Zimpapers Logo

Christopher Farai Charamba Correspondent
Donald John Trump has won the United States Presidential election. In a shock result, the man that all the pollsters had written off pulled it off.

When he won the Republican nomination, many called it a fluke victory and went on to conclude that against a seasoned politician in Hillary Clinton, a Senator and former Secretary of State, he stood no chance.

Aside from her own political prowess, Hillary had the support of the incumbent Barack Obama, both former presidents and Republicans George Bush Sr and Jnr and of course her husband Bill Clinton.

Hillary was even more successful in the debates, more poised and articulate, while Trump came out as his usual brash self, though one must admit that there was a marked improvement in his delivery between the first and final debate.

But despite that most, if not all the predictions, premonitions and prophesies had Hillary Clinton winning the November 8 election.

The New York Times gave her a 95 percent chance of becoming America’s first female president.

Today they have been left with egg on their faces and lead with the fact that the outsider has managed to harness voter’s discontent.

Perhaps if those in disbelief had paid a little more attention to the tell-tale signs and actually considered the possibility of a Trump presidency, they would have been better prepared.

As the NYT rightly put it, there was growing discontent among a key constituency of the US electorate.

This is a similar discontent to that among a majority British voters who chose to leave the European Union in the Brexit vote. Donald Trump won the presidential election because, among other things, he appealed to the lowest common denominator.

Democracy in its modern form is by and large strictly a numbers game and he or she who can arouse the masses will find themselves in office.

This is the strategy that has been adopted by many successful politicians and political parties world over.

It is a key part of the success of Zanu-PF here in Zimbabwe who know that the lowest common denominator is not found in the cities or on social media but out in the rural areas.

In fact, if one is to consider the strength of the rural vote, it definitely contributed to getting Trump to the White House.

What Brexit and Trump’s monumental victory at the polls tell us is that nationalism has strengthened and is on the rise, particularly in the West. Trump ran with the catchphrase “Make America Great Again” and this resonated with the lowest common denominator.

He played on white America’s fears of immigrants, their Islamaphobia and the fact that globalisation has had no tangible impact on the life of said white Americans.

Actually, what globalisation seems to have led to is more immigrants in the US, exactly what the white American who voted for Trump was against.

And this was the same for Brexit where the British felt that other Europeans were coming to take their jobs.

Leaving the EU, they felt, would stop this problem. It would also restore a sense of national pride as too many immigrants would mean not enough Britons, real Britons, whoever they might be. Thus for those who voted for Brexit there was to be a chance to restore Britain to its former glory, or so they perceived.

The growth of this nationalist sentiment in turn contributed to the rise of racism, bigotry and misogyny that dominated Trump’s campaign and his supporters’ statements.

As the call to Make America Great Again appealed to a majority white base, other races were made responsible for some of the major problems that America was facing.

Mexicans and Muslims bore the brunt of the vitriol and made it possible for Trump to get people to unite around a perceived common enemy who was holding America from being great again.

Trump also picked his language in a way that resonated with his lowest common denominator base with his “build a wall” slogans and was a beneficiary of the mainstream media coverage despite the fact that they did it with the intention of spoiling his chances.

So while the media focused on the outlandish statements Trump was putting out, they neglected to observe how these messages were resonating with this lowest common denominator that Trump had identified. The pollsters failed to realise that Trump was appealing to sentiment and emotions and this was a very effective manner of campaigning.

Particularly when those sentiments are based on the identity of the person, the fact that they are a real American and want a great America. This is perhaps why a minor, yet significant number of Black and Hispanic people, voted for Trump.

They perhaps felt as American as the next white person, and while Trump had threatened immigrants and threatened to build a wall to keep out Mexicans, whom he called rapists, this would not affect their status as they were American.

In the days, weeks and years to come many will analyse Donald Trump’s victory and even write academic papers on it. This neo-nationalist issue, neo in the sense that its rise has had significant effects on foreign and domestic policy in Britain and the US, should definitely be investigated further.

What is particularly worrying about this form of nationalism is that it has given rise to intolerance and this is not only an American or British problem.

If one were to analyse the American sentiment towards Mexicans or the British towards Europeans, particularly Eastern Europeans, it is no different from the sentiment that South Africans expressed towards other Africans.

The xenophobic attacks that took place in South Africa last year and the statement made by the Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini are not different from what Trump and his supporters were saying.

The fear that immigrants are coming to steal our jobs is growing in many countries and manifesting itself in different ways.

Unfortunately, in South Africa it resulted in violence and while many condemned the acts, one cannot help but think that like the so called “silent majority” which voted for Trump, there is a silent majority in South Africa who support the position of King Zwelithini, that foreigners should go back to their countries. On the flip side, this neo-nationalist majority is looking to make their countries great again and restore national pride and prestige. In that there is a lesson for Africans to learn.

The idea that these nationalists have is that within our borders is the capacity to make our country great. This is the attitude that African countries should adopt.

With such nationalist thinking and ideology which then translates to policy formulation and implementation, African countries will start to use their resources to the benefit of their people and nation.

There will be no need for so called “Look East” policies or appealing to Western financial institutions. Clear national policy built of a shared nationalist ideology among the people can result in local development through local initiatives and local hands.

Nationalism was the driving force for the liberation of African countries from colonial rule. The same nationalistic thinking can thus be used to motivate the transformation of African countries from dependent to self-reliant.

Feedback: [email protected]