The peaceful transition of power from one administration or political party to another is the beauty of democracy, which should be a pride of all democrats and celebrated by every patriot. The succession crisis in little Gambia, with a sit-tight Jammeh, unperturbed about the image of his country, is a reminder of what might otherwise be.
Americans have reason to rejoice in the strength of their institutions to withstand stress. An electoral institution that has, through the vagaries of life, stood firm and resolute for 240 years, is worth celebrating, and a people that have made sacrifices, including the ultimate one, cannot be accused of hubris if they chose to revel in grand style. The inauguration of a new President has offered the most adequate opportunity for such a national euphoria.
In January 2009, I, along with members of my family, who had journeyed from three continents for the purpose, participated in this national festival of democracy when Barrack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. Some 1.8 million other citizens, residents, and visitors were there, including many who did not vote for Obama. That was the spirit of the time, following a long tradition.
This time last year, a large majority of citizens had also hoped to be among the celebrants on the mall today. Many had made hotel reservations to beat the rush and the inflated cost that normally comes with procrastination. They didn’t have to know who was going to win the election. They just wanted to be part of the festival of democracy.
As the primaries got under way, however, and the insults and bigotry came along with it, disillusionment and despair ensued. Whatever hope many of those trudging along for an acceptable outcome nursed was dashed on election day. And for many, the transition period from November 8 to date has not offered any reprieve from their sense of gloom and doom.
Thus, while 900,000 visitors are expected for inaugural ceremonies in Washington, D.C. today, many are also coming to protest the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States. Another 400,000 are estimated to participate in the Women’s March on Washington this Saturday. Per the National Park Service, protest permits have been issued to 22 groups, which is “a considerable uptick” compared to past inauguration permits of an average of six groups. This year, inauguration protest and boycott is the most intense and passionate in 35 years. Why?
The “why” question must not be misconstrued. We must not assume that celebrating democracy and engaging in protest are, in some way, antithetical. Indeed, they are two sides of the same coin. Democracy idolises freedom, while dictatorship privileges repression. Protest for or against an event, a candidate, or even a president’s inauguration, is a time-honoured exercise of freedom and, therefore, a celebration of democracy.
That is not just a positive spin. It is the truth and it is the reason that the National Park Service cannot legitimately deny permits for protests and rallies no matter how embarrassing anyone, including the President-elect may find it. Indeed, there is no good reason for the man elected as the leader of the free world to feel embarrassed with the celebration of freedom in the form of protest.
There is another reality, however. While protest is an expression of freedom, it is also primarily a symbol of resistance and opposition to the incoming President and his administration. The disillusionment and despair that has been experienced by many citizens from the primaries to the conventions through election day and to date is directly attributable to the pronouncements made and positions taken on various issues by the man who is being installed as President today. For many, there has not been in recent memory a presidential candidate or a President-elect who has so effectively and successfully captured the White House by what his critics characterise as a campaign of division and hate-mongering.
These are not frivolous charges even if Trump as candidate and President-elect, thinks otherwise. For Mexican-Americans and their Latin-American, African-American and European-American friends and sympathisers, labelling undocumented immigrants from Mexico as rapists and criminals was simply mean. The attack on a female journalist, Megyn Kelly, for daring to ask tough questions during a Republican primary debate, turned off many women. And when the Access Hollywood tape emerged out of the blue, it only confirmed the charge of misogyny that many of them had made against Trump.
The mocking of a disabled journalist, an accusation which he has repeatedly denied, but which video images apparently confirmed to many, only increased the number of groups with an unfavourable image of Trump even before the election. African Americans are naturally upset about Trump’s characterisation of inner-cities as crime-infested in a weird appeal to them to give him a chance because they had nothing to lose. This was all before the elections. So, when polls showed him losing to Hillary Clinton up until the eve of the election, it wasn’t difficult for voters to believe that he was cruising to a big loss.
Even the FBI surprise announcement of further investigation into Clinton email just a few days before the election was not considered a game changer at that time. Who will vote for a misogynist, a bigot, a protectionist and a Putin “puppet”, as Clinton put it? That was the basis of the confidence of many in a Clinton victory and a Trump routing. But they were all wrong. The polls were wrong, or the election was impacted by outside influence as the intelligence community later revealed.
Since the election, President-Elect Trump has not backed down from his controversial positions and pronouncements. He has intervened in policy decisions of the Obama administration, ignoring the tradition of Presidents-elect waiting their turn. And for someone who had accused Obama of being an illegitimate president based on the conspiracy theory that he was not born in the United States, and who has held on to this bizarre claim for seven and a half years, it was the height of hypocrisy for Trump to be offended when his election was described as illegitimate.
But that was exactly Trump’s reaction to Congressman Lewis, a civil right icon, who had made that observation, based on the intelligence community confirmation that Russia hacked the emails of the Democratic Party and Clinton Campaign Chair. Trump, who apparently can give insult but cannot conceive of himself receiving it, attacked Lewis as “all talk, talk, and no action” just days before his inauguration. And in solidarity with Mr. Lewis, about 50 House Democrats are boycotting the inauguration activities today. Again, in exercise of their First Amendment, they choose to express their disgust with their absence from the stage.
There is a way in which all these actions and inactions, verbal expressions and silent motions are reconcilable as they can all be construed as what the founding fathers of American democracy had hoped for. Even though we may be offended by the misogynistic utterances, and by religious bigots and ethnic chauvinists, and even when the hypocrisy of haters that demand love disgust us, the beauty of democracy is its affording everyone the right of expression. It is the promise of the First Amendment.
Of course, elections have enormous consequences which cannot be dismissed lightly. Policies will be made that can turn lives around in disastrous ways with no good escape routes. Checking out is not an option for many. Again, however, there is hope and it needs to be kept alive.
In four years, there will be another opportunity for protesters and boycotters of today to exercise their rights to choose a candidate whose views and interests align with theirs, and whose policies they subscribe to. Voting is the ultimate positive form of political expression and it is to be celebrated and taken full advantage of. Perhaps, if everyone that qualified had taken advantage of the opportunity on November 8, 2016, a different outcome may have emerged. But it would not have prevented protests. Only a different group of protesters would probably have taken to the streets today.
