BY Sam Bokuba, Editorialist, CRTV
As the candidates and their campaign teams make the final dash for votes ahead of what promises to be a knife-edge election on November 5, who between them will emerge the winner is a province of the gods.
It’s been a bitter contest and a contrast in styles between former President and “convicted felon” Donald Trump and former prosecutor and current Vice President, Kamala Harris who has been targeted with racist and sexist insults by a man bidding for his second presidency, reining in his aggression against a mixed-race candidate vying to be the first female President in US history.
The campaign has been defined by a slugfest likely to determine the election outcome. There’s been no better demonstration of this than at the ABC News-hosted fiery presidential debate in Pennsylvania on September 10, watched by more than 67 million viewers across the United States. Such debates often serve as a platform for discussing national and global issues. Words spoken at that stage don’t simply disappear; they inform policy decisions. At that debate, Harris took the fight to Trump, getting under her rival’s skin as they sought a breakthrough in a battle of wits. The VP started on the front foot by surprising Trump when she approached him to shake his hand before they took to their lecterns. Then, the niceties ended. The Democrat clashed with the “extreme” Republican on hot-button issues from abortion to democracy and accused him of being a friend to dictators.
Trump repeatedly raised his voice as he hit back at the vice President on immigration and the economy, branding her a “Marxist ” and blaming her for what he said were the failings of President Joe Biden’s administration. Trump, who only weeks back, had seemed invulnerable against Biden, reacted to pressure from Harris by resorting to the kinds of finger-jabbing insults and meandering invective that he uses at his rallies. Harris responded by looking on in amusement and occasionally exclaiming “C’ mon,” before declaring that she represents a fresh start after the “mess” of the Trump presidency – and saying: “We’re not going back.”
One of the most intense exchanges was on abortion. Trump insisted that while having pushed for the end of the federal right to abortion, he wanted individual states to make their own policy. Harris said he was telling a “bunch of lies” and called his policies “insulting to the women of America.”
Within minutes, Trump hammered at the Democrat’s perceived weak spot on immigration by claiming that she and Biden had allowed “millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums.” Harris pointed out that Trump is a convicted felon, called him “extreme” and said it is “a tragedy” that throughout his career, he had used “race to divide the American people.”
Another jarring clash came as Trump doubled down on his unprecedented refusal to accept losing to Biden in the 2020 election, before trying to overturn the result. Harris responded by mocking his catchphrase as a reality TV star, saying that Trump had been “fired by 81 million people.”
The rivals also clashed on foreign policy, with Harris telling Trump that Russian President, Vladimir Putin would “eat you for lunch” when it came to the war in Ukraine and that foreign dictators were “laughing” at him. Trump shot back by accusing Harris of being weak on the war in Gaza, saying she “hated Israel” and that Israel would be “gone” within two weeks if she was President.
However, the candidates have in their outings – whether at the debate, rallies or media interviews – given little away on the direction of US relationship with Africa. But it goes without saying that the election outcome will significantly shape US-Africa relations.
If Trump returns to office, Africa may experience a revival of the policies that characterised his previous administration. Trump’s focus on Africa was largely driven by economic interests, especially in countering China’s influence on the continent. His administration’s “Prosper Africa” initiative sought to boost US trade and investment in Africa, with a particular emphasis on creating opportunities for American businesses. Under a Trump administration, the relationship between the US and Africa could be more transactional, with a strong emphasis on trade deals that favour American business. While this could lead to increased US investment in the natural resource sectors, it might also result in a decreased focus on development aid, which has been a crucial aspect of US support to African countries. Additionally, Trump’s stringent immigration policies could create obstacles for Africans seeking to work or study in the US, potentially weakening the people -to- people connection that have historically strengthened US-AFRICA ties.
On the other hand, if Kamala wins the presidency, the relationship between the US and Africa might continue on the trajectory established by the Biden administration. As Vice President, Harris has been instrumental in advancing policies that emphasise democracy, human rights and climate change. The Biden administration has focused on strengthening economic ties, encouraging American investment and supporting efforts to improve its business environment. A Harris administration is likely to maintain this balanced approach, combining economic co-operation and a commitment to shared values. This could lead to continued support for development initiatives and increased US involvement in addressing regional security challenges and climate change.
In sum, a Trump administration could result in a more business-centric, transcendental relationship while a Harris presidency would likely pursue a strategy that blends economic co-operation with a focus on shared values and multilateral engagement.
Africa will need to carefully navigate these potential implications and outcomes, aligning its strategic interests with whichever administration takes office. Whether through increased trade and investment or deeper collaboration on global challenges, the future of US-AFRICA relations will be shaped by the decisions made in Washington, with profound consequences for both the US and Africa.
With election day a heartbeat away, and early – in- person vote having started in Georgia – one of the seven swing States parading a large proportion of Black voters and where Trump and Harris are battling for undecided voters – the race for the White House looks agonizingly close, going by opinion polls. Harris’ consistent 5-6 percentage point lead over Trump has narrowed considerably towards the end of the campaign. We have seen that before where Trump has run from behind. As with immediate past US presidential elections, there’s a critical mass of voters who ordinarily would vote Republican but cannot bring themselves to support Trump. That means hostility towards Trump is not confined solely to Democrats. But if Trump is so odious, why did he win the electoral college votes to defeat Hillary Clinton who won the popular vote but lost the election in 2016? And how did 71 million Americans hold their noses and vote for him in 2020? More poignant is the fact that by popular vote, his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, did not have a landslide win. He bagged 74 million votes – ‘a razor- thin – sharp – margin’ win of approximately 2 per cent. It can safely be said that Trump was more hopeful of winning the 2020 election than Barack Obama was in 2012. But that just portrays the typical American as a complex political animal. You predict their voting behaviour at your own risk and peril.
One thing is certain, though. How Americans vote will determine who presides over not just the destiny of the nation and that of future generations, but also the direction global politics and diplomacy will take in the next four years. A stable and predictable leadership is critical to the global community, and making the wrong choice of the person to occupy the most powerful office in the world would be a lifetime blunder whose consequences just might be too ghastly to contemplate.