By P.K.Balachandran
Colombo, November 7: Republican party candidate Donald Trump’s decisive victory over Democrat Kamala Harris in the November 5 US Presidential election looks remarkably like Narendra Modi’s sweeping victories in the 2014 and 2019 parliamentary elections in India. Both Trump and Modi won against candidates or parties which were clueless about the mood and aspirations of the people at the grassroots level.
In the US, the earlier Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, was aged and infirm. His midstream replacement, Kamala Harris, was younger and fit. She also performed creditably in the debate with Trump. But her campaign lacked clear messages to the voters about her plan to tackle America’s problems, other than Trump’s authoritarian predilections.
But fighting authoritarianism was an issue only among a section of the elite, such as the Left liberals, not the hoi polloi. The common man whether White, Latino or Black, was facing real life issues like unemployment and illegal immigration. On these, Harris did not have a clear or original line.
In foreign policy, there was no indication that the US under Harris would not bumble as it had been bumbling under Biden with Washington, unable to make a difference to the situation in either in Gaza or Ukraine. China and Iran remained as intransigent as ever. Relations with India, a “strategic partner” was strained for the first time in decades over an alleged Indian government hand in an attempt to assassinate an American citizen on American soil.
In the case of the Indian leader Narendra Modi, he was a beacon of hope in 2014 for Indians wanting India to come out the attitudinal rut that it had got into under the 10-year rule of the Congress party. The Congress and its leaders seemed to represent the status quo with no clear idea of the pathway to the future. Its leader, Sonia Gandhi, had aged, and her successor Rahul Gandhi did not have a personality to light a spark in the electorate. The epithet “dynast” and even “nincompoop” seemed to suit him to a tee as he did not seem to take his job seriously enough.
It was in that context that Narendra Modi came on to the scene as a refreshing contrast. Subsequently, his economic performance did not benefit all classes of people in so far as the benefits of high economic growth did not percolate to the masses who faced joblessness and lack of opportunities. But Modi still seemed to be the only leader in sight with any kind of dynamism. More importantly he had carefully and brazenly carved out a massive social constituency for himself- the majority Hindus, through his ideology of Hindutva – the assertion of Hindu power over perceived “enemies” both in the past and the present.
The Congress, on the contrary, did not have a matching socio-political constituency. Its traditional constituency comprising the Muslims and the middle and lower castes had got dissipated over time. No wonder Modi won in 2014.
In 2019, even as the stock of his government was going down, a terror attack staged by Pakistan in Kashmir, just before the elections, gave Modi an opportunity to flex his muscles. His air strike against a terror base in Pakistan again made him the man of the moment. He won with a massive majority. In the 2024, elections Modi was indeed visibly mauled, but not eliminated. His Hindutva ideology was able to hold its own despite Rahul Gandhi’s coming out with a new cry that the liberal Indian constitution was in danger of being replaced by an authoritarian one.
In the US, Donald Trump had popular issues to exploit other than the broader issue of the Biden Administration’s lacklustre performance both at home and abroad..
Trump’s campaign rode on the resentment of disenchanted voters. It capitalized on the cultural fractures and tribal politics that Trump has long exploited, TIME magazine wrote after Trump’s victory.
His support base, which was thought to be confined to the poor and uneducated in the White majority, had expanded to included Latinos despite his threats of mass detention and deportation of illegal migrants. This was because of an American tradtion. Erika Lee in her book “America for Americans,” says that Trump’s immigration policies and statements are part of a long tradition of xenophobia-against Southern Europeans, against newcomers from Asia, Latin America and the Middle East- a tradition that has lived alongside America’s self-perception as a nation of immigrants.
The Whites were not put off by Trump’s threat to unleash revenge against political enemies through the justice system or to use the military against US citizens. They were more concerned about their social and economic deterioration. Surveys showed that men, particularly young men, were turning away from Biden the most, especially over the economy. They appreciated Trump’s brashness and habit of smashing norms, TIME said.
Trump’s announcement of 39-year-old Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate helped counter Harris on the age issue. Indeed, the female vote was posing a challenge because of his “no abortion” policy. Finally, on October1, he issued a statement that he would not have a federal policy on abortion but leave the matter to the States. This helped him get female votes.
TIME pointed out that in the final weeks of the campaign, billionaire Elon Musk poured more than US$ 100 million to help Trump in swing states. “Musk hired staffers and incentivized them with pay outs to reach voters. He personally camped out in Pennsylvania, seen by both sides as the pivotal battleground state, and handed out US$ 1 million checks in sweepstakes for registered voters who signed a petition.”
In the election’s final weeks, Musk used Far-Right’s conspiracy theory that Democrats were “importing” undocumented immigrants to swing states to irrevocably tilt the electoral map in their favour, TIME pointed out. Musk was quoted saying: “If Trump doesn’t win,” Musk warned, “this is the last election.”
Trump told TIME that he plans to use executive power to begin mass deportations of undocumented migrants and that there will be a massive purge of the federal bureaucracy to weed out elements opposed to him.
In addition, Trump had foreign policy issues to hit the Democrats. Biden’s effort to restore peace in the Middle East was insincere and ineffective. So were his efforts to help Ukraine stop the Russian war machine. Sanctions against Russia and Iran had failed to deliver results. In Asia, China could not be contained. And on top of all that, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris did not have a fresh approach to any of these issues
According to Al Jazeera, Trump will revive his “America First” foreign policy, indicating a turn towards isolationism and less international collaboration. But he will continue to be pro-Israel. While in office, Trump had moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in a move that was widely denounced. He also recognised Israel’s claim to the occupied Golan Heights in Syria. But he did some good too. He brokered the “Abraham Accords” between Israel and the Arab States.
When he was President earlier, he unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme. He heaped crippling sanctions on Iran and authorised the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
Trump wants to stop the war in Ukraine but he may not negotiate a settlement but could stop funding NATO which will impact on Ukraine’s ability to fight Russia. Trump has said that he will withdraw from NATO because its European members are not contributing enough for its upkeep.
Trump places the US’s economic relationship with China above other issues, such as human rights. He may go for a trade and tariff war with China as he did in 2018, slapping US$ 250 billion on Chinese imports. Trump may also put stiff tariff barriers on imports from India, if India continues its protectionist policies. Likewise, he may not let India off the hook in the case of the attempted assassination of an American citizen of Indian origin, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, allegedly by India’s agents. He may view it as a question of America’s sovereignty. The case is in a New York court. Earlier Trump had offered to mediate between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, which caused consternation in India.
Although Trump seemed to be sympathetic to the Hindus’ plight in Bangladesh, he is unlikely to please India on strategic and economic issues just as a matter of goodwill. Trump is quintessentially a transactional politician. For every favour he does to India, he would expect a reciprocal gesture.
END
