AMERICAN POLICY FORMULATION, EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND REPERCUSSIONS FOR SRI LANKA

By Indoosan Shanthakumaran

Sri Lanka has experienced substantial consequences as a result of President Trump's executive orders, particularly in the realms of foreign aid, trade, and geopolitical dynamics. This article attempts to examine some of these critical factors.

1.     Reduction in Foreign Aid 

           ·         Ceasing Operations of USAID

Financial Impact: The termination of USAID operations has led to a considerable financial deficit for Sri Lanka. USAID has served as a pivotal source of financial support for a multitude of development initiatives, encompassing infrastructure, education, healthcare, and economic advancement.

Project Disruption: The sudden loss of funding has resulted in the cessation or reduction of numerous ongoing initiatives. For example, initiatives designed to enhance the resilience of communities to disasters, agricultural productivity, and water and sanitation have encountered substantial obstacles.

Capacity Building: USAID has been instrumental in the development of local institutions and communities' capacity. The absence of this support may impede development in areas such as institutional strengthening, transparency, and governance.

·         Impact on Humanitarian Efforts

Health and Education: USAID has played a critical role in the support of health and education initiatives in Sri Lanka. Particularly in rural and underserved regions, the withdrawal of this aid could result in a decrease in the caliber of healthcare services and educational opportunities.

Economic Development: By providing vocational training, promoting entrepreneurship, and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), USAID-funded programs have contributed to economic development. The cessation of these programs may result in a reduction in economic growth and job creation.

2.       Trade and Economic Policies

     ·         America First Agenda

Tariff Increases: Challenges have arisen for Sri Lankan exporters as a result of Trump's protectionist trade policies, which include increases in import tariffs. The US market is less competitive for Sri Lankan products due to the increased tariffs, which have a significant impact on key export sectors such as textiles, apparel, and tea.

Supply Chain Disruptions: Sri Lanka's trade relationships have been affected by the global supply chains that have resulted from the trade war between the United States and China. Increased costs and delays may result for Sri Lankan enterprises due to disruptions in the supply chain.

·         Impact on Foreign Exchange Inflows

Export Earnings: Sri Lanka's export revenues, which are a critical source of foreign exchange, may be diminished by the implementation of tariffs and trade barriers. The country's capacity to import essential products and services can be impacted by a decrease in export earnings, which can also strain its foreign reserves.

Investment Climate: Foreign investors may be discouraged from investing in Sri Lanka due to the unfavourable investment climate that can result from uncertainty in trade policies. Economic growth and development opportunities may be restricted by diminished foreign direct investment (FDI).

3.       Geopolitical Dynamics

     ·         Shift in US-Asia Relations

Strategic Rebalancing: Sri Lanka's geopolitical position has been influenced by Trump's strategy for Asia, which emphasizes strategic rebalancing and the utilization of military and economic capabilities. While maintaining its strategic autonomy, Sri Lanka must navigate these shifts.

Regional Alliances: Sri Lanka should strengthen regional alliances with countries such as India, China, and Japan in response to changes in US-Asia relations. It is imperative to maintain stability and protect economic and security interests by balancing these relationships.

Geopolitical Tensions: Sri Lanka's security environment may be affected by geopolitical tensions between key powers, including the United States, China, and India. In order to prevent becoming a battleground for regional rivalries, Sri Lanka must maintain a balance in its relationships.

4.       Policy Opportunities and Challenges

      ·         Renegotiation of US Role

New Partnerships: Sri Lanka has the opportunity to investigate new partnerships and alliances as a result of the renegotiation of the United States' role in global affairs. The diversification of Sri Lanka's economic and strategic options can be achieved by engaging with emerging economies and regional powers.

Policy Adaptation: In order to remain consistent with the changing global landscape, Sri Lanka must modify its policies. This encompasses the development of strategies to fortify diplomatic relations with critical partners, attract investment, and improve trade.

To sum up, the country faces both challenges and opportunities as it navigates the changing global landscape. Sri Lanka must prioritize economic diversification in order to alleviate the effects of Trump's economic policies. This encompasses the development of new industries, the expansion of export markets, and the improvement of domestic production. In order to navigate the uncertainty generated by evolving global dynamics, it is imperative to establish a strong geopolitical strategy. Sri Lanka must capitalize on its strategic location and establish robust relationships with both regional and global powers. 

‘EXTREMIST DEMOCRACY’: Reflections on the January Rebellion

by George I. H. Cooke

The propagation of extremism, the political patronage it receives, and the fueling of division in society by extremist elements and their actions, is the very antithesis of democracy and democratic principles. Extremist activities are said to have spawned in developing countries, or those that belong to the global south. It is often claimed that such countries are politically immature, possess insecure governance mechanisms, have denied their people liberties and are themselves to blame for the problems they encounter.

Yet it was the United States of America, identified as a beacon of democracy that faced one of its greatest trials on 6^th January 2021, when the country walked a thin line. A country seen to be at the top of the power ladder, economically surging ahead of the rest, financially the giant amongst other stalwarts, and the home of the Statue of Liberty was the location of the latest explosion of extremism. Supremacy of one community, one party, and one individual remained the narcissistic magnet that galvanized anti-democratic forces and spurred them on. As these elements used violent means to break into the sacrosanct halls of democracy on Capitol Hill, while democratic values were being upheld in the chambers and the recognition of presidential transition was at play, questions have arisen:

Has democracy become a victim of itself?

Has the rise of extremism reached feverish levels?

Has the security apparatus failed?

Democracy

6^th January 2021 could be the harbinger of a new form of democracy, which may be termed Extremist Democracy. This form goes beyond the sphere of radical democracy into territory wherein the achievement of an individual’s goals supersedes all else, and gives effect to freedom of the individual as the supreme form over all else. It is fanaticism taken to an extreme, with an individual, and in this scenario a President, who remained intolerant of the results of an election that pronounced his opponent the winner. The January Rebellion was borne out of democracy. It was a response to democracy. It was also an attack on democracy.

On 6^th January 1941, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt stood in the US Congress and delivered his State of the Union Address highlighting the need to protect freedom in his iconic speech on ‘Four Freedoms’ wherein he talked about the need to protect universal freedom that all people possessed.  Stressing the true value of democracy, he cautioned against the absence of freedom and the rampant effect it would have on America and the rest of the world. He was speaking at the beginning of a year which remains significant as the attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941 drew the United States into the Second World War and heralded the position and platform that was created for that country from then to date.

Eighty years later another President, Donald J. Trump stood outside the White House and urged his supporters to use those very same freedoms that his predecessor had described and to march on Capitol Hill. While addressing the crowds he urged them to never give up their struggle to see him re-elected to the office of President. Trump stressed that “We will never give up. We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.” Seen as a clarion call to his supporters, the words of the President were an encouragement of the masses, their attack on the halls of democracy and the death of people, as well as vandalism of state property and hours of carnage and destruction, all of which was beamed across the world.

Has Roosevelt’s espousal of democracy resulted in society benefitting to the extent that it now formulates its own interpretation by taking it to an extreme? Here the essence of democracy has been submerged, and instead democracy has become a victim of itself.

Extremism

The notion that one’s own beliefs supersede all else, the lack of respect of the other, the inability to see the other for what they stand for rather than who they are, and the self-styled blinkers that restrict ones vision to anything else but what one wants everyone to see and know, has resulted in the rise, and spread of extremism in societies across the world. The recent rise of nationalism, wherein a ‘nation’ is identified to represent a community along narrow lines, rather than a country in a holistic manner, has seen the commitment of acts of violence, the taking of lives, and the destruction of property. The economic and financial impact is yet another arena which remains noteworthy.

At no stage of their actions do extremist elements reflect upon the damage they do to their cause and community. They fail to see the ramifications of their actions, and the deepening of prejudice against that which they espouse. It is this failure that leads to their subsequent downfall.

Since the attack on Pearl Harbour eighty years ago, the United States has always taken a high moral ground on human rights and values, their dissemination and their safeguarding in countless instances across scores of countries. The stance taken has been one in which those affected were asked to adhere to better and improved standards. They were questioned on their choice of policy and its implementation. They were sanctioned, reprimanded, identified at multilateral fora and accused of failing their people as a whole.

Yet today it is the United States that is a victim of extremism. It is America that needs the rhetoric to stop, that needs the healing, and most of all needs to respect diversity of view and vision. This has got to seep into a society that is determined to see it entrenched in other societies around the world. There is much work that the Biden administration would have to contend with. The absence of tolerance and the inability to move beyond tolerance into the realm of respect has driven the extremist elements in United States and in societies across the world to embrace violence to justify their own stance.  Hence it is leaders who are called upon to act with strength of purpose and will, to do what is right by the general populace and the future of the country and not merely what is preferred by a segment.

The usage of violence to achieve ones goals is akin to the engagement in terrorism. Countries have experienced egoistic individuals, who utilised the grievances of peoples and communities to allegedly espouse causes but have done so through the means of terror. Such individuals, now relegated to history, identified violence as the means to their goals, and operated rigid mechanisms of violence but did so within democratic societies, and against democratically elected leaders and governments. What then is the difference between terrorist leaders who grab power through the might of the bullet, and democratically elected ones who, possessing the will of the ballot, choose, when faced with defeat, to resort to the same means as terrorist leaders?

Extremist elements have drawn countries into an abysmal hole. They have destroyed the fabric of society, pushed moderates to an extreme, and ensured the solidification of biases through their views and actions. The wrecking of havoc remains at the heart of their mandate, as they try to gain their objectives by any means possible irrespective of the impact their deeds have on themselves, their cause, and their communities. The Christchurch attacks in New Zealand and the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka are just two of the numerous incidents. Yet the divisions brought on by extremists increase the frequency and intensity of violent incidents and are today the bane of any society.

Security

Freedom is guaranteed as long as it is secured. Failure to secure it, results in its defeat and destruction. Whilst democracy remains value-based, and extremism is a form of radicalization also based on beliefs, it is the security apparatus that needs to thwart and root out any form of threat to freedom. The inability to secure the most pivotal of democratic institutions in the world remains highly questionable. Capitol Hill has been the home of the US Senate and House of Representatives for over two centuries. It is the repository of democratic traditions and values that have been passed down for generations. How then could such a secure, pivotal building in the capital of the United States of America be infiltrated by marauding extremists, especially while sessions were ongoing, and sessions that were to consolidate the election victory of a President of America? Failure on the part of the security mechanism resulted in the carnage that was wrecked by extremist elements and ensured that 6^th January 2021 entered the annals of history as another dark day for democracy and freedom.

An intensification of security has remained a critical concern for the United States when carried out in other countries. Those which have been victims of terrorism and extremism have resorted to a bolstering of security for purposes of defence and to prevent any form of threat to their societies. This has drawn the ire of America and her leaders on numerous occasions, which see such intensification as a direct attack on democracy. How will the United States now balance this apparent dichotomy? America, like other countries is today faced with the same security dilemma. Although this dilemma is relative it still remains a critical issue which demands immediate attention.

Roosevelt called for the safeguarding of democratic values. Presidents before him and after him have done the same. Trump himself has opted to toe the line at this late hour and has now called for a smooth transition having realized the futility of his demands and the mob approach. Thus the January Rebellion becomes the milestone at which America, other countries and most importantly their leaders realize the relevance of security and the need to thwart those who support and/or engage in terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations. The January Rebellion becomes the rationale for implementing the true meaning of democracy and learning to respect that which it espouses, so as to ensure that the freedom enshrined in a democracy doesn’t erode that which its attempts to safeguard.

This Rebellion is cry of warning to countries to remain vigilant at all times. Those who are determined to wreck havoc, kill people and go on the rampage, do so using the attributes that democracy affords them. Paying scant regard for the upholding of democratic values, they remain a cause for concern, but more significantly are a threat to the freedom of all. These are the instances in which democracy often becomes its own victim.

Future Trajectory

On 6^th January 1661, the Fifth Monarchists attempted to seize control of the city of London, but were unsuccessful. The extreme sect of the 17^th century was determined to rid themselves of a leader, their King. The extreme sect of the 21^st century is determined to ensure continuity of a leader, their President. In 2021 it is assumed that societies, communities and individuals have evolved, in their rationale, understanding and ability to comprehend the true essence of democracy. Whilst the January Rebellion highlighted the inability of some to evolve in just manner, it is also a moment of reckoning to all countries that times are changing.

It is not possible for countries like United States of America to take the high moral ground anymore. Extremism has been present in the past, is currently prevalent, and worryingly appears to continue to persist in the US in the future. This is not only an American problem, nor is it one that can be placed on a particular country, ideology or community. It is a collective issue that demands collective action. However for that action to be taken there has to be comprehension of the problem. Sauce for the goose remains sauce for the gander. Extremism in the United States, in New Zealand, in Sri Lanka or in any country on Earth is still extremism, and must not and cannot be condoned. Until all countries and their leaders realize this, we will continue to see extremism raging, terrorists resurging and democracy under threat.

It is now time for America to engage with other countries that face threats to their democratic forms of governance, and similar forms of extremism that persist in their societies. It is time to realize that terrorism and extremism are not developing country problems, nor are they issues brought on due to want and despair. It is lack of tolerance, lack of respect, and a lack of understanding.

The ensuing days and the action of American leaders will become pivotal to the position the country has enjoyed to date. Whether an impeachment is passed to remove Donald J. Trump days ahead of the end of his term and thereby bar him from running again, whether the extremists are quelled, or whether the security chiefs are changed on Capitol Hill and security in general is given a deeper degree of thought, all of this would depend on the actions taken in the days ahead.

Bi-partisan collective action within America and with the world is the need for the hour. If democracy is at the heart of governance, then democratic values have to be centred upon for decision making. It is time for collective realization that challenges to democracy are common causes for concern and need to be addressed together, in a strong and coherent manner. They affect all countries and their democratically elected leadership and hence it is imperative that cooperative action, especially through multilateralism remains the arena of operation. It is thus an era of equality, as the challenges affect all, and need solutions from all, for all.

Donald J. Trump continuously campaigned on the slogan of ‘Make America Great Again’. Irrespective of the verdict on that call, what he has succeeded in doing is making America equal to all.

 

TRUMP, TEMPERATURE AND TIME

The attacks in London, explosions in Kabul, terror attacks in Manila, incidents in Melbourne and diplomatic turmoil in the Arab world, all increased the threats of the times, as manmade tragedies abound and levels of fear remain high. Yet amid the obvious destruction being wrought, the globe continues to slide into further peril as temperatures rise and climate change is probably our silent enemy.

Forty five years ago, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment deemed it necessary and timely to integrate human interactions and the environment. The landmark decision in 1972 saw the commemoration of the first World Environment Day in 1974. Action over the decades has included commitments on the part of states, which haven’t always been realized owing to the nature of that which has been pledged. The reductions beings sought are from the industry, which states have to convince and entice into respecting. Irrespective of the nature of the arrangement, the undertaking has been considerable.

On the eve of the 2017 commemoration, the American President opted to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which had taken tremendous effort and courage to finalize, and which came into operation in November 2016. Seen as new course in the global climate effort, the Agreement saw states trying to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by maintaining a global temperature rise well below two degrees in the 21^st century.

Prerequisites set by the United States for ratifying such international treaties are many. Back in the nineties at the height of negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the US Congress passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution which made it compulsory for developing countries to first actively participate in the setting of global emission targets, if America was to be a signatory. The effort in 2015 was equally challenging, though then President Obama claimed it was due to ‘strong, principled American leadership’ that the accord was finalized. One and a half years later, that American President isn’t in office, neither is his French counterpart, Francois Hollande, or the Chairman of the Conference, former Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, nor even the then UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The leadership has changed, yet the commitment is expected to remain resolute.

Trump’s decision to withdraw unless the Agreement is re-negotiated or a new one is evolved, indicates the supremacy with which he views the world, the lack of understanding of the environment and more importantly the inability to comprehend the destruction that America has wrought on the planet. Speaking in the Rose Garden, he stressed that ‘exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.’ He also revealed that with the opening of new coal mines in ‘Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia (and) so many places’ American workers, whom he loves very much, given the consecutive expression of endearment, would benefit. The risk posed to humanity as a whole, appears irrelevant.

The creation of the United States Climate Alliance has seen the Governors of California, New York and Washington pledging their support to the Paris Agreement. Inviting other states to follow suit, the Alliance being established has the support of three key states that jointly contribute one-fifth of the American GDP and at least ten per cent of American greenhouse gas emissions. In calling for states and cities to join the effort, the move could be one towards the rise of such entities, reversing the international order, as city-states return to the forefront, as was seen with London in the Brexit vote.

Efforts have been made in the last several decades to curb environmental harm, degradation and destruction. From the 1962 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, to the Ramsar Convention of 1971, the MARPOL Convention and CITES in 1973, the Montreal Protocol of 1987, the Basel Convention of 1989, the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio as well as the Kyoto Protocol, have all aimed at preserving the planet, from diverse threats created by humanity.       

Climate change remains as real as it ever has been. Trump need not look too far to see climate change in action. When the 27^th American President, William Howard Taft created the Glacier National Park in 1910, it encompassed 150 glaciers, which have been reduced to a mere 30 a hundred years later, as the area has shrunk by two-thirds. As environmentalist Daniel Glick warns, ‘from the Arctic to Peru, from Switzerland to the equatorial glaciers of Man Jaya in Indonesia, massive ice fields, monstrous glaciers, and sea ice are disappearing, fast.’

Yet the world has been reminded of the importance of American coal workers, and the preservation of their jobs, casting aside concern that those very same workers’ future generations might not be around to carry on the work envisaged for them. Until and unless greater concern is demonstrated for the wellbeing of the other, nature will ensure that the threat of rising temperatures remains our foremost enemy. Unfortunately time for action, maybe fast running out.

• Awarelogue Editorial

CRAVING ATTENTION OR CARVING AFGHANISTAN?

Exactly a week after strikes on the Shayrat Airbase in Syria, US forces detonated the ‘mother of all bombs’ in Nangarhar Province in eastern Afghanistan. The attack, which came on the eve of the anniversary of strikes against Libya in 1986, is said to have involved the largest non-nuclear bomb ever designed, with the potential to wreck large scale damage. Aimed at denying ISIS operatives space, the strike on a cave network, the 21, 600-pound, GPS guided ammunition has repercussions which extended far beyond Afghanistan.

On April 14, 1986, the Libyan towns of Tripoli and Benghazi were struck by naval attack jets in the Mediterranean and by bombers based in the UK, while France had refused permission for the use of their air space, increasing the distance of air travel. Several military targets were engaged, the main being the Headquarters of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi. Killing Qaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter, who was at his residence, the attack also injured two of his sons. Ronald Reagan addressing the nation reiterated that ‘when our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond in self-defense.’ Acknowledging that they did what they had to do, Reagan was keen to stress that ‘if necessary, we shall do it again.’

America kept to that promise. Successive US Presidents have carried out varied attacks, covert and otherwise, in different parts of the world. From January to March 2017, an estimated 235 air and drone strikes had been carried out in Afghanistan alone. Thus the point of reasoning is the effectiveness of such strikes, and their ability to crush rebellious forces. While it took another quarter of a century to get rid of Qaddafi, Benghazi entered the annals of US history following the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on September 11^th, 2012. Why then have American Presidents been determined to grab international attention and fulfill the aspirations of Machiavelli.   

Clinton’s much repeated election mantra, ‘it’s the economy, stupid,’ calling for inward looking policies to bring about change in America, may have worked in putting him into the Oval Office. Yet he went on to advocate a ‘doctrine of enlargement’ and faced massive challenges over Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. He realized the potential of the post-Cold War era and didn’t want to lose the opportunity provided. George W. Bush, having encountered the impact of September 11^th, launched America into battle with guns blazing. Barack Obama despite pledging to end the wars of his predecessor went on to keep America at war for the totality of his presidency, ironically even after being awarded the Noble Peace Prize, rather prematurely in his first term. Attention and the modus operandi by which leaders have striven to attract and/or divert it, remains at the crux of international affairs. From George Washington onwards, the slogan to ‘make America great’ has been in practice, though perhaps not voiced all too often. Trump’s cry to do so ‘again’ is widely in keeping with his numerous predecessors, most of whom perfected the art of attracting and diverting attention as and when required. Emboldened by the response received after the 59 cruise missiles struck targets in Syria, Donald Trump has chosen to display the potential of America in a bid to intimidate more than destroy. The GBU-43, designed in the Bush-junior era was ready for use in 2003 but neither Bush nor Obama chose to use it. The deployment of the bomb comes in the wake of Chinese President Xi’s visit to America and Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Russia. Xi’s visit, vastly seen as an opportunity for the two leaders to ‘get to know each other,’ was overshadowed by the missile strike on Syria. Geared towards adding military muscle to the Trump administration, it vulgarly displayed its hard power potential, against a smaller and weaker state. Yet for China, which opposes intervention of any form, the attack guarantees America’s continued involvement in the region, and the opportunity for China to continue with her steady rise, bereft of such international concerns.

Rex Tillerson, a 2013 recipient of the Russian Order of Friendship, only just wrapped up his visit to Moscow, when news of the Afghan strike was released. Tillerson’s remarks in the wake of the Syrian attack that ‘either Russia has been complicit or Russia has simply been incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end of that agreement,’ referring to the agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria, did not sit well with the Russians, who have insisted on an ‘objective investigation.’ Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was quick to highlight Milosevic, Saddam, Qaddafi and Bashir as examples of acting in haste, thereby questioning the motive of removing Assad.

Yes, the attack along the border with Pakistan will focus tremendous attention on Trump, the US and its military prowess. It will boost his ratings as witnessed even after the Syrian strikes, and it will send a strong message to foes, that America is not recoiling into an isolationist quagmire to wallow and watch the world go by. Yet alarmingly the attack will also be known for its hyped rhetoric rather than actual impact, making it another in a string of strikes. It will boost rebel recruitment; keep Afghanistan in a constant state of emergency; and perpetuate America’s involvement in the region.

Once again a small state falls victim to the machinations of large powers. Afghanistan, having endured the rigours of war for decades, continues to linger on the tables in many capitals. Rebel groups and their operatives, having found safe havens within its borders, have taken over control of parts of the country, rendering it inaccessible to the general citizenry. Voluntarily or otherwise, Afghanistan remains divided. As the devastation persists it remains to be seen if Afghanistan will be Trump’s Benghazi, or whether Afghans will find themselves in a divided state.

Identifying the American problem: process over product

Donald J. Trump

He didn't stage a coup d'état. He didn't lead a revolution. He didn't hold anyone at gunpoint and demand their vote. Donald J. Trump entered the Oval Office through a legally accepted process. From the primaries through to the electoral college, he progressed from one victory to another. This, we need to accept. While the notion of populism is touted for his occupation of the White House, why then has protest upon protest broken out? Why are Americans in particular and the world in general surprised with each executive order he signs? Why are his actions seen as alarming and parallels drawn to a leader from Europe who attempted in similar vein to make his country great again? Why does populism appear to overwhelm itself?

2017 unfolded with much emphasis based on nationalism especially in the wake of 2016 revealing the result of Brexit and the possible impact a final exit of the British would have on the European Union and regionalism. Refugees continue to flow, tensions remain high, uncertainty reigns supreme and violence has not dissipated. The news out of America dominates the media as the world sits livid, helplessly watching that which is unfolding in a country which was said to have led the free-world, policed the world at large and been the only super power for the last couple of decades. Yet amidst the debate and drama over the product of the polls, the process escapes unscathed.

The American system is flawed. It is not everything it is held out to be. If a contender with two to three million votes more loses owing to the electoral college opting otherwise, hasn't the system failed? Is this how the will of the people is expressed? The last time it happened in 2000, Al Gore lost out on the White House, despite winning the popular vote. It was the only time since 1888, when Benjamin Harrison won over Grover Cleveland, that the winner of the popular vote lost the election. Earlier occasions are attributed to 1876 and 1824. In 2016, we had a repetition.

When the electoral college was instituted it was done to protect the rights of people across the country. To ensure that those on one coast or one region didn't have the opportunity to 'manipulate' or 'control' power over other regions. In a democracy, everyone is expected to have the opportunity to voice their opinion irrespective of gender, colour, creed or religious belief. How then do we comprehend the American narrative where restrictions are superimposed and barriers installed, limiting the rights of people to express their opinion.

What of those who choose to keep away from polling booths? In 2016, 40% of eligible voters didn't exercise their franchise. While the lowest figure in this century, American  polls have seen 54 % staying away in 2000, 60% in 2004, it climbed to 62% in 2008 and 57% in 2012. The revelation of the Brexit vote was alarming not owing to the number who wanted to remain or leave the European Union, but the 28% of British voters who chose to remain silent. The apathy with which citizens view their civic duties has always been a concern. We want our rights but neglect our responsibilities.

What then is this form of populism? Is it the response to the neoliberal era or an excessive dependence on a system that has failed over and over again, or is it a hybrid of the two? While the liberal ideology prospered during the Obama years, and is in part what led to the Trump candidacy, shouldn't we critically examine the American electoral system, the process in this case, instead of focusing on Trump, the product? While his actions at present warrant concern, someone far more radical and damaging could occupy the seat next and nothing is being done about it.

- Editorial