United States: A Model Democracy under Threat?

No national political contest gets as much global attention as the American presidential election. This has been the case at least since 1960 when John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon battled for the White House. In subsequent decades, with the help of increasingly global media outlets, the match-ups between various candidates auditioning to become the “leader of the free world” have captivated audiences across the globe. There are more voters in India or across the European Union. But the quadrennial political circus in the United States continues to capture the world’s attention.

In 2024, the intense scrutiny of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was indicative of the importance of the United States, symbolic of the nation’s enduring status as a global superpower. This is largely due to America’s military and economic influence. However, the United States is not “only” the world’s most powerful nation state. It is also the world’s oldest democracy with a respectable record of peaceful transfer of power. It is a model democracy.

Herein lies the disturbing potential of the 2024 US elections. In the months leading to the election one candidate, Donald Trump, repeatedly suggested that voter fraud would be the only possible explanation for his potential defeat in November. Because of what happened after the previous US presidential election it was difficult to simply shrug one’s shoulders. Nor did the actual outcome, Trump’s straightforward victory and hence his lack of complaints, dispel all the concerns about the way in which confidence in the electoral process had been undermined. American democracy is likely to survive – not least because of the gracious acceptance of defeat by Harris – but its continued appeal as a model for others rests on shaky ground.

The Unexpected Match-Up

Proclaiming something unprecedented is a tricky business. Yet, it seems an appropriate term for the 2024 US elections. Until late July, Donald Trump was headed for a rematch with his 2020 opponent and the incumbent president, Joe Biden. The two had won the support of their respective parties early in the spring and held a debate on 27 June. Observers unanimously labelled the encounter a disaster for Biden. A few weeks later – only two days prior to the Republican National Convention (RNC) – Trump survived an assassination attempt during a rally in Pennsylvania. By this point polls virtually unanimously suggested a victory for Trump, perhaps even a landslide.

On 21 July everything changed. Joe Biden announced his intention not to run. The path pointing towards a second Trump presidency suddenly veered off course. Instead of an octogenarian, Trump faced someone almost twenty years young than him, the 59-year-old vice president, Kamala Harris. Suddenly, Trump was the (only) old man in the race. Unlike in the 2016 and 2020 elections, the combined age of the candidates would not set a new record.

Trump would probably have managed to deal with the age issue; he had, after all, beaten many younger contenders in the past. Nor was running against a woman too daunting; Hilary Clinton had been defeated back in 2016. It was the other stuff that really counted and forced the Trump campaign to scramble. Harris was of mixed racial background and Trump’s racist remarks did not endear him to anyone (except for his more right-wing followers). Branding Harris a “Marxist” did not resonate. Worse for him, Trump seemed unable to focus on the many issues – from immigration to the economy – that could have helped his campaign.

Trump’s difficulty in adapting to a new opponent was particularly evident during the 10 September presidential debate. While he rambled about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, and the size of the crowds in his campaign events, the former president appeared like a caricature of his caricature-like public persona. Still, there was no knock-out blow. Anyone predicting confidently in mid-September the winner of the 2024 US presidential had, give or take, a 50-50 chance of being correct. For while Trump confirmed the worst fears of those who already disliked him, Harris remained essentially unknown to most American voters. As election day approached, the choice, as in 2016 and 2020,was between Trump and “anti-Trump”. As in 2016 but with a wider margin, Trump triumphed.

Issues and Appearances

What really was at stake in this particular US election? What made it unique? At one level, the public scrutiny of Harris and Trump was no different from some of the previous elections. Any two candidates would have ended up under the global microscope. Still, these two candidates and their differences – whether real or apparent – resonated far and wide. For the symbolism that defines the political personas of Trump and Harris represents the many fault lines found within virtually all transatlantic democracies in the 2020s, the seemingly irreconcilable views over issues such as race, gender, climate, and migration.

The Trump vision is, as it has been since 2016, about an America that will stay strong only if it embraces “traditional” values. With all of its racist undertones, the MAGA message is ultimately a nostalgic one that seeks a return to a simpler time. By contrast, Kamala Harris’s campaign made much of being future-oriented. In essence this means embracing globalisation – at least to the extent that is politically possible (open-door policy on migration is certainly not). There are, of course, many specific issues that differentiate the two (such as abortion). But ultimately, US presidential elections are not won on issues but on appearances and emotions.

When it comes down to appearances the contrast could hardly have been more striking. The big question was which side – which appearance and image – would ultimately emerge as the winner.

Finishing Line and Beyond

The future of democracy – American or otherwise – has not been settled by the election of Donald Trump, the same man whose campaign was based on undermining its very foundations. In the past few years, so much attention has been played on Donald Trump’s refusal to accept – against all evidence – the outcome of the 2020 election that the long history of contested results in US elections has been almost ignored. In 1960, due to allegations of voter fraud, Richard Nixon waited several days before making a concession speech. But to this day, historians continue to debate the extent to which political allies in Texas and Illinois helped push John F. Kennedy to victory in those two pivotal states. In 2000 a handful of votes in Florida and eventually a decision by the US Supreme Court decided the outcome. Many still speculate how different America would look like had Al Gore been at the White House in the early 2000s.

In many ways, it looked like 2024 would be much like 1960, 2000 or 2020. The big surprise was that the result was not as close as most pundits expected. Kamala Harris (unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020) did not win the national vote. Because of the peculiar US electoral system, the outcome was decided by a relatively small number of voters in a few so-called swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Wisconsin). Which way these states would lean decided the eventual balance of the 538-member electoral college, where the final vote will be held in December. This time around, Trump won all the swing states.

What really matters, though, is what happens next. For as we saw in 2020, our post-truth era allows any outcome to be contested and presented as fraudulent. The irony is that because the result came so quickly and because it was so decisive, Donald Trump will indeed enjoy the benefits of a peaceful and civil transfer of power. We can only speculate how different things would look should he have lost. The tensions already so visible after the 2020 elections would have exploded, with Kamala Harris’s legitimacy questioned from day one of her presidency.

This election is not going to fix all the problems that have made America’s political system – once the envy of the democratic world – an object of concern. To be sure, the outcome may have restored some faith in the electoral process. Democracy works only when winners and losers accept the outcome of the contest as legitimate; this time around, unlike in 2020, it seems to be the case. But the reality is that the future of democracy – American or otherwise – has not been settled by the election of Donald Trump, the same man whose campaign was based on undermining its very foundations.