Both have used historical grievances of communities with panache
Republican Party candidate Donald Trump’s decisive victory over Democrat Kamala Harris in the 5 November 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 that were out of touch with the mood and aspirations of people at the grassroots level.
In the US, the earlier Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, was seen as 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, aside from 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 a Harris-led US would avoid bumbling as it had under Biden, with Washington unable to make a difference in the situations in either Gaza or Ukraine. China and Iran remained as intransigent as ever. Relations with India, a “strategic partner,” were 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 break out of the attitudinal rut it had fallen into under the 10-year rule of the Congress party. The Congress and its leaders seemed to represent the status quo with no clear vision for the future. Its leader, Sonia Gandhi, was seen as aged, and her successor Rahul Gandhi did not have the personality to light a spark among the electorate. The epithets “dynast” and even “nincompoop” seemed to suit him, as he did not appear to take his job seriously enough.
It was in that context that Narendra Modi came onto 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 a 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 past and present.
The Congress, on the contrary, did not have a matching socio-political constituency. Its traditional base, comprising Muslims and middle- and lower-caste groups, had 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 airstrike against a terror base in Pakistan once again made him the man of the moment, and he won with a massive majority. In the 2024 elections, Modi was visibly mauled, but not eliminated. His Hindutva ideology was able to hold its own despite Rahul Gandhi’s 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, in addition to 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 capitalised on the cultural fractures and tribal politics that Trump had long exploited, TIME magazine wrote after Trump’s victory.
His support base, once thought to be confined to the poor and uneducated in the White majority, had expanded to include Latinos, despite his threats of mass detention and deportation of illegal migrants. This was because of an American tradition. 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, newcomers from Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East — a tradition that has coexisted with America’s self-perception as a nation of immigrants.
The Whites were not put off by Trump’s threat to use the justice system to target political enemies or 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, particularly over economic issues, and many appreciated Trump’s brashness and his habit of breaking norms, TIME said.
Trump’s choice of 39-year-old Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate helped counter Harris’s advantage on age. Although his “no abortion” stance posed a challenge with female voters, his statement on 1 October, clarifying that he would leave abortion policy to the states, helped him secure their support.
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 incentivised them with payouts 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. “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 implement a sweeping purge of the federal bureaucracy to weed out elements opposed to him.
Foreign policy offered further opportunities to criticise the Democrats. Biden’s efforts to restore peace in the Middle East were insincere and ineffective, as were his attempts to help Ukraine stop the Russian war machine. Sanctions on Russia and Iran had failed to deliver results, and China could not be contained in Asia. 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. During his prior term, Trump had moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—a move that was widely denounced—and recognised Israel’s claim to the occupied Golan Heights in Syria. But he did some good too, brokering the “Abraham Accords” between Israel and the Arab states.
During his previous presidency, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme, imposed crippling sanctions on Iran, and authorised the assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
Trump wants to stop the war in Ukraine but may not pursue a peace settlement; instead, he could cut funding to NATO, which would impact Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia. He has also said that he would consider withdrawing the US from NATO if European allies fail to contribute more to its upkeep.
Trump places the US’s economic relationship with China above other issues, such as human rights. He may pursue a trade and tariff war with China, as he did in 2018, slapping $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump may also introduce high tariff barriers on imports from India if India continues its protectionist policies. Likewise, he may not overlook India’s alleged involvement in the attempted assassination of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, an American citizen of Indian origin, viewing it as a matter of American sovereignty. The case is currently before a New York court. Earlier, Trump had offered to mediate between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, which caused consternation in India.
Though Trump seemed sympathetic to the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh, he is unlikely to accommodate India on strategic and economic matters simply as a gesture of goodwill. Trump is quintessentially a transactional politician; for every favour he extends to India, he would likely expect a reciprocal gesture.