The campaign for the US presidential election held in November of last year was not as exciting, dramatic or memorable as the usually ceremonial counting round. But the most surprising was the moment after the proclamation of the results of the elections in meeting of the Parliament to seal the decision of victory and defeat. The way an uncontrollable mob of Trump supporters stormed into the Capitol building and trashed the formal process of verifying election results took everyone by surprise. This incident will be described as shameful for any democracy. Even in America, pros and cons agree that this incident embarrassed them in front of the whole world as a democracy.
more serious than September 11
Despite this, a proposal for a bipartisan inquiry into the attack on Capitol Hill has failed in the Senate in the past. The motion needed sixty votes to pass, but only 54 votes in favor. Although six Republican lawmakers from all parties voted in favor of the proposal, it was not enough. Former President Donald Trump’s Republican Party did not approve a bipartisan investigation into the incident. The same investigation as the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, that is, September 11, 2001. However, in a way, the attack on Capitol Hill was more serious than September 11. September 11 was a terrorist act perpetrated by foreigners who hated America, wanted to destroy it. In contrast, the attacks on Capitol Hill involved people who considered themselves more American than others. There is a strong possibility that a large portion of those directly or indirectly associated with this attack on the country’s parliament still view this work as fair. It also means that he won’t hesitate to do this act again when he gets the chance.
That is why it was more important that at least on this issue the country’s politics did not appear divided. This was the advantage of the proposed bipartite probe. The investigation will still take place. A House committee led by the Democratic Party will investigate. But the joint investigation report of the two parties may not have had the effect of that investigation because the Republican Party would easily disassociate itself from its findings.
By the way, there was no such difficulty in accepting a bipartisan investigation. There was no policy debate. Whether it was former President Trump or the Republican Party, his policies have their place. Whether we like it or not, his right to stick to his policy, to defend it with all his might, was going to remain intact. Here it was about the behavior of the chaotic crowd which cannot be defended under any circumstances. The party did not even defend him. So why has the Republican Party struggled to take a frank position on this? A major reason for observers of US policy is pressure from former President Donald Trump. Trump has already publicly opposed the creation of a bipartisan commission of inquiry. He calls it the “Democracy trap”, that is, the democracy trap. Several leaders of the Republican Party changed their position after agreeing on the need to form the commission.
It is clear that even after leaving the presidency, Trump’s magic has not been erased. He also talked about forming his own party. Although given the uniqueness of the US electoral system, there may not be much room for a third party, but it shows that Trump has full confidence in the strength of his base of support. It is this strength that keeps him relevant within the Republican Party. The temptation to gain the support of his supporters prevents the Republican Party from taking a firm stand against a crime which it believes is also a stain on democracy and the Constitution.
And how does this base of support which does not hesitate to flout the rules, laws, the constitution and democracy to save the chair of a leader? Despite his abdication, does he continue to favor him in any way he can?
The problem is not confined to the United States. In all the great democracies of the world, such leaders are strengthening themselves and succeeding in convincing particular groups of voters that, whatever the policies, the rules, the morals, they will continue to support this group, will continue to protect its interests. . As a result, this particular group accepts this leader as their own, that all questions of right-wrong and wrong-do become moot. All that matters is whether an action, decision, or proposition is in favor of that particular leader or against him.
danger of frivolity
The problem is that the future of democracy depends on the prudence, wisdom and zeal of the ordinary voter to rise above petty interests. Therefore, simple electoral victories and defeats do not secure the future of democracy. A defeat of such a leader may become the basis of a greater victory for him or another leader like him in the future. Either way, the insistence of parties and leaders on winning increases the danger, as the latest stance of the Republican Party in America increases. However, as noted above, the threat is not limited to the United States. This trend remains the biggest challenge for democracy around the world today.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are those of the author.