  So the streets are being watched with great interest but already Mr Maduro has received congratulations from the leaders of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (the DPRK; North Korea), Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua and Russia so there’s that.  Mr Maduro runs the country on a basis not dissimilar to being the coordinator of a number of "crime families" and on 2 August the US State Department announced they were recognizing the leader of the opposition as the "legitimate winner" of the election and thus president of the Bolivarian Republic; gestures like this have previously been extended but the regime's grip on power was strong enough to resist.  The opposition numbers are now greater and generous will be the resources devoted to ensuring a critical mass of protesters isn't achieved and Caracas doesn't see its own "capital riot".  For as long as the security forces remain willing and able to retain control of the streets and ensure the population isn't deprived of food for three days (another trigger point for revolution established by political scientists), Mr Maduro should be able to keep the job he so obviously enjoys. 

1955 Studebaker President Speedster.  As well as the styling motifs, there was a sense of exuberance in the two (and sometimes three) tone color schemes the US industry offered in the 1950s.  

Studebaker used the President name (they also offered a "Dictator" until events in Europe made that a harder sell) for their most expensive models, the first three generations a range of sedans, coupes and roadsters produced between 1926-1942.  The name was revived in 1955 and used until 1958, the range this time encompassing two and four-door sedans & station wagons and two-door coupes and hardtops.  The last of the Packards (the much derided, so-called "Packardbakers" which had a brief, unsuccessful run between 1957-1958) was based on the Studebaker President Speedster, the most admired of the range.