A Tale Of Two Elections: A Striking Parallel Between USA 2016 And Trinidad 2015

As the world gets used to the fact that US President-elect Donald J Trump will be the next President of the United States of America (for better or for worse), as a non-American observer, I could not help being flabbergasted at the similarities between Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (Clinton) 8 November 2016 defeat and the 7 September 2015 defeat of Trinidad and Tobago’s first female Prime Minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar (Kamla), leader of the People’s Partnership (PP) coalition government. While it is noted that the Westminster system as followed by Trinidad is different from the Executive Presidency of the United States, there are similarities in the unsuccessful campaigns of both that make for a rather startling comparison.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that there are no forces in Trinidad and Tobago equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacist groups in the United States and while there is racial tension in Trinidad, the election of 2015 was remarkably free from even the racial code-words that have characterized earlier campaigns. Furthermore, while Dr Keith Rowley, leader of the People’s National Movement (PNM), the victor of the 2015 election has had his share of allegations of misogyny and sexism levelled at him, he does not compare to Donald J Trump in the latter’s open abuse of people and bragging about his exploits. With these caveats in mind, the striking similarities between the two elections can now be discussed.

Underestimating The Opponent And His “Ground Game”

Like the Clinton campaign of 2016, the Kamla government of 2015 underestimated its opponent. Relying on a coterie of advisors of dubious political ability, Kamla, like Clinton, seriously underestimated her opponent’s ability to organise and to conduct an election campaign. The fact that Trump was able to defeat 16 Republican challengers should have warned Clinton that he was a formidable adversary. Similarly, Keith Rowley, oversaw a PNM revival in local government polls and by-elections and then proceeded to select, organise and establish machinery for the 2015 elections in mid-2014. In contrast, Kamla underestimated her opponent and overestimated her own “ground-game”. On election day 2015, Kamlas machinery effectively collapsed and contributed to her defeat as several “marginal constituencies” were lost by small margins. Similarly, Clinton we were all assured by the US media, had an excellent ground game. However, on election day, voter mobilisation in her key demographics in critical “battleground” states, was seriously deficient. While Clinton may have won the overall popular vote, the fact is that key states were lost by relatively narrow margins suggesting that she seriously underestimated her opponent’s “ground game” and overestimated her own.

Campaigning On Personalities

Like Clinton, Kamla made her 2015 campaign about the temperamental unsuitability of her opponent for the job of Prime Minister. Like Trump, Dr Rowley has a reputation for being quick-tempered and thin-skinned and, although never sinking to the depths that Trump did, Rowley did have allegations of improper conduct towards women made against men. However, while temperament and personality matters, constructing a campaign around them invariably cedes policy grounds to the other side. While Kamla and Clinton were dealing with personalities, Trump and Rowley focused on their admittedly unclear and at times contradictory policies. The task was made harder for Kamla and Clinton as the latter was the incumbent and bore the brunt of any discontent with her policies and Clintonwas viewed as a continuation of the less-than-successful Obama policies thus facing the anti-incumbency factor. Once a focus was placed on personality, then both Kamla and Clinton found their own personality short-comings come into focus rather than their policies and while both were personally more popular than their respective rivals, they were unable to successfully mesh this with an adequate articulation of policy.

Questionable Judgment

Both Clinton and Kamla were attacked for their purported lack of good judgment which morphed into thinly veiled accusations of corruption. In Clinton’s case, concerns over the Clinton Foundation and undue influence for certain foreign donors had a parallel in alleged favours shown by Kamla to donors to her political party. In both instances, nothing was ever proven, nor were charges filed but the allegations stuck. While Clinton’s closeness to Huma Abedin provoked question around her peculiar consultancy position in addition to her official duties, Kamla faced a barrage of criticism for a number of poor appointments to key positions, leading to numerous questions about her judgment and competence. Clinton’s handling of the State Department and US foreign policy was similarly criticised by her detractors and whether fairly or unfairly, her judgment and competence also came under scrutiny.

E-mails And “Leaks”

The bane of both Kamla and Clinton were emails. In Clinton’s case, they revolved around her use of a private server while in Kamla’s case, allegations of malfeasance including a purported assassination plot against a journalist emerged in a series of “emails” that Rowley, using Parliamentary Privilege, laid before the nation. For several years those emails bedeviled the Kamla administration despite numerous technical flaws being found with the documents which cast doubt on their authenticity. Both politicians were forced to divert time and attention to dealing with issues raised by their respective email controversies. Added to that, Clinton had to contend with Wikileaks and their constant dribble release of information that portrayed both Clinton and the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in the worst possible light. Kamla’s equivalent was in the form of one notorious former Vice-President of FIFA, Austin “Jack” Warner, who having been fired as a minister in her cabinet, embarked upon one of the most vicious campaigns of vengeance ever seen in Trinidad where Cabinet secrets, personal information and insinuations of criminal behaviour were an almost weekly occurrence. To date, none of these allegations have been proven but during an election campaign, just like Wikileaks, Kamla and her government were portrayed in the worst possible way.

Grass-Roots Disconnect

Both Kamla and Clinton found themselves somewhat disconnected from the working-class roots of their respective supporters. Clinton was unable to secure the full support of the coalition of workers and youth that enthusiastically embraced the message of change articulated by Bernie Sanders and, reeling from years of neglect, the working-class of America was desperate to embrace any anti-establishment message that Clinton could not deliver. In the case of Kamla, she was unable to keep the PP coalition of voters and interest groups together which led to the erosion of support. The rural lower-middle and working classes which made up the backbone of her support received minimal benefits in terms of effective land reform or even employment as infrastructure projects were relatively few in number and in scope. Farmers expressed deep disenchantment with her and this was quickly exploited by Rowley. In addition, both candidates failed to appreciate the risk areas won in previous elections. In Clinton’s case her so-called “blue firewall” disintegrated as several states were lost by narrow margins despite warnings from her husband, former President Bill Clinton, that there was an urgent need for intensified efforts in those states. Similarly, Kamla chose to listen to her coterie and ignored the warning signs that critical constituencies were poised on a knife-edge and needed support. Instead, like Clinton’s efforts in Arizona, Kamla squandered resources in unwinnable areas and did not appreciate the potential threat to the “blue firewall”. In retrospect, both candidates fell victim to listening to pollsters, focus groups and advisors who, while useful, are no substitute for a strong connect with the traditional base of a political party.

Racism And Sexism May Be Overstated

Let me be clear, racism and sexism played roles in the defeat of Kamla and Clinton. There is little doubt that Keith Rowley’s PNM mobilised along racial lines against an “Indian” Prime Minister, although no overt racism was ever displayed. Similarly, there was undoubtedly a “white-lash” in the United States as white America voted for Trump over Clinton. In addition, the two female candidates in question faced more than their fair share of sexist and misogynistic comments and insinuations from the rivals. However, it is possible to overstate the impact of sexism and racism on the results for the respective elections. There is no doubt that people – men and women - who voted for Obama twice in the so-called “blue-firewall” voted for Trump in 2016. In Trinidad, there is also little doubt that a fair number of Indo-Trinidadians voted for Rowley’s PNM and many people who voted for Kamla when she was elected in 2010 (by a landslide), switched to the PNM in 2015. Trying to explain election results in terms of racism and/or sexism is simplistic and overlooks other, more important factors that contributed to the defeat of Kamla and Clinton.

The similarities in the campaigns and electoral defeats of Kamla and Clinton are remarkable. Amidst the protests and angst being felt by her supporters in the United States, the desire to find simple answers to Clinton’s defeat could lead to the Democratic Party and its supporters overlooking more systemic failings in the campaign. Kamla’s defeat in 2015 was quickly recognised by her supporters as being caused by systemic failings in the campaign. However, Kamla herself has failed to recognise this and has surrounded herself with sycophants who encouraged her to seek redress through the Courts in the hope that the election results would be overturned owing to a controversial decision to extend voting hours. These efforts were, to nobody’s surprise, unsuccessful. It is however, indicative of the hubris of a politician who seeks to avoid any blame for an electoral defeat and a bad campaign. Signs of that are also emerging from Clinton which initially placed the blame on FBI director Comey’s rather curiously timed letters. At a time when strong, coherent and constructive opposition is needed – both in Trinidad and in the United States – it is imperative that the respective parties honestly examine the reasons for their electoral defeat and reform and reorient themselves appropriately.