Many people, especially the democrats in the US, must have gone to be bed the day elections results were announced wondering just what hit them. For the last several months in particular, people were led to believe that it would be a tight election with Kamala Harris actually holding the edge by minuscule percentage pointless. It will take time for the democrats to process and understand the dynamics of what in the final phases of the campaign upset the applecart.
During his 2020 presidential campaign, Trump claimed that Democrats would engage in widespread voter fraud by forging, altering, or discarding absentee ballots as many voters intended to use them to avoid COVID-19 exposure at polling stations. Trump’s come-back was something fortuitous, and a bolt out the blue. When he declared his intent to contest, it mostly raised eyebrows. People, at best, recalled his debacle of his first four years, his defeat the hands of Biden, and the ruckus that followed his refusal to surrender the White House to the newly elected President, Joe Biden.
Trump resorted to lawless tactics, never witnessed before in the history of the USA. Trump invoked the contention that Democrats had stolen the election. In a speech near the White House just before the Capitol attack he urged supporters to resist Congress’s certification of Biden’s election. It led to him to call on his supporters to march to the Capitol and disrupt proceedings. That got him impeached by the House for “incitement of insurrection”. Later the Senate later acquitted him. They reasoned that the Capitol is more than just a governmental operational location. Rather it is the nation’s political heritage site that attracts visitors from around the world.
Most citizens were pessimistic about Trump’s chances when he announced his candidature again. First, he was only a one-term President and had not too much to write home about his term, except for a vastly improved economy. What he did establish was that he was tough, ruthless and a go-getter. The gallery did not bother him. His personal/political convictions were all that mattered. Deep inside he harbored revenge against the system and had very early into Biden’s term decided he would be a candidate come 2024.He exuberated confidence that he was in the race to win it. His slapdash attitude exuded confidence that the White House was his space to rule from.
When Harris first appeared on ABC for what had been designated as a get-to-know-Harris, she had aimed to project herself as the ‘choice of the people’, the voice of the middle class, the black, the Indian. That was to be Harris’ immersion into real politic. She failed the first hurdle when queried what she would have done in a different way from Joe Biden: “Not a thing comes to mind.” The first obstacle has to be the stem from which the rest of the energy is derived. Harris faulted right there and since that crucial moment, Harris was unable to untether herself from Biden whose term had neither appeal nor legacy to build a consecutive campaign for the Democrats. Harris gave no indication through the campaign that she was bringing fresh ideas to reconstruct a severely dented economy, and handle the intricacies of negotiating conflicts and bringing warring parties to their camp. Rather than a kick-start, it was a mediocre launch; Harris’s first appearance on its own accentuated the political headwinds her unimpressive campaign confronted as she succumbed to her eventual landslide defeat. Trump actually pulled off the largest victory in modern US politics and has started out-of the-box. A woman will now be his Chief-of-Staff – another first.
Building on the gains Biden had built, Harris stayed a touch ahead of Trump only to see her gap closing in rapidly. Trump is not an ideologue by any stretch of imagination and, for certain, not a policy wonk. The two candidates held strategies that were in stark contrast. Trump made inroads among lower-income voters, middle-income voters and voters without college degrees. All those groups appeared to put as high a priority on their family budgets than the worries about the future of democracy.
Harris’ wager on rallying absolute numbers around abortion rights didn’t pan out as hoped. She had a few gains with college graduates and higher-income voters, but Trump held onto his base and even made marginal gains with some of Democrats’ core constituencies. In real substance, both Trump and Harris offered run-of-the mill stuff.
What will the world look like with Trump as US President?
NATO-Europe will get quick consideration. In his first term, Trump pushed hard to get NATO allies in Europe to invest more on their own security and persuaded NATO Allies to spend an additional 2% of gross domestic product. Trump was unwilling to bear the whole burden of offering a defence cover to western allies. Europe knew that this was not negotiable any more. They must cough up their fair share. Europe knows Trump means business.
An early priority Trump has committed to is to end the war in Ukraine. Ukraine and its European alliance partners want a quick-fix which is glued with peace on terms favorable to Ukraine and with Russia surrendering of territory. European allies in NATO hope to convince Trump that if he helps to negotiate any peace, it should be done from a position of strength, for both Ukraine and the United States. But Europe’s conditionality’s will not carry all the way. Trump will negotiate and not be dictated to. The Europeans have done precious little to genuinely support Ukraine. Trump declared as much this morning. Trump will draw up the principles of peace-making according to his notion of what is right. All the pre-conditions being set now by Europe won’t necessarily factor into Trumps solutions.
Europeans will do well to recall how Trump in his first administration slapped tariffs on EU steel and aluminum in 2018, based on the claim that foreign products, even if produced by American allies, were a threat to U.S. national security. Europeans and other allies retaliated with some minor products like U.S.-made motorcycles, bourbon, peanut butter and jeans, among other items. Expect more from Trump this time around.
The Challenges in Asia-Pacific will have multiple dimensions. Taiwanese companies have invested billions of dollars in China over the past four decades, taking advantage of historically lower costs, but Taiwan’s government, conscious of stepped up pressure from Beijing to accept Chinese sovereignty claims, has been encouraging its firms to move investment elsewhere. Speaking in parliament, Chian Ching-Kuo, Taiwanese President said the impact of any Trump’s tariffs on China for Taiwanese firms manufacturing there would be quite large. Taiwanese companies have invested billions in China and this is something the US will eye shutting down. Economy Minister Kuo Jyh-hue is readying himself to get Taiwan to relocate production from China given the likely large impact from tariffs that Trump has already vowed to impose on the country. Taiwan and the United States have also been holding talks under a series of different trade initiatives that Taipei hopes will lead to a broad free trade agreement. Taiwan’s deputy trade representative, Yen Huai-shing, noted that one of the bilateral mechanisms, the U.S.-Taiwan Economic Prosperity Partnership Dialogue, was begun under Trump’s first administration. Chips and Science Act award aimed at encouraging investment by chipmakers in the United States would continue under the new U.S. administration. Taiwan and the United States have also been holding talks under a series of different trade initiatives that Taipei hopes will lead to a broad free trade agreement.
Taiwan has the potential to be a flash point in U.S.-China relations. The differences over Taiwan’s status have fueled rising tensions between the island and the mainland.
China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea has steadily increased, resulting in heightened tensions with Southeast Asian claimant states, particularly the Philippines, at the Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratly Islands. China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonized competing claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. As early as the 1970s, countries began to claim islands and various zones in the South China Sea, such as the Spratly Islands, which possess rich natural resources and fishing areas. The failure of Chinese and Southeast Asian leaders to resolve the disputes diplomatically could undermine international laws governing maritime disputes and encourage destabilizing arms buildups. China maintains that, under international law, foreign militaries cannot conduct intelligence-gathering activities, such as reconnaissance flights, in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Trump won’t just find it easy to jump the bar on this.
Very keenly watched will be how Trump tackles the question of West Asia. Pro-Israel policies defined his West Asia policy during his first term in office. Trump unveiled a full throated ‘peace plan’ for Israel-Palestine in 2020. That was rejected out-and-out by the Palestinian leadership saying it was slanted in favour of Israel. It was Trump who moved the America’s embassy to Jerusalem. He recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights. Trump then withdrew the U.S. unilaterally from the Iran nuclear deal, despite United Nations certification that Iran was fully compliant with the terms of the 2015 agreement.
The ‘Abraham Accords’, which brought together Israel and Arab nations, were aimed at building a combined stronger alliance against Iran, the common foe of the U.S. and Israel. Although Trump strongly stands for Israel’s victory in the ongoing wars in West Asia, Israel’s multi-front wars would pose critical foreign policy challenges to the US. Trump would not like the U.S. being drawn into a regional war for two reasons. Trump’s does not want the U.S. getting stuck in West Asia’s ‘forever wars’. Trump would like to focus on further strengthening America’s conventional capabilities and bring China, its most powerful conventional rival, into the podium of his foreign policy. A war with Iran would not serve this purpose.
Trump’s ‘America-First’ agenda could also test US-India Ties. Trump pledged to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on countries that have trade surpluses with the United States, a move that could stymie industries in the self-acclaimed world’s fifth-largest economy. For now things appears bonhomie. Let’s not forget Trump had occasionally adopted aggressive postures towards New Delhi in his first term, when he dubbed India a “tariff king” and “trade abuser”. If Trump imposes his pledges to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on countries that have trade surpluses with the United States that could seriously stymie industries in India. Further, India contributes to the labour force with a large number of illegal migrants penetrate the borders through illegal means. That will necessarily be a problem when Trump pursues his avowed policy to crack down on illegal immigration.
The rise of China has brought India and the US closer in their strategic outlook on the question of Geopolitical Alignment-Partners in the Indo-Pacific. The revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) involving India, US, Japan, and Australia, signifies this alignment. India’s inclusion in the US Indo-Pacific strategy reflects the growing convergence of interests. Joint statements emphasizing a “free and open Indo-Pacific” and initiatives like the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative demonstrate the lop-sided nature of geopolitical cooperation. The problem with all these alliances is that India, which sits in elite clubs, ranks 105 out of 124 2024 Global Hunger Index (GHI), India ranks 105th out of 127 countries, which is considered a “serious” level of hunger. Statistics at a glance show India’s GHI score is 27.323, with 13.7% of the population undernourished, 35.5% of children under five are stunted, 18.7% suffer from wasting, and 2.9% of children do not survive past their fifth birthday.
India has unveiled a slew of new partnerships with the United States under the Modi government, including in defence, technology and semiconductor production. Trump’s “unpredictability” raises doubts whether this trajectory of ever-closer cooperation will continue. Moreover, India establishing its prowess in the defence sector begs the question: “What will the poor eat for breakfast”?
Trump’s victory poses one tough truth. The question as to how Americans transitioned from democracy to autocracy (Trump is openly authoritarian) by greater margins than he did in his first election. Authoritarianism has firmly and visibly arrived in America, it has vast public endorsement, and millions gave it their backing points to entering dim and perilous times. Citizens, the world over, who hold hard core democratic credentials need to introspect new ways of redrawing the contours of democracy that fall in line with the original intent of democracy.
A survey of most so-called functional democracies will point to the truth that they are neither truly liberal nor representative. Democracies are fragile in their very essence. We hear how discord and rancor have torn apart the German leading to the prospect of a right-wing government taking its place. This pattern repeats itself in many developed countries.
In the USA, Trump inherits 36.8 million people in poverty in 2023. As of October 2024, the unemployment rate in the United States was 4.1%, which is higher than the 3.8% rate in October 2023. The number of unemployed people was also slightly higher at 7 million, compared to 6.4 million in October 2023.
Rebecca Henderson of Harvard Business School puts it best when she says: “There is near-universal agreement that our system is not working well—in particular, that it is not delivering the results people want. This is troubling because most people value democracy for its fruits, not just its roots”.
Ranjan Solomon is a political commentator
