Clio can be quirky. The electoral map of the United States
of America will not look the same again. The victory of the abrasive Donald
Trump has cemented his place in history and the outcome is bound to have an
impact on the world. However divisive and unpopular, however intemperate and
occasionally uncouth, the triumph transcends certain of his utterances during
the gruelling campaign spanning 18 months. This will almost certainly baffle
observers within the US and also as much the comity of nations. As the
fractious Republicans savour the triumph, the harsh truth must rankle for some
time yet — Americans in 2016 could think of none more suitable than Trump to
elect as President.

The voters have related themselves to the anger against the
establishment, most importantly in Washington and New York, that Trump had
articulated in course of the campaign. By any reckoning, it has been an
astonishing victory in the political history of America and there is little
doubt that in the final stages of the campaign, he was able to galvanise a
largely disenchanted electorate to defeat Hillary Clinton, who for all her
charisma as a former First Lady was a rather unpopular opponent. The clean chit
by the FBI on the eve of the elections has done but little to shore up her
image.

That image was dented — as it turns out beyond redemption
— when the investigating agency took up the e-mail controversy. On closer
reflection, Hillary seemed wobbly at the knees even before the first vote was
cast.

The factors behind the defeat of the Democrat and the
victory of the Republican are much too deep-seated for any rough-and-ready
assessment; the system needs to settle down after the political bombshell. And
it would be rather too simplistic to aver that the result mirrors the country’s
psephological tradition. It is a historical truism that the incumbent party
rarely holds on to power after eight years in office. Of course, George Bush,
following Reagan, was a notable exception.

Yet it would be labouring the obvious to contend that Americans
have voted for change instead of continuity after the Democratic spell from
2008-16 — a direly critical phase in US history, marked as it was by the
economic meltdown and more recently, the frequent conflicts between blacks and
whites. As America festers in the wake of racial violence, perpetrated by a
predominantly white police, the outgoing dispensation of the Democrats cannot
evade responsibility for the failure of domestic governance.

To the party’s domestic constituency, this has been more damaging,
even disgraceful, than the foreign policy failures in the Arab region though
the new President will have to reshape diplomacy. In the context of the South
China Sea, the “pivot to Asia” paradigm has been reduced to irrelevance. The
electorate has demonstrated the efficacy of Barack Obama’s rhetorical chant — “Yes,
we can” (2008). The inherent divisiveness has been underscored at the threshold
by none other than Trump — “It’s time to come together” (2016).

— Editorial