Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump sent tremors through the US when he stated, in no uncertain terms, during his third debate with Hillary Clinton that he would not commit to recognising the results of the November polls until he sees them. He had previously declared that the elections were ‘rigged' and that a coalition of his enemies — namely the media, the Democratic Party and the leadership of his own party — were conspiring to make him lose, regardless of whether or not he received the highest number of votes. As he sees things, the American people believe differently. They want ‘change' and they want to remove corrupt elites from power. In short, Trump has decided to burn all his political bridges, and not just with political rivals but with the entire American political system. Elites in the latter also happen to include his vice-presidential candidate, his campaign director, and all prominent politicians regardless of their political party affiliation, if they have one at all. One has to rub one's eyes to make sure one is not somewhere in the Third World when you hear candidates, especially ones who fear they will lose, charge that the system is rigged, that voter registration lists are filled with dead people, and that people might cast multiple ballots. The arguments that Trump opponents have come up with in an attempt to shore up US democracy have been feeble at best. In all events, none were prepared for the shock and alarm Trump elicited when he said, in response to the question as to whether he would recognise the results of the ballot box come November, “I'll tell you at the time.” With those few words, the Republican candidate violated all American electoral traditions which hold that however nasty and fierce the campaigns are, in the end one candidate wins and the loser concedes defeat and congratulates the winner. The tradition is so revered that in the 1960 presidential elections Republican candidate Richard Nixon conceded defeat to Democratic candidate John Kennedy even though he had grounds to challenge the outcome through the courts. There was strong evidence that the mayor of Chicago at the time had arranged for some 100,000 votes to be forged in favour of Kennedy, enabling Kennedy to win the state of Illinois, which proved a key factor in his lead at the national level. Similarly, in the 2000 elections, Democratic candidate Al Gore conceded defeat even though he had won the popular vote whereas Bush was declared victor on the basis of the Electoral College vote and only after a partial recount of the votes in Florida. But Trump has no intention of being a Richard Nixon or Al Gore. He is set on being Donald Trump who defies all those traditions. How do we explain that upheaval in US democratic traditions? Does it all relate to what appears to be a collapse in these traditions throughout the Western world where the democratic idea has receded in favour of populist trends of the sort that made themselves felt so powerfully in the Brexit vote and equally if not more powerfully in the Trump phenomenon? The answer to this question is fourfold: First, what is happening today in Europe and the US is a delayed reaction to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The essential idea, here, is that vast imperial entities are no longer sustainable in the face of the empowerment of the individual and local authorities (sectarian, regional and other subsidiary groups). Accordingly, the American empire was no longer logically valid and nor was it logically valid for Europe to reshape itself into a new empire consisting of 28 states. Second, the contemporary technological revolution was highly instrumental in making the abovementioned situation possible. The individual, nowadays, can communicate with tens of millions of people in seconds. It was no coincidence that Trump turned to Twitter to rally millions of people behind his racist ideas and to mobilise them behind fascist political movements. Thirdly, one of the major consequences of the technological revolution was to divide Western societies into two kinds: Conventional industrial societies based on the technologies of the second industrial revolution (the iron and steel, fertiliser and other chemical industries and the automotive industries, all of which rely on mineral wealth and the mining industries); and societies based on the third and fourth technological revolutions which are knowledge-based and industrially smart-based. What this means politically is that two different types of societies coexist within a single society, yet their economic, social and cultural interests differ. This phenomenon has become palpably clear in the US where the importance of states with traditional industries has receded in comparison with the states with more modern industries, a trend reflected in the general decline of salaries in the former and the rise of salaries in the latter. It is therefore no coincidence that Trump found his greatest support in such traditionally industrialised states as Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Conversely, Clinton found support in such states as California, Washington, Oregon and Massachusetts and other northeast seaboard states where the silicon valleys and high-tech research corridors are located. The ultimate product of the foregoing is a fertile ground for populist trends that prey on widespread deep-seated fears and anxieties, and feed hatred of the other. These trends revolve around and acquire impetus from charismatic figures that are adept at fuelling and channelling emotions. Trump, throughout his campaign, epitomised this, which is why he was able to cultivate such a response from the traditional industrial working classes who felt that he was speaking their own day-to-day language. These people may well be his instruments when he loses the electoral battle and starts a political battle of a different sort. At that point, the US as a state, society and democratic ideal will face a series of tests that will let us know whether it has the intellectual and institutional fortitude to overcome this ordeal. The test will undoubtedly be tough, and the most crucial question that the world is facing in this regard is not so much about democracy but about whether the US can handle such a trial. The writer is chairman of the board, CEO, and director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies.
