Taking the votes on party lines for granted, the rationale of having an Electoral College inspires little confidence as it has become antiquarian and pointless
When Americans cast their ballot for the President on November 3, they weren’t voting directly for Joe Biden or the incumbent, President Donald Trump, but rather for their State’s electors. In the US, a candidate becomes President by securing the most “electoral” votes rather than by winning a majority of the national popular vote. Electors generally cast their vote for the winner of the popular vote in their respective States. They are slated to meet on December 14 and the winner must get a minimum of 270 votes.
In case no one receives the minimum prescribed votes, the House of Representatives elects the President and the Senate elects the Vice-President. The Electoral College and its procedure was established by Article II of the US Constitution and the 12th and the 23rd Constitution Amendments. Though Joe Biden has clearly won and is now the President-elect, the outgoing President has put unsubstantiated charges of electoral fraud and embroiled the process in court cases. Trump’s campaign on November 9 filed a lawsuit in a Pennsylvania federal court, seeking to block State officials from certifying Biden’s victory there.
In any case, the declaration of formal victory will have to wait as the 538 members of the Electoral College will cast their votes on December 14 and the votes will be counted and certified by the Congress in a joint sitting to be held on January 6, 2021 in a session presided over by the Vice-President. The President-elect will be sworn in on January 20, 2021.
The question that agitates the people across the world is why the founding fathers of the US enshrined such a complex electoral system in the Constitution. There are many presidential electoral systems to choose from. For instance, in India — a parliamentary system — the President is elected by an Electoral College comprising the elected members of both the Houses of Parliament and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States. In France, the President is elected by popular votes based on the two-round election system since 1965, if no candidate wins a majority of the votes in the first round. Many other countries, like Brazil, Bulgaria, Iran, Poland, Russia, Turkey and so on, have the two-round system or second ballot/runoff ballot, if no candidate receives the stipulated number of votes in the first round. Sri Lanka has a variant of the contingent vote system to elect the President. If no candidate receives an overall majority of first preference votes on the first count, then all, but the two leading candidates, are eliminated and their votes redistributed to help determine a winner in a second and final round.
However, the US Presidential electoral system is an amalgamation of popular election — that is popular votes and indirect election — comprising the Electoral College. Alexander Hamilton, one of the main architects of the US Constitution, wrote in The Federalist Papers about the key advantages of the Electoral College, “The electors come directly from the people and for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.” The makers of the Constitution believed that since the election would take place among all the States, so no corruption in any State could taint “the great body of the people” in their selection. It was also felt that the “electors’ meeting in the State capitals would be able to have information unavailable to the general public.” Besides, it was argued that “since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.”
Another consideration was that the decision to elect the President by the members of the Electoral College would be made without “tumult and disorder”, as it would be a broad-based one, made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, without threat or intimidation. “If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president....” The Constitution makers were apprehensive about somebody unqualified but with a talent for “low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” attaining high office, and, therefore, conscientiously struck a novel compromise between the two systems. However, in actual practice, the process of forming the Electoral College has little significance as the voters choose the presidential candidate and his running mate and the winner takes all the votes assigned to a particular State, regardless of any narrow gap in the popular votes secured.
For instance, the State of Georgia is allocated 16 members in the Electoral College. As per the last count (final count awaited), Joe Biden secured 49.5, Trump 49.2 and Jo Jorgensen 1.2 per cent votes. If after the final count, Biden retains the lead, there will be no proportional distribution of the votes secured and all the 16 members thus elected will be of the Democratic candidate led by Joe Biden, giving credence to the dictum the “winner takes it all.”
The States of Maine and Nebraska are two exceptions where, instead of a winner-takes-it all system, the vote goes through what’s known as the “Congressional district method.” This system — used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992 — allocates two electoral votes to the Statewide winner but allows each Congressional district to award one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in its locality. In Maine, this means that two out of four electoral votes can go to someone other than the Statewide winner; in Nebraska, three out of five electoral votes remain in play.
The members of the Electoral College, with rare inconsequential exceptions, do not disregard the popular vote by casting their vote for someone other than the party candidate. They hold, generally, a leadership position in their party or are trusted party loyalists who will uphold their pledge. A majority of the States have their own laws against faithless electors. Taking the votes on party lines for granted, the rationale of having an Electoral College inspires little confidence as it has become antiquarian and pointless.
Insofar as the federal character of the votes is concerned, that is guaranteed by the number of seats allocated to each of the States and territories, including District Columbia, for the presidential election, based on the twin principles of federalism and population. This is reflected in the composition of the Senate, which has 100 members, two from each State regardless of its size and population and the House of Representatives, comprising 435 members, elected by each of the States and territories. California sends 53 members and smaller States like Delaware have one member.
In 2000, Democrat Al Gore received 50,999,897 votes; Republican George Bush received 50,456,002. In the Electoral College count, however, Bush, who tallied 271 electors to Gore’s 266, became the President. In 2016, Hilary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes to Donald Trump’s 62,984,828, but Trump got 304 electoral votes and Hillary Clinton 227.
The Electoral College system distorts the campaign as candidates give extra consideration to swing States, often compromising governance, and give over-representation to smaller States. Moreover, till the final count by the Congress, there is a long, eerie silence and speculation about a possible tie. But perhaps the people of the US are happy and content with this.
(The writer is former Additional Secretary, Lok Sabha)
In only a week, it has worked its way up from local clashes to air strikes. This is so reckless that it makes US politics look demure by comparison
Americans should congratulate themselves. Their election system is definitely better than Ethiopia’s. In fact, it works so well that there’s unlikely to be another American civil war. The US, a federal country with a complex and decrepit voting system, has nevertheless just held a national election despite about a quarter-million of Covid-19 deaths. President Donald Trump is finding it hard to process his defeat, but the system itself worked fine despite the pandemic.
Ethiopia, another federal country with one-third of America’s population but less than one-hundredth of the US’ Covid death rate, should have held its scheduled election this autumn too, but Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed postponed it “because of the Coronavirus pandemic.” That was a very serious mistake.
The Government of the Tigray region of Ethiopia accused Abiy of needless delay, and when he refused to change his mind, it went ahead and held the election in Tigray anyway. Abiy said the newly-elected Government of Tigray (same as the old Government) was illegal because he had postponed the elections. On its part, Tigray said the Federal Government was illegal because it had unilaterally extended its mandate instead of holding the elections, and both sides went to war.
In only a week, they’ve worked their way up from local clashes to air strikes. This is so stupid and reckless that it makes US politics look positively demure by comparison. To be fair, though, Ethiopia has only recently emerged from 45 years of revolution, White and Red terror, renewed tyranny, more revolution, and practically non-stop civil and international war. Ethiopia is a really hard place to govern. When Abiy Ahmed was appointed Prime Minister two years ago by the ruling coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), he was the first Oromo ever to govern the country, even though the Oromo are the largest of Ethiopia’s many ethnic groups (a third of the population). They have been unhappy for a long time, so that was a plus.
So was the fact that he was the son of a Christian-Muslim marriage, useful in a country that is two-thirds Christian, one-third Muslim. And Abiy’s intentions were good: He immediately set about to dismantle the stranglehold on power of the various ethnic militias that had fought and won the long war against the Derg, the previous Communist dictatorship. The most powerful of those militias is the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).
Tigray, the country’s northernmost province, has only six million people, a mere five per cent of Ethiopia’s population, but Tigrayan soldiers and politicians have dominated the EPRDF coalition and Government for most of the last 30 years because of their historic role in the war against the Derg.
The Tigrayan political elite’s privilege was widely resented, and it was time for it to end. Last year Abiy tried to do that by merging all the ethnic militia-based parties into a single Prosperity Party, but the TPLF leadership wouldn’t play ball. They had always lived in the castle, and nobody was going to make them go and live with the commoners. It is, alas, as simple as that, and perhaps a more accomplished civilian politician could have finessed it: Cabinet posts, ambassadorships and/or fat lifetime pensions for the more flexible Tigrayan leaders, discreet but massive bribes for the greedier ones, and a couple of fatal “accidents” for the hardest nuts to crack.
Abiy Ahmed, despite a background in Intelligence work that should have given him good political skills, is inflexible and confrontational. The cascade of threats, counter-threats and ultimatums between him and the TPLF leadership is now culminating in what amounts to a Tigrayan war of secession. It could be a long fight because Tigrayans are over-represented in the armed forces and much of the army’s heavy weapons and equipment, which were based in Tigray because of the border war with Eritrea, has fallen into the TPLF’s hands. The TPLF has no air force, but it can match the federal army in everything, up to and including mechanised divisions.
Ethiopia is Africa’s second-biggest country, very poor but with a fast-growing economy. The very last thing it needs is yet another civil war, which in current circumstances could also lead to other regions trying to secede. Even if the TPLF was trying to provoke a war (which looks quite likely), Abiy Ahmed’s first duty was to avoid it at all costs. They gave Abiy Ahmed the Nobel Peace Prize last year for bringing Ethiopia’s 22-year border war with Eritrea to a formal end but that award has been going downhill ever since Henry Kissinger got one. They even gave one to Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who now goes around condoning genocide. Maybe we also need a Nobel Booby Prize.
(Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work’)
The President-elect has always espoused India's cause in the US and lobbied for Indian interests as an admirer of the world's largest democracy
If all goes well and President Donald Trump does not have his way in the courts, then on January 20, 2021 the White House would have a new occupant. President Trump will vacate the same to welcome President-elect Democrat Joe Biden as the 46th President of the United States of America (POTUS). The US elections this time were followed worldwide because of the impact incumbent President Trump had over global geopolitics with his peculiar style of functioning.
Though Biden defeated him with a convincing majority, Trump is unhappy and making wild accusations of electoral fraud has approached the courts. In all fairness, Biden will succeed and Trump will have to concede. In the process Trump will be remembered as the first sitting POTUS who failed to secure a second term apart from his numerous controversial decisions. Biden will inherit an extremely divided US, a fallout of the “America First” policy of Trump. Soon, the process of transition will begin when the outgoing administration will hand over power to the transition team of Biden, who, too, will commence the process of announcing his trusted colleagues. The choice of members of his team will be the first indication of the mindset of the new POTUS with relation to burning domestic and global issues. Biden, more than experienced at 77, will not only decide the future of US citizens but would also have the capacity, capability, authority and responsibility to shape global destiny. It is no wonder then that in India as well the election was followed very closely as it has traditionally enjoyed a bipartisan relationship with the US.
Though change of presidency in the US has not made much of a difference in the past irrespective of the party in power, this time the situation is different because of the ongoing stand-off with an expansionist and aggressive China as well as certain controversies at home leading to polarisation.
The nomination of Senator Kamala Harris as a running mate by Biden created a concern in the power corridors in India due to her perceived anti-India stance and critical statements relating to abrogation of Article 370 and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Incidentally, both Biden and Harris have a connection with India but it is highly unlikely that it would have any effect on their policy-making or relations with us. However, one thing is certain, Biden is a friend of India and his track record from his early days as a Senator till his Vice- Presidency under Barack Obama bears testimony to this fact.
Trump has left many problems for the new Government and naturally, Biden will prioritise the sequence and manner in which he decides to resolve them. Going by the Democratic Party Platform (a document akin to manifesto) India is not in the priority list of the party. It refers to China, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific but does not mention India specifically. However, the Democrats realised soon that ignoring India may cause them loss of critical Indian-American votes and the Biden campaign released a separate policy paper on Indo-US relations. Considering India’s strategic location dominating the Indian Ocean, its size and economy, no Government can afford to ignore it.
Significantly, Biden has always espoused India’s cause in the US and lobbied for its interests as an admirer of the world’s largest democracy. He has also been an advocate of deepening strategic engagement with India, cooperating with New Delhi on meeting global challenges as well as enhancing trade relations. He has remained a strong believer of the fact that India and the US are natural partners and had a stellar role to play in approving the US-India civil nuclear deal in 2008. It was during the Obama-Biden administration that the US, for the first time, declared its support for the permanent membership of India in an expanded and reformed United Nations Security Council. During the same administration, India was named as a “major defence partner,” making it eligible to be treated at par with closest US allies as regards advanced and sensitive technologies needed to strengthen our armed forces. There are fears that since more than 80 per cent American-Muslims voted in his favour, Biden’s policies may be pro-Muslim. However, any apprehension of the US interfering in Kashmir is highly unfounded as Biden and Harris have both spoken out against human rights violations and the Democrats have always been supportive of India on Kashmir. Though in his Agenda for Muslim-American Communities, Biden had condemned the Narendra Modi Government’s new citizenship Act and a separate attempt to build a population register that could provide future justification to expel or target foreigners, at the same time he had also committed to strengthening Indo-US ties.
“The US and India will stand together against terrorism in all its forms and work together to promote a region of peace and stability, where neither China nor any other country threatens its neighbours,” he wrote in an op-ed in an Indian-American newspaper in October. He is unlikely to change the American stance on Al Qaeda, the ISIS and other radical jihadi organisations. Significantly, the Modi Government’s action against many foreign-funded NGOs and banning of Amnesty International has not gone down well with many Democrats. There are bound to be differences of opinion on many issues just like during the Trump Administration, but mutual discussions would ensure that these do not affect the cooperation between the two nations on many critical issues of mutual importance.
China’s expansionist policies, trade and certain global problems like terrorism and climate change are the issues of concern for India. There is no doubt that on these issues the Biden administration and India will have convergence. It is unlikely that Biden will release the pressure built on China by the Trump Administration. But he favours a consensus-based approach in dealing with Beijing as compared to the confrontationist stance adopted by Trump.
Biden is in favour of strengthening the QUAD, the Indo-Pacific policy as well as providing support to Taiwan and Hong Kong. He wants to strengthen ties with US allies, too, meaning the NATO and countries like Australia, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea, proposing a grand Indo-Pacific Alliance. He has also committed to strengthening military cooperation between the US and India. It is important to note that both nations had signed three agreements for closer military cooperation in the backdrop of the growing tension with China under Trump. Biden has a very different approach to climate change which is likely to benefit India in terms of green funding.
As far as trade is concerned, Biden is going to be less obtrusive than Trump. India already enjoys a trade surplus with the US. It accounts for nearly five per cent of US’ services imports from the world, too. The US is the fifth-largest source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in India and the Indian stock market is already showing a positive impact like the Wall Street.
There may not be much change in the H1-B visa regime but the information technology industry is likely to benefit. Despite good personal relations between Trump and Modi, the much-awaited trade deal between the two countries could not be finalised. Keeping in view the promised focus of Biden on rebuilding the Covid-hit economy of the US, chances of expecting any concessions appear dim.
Biden, however, had been an advocate of strengthening trade relations and India would expect restoration of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) benefits from his Government. However, it remains to be seen if the new administration uses the same as a leverage for its differences on certain issues with the Modi Government. Even Modi expressed the same hope in his congratulatory message to the President-elect. He tweeted, “As the (Vice President), your contribution to strengthening Indo-US relations was critical and invaluable. I look forward to working closely together once again to take India-US relations to greater heights.”
India has embarked on the path of Atmanirbhar Bharat to meet the challenges of a post-Covid era. Despite temptations and provocations, our nation has so far resisted joining any camp but instead has continued with its strategy of need-based bilateral or multilateral agreements in keeping with its national interests. We must continue on the same path.
(The author is a Jammu-based veteran, political commentator, columnist, security and strategic analyst)
Kamala Harris has the next four years to prove herself worthy of the top job in the United States
Comedian Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the star of the extremely popular television comedy Seinfeld as well as the show Veep, where she portrays a sidelined US Vice-President, tweeted that the “Madame Vice-President” was not a fictional one anymore as the Joseph Biden Jr-Kamal Harris ticket has, according to the US media, won the presidential elections, even though incumbent Donald Trump is not conceding defeat just yet. So, on January 20, 2021, Kamala Harris will take the oath as the 49th Vice-President of the US, breaking not just a barrier for women but also for Americans of colour, being the child of a Jamaican father and a Tamilian mother. We do not know what sort of Vice-President she will be. In years past, we have seen some like George Bush Senior and Karl Rove effectively run the show for their leaders, but over the years, many have been completely sidelined by their Presidents. Famously, when Harry Truman ascended to the top job in 1944 after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, he had no clue of most of America’s strategic initiatives in World War II, including the Manhattan Project that was developing the atomic bomb. Truman was the man who unleashed the power of the weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One can assume that Harris might have a greater role than the “typical” Vice-President but as the Democratic establishment chooses the next Cabinet, what that role will be remains to be seen. However, given early indications of Biden’s declining mental acuity evident in some of his speeches and certain to be a favourite of America’s acerbic late-night television hosts, the next four years could be an audition for the top job for Harris herself.
Make no mistake, the 2020 US presidential election was mighty close and when the last votes are counted and certified, Biden would have won the overall popular vote substantially. But Trump also increased the number of votes he got. In addition, he just about lost Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania. So unless Biden can get the virus under control, revive the economy and keep China in check, there is no certainty that Biden or Harris will win the next election. In India, we are celebrating that one of our own, sort of, is in a position of power, but Harris’ first job is repairing a deeply divided US. That won’t be easy, but if she can add a healing touch, she might make a run for the top job sooner rather than later.
Eschew dangerous passions, inflammatory expressions and erosion of the constitutional spirit as these unleash an authoritarian streak of ‘muscular politics’
1801 is a landmark year in the proud traditions of American democracy. It was the first time a political party handed over power to its rival and marked the first peaceful transfer — an important precedent in the global experiment with democracy. The second US President John Adams made way for Thomas Jefferson and slipped out of the then still-under-construction White House in the wee hours of the morning. The run-up to the elections had witnessed a bitterly polarised campaign that played out in the partisan Press, and Adams had controversially made key judicial appointments before the elections, just as Donald Trump had done. While Adams did not show grace in attending his successor’s inauguration, the subsequent traditions that evolved institutionalised the civility and formality of procedures pertaining to the transfer of power.
In the 2016 US presidential elections, the shocking defeat of Hillary Clinton, despite having three million more popular votes than her rival Donald Trump, upheld those democratic tenets when she graciously accepted in her concessional speech that “Donald Trump is going to be our President. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power. We don’t just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression.” Despite Trump’s extremely personal, vile and often false accusations against his predecessor, Barack Obama, and his previous presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, both dignified the American dream and the institution of democracy by attending and abiding by all the transfer procedural formalities.
The founding father of the American democracy, who adopted and ratified its hallowed Constitution, George Washington, had sensed the inherent dangers of a roguish individual or party, who could potentially diminish the cherished democratic values. He had warned, “However, (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” One such looming danger today is the unprecedented digging in the heels by Trump, who seemingly has thrown caution to the winds and refused to accept the electoral verdict, with the expected behaviour of a defeated candidate in a participative democracy. Anarchical portents loom and Trump, who has the dubious distinction of making at least 20,000 recorded lies in his presidential tenure, has inelegantly put his personal vanity and incorrigibility over the desideratum of democracy.
Trump’s toxic rhetoric preceding his electoral defeat had a definite pattern that clearly suggested that he was not going to bow out very easily. Murmurs about Trump rejecting the electoral results over one manufactured reason or the other were building up. What makes the ground situation frightening is the extremely divided, polarised and militant electorate and groups who harbour supremacism, racism and extremism that just need a nudge and wink to explode. The nation is awash with private firearms and “armies” amid societal faultlines that have further opened up with protest rallies and expressions of violence.
The International Crisis Group (ICG), whose purpose is to sound alarm against any foreseen conflict, war or societal unrest, had for the first time looped in the US presidential elections 2020, by noting, “Trump himself has refused to commit to leaving the office peacefully, and suggested that he could lose only if the election was rigged.” The second warning issued by the ICG was to avoid projecting a winner until the outcome was certain. Almost on cue, Trump did exactly what was feared — the sore loser claimed that rivals were “stealing” his mandate and he himself had announced his victory prematurely, when he tweeted, “We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election” and later added, “I will be making a statement tonight. A big win.”
Veteran Senator Bernie Sanders had prophesied the exact script that Trump was likely to follow knowing that the counting of mail-in ballots would tilt the scales in favour of Joe Biden. Hence Bernie suggested that Trump could say, “Thank you, Americans, for re-electing me. It’s all over. Have a good day.” However, Trump did say so and much more.
The fact that Trump still managed to retain a substantial, loyal and angry voter base, despite his gross mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic, societal disharmony and after alienating almost all global allies, should concern all democracies about the sticky power of hatred, illiberality and undemocratic propulsions, even in those countries which overtly pride on being called, “democracies.” A timely lesson for democratic nations is to eschew dangerous passions, inflammatory expressions and erosion of the constitutional spirit, as these unleash an authoritarian streak of “muscular politics” which might appeal to the basic instincts in the short term but eventually play havoc with the nation, in the long term.
When the national discourse becomes dangerously aggressive, divisive and political parties no longer seek to defeat the “ideas” of opposition but to “destroy” them, the stakes for reciprocal animus and vengeance set in. This attitude ultimately breeds the sort of politics that wants to win at any cost, by hook or by crook. As the Trump saga suggests, the foreboding signals are unmistakable when the supposedly apolitical institutions start getting compromised, political language becomes intolerant and intimidating, or when falsehood becomes normalised and preferred over the more sobering reality. Only time will tell if Trump can ever match his fellow Republican John McCain’s brilliant concession speech in 2008, “Tonight, more than any night, I hold in my heart nothing but love for this country and for all its citizens, whether they supported me or Senator Obama, and I wish Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my President.”
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)
With major US networks uniting to counter Trump’s claims of electoral fraud, is there hope for old school journalism?
The US elections have thrown up many examples of “Trumpery,” a plastic cult concoction that has torn down every convention in its sweep and will last simply because of its pop-up encroachment of established space, demanding legitimacy through a shredded system, right or wrong. So as Donald Trump cried the Democrats had “stolen” the election from him and both his supporters and critics took to the streets and the waterfront to be heard, one wanting the counting to stop and the other upholding the validity of the last vote polled, the free world’s integrity, resting on institutional and systemic pride and justness, seemed to be its greatest casualty. But probably this low was necessary for the fourth pillar of democracy to rescue it in the nick of time. The media, which Trump had made his sworn enemy and a scapegoat for his follies, became his real contestant, standing up to him measure for measure.
In an unprecedented move, major US TV networks chose to cut away from a live speech made by Trump from the White House as he repeated his allegations that an electoral fraud had been committed on the nation because his margins with Biden were dwindling. Mind you this was Trump addressing the nation as President from the hallowed portals of his office and not from the Republican Party headquarters. Still, the CBS, MSNBC, ABC and NBC stopped airing the footage, clarifying that his statements were baseless. They didn’t want to fuel his propaganda though they admitted that he could still be the President if he was proven right by law. Not only that, they immediately commissioned on-ground reports to verify voting fraud allegations and after a granular fact-check, insisted that the counting officials were not only following the rulebook but were double-checking and meticulously separating the votes in the event of a recount. And lest the anchors be accused of being partisan, all of them unanimously upheld Trump’s right as a candidate to demand a recount or seek legal recourse but insisted that a process could not be hijacked midway without evidence to disenfranchise the voter. As channels fanned out correspondents on the ground to verify each of Trump’s plaints, they equally approached Republican spokespersons, some of whom were quite embarrassed by Trump’s adventurism. In short, the US media, defying all the co-option and intimidation tactics that it had been subjected to in an authoritarian era, stood up for itself. And firm. It upheld the nation’s foundational principles than subject them to nihilistic degradation. It did its job and unitedly defended its institutional responsibility.
MSNBC’s anchor Brian Williams said, “Here we are again in the unusual position of not only interrupting the President of the United States but correcting the President of the United States.” USA Today interrupted its live video feed as its editor-in-chief Nicole Carroll said, “Our job is to spread truth — not unfounded conspiracies.” Of course, the quote that became viral was that of CNN presenter Anderson Cooper, who described Trump “like an obese turtle on his back, flailing in the hot sun realising his time was over.” The usually pro-Trump Fox News did not do his bidding with its correspondent saying, “What we saw tonight is a President who believes that at the end of the day, when all the votes are counted, the election is not going to go his way, so he’s trying to plan an alternate route to retain the White House.” Print media has already been reasoned but American live TV, that has depended on Trump’s outrageousness for commercial ratings, showed a rare moral fibre called character.
In fact, more than Trump vs Biden, this election will be remembered for the real contest between Trump and the media. Yet, it was not always this way. Looking back, Trump at one point was feted by the media and as a reality star created by networks, was celebrated for his eccentric excesses and rude dramatics. Where prejudice, and not patience, was a virtue. To the extent that Trump as President could not separate the gravitas of office from the metrics of popular consumption. A reality TV star is acceptable, a reality TV President is not. But Trump assumed that the media would be taken in by his rambunctiousness and see it as an example of his boldness as a leader of people, who pressed all the populist buttons — “America First,” “Make America Great Again”, “China virus.” And given the mandate in 2016, he had made himself believe that he did not need to admit a mistake but sweep it under the aura of his onscreen personality. That’s when the media, which criticised his policies when it needed to, became his enemy. That’s when Trump dismissed the media as a purveyor of “fake news” and sanctified his own claims as facts. In the end, he transplanted his opinions and worldview as the only truth and the rest as lies. And in the ways of all autocrats and demagogues, he even colonised the media, disorienting it from standing by the truth without fear and favour and colonising it on his terms. The rebels he dismissed as America’s “opposition party” that would not see anything good in all that he did. This blanket otherisation also helped him shield himself from issues that came under the scanner, some of which could have embarrassed him no end. He simply got away by playing victim, saying the media hated him since he represented a heartland America that he pandered to. He even humiliated journalists, attacking them individually by naming and shaming them, threatening libel or even hurting their business interests. Matters came to a head when he blamed the media for blowing up the Coronavirus crisis from what it was, “just a flu”, although the US has lost a quarter million of its own to the pandemic. The normally permissive social media giant Twitter had to ban his one-time aide Steve Bannon for asking Trump to behead infectious disease specialist Dr Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray. The problem with Trump’s “otherisation” policy was that he not only confined it to the media and the liberals, he extended it to anybody and everybody with credible standing and proven worth, who were apolitical. This explains why the media coalesced the way it did this time, articulating as it did a popular disgust. Besides, Trump mistook the fact that the media wanted to be “king” in his palace when it simply wanted to retain its place in civil society.
In the US, the media has never been bigger than its President, each of whom has used it to disseminate his policies and even attempted to coerce it. Yet there was a Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in between, whose old school legwork resulted in Watergate and ultimately forced Richard Nixon to resign. It is heartening to note that decades and years later, at least the discussion on facts, corroboration and evidence are back on the table again. And that’s good for old-school journalism.
Question is will the Indian media be equally cohesive as it stands deeply polarised and horribly compromised. Will networks dare to cut away from biased coverage, beholden as they are to their political masters and corporate donors? Will we ignore individual bottom lines at a critical juncture and take a united stand as an industry that would be taken more seriously for a job well done rather than undone? Will we be able to create a competitive market of free ideas or continue to rely on doles of those we please? Not that there isn’t hope, considering the local Press and cable networks do take on the establishment fearlessly, most big scams having been reported first by local correspondents. But then that’s because the local Press isn’t in the high stakes game yet and is still seen as a social enterprise for the greater good. But at the top, both broadcast and print media are under pressure and indeed rewarded for favourable coverage of the powers that be. And this is sadly responsible for the erosion of democracy itself, not just here but elsewhere in the world.
According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World data, the Press is equally under attack in free States, where it is being gradually appropriated as a tool of governance than being its watchdog. While it is easier to detect authoritarian crackdowns, what is more insidious, it says, are “more nuanced efforts to throttle their independence. Common methods include Government-backed ownership changes, regulatory and financial pressure and public denunciations of honest journalists. Governments have also offered proactive support to friendly outlets through measures such as lucrative State contracts, favourable regulatory decisions, and preferential access to State information. The goal is to make the Press serve those in power rather than the public.”
Among free countries, the report says, about 19 per cent or 16 countries are struggling with Press freedom over the past five years. In other words, it is as much a victim as civil liberty with populist leaders extending the arc of their political power while keeping to the motions of democracy. Undoubtedly, it mentions the US, China and Israel but lists India too, especially in restricting broadcast media by selective allocation of licences and airwaves to the detriment of organisations “unfriendly” to the ruling regime.
Can the media rebound is the big question? At this point, it may look unlikely but templates exist to prove that ultimate repression is needed to feel the need for and value an independent Press. The media sector is picking up in Ethiopia and Gambia, where it was once persecuted, with more locals keen to take up the profession. Germany has evolved a public television system funded by taxpayers and overseen by independent boards. So it acts as a perfect check and balance for the Government of the day. It has established its credibility for impartial news and analysis, something that people keep in mind while casting their ballot. But these are just templates and each democracy-loving nation needs to do its bit to ensure Press freedom if it wants to be fair to itself. Just remember George Orwell: “Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. The British Press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio…Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.” It’s time to be unfashionable.
(The writer is Associate Editor, The Pioneer)
As Obama’s V-P, Biden headed foreign policy committees in the Senate and is well aware of India’s strategic value
Regardless of the legal wrangles and the persistence of Donald Trump to prove that the verdict is still his for the taking, Democrat candidate Joe Biden has won the presidency. But what does a possible regime change mean for India? And this is where it becomes necessary to understand the bipartisan nature of US foreign policy. Whoever be the President, s/he is guided by the nation’s interest and strategic concerns regardless of what each has professed before. And while a Democratic regime would be under pressure to make sweeping changes in domestic policies, there is continuity in larger geo-political issues. To that extent, the Biden-Harris team is as wary of China and committed to supporting India as a bulwark State. One just has to go back to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal that was pushed by the George Bush administration. In 2009, when Democrat President and Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama took over, there were worries about operationalising it. However, Obama vowed to uphold it, even calling it historic. Besides, let us not forget that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a fruitful relationship with Obama. And he did work up an equation with Trump as well. Besides, Biden, while serving as Obama’s Vice-President, has headed foreign policy committees in the Senate and is considered an expert in that field. So if anybody understands India’s worth in the current US schematics, it would be him. Sensing the change in tide, the Indian Ambassador in the US, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, has already started holding meetings with Democrat Congressmen. Biden is likely to bring in Indian American Vivek Murthy to head the COVID-19 management programme. In the short term, Biden’s seriousness about the pandemic and his willingness to put his plan into action from his first day as a President could be beneficial for India too. It could translate into a shared perspective on the approach and an enhanced India-US partnership in health, sciences and supply chains. In terms of policy, there are some major differences between the two candidates. Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran had limited India’s investment and oil imports. With Biden promising to revive the Iran nuclear deal, a highlight of the Obama administration, New Delhi can continue with the development of the strategic Chabahar port, a venture crucial to keep both China and Pakistan in check. Also, unlike Trump, Biden could be generous to allies and since Trump’s economic nationalism caused billions of dollars of export losses to India and even denied it the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) privileges, we could expect some easing there.
In terms of countering China, Trump has definitely been an asset and his role in strengthening the Quad cannot be questioned following the former’s misadventure in Ladakh. But Biden has been far more critical of China’s policies in Xinjiang province and the atrocities against the Uyghurs, its treatment of Hong Kong protests and Taiwan, which could prove to be more decisive. He had said that the strengthening of ties between the two democracies would be a matter of “high priority” for his administration, as the two countries were “natural partners.” And a document released by his campaign also claimed that he would be working with India in the Indo-Pacific region to ensure no country, including China, “is able to threaten its neighbours with impunity.” Biden has appeared more sensitive in dealing with his allies. So, when Trump at the last presidential debate called India’s air filthy, Biden had responded by saying that: “You don’t speak about friends like that.” The cherry on the cake is the Democrat leader’s commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change as India was hoping for investment from the Green Climate Fund in its renewable energy initiatives. Biden’s support, first for reforming the temporary visa system for high-skill, speciality jobs and then expanding the number of visas offered, which had kept so many Indians in queue, will be beneficial even though it will be equally favourable for our other neighbours, including China. India could benefit with Biden planning to resume US’s position at most global alliances and UN bodies that Trump had walked out of while pursuing his brand of protectionism and nationalism. That would help get India more endorsement when it matters. Of course, many here are fearing that Biden’s global push for more democracy and human rights may draw attention to Kashmir but he has the expertise and gravitas to follow a more nuanced approach. And with New Delhi planning local body elections and willing to increase political engagement, it should not be a hurdle as such. Of course, there’s Russia, on which Biden might take a hard line. But then, India managed to get its arms deals through with Russia in the Trump years despite apprehension. Besides, Russia, though indebted to China for infrastructure deals, has common cause with India against China’s giganticism and still respects the historicity of ties. So Indo-US relations are expected to be on an even keel.
As the Opposition’s narrative gains momentum amid political repression and utter governmental incompetence, the conspiracy cards are out again
In 2007, the Musharraf dictatorship found itself in the doldrums. Suddenly, it was up against a charged protest movement, an economy that had begun to falter and the return of two political leaders from exile, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Both had been kept out from the political system designed by Musharraf during his tenure as President. He was also unable to smother private TV news channels that, ironically, had mushroomed during his Government. By 2007, almost all of them had become chattering vessels for Opposition leaders and narratives.
This was something new in Pakistan. The State-owned PTV was not the only TV channel anymore. The content of the new channels could not be conveniently moulded and shaped according to a sitting regime’s needs and interests. Therefore, it won’t be an overstatement to claim that the channels contributed in expediting Musharraf’s downfall and ultimate ouster.
All this was being closely watched by a startled “establishment.” After Musharraf’s departure, the establishment eventually began to harness this phenomenon by gradually arm-twisting and reining-in numerous channels, first to help it create brand Imran — especially among an urban generation of youth who had come of age during the Musharraf era — and then to demonise anyone or anything that stood in the way of turning this brand into a ruling possibility.
But this was in the near future. Because during the period the Musharraf regime was badly wavering, all it could think of or do (to retain the attention of Musharraf’s aforementioned urban constituency) was to pull in certain characters from what is often referred to as the “conspiratorial lunatic fringe”, and forcibly create some space for them on TV channels.
With Musharraf’s Ministers badly faltering in convincingly addressing the rapidly proliferating narrative against the regime, the script provided to the conspiracy theorists was simple: Explain the movement against Musharraf as an evil scheme hatched by the enemies of the country and their Pakistani agents.
These colourful and articulate theorists drew their material from various popular conspiracy gurus such as the Turkish Harun Yahya and the American Alex Jones. This was then fused with sensational narratives from popular conspiratorial cultural products that included fabricated texts such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and low-budget straight-to-YouTube “documentaries” such as Loose Change. These were then peddled with a healthy dose of cherry-picked sections from Allama Iqbal and tales of ancient Muslim warriors drawn from literature, that was more historical fiction than fact. Did all this attract the attention of the urban youth? It did. Unable to grasp the complexities of the ways in which political turbulence emerges and evolves, they were provided ready-made answers through which they could understand the commotion in an entirely angled manner.
According to the British academic and author Jovan Byford, in his 2011 book Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction, “Conspiracy theories seduce not so much through the power of argument, but through the intensity of the passions that they stir. Underpinning conspiracy theories are stories about good and evil. This gives conspiracy theories a strong emotional dimension.” So those who put the conspiracy theorists to work on TV amid the turmoil during the Musharraf regime, knew exactly the kind of emotions they were looking to stir (against the Opposition).
But did it help stall or evade Musharraf’s fall? No. His constituency was limited and largely apolitical. This too was noted. Therefore, from 2011 onwards, the establishment began to aid Imran Khan to adopt Musharraf’s constituency, expand it and then rapidly politicise it. Nine years later, Khan was able to form a minority Government, largely popular among the urban bourgeoisie. Even though the conspiracy theorists, who had appeared during the tail-end of the Musharraf regime, were eventually discredited and their tirades debunked by a host of historians, an idea that they had introduced during their figurative 15 minutes of fame, stuck.
This idea was simple: If one continues to lie about something with conviction from a mainstream platform, that lie, especially when carried and proliferated by social media sites, often begins to be taken as a “fact” by large groups of people. The purpose of these so-called “facts” is not to enlighten people but to sustain an audience in times of crisis and make sure it doesn’t drift away into the Opposition’s camp. If it needs to be lied to, then so be it.
But the untruth requires to be told in such a manner that it works to emotionally and psychologically reinforce narratives that have begun to erode in the minds of the targetted audience.
Because once this audience is emotionally invested in the lie, it is also likely to treat anything debunking it as a grand conspiracy.
During times of crises for a regime, daily micro-battles can be fought through this approach. However, as we saw during the last year of the Musharraf regime, and as we are now seeing in Modi’s India and Trump’s America, the rising intensity of this approach may as well be signalling that the war engulfing the daily micro-battles is being lost. And in Imran Khan’s Pakistan, too, the intensity of this approach has risen amid the rising tide of Opposition against the Government and its backers.
In a feature on the February 1990 elections in Nicaragua, which an Opposition alliance won by defeating the ruling Sandinista Party that had come to power in 1979 through a revolution, Time magazine quoted a man who had supported the Sandinista but voted for the Opposition.
He told the magazine that a majority of Nicaraguans had voted for the Opposition “with their stomachs that had become empty.” The Sandinista had painted the Opposition as being anti-poor and made emotional appeals to the electorate to not allow a rollback of the revolution. But these slogans had no meaning to those fearing starvation and joblessness.
As the Opposition’s manoeuvres and narrative in Pakistan gain momentum and currency in a scenario riddled with rampant inflation, political repression and utter governmental incompetence, the conspiracy cards are out again. But this time they are not being played by those brought in from the “lunatic fringe.”
However, the content and modus operandi are the same. We are now seeing Ministers adopting this role. A recent example is the manner in which the Information Minister Shibli Faraz explained the Opposition alliance, the PDM, as “the third piece of the axis of evil.” The other two pieces being India and Israel.
This may sound entirely ridiculous to most because it smacks of typical conspiratorial claptrap. But Faraz is talking to a constituency that had actually bought the curious Utopian fusion of a theocratic fantasy and modern developmental economics sold with great passion by brand Imran and his makers.
However, to an empty stomach it is nothing but hogwash and that too, coming from an incompetent regime which has been reduced to now defending its “selection,” knowing well that the claim of it being elected has been shot to pieces.
(Courtesy: Dawn)
Looking at Pakistan’s tumultuous political and historical past, it can be safely concluded that the PTI government will not survive the test of time. Economic woes faced by Pakistan at the moment are offering a rare advantage to the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition led by two of the most prominent political parties i.e. the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)
Nearly eleven political parties have been up in arms against the Imran Khan-led Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Government almost for a month now over a number of issues, especially on the economic front.
Economic woes faced by Pakistan at the moment are offering a rare advantage to the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition led by two of the most prominent political parties — the Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) among others to attack the Government.
The first PDM rally was organised in mid-October. For now, the veteran Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F), is heading the PDM. Just before beginning his first pubic appearance, he clearly underlined the objective of the coalition, “The Opposition is committed and there should be no impression that any of the parties are waiting for an agreement. All parties are committed and are united in restoring the sanctity of the people’s vote.” Outlining the PDM’s united role in its fight against the PTI Government, he said, “We don’t have personal enmity with anyone. But it should be specified that Pakistan belongs to Pakistanis. It does not belong to western entities.” He also stressed on the fact that “Pakistan did not come into power to be ruled by the global establishment. It all implies that the PDM is solidly behind the Maulana and they want an Imran-free Pakistan wherein there would be no western intervention at all.
Maryam Nawaz, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter and vice-president of the PML(N), while embarking on this journey, regarded herself as the “Nawaz’s foot soldier”. She vowed to continue her father’s mission for Pakistan. Meanwhile Billawal Bhutto-Zardari, the PPP chairman and son of former President Asif Ali Zardari and late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, too has joined the struggle and made it a united front to bring down the Imran Government.
Indeed, these second-generation leaders of the two main Opposition parties have put forward a rare fight to the Army-backed PTI Government in Islamabad.
The 26-point charter released by the PDM is very significant. It clearly spells out that there should be an end to the establishment’s role in politics. Among other things, it also highlights that Imran must resign immediately, and demanded production of missing persons and reduction of the prices of basic commodities. The PDM has also announced a clear line of action for the immediate future. Apart from its huge Gujranwala rally, the alliance will hold joint rallies across the four provinces of the country. Also it says that these rallies will be followed by mass protests across the country in December and a long march to the capital city of Islamabad in January 2021. The coalition lawmakers may also consider the option of resigning from the country’s National Assembly.
At the moment, PML(N) founder Nawaz, who was convicted of corruption in 2018, is now based in London after getting bail on medical grounds, had given fiery video speeches at two different rallies organised by the PDM. In one of his speeches, he created almost a history of sort. He called out the name of the head of the Pakistan’s Army General Qamar Javed Bajwa and accused him of engineering his ouster in 2017 and 2018 victory of the PTI in the general election. It’s in fact very rare for a senior politician of a former Prime Minister’s stature to make specific allegations against a sitting Army chief of the country. This is a worry signal for the country at this moment. But Nawaz in his speeches maintained that his fight is not against Imran but only against those people who has brought him to power. And undoubtedly, it is clear that he is pointing finger at the country’s Army establishment. Questioning the all powerful Army is somewhat prohibited in a country like Pakistan as it’s popularly known as the “deep state” of the country. Besides, the Army in that country absolutely regulates all internal and external moves of any civilian Government that has ever come to power since its formation.
Precisely, in the last 73 years of Pakistan’s history, there were four occasions when the Army ruled the country. And such Opposition alliances had in the past came together against military rulers and at times with significant successes. In the late 1960s, the Opposition parties had thrown out Field Marshal Ayub Khan from the office of the President of Pakistan. However, the Opposition parties could not register similar success in regard to General Zia-ul-Haq’s presidency in the 1980s. The charges against Zia were led by the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD). Again, such an alliance called Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) came up to dethrone General Pervez Musharraf in the 1990s. It’s not that these Opposition parties only rallied against the military dictators but they also came up to pull down civilian governments in the past. For example, the popularly elected Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Government was pulled down by such alliances in the year 1977 to bring home the General Zia presidency. But here we must remember that there were specific allegations of election rigging and manipulation of economic policies against the then Bhutto Government. In those days, the Opposition coalition was led by the Pakistan National Alliance.
When it comes to the coalition against Imran Government, it must be noted here that it is fully backed by the Army unlike the Bhutto Government of the 1977. So today’s PDM struggle is very unique in that sense and if goes further, it may garner more public support for it.
What has exactly enraged the Opposition and the public is deep economic crisis accompanied by the severe attack of the global corona pandemic across Pakistan. The acute shortage of wheat and sugar has pressed a large number of people to look out for an alternative government in the country. Besides these two problems, the devastating floods and locust attack on grain fields have together accentuated the current crisis in Pakistan.
It is an open secret that corruption of successive establishments, including the PTI in Islamabad, has severely plagued the entire administrative system of the country. It has become an inseparable part of Pakistan’s public governance system. Sadly, Imran has added an extremely poor political discourse to the existing public sphere of the country. His scant disregard for political opposition and arrogance in public forums has further aggravated the problems for the Government.
Currently, ousting the PTI Government is seemed to be an insurmountable task. The simple reason is that it is solely backed by the Army of Pakistan. But how long this support sustains is a matter of big question. Till then, Imran is safe. The traditional rivalries of the two Opposition parties within the PDM i.e. the PML (N) and the PPP must make it sure their differences should not break the alliance in the days to come. Looking at Pakistan’s tumultuous political and historical past, it can be safely concluded that the PTI Government will not survive the test of time.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
US President Donald Trump has striven for weeks to taint postal votes and to impugn the credibility of the American electoral system
Even as the results of the US presidential election were pouring in and showing the Democrat challenger to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, in the lead, the US President unbelievably made a late-night declaration of victory before he had earned it and concocted a false narrative as an electoral fraud victim. In doing that, Trump denied Biden the consecrating ritual of concession. With this act of Trump, the US’ mechanism for handing over power has broken down. There is no constitutional procedure for removing a President who refuses to accept defeat gracefully.
The Founding Fathers of the US assumed and hoped that incumbents would behave with honour, though Thomas Jefferson always feared that a new Caesar might one day overstay his welcome — ironically with one of the Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton immediately in mind.
President Trump’s late-night declaration of victory before he had earned it was an act of political sacrilege. It was also ruthlessly focussed, the opening move of a scorched-Earth strategy long-prepared by his inner circle should he be at risk of losing the vote. His allegation of a giant “fraud on the American people” was not a reckless off-the-cuff remark in the heat of the moment. Leaked tapes from his Election Day Operations team leave no doubt that this gambit was pre-planned, a calculated move to discredit in advance what he knew would be a late surge of Democrat votes as postal ballots are counted.
This “blue shift” syndrome has become a pattern of US elections, and vastly more so this year after 100 million people voted by mail or in advance to avoid the Coronavirus bullet.
Trump has striven for weeks to taint postal votes and to impugn the credibility of the US electoral system — breathtaking chutzpah given that he controls the Justice Department and that Republicans dominate the executive machinery of the swing States.
He urged his supporters to vote only in person, aiming to create an even greater cleavage between the party colouring of the two sets of ballots that could then be exploited. This has been his strategy ever since Joe Biden pulled ahead in the opinion polls.
It led to the spectacle that we have all just witnessed: An early Trump lead in several States evaporating later. It is an invitation to conspiracy theories, all assiduously amplified on social media, with militia waiting in the wings.
The situation is dangerous and has nothing in common with Al Gore’s demand for a Florida recount 20 years ago. Trump has lost the popular vote and probably the Electoral College vote, too, yet he is pulling out all the stops to subvert the result before this can be confirmed.
A machinery for legal guerrilla warfare has been set in motion across the battleground States and will now cause weeks of havoc. Have markets understood the gravity of what is unfolding? The US’ succession process relies on the virtues of Lucius Cincinnatus. “Our Constitution does not secure the peaceful transition of power, but rather presupposes it,” says Amherst law professor Lawrence Douglas.
He says there are design flaws in the architecture of the Twelfth Amendment and in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that make easy prey for an abusive President. States are not obliged to follow the outcome of the popular election when they allocate their vote in the Electoral College though they always do in practice. If doubts can be sown about the validity of the election — or if enough street disorder can be rustled up — the State Legislatures have the constitutional power to appoint anybody they want.
As it happens, these bodies are mostly controlled by the Republicans in swing States. So what will Trump’s allies in the Pennsylvania General Assembly do if the Democrats win, given that he already alleges a stolen election? At what point do they tell their party leader that enough is enough?
It comes down to whether judges often appointed by Trump are willing to strike down votes because the ballots arrived late — though posted in time — or had a slightly smudged postmark, and whether the Republican six-three majority on the Supreme Court will validate such suppression. I doubt that they will, but upon this question may now hang the fate of the republic.
At the least, Washington faces weeks of paralysis and legal fights until the “safe harbour” deadline for the Electoral College votes on December 8, and before the new Congress validates the presidential count on January 6. This chaos will happen in the middle of an escalating pandemic.
Nothing like it has been seen since the four-month Interregnum in 1932, the Winter War, when Herbert Hoover denounced Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as a “march on Moscow” and sought to sabotage his reflation policy in advance by tightening the Gold Standard. Confidence in the banking system collapsed during the hiatus. It was the closest that the US came to a political breakdown during the Great Depression. It was also the moment when Japan invaded China, and Hitler took Berlin, and the world suddenly changed.
What might Chinese President Xi Jinping do to Taiwan while Trump is distracted with his army of lawyers and the US is tearing itself apart? The autocrats will surely relish the spectacle of a US President behaving as they do. It is the ultimate propaganda coup.
Whatever happens over the coming weeks, the Blue Wave has sputtered out. The Democrats have failed to capture the Senate. They may even have lost seats in the House. Their mandate for a radical leftward turn has evaporated.
It has long been an article of faith among Democrats that “demographics are destiny”, and that the party’s ethnic and sectarian coalition must eventually prevail by force of numbers. But this election has been a wake-up call. There has been revulsion against identity politics and corrosive segmentation, and above all against the “cancel culture” of the Antifa statue-smashers.
The Democrats lost ground to Latinos in Florida and South Texas, despite the “Wall.” This may shock some but it should be no surprise given the business ethic of Latino immigrants, their Catholicism, and their family ties to countries with Trumpian caudillo traditions.
Markets must now confront the Washington gridlock and diminished fiscal stimulus, already reflected in the plummeting yields on 10-year Treasuries, but not so far on Wall Street.
For a brief moment, Bidenomics had us all in thrall. It looked as if there might be a $7.9 trillion Keynesian blitz to “run the economy hot.” The strategy was consciously modelled on Roosevelt’s wartime expansion from 1941 to 1945. It aimed to leap-frog supply-side constraints and achieve a virtuous circle of productivity growth, this time relying on the war against carbon as the catalyst instead of military-industrial mobilisation against fascism.
Biden will not be able to push these vaulting plans through Congress even if he does make it into the White House. The green deal is largely still-born. His front-loaded $1.7 trillion Gosplan for 500 million solar panels, 60,000 wind turbines, and the like, will be torn to pieces by the Senate.
The equity markets had come to salivate over the exorbitant sums. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Moody’s all concluded that Bidenomics would turbocharge economic growth. They will now have to settle for thinner gruel. The planned $2 trillion of pandemic aid to cover furloughs and insolvent States is for the birds. It is not clear what skinny version will emerge from a lame-duck Congress in this political climate. Don’t expect it soon.
All told, the markets face a harsher economic winter. The V-shaped rebound has faded. Investors must instead navigate the second dip of an enveloping ‘W’ without much help from Washington.
Nor is it obvious that a Democratic White House eager to regulate and a Republican Senate less inclined to spend will do much for the animal dynamism of American capitalism. Bet on bipartisan comity and a business boom if you wish. I am fetching my tin helmet.
(Courtesy: The Telegraph)
Indian-American candidates have made their mark in the US election but need to consolidate going forward
In the 60s, Indian immigrants to the US had to face discrimination and have racist slurs like “brownie” thrown at them. Fast forward to 2020 and Indian-origin Americans have become an influential community. They own a third of all Silicon Valley start-ups and two per cent of the Fortune 500 companies of American origin. Their talent pool and skill set have meant that large corporations like Microsoft, Alphabet, Adobe, IBM and MasterCard are led by Indian-American CEOs. That is not to say that they don’t face racism anymore but as more of them have entered the political arena to make their relevance felt, and done well, they do have a voice now. To the extent that both the Democrat and the Republican campaigns had initiated several diversity measures to woo the approximately 1.8 million members of the community who have emerged as a critical voting bloc in the battleground States of Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas. And to their credit, the Indian-American candidates have made their mark in this presidential election. Not only is part-Indian origin Democrat Kamala Harris waiting to become the Vice-President, four of five Democratic lawmakers, who make up the so-called “Samosa Caucus”, have trounced their Republican rivals. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Pramila Jayapal, Roh Khanna and Ami Bera have been re-elected to the House of Representatives. However, Rikin Mehta and Sara Gideon have lost their Senate race from New Jersey and Maine. But with record participation by Indian-Americans, 2020 has been a starting point for empowerment.
Even as we celebrate the victories of Indian-origin politicians in the US, it is high time we realise that most of them do not even relate to the country of their ancestors’ origin. Being second or even third-generation US citizens, their focus is on the country they are living in and what good they can do for themselves and their constituencies. Plus, the main contours of the foreign policy of the Biden-Harris administration, should it come to power, vis-a-vis India are expected to be similar as the US believes in strategic continuity of interests it holds dear. Of course, Harris favours a more immigrant-friendly approach, So, having someone with pro-immigrant values in the White House is bound to benefit Indians in some way, even though it will be as beneficial for China. Whoever gets the verdict, this balancing will have to be done if the US wants India as its bulwark in the East.
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month