At the beginning of the nineteenth century in industrial England, skilled weavers and others who were losing work to mechanization went on a five-year rampage destroying machinery and sometimes burning factories. They were called Luddites, and in those days they had no avenue of getting the attention of a remote and unconcerned government other than through violent action. In twenty-first century, Rust Belt America, their modern counterparts who are losing jobs to automation and outsourcing, can troop to the ballot box instead. The electorate in the US in contrast to the Luddites has a presidential election every four years through which they can convey their displeasure, and they did so in some numbers last week by deserting a traditional Democratic candidate in favour of Donald Trump.
They were angry with the Washington elite, which appeared absorbed by its own issues and did not listen to them, more especially as it also operated a system which was seen as allowing them to enrich themselves. Trump was himself a billionaire, but did not come from the Washington establishment and was therefore not seen as part of a ‘corrupt’ class. What he did was to address the problems of the Rust Belt voters specifically, by promising to return manufacturing jobs to the United States. As it is, the most recent analyses suggest that Trump could not have won the election had he not been able to turn the formerly Democratic states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
There were certainly other things in play as well such as racism and opposition to immigration, which was seen as altering the demographics of the United States. The watchword of those who brought Donald Trump to the presidency might have been change, but in fact they were really harking back to an earlier era ‒ before globalization, before robots, before the profound changes in the ethnic composition of the country. In a sense, that was reflected in the President-elect’s slogan to “Make America great again.” However, as the Luddites found out to their cost, history does not wind backwards, and whether Trump will be able to deliver on several of his campaign promises is very much open to doubt.
There are many parts of the US economy which have benefited from globalization and the technological revolution, more especially those located in the urbanized areas of the east and west coasts. They voted for Clinton, the Democratic candidate, and she also carried the youngest cohort of voters ‒ the millennials, as they are called – presumably because they in particular identify with a high-tech future. What the election did demonstrate (Trump’s divisive rhetoric aside) was the great chasm between the urban areas and the rural and former manufacturing regions, which feel they have been neglected.
As a number of commentators have observed, in certain respects the US election was a reprise of the Brexit vote in the UK, with urban voters electing overwhelmingly to remain and those in the former industrial heartland choosing to leave. There was the same alienation from the governing class, this time in Whitehall, while the topic of immigration was played up in disreputable fashion by UKIP with a subliminal appeal to baser emotions. The same forces are in play in other parts of Europe, giving a fillip to extremist parties such as that of Marine Le Pen in France.
Electorates all over the world have been voting in unexpected ways in recent times, and the political class needs to take note if it wants to assume office, or continue in office. The lesson is even in wealthy nations that the politicians have not just to listen to all the people, but to respond to them. They cannot ignore large segments and believe that these will go on voting for them on the basis of tradition.
The exception for the time being that is might be Guyana. Having said that, the previous government seriously underestimated what was perceived by the electorate to be the corruption which accompanied its period in office, and which perhaps more than anything else, accounted for it finding itself on the opposition benches in this parliament. However, as in other parts of the democratic world, there was a sense among its own supporters that the ministers and senior officials had become arrogant and distant and were not listening to them anymore. As it was, a small number of traditional PPP voters possibly in the urban areas mostly crossed the line in 2011 as well as 2015 to vote for the AFC.
But this current government has not appeared as yet to have learned any lessons from what happened to its predecessor. If it is to have any hope of hanging on to office, it will have to rise above corruption and come down heavily on any cases that come to its notice, no matter who they involve. It will need to listen to the multifarious groups in this society and take into account their concerns, responding to them if possible. In terms of communication, for example, the case of the Wales sugar estate did it no credit. It should be added, that in our circumstances the administration should commit to delivering fair government. (It would help itself too if it were also rather more efficient than it appears to be at the moment.)
If the population was disgusted by the corruption during the period of the last administration, it will be equally so by this one. And this one’s hold on office is very tenuous. There is this structural flaw in Guyana’s political arrangements whereby there is a connection between ethnicity and political allegiance, so that electors do not easily change their vote. Added to that, the swing vote is very small indeed, and if a disillusioned base does not turn out, and the small swing vote goes elsewhere, those who now fill ministerial chairs could find themselves back in opposition come 2020. The demographics are slowly changing, however, and it is that which will shift the nature of the structural flaw, eventually ushering in a period of coalition governments. However, that is not likely to happen in time for the next election.
Be that as it may, the lesson for politicians here is the same as it is for those elsewhere: Do not take the people for granted.