The dangers of "Frozen" conflicts thawing: The case of Nagorno-Karabakh

Frozen conflicts can be defined as conflicts that have not ceased in the absence of a peace treaty and hence are in a stalemate like condition. A major example that comes to mind is the Korean conflict that ended in 1953 with a truce which means that both North and South Korea are technically still at war and clash now and again but has not deteriorated or rather thawed back to 1950s style combat thanks largely to international diplomacy. Although this phenomenon is more pronounced in former Soviet era nations with various conflicts over territory, particularly where new international borders did not match the ethnic affiliations of local populations. Several territories come to mind that have received little international recognition and they include Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the disputed regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in Ukraine which mostly seemingly imploded following the dissolution of  the Soviet Union in 1991 where previously and intriguingly all these territories being part of a single entity, the Soviet Union but now seemingly "independent" but without a doubt are within Russia's orbit. Following the resumption of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh this has highlighted the dangers of frozen conflicts thawing as the risk of an all out war is inevitable unless steps are taken to bring the two opposing sides to the negotiation table as soon as possible. 

"Nagorno-Karabakh-The Mother of all Frozen conflicts?"

The recent flare up of violence in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh by Armenians) is concerning and risks becoming an international conflict as there appears to be several players involved other than Armenia and Azerbaijan. Before going into depth with who these other players are it is necessary to explain how the latest flare up in this region occurred. Nagorno-Karabakh lies within Azerbaijan territory and is considered part of Azerbaijan by the United Nations. However it is an ethnic-majority Armenian region which was given control to Azerbaijan authorities when both Armenia and Azerbaijan became a part of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. A separatist movement ensued in the 1980s as the Soviet Union began to disintegrate with Nagorno-Karabakh's regional parliament officially voting to become part of Armenia which Azerbaijan suppressed leading to an all-out war leading to Armenian forces gaining control of the area in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire being declared. Since then skirmishes have continued to occur in the absence of a peace treaty and fighting erupted in 2016 leaving hundreds dead before a ceasefire was declared with the Azeri and Armenian Presidents agreeing to resume political dialogue over this region. In 2018 Azerbaijan President  Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan agreed to set up a new communication line between the two militaries in a sign of reduction of hostilities and as recently as February 2020 the two leaders met at the Munich Security Conference which was unprecedented and although most observers found it counterproductive I found it productive in the sense that at least they were willing to sit in the same room and following the most recent skirmishes and the most serious since 1994 perhaps more face to face dialogue, of course with a neutral mediator, is needed.

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict now a full-blown war

Skirmishes between Armenian and Azerbaijan troops have continued to occur with the absence of a peace treaty for almost three decades with the last serious emergence of violence ending in 1994. However the latest fighting emerged on September 27,2020 which involved heavy artillery and saw the largest flare up of violence since 1994. Although Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognised as being part of Azerbaijan with most of the fighting taking place in this region the mere fact that two countries are fighting over disputed territory means this could technically be viewed as an interstate war and the Rand corporation calls such wars rare events. The fighting in this region has also had a large human cost with many civilian casualties and half the population of this disputed ethnic Armenian region in Azerbaijan being displaced according to Karabakh rights ombudsman Artak Beglaryan. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has refused to take sides in the conflict, but who's country has been selling weapons on both sides, claims as many as 5000 may have been killed, although this is less than the 1988-1994 conflict which left 30000 dead it gives a vivid picture of the seriousness of this current conflict. 

Possible end in sight?

At approximately 1am on Tuesday November 10, 2020 a peace deal signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia with Russia mediating it came into force and this is the first time a peace deal has been made following a number of ceasefire agreements being broken. Furthermore as part of efforts to finally end this long running conflict Russian peacekeepers will be deployed to this disputed region with Russia's defense ministry stating that 1960 personnel would be sent. This signifies Russia's on-going interests in what analysts call Russia's "sphere of influence" as Russia has good relations between these two countries and has military bases in Armenia. This vividly show that Russia has vested interests is in this region and may want to "freeze" this conflict for its own benefit as some observers have noted Russia appearing to be doing in other so called "frozen conflicts", a view I stated in my blog post titled 'Vladimir Putin 3.0'. Turkey has also been a key player in this conflict as it has given its backing to Azerbaijan which it considers a very close ally as "Turkey and Azerbaijan are bound by strong ethnic, cultural and historic ties and refer to their relationship as being one between “two states, one nation.”", according to the Associated Press (AP) and will also be taking part in the peacekeeping process according to the President of Azerbaijan. It is way too early to see if this peace deal holds with possible distrust lingering between the two sides and there are reports of large crowds in Armenia who are against this peace treaty, but is a positive move nevertheless with perhaps a more positive outcome should both sides adhere to the tenets of the peace deal. This also leaves the question of whether this is the first concrete step of finally ending this decades long frozen conflict.

Deconstructing the office of the Vice President and its equivalent

This opinion piece will discuss the role of the Vice Presidency and its equivalent, and what it represents in government. There are a number of definitions regarding this office with some countries such as South Africa terming it Deputy President. The office of the Vice Presidency has very recently been a topic of considerable popularity in the media as the US Presidential race is well on its way with the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate and front-runner Joe Biden's choice of a running mate gaining a lot of interest, and after going through a considerable number of candidates he finally opted for California Senator Kamala Harris after making the difficult decision and foregoing other very capable candidates. This illustrates just how important the Vice President post is, even during an election before being voted into office as she/he will play an important part in making sure that they support the agenda of their "boss" who is the president. In this opinion piece I will give a more solid definition of the Vice President and what this office in government actually entails before defining its role from a variety of different examples globally with some very interesting and fascinating examples that are not well known in the mainstream, so brace yourself for a very unique understanding of the Vice Presidency.

Definition of Vice President

According to the online Cambridge dictionary this role is defined as; "the person who has the position immediately below the president in some countries, and who is responsible for the president's duties if he or she is unable to do them". 

So from the get go it is quite clear that the position of Vice President is not one of being the leader but the second in charge or second most powerful position in the land. Well, yes and no! While this maybe the case on paper, that is, in terms of the constitution, in many nations on the ground lets just say things may turn out a lot different. This was witnessed under the administration of George W Bush who chose a running mate that had a "vast amount of national experience" and this person was Dick Cheney who previously served as a White House chief of staff under President Ford, a congressman, and defense secretary under the first President Bush, and he knew how Washington works unlike his boss who had no national experience other than being the governor of Texas. However, Cheney's list of high profile positions in the top levers of government probably led him to make some decisions that could have been viewed as being above the executive, the President himself, termed executive overreach on handling classified information that prompted criticism as he is said to have ignored an executive order. Thus, this is why he has been often called "the most powerful US Vice President" to date. An interesting development is currently taking place in US politics where Joe Biden, a former Vice President himself interestingly enough, has chosen a running mate and should he win the November election there is on-going conversations that she could be a very powerful Vice President, or "veep" as it is commonly called in the United States, for a number of reasons, one of which being her age as Joe Biden would be 78 years old and Harris would be 55 should they win and be sworn in on January, 20 2021 and another one being her good debating skills.

Each country has a defined role for this position in their constitutions. I will discuss a few countries and link it to their constitutions before elaborating further on how the Vice Presidents and its equivalents in each country conduct their role and bring in interesting, controversial aspects to the person(s) holding those positions in those countries and how they have conducted themselves. The countries I will discuss are:

• Malawi
• UK (Deputy Prime Minister)
• China
• Saudi Arabia (Deputy Prime Minister/ 'Crown Prince')

Malawi

The Constitution of Malawi in Section 79 allows the country to have two Vice Presidents. However, the need for two Vice Presidents should only be accepted should the President desire to have one in the national interest as stated in Section 80 of the Constitution of Malawi. It appears that the newly elected President, Lazarus Chakwera, did not deem it necessary and selected only one Vice President, Soulos Chilima who has served in this position in two administrations with the first one being under the administration of Peter Mutharika. According to the official government website regarding the Office of the Vice President, it describes its core function which is "to offer strategic support to the Head of State and government in general in running the affairs of the country for the betterment of the people of Malawi". This makes this office the second most powerful position in the land. The position of Vice President in Malawi may appear as relatively straightforward at first glance but this is further from the truth when looking back at how this position has created loggerheads with two administrations, ironically both led by the Mutharika brothers, firstly the late Bingu wa Mutharika and his younger brother who recently lost the 2020 elections to Chakwera, Peter Mutharika. The controversy surrounding this position stems from a running mate clause in the Malawi Constitution in which the Vice President cannot be dismissed by the President, the President only has that jurisdiction to do so for the Second Vice President in Section 86. This was the reason why Peter Mutharika could not remove Soulos Chilima when he resigned from the ruling party and formed his own party, the United Transformation Movement (UTM) following a fall out between the two in 2018. A very similar situation took place under Bingu Wa Mutharika in 2010 when he fired his Vice President, Joyce Banda, as the Vice President of his party, the Democratic People's Party (DPP) following the now familiar "fall-out" leading her to form her own party in 2011 called the Peoples Party (PP) and because she was constitutionally the Vice President of the country she assumed power in 2012 following the death of  President Bingu wa Mutharika. 

UK

The United Kingdom (UK) is a constitutional monarch and does not have a President or Vice President. The position of Vice President in the UK's context can be likened to that of Deputy Prime Minister. In the UK the position of Deputy Prime Minister is a complex one as it is not a permanent position and since its creation in 1942 only eight people have held the role. Thus, this position does not fall in the line of succession as one usually assumes and serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister (PM) as the de facto second in government, after the Prime Minister. In fact the position of the First Secretary of State "appears to be more powerful" in my view, although this position also has no specific powers other than having the responsibility of oversight of all Cabinet Office policies and giving advice to the PM .The title of Deputy PM is not mentioned in the UK's uncodified constitution which explains its "lack of relevance or importance" in the British government. The last holder of the position was Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats between 2010-2015 and the position has been vacant since then. Clegg was unlikely going to become PM should David Cameron, who was the PM at the time, had become incapacitated as Clegg was from another party as part of the coalition between Clegg's party and Cameron's Conservative party. It is important to note at this point that despite the powers the PM possesses in appointing whom she/he desires, the sovereign has the constitutional right to form the government, the sovereign being none other than Queen Elizabeth II. This means that even if the position of PM were to become vacant for various reasons, such as dismissal or resignation,  leading to someone succeeding the PM, the Queen as sovereign still as the right, at least constitutionally, to select someone to form the next government. However, this has never happened as the role of the Queen as Head of State is a largely ceremonial one and it appears that the Queen finds it comfortable to be in the background and not interfere in the toxic nature of British politics. In terms of the next in line of succession to the sovereign, this is reserved to the heir apparent to the British throne who is currently Prince Charles, the eldest child of Queen Elizabeth II. This vividly shows the weakness of the Deputy PM post and appears, at least in my view that the post of First Secretary of State being of more prominence of late following PM Boris Johnson falling ill with the coronavirus which left him briefly hospitalised and requiring him to have someone to stand by for him while he was in intensive care in April, 2020, leading Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State Dominic Raab to temporarily 'deputise' him during that period as requested by Johnson. This was probably due to this position having the responsibility of assisting the PM in government as one of its responsibilities. 

China

The Vice President of the People’s Republic of China is a powerful position as the Vice President is expected to assist the President in his duties and rather than the President himself selecting a Vice President, it is the National People's Congress who elects the Vice President and is the highest organ of state power in China. This vividly shows the power of the National People's Congress which is stated in Article 62 of the Constitution of China. The National People's Congress also elects the President of the People's Republic of China and this is the most democratic aspect taking place in the country which however does not elect the President based on universal suffrage. According to Article 84 of the Constitution of China should the office of the President fall vacant the Vice President has the constitutional right to become the President and this means that the Vice President is the second most powerful position in the country. Several Chinese Vice Presidents have also become successors to the President and the most prominent being current President Xi Jinping who was Vice President from 2008 to 2013. The current Vice President is Wang Qishan who assumed the post in 2018 after being elected by the National People's Congress, seen as a largely 'rubber-stamp parliament', is seen as a close ally of the President. The post of Vice President is only allowed two five year terms in line with the National People's Congress. Most members of the National People's Congress, which number about 3000 members, and elects the Vice President represent the Chinese Communist Party. 

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with the King holding absolute control of the country and serves as the Prime Minister as well. The current Monarch is King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud but it is widely believed that his son Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is "the power behind the throne" and has been the King's successor since been appointed as Crown Prince in 2017, the second most powerful position in the country, and is also reserved for the Deputy Prime Minister position, making the Crown Prince position a sort of equivalent to the Vice President. According to Article 65 of the Saudi Arabia Constitution "the King may delegate parts of his authority to the Crown Prince" which signifies how powerful this position is. The Allegiance Council elects both the King and Crown Prince and this same council elected MBS as Crown Prince following the controversial removal of the former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef in 2017 by the orders of King Salman. King Salman actually has the constitutional right to relieve the Crown Prince of his duties as it is stated in Article 5 of the Saudi Arabia Constitution. Mohammed bin Nayef himself was made Crown Prince following King Salmon's decision to remove another earlier Crown Prince, Prince Muqrin which the Washington Post described as "unprecedented" in the modern history of Saudi Arabia. One reason for the rise of MBS is due to the line of succession being passed from King Abdulaziz since his death in 1953 which led to several of his sons in recent times becoming Kings well over the age of 70 with King Salman (who became King at 79 years old) settling this issue by creating a pathway for the grandsons of Abdulaziz to become Kings. Perhaps the hastened decision came about following the deaths of two Crown Princes in less than a year in 2011 and 2012, both of whom were well over 70 years and the current King himself has not been in the best of health himself, hence the need for a younger leader. This has made MBS's position even more powerful as age is on his side (he is currently 34 years old) as he is also seen as the de facto leader of the country and a reformist, although he has been involved in a number of controversies, who is spearheading a massive and ambitious vision for his country called Vision 2030 to modernise Saudi Arabia.

Can Lazarus Chakwera bring meaningful change to Malawi?

The road to the 2020 Presidential election re-run in Malawi can best be described as a ‘nail-biting’, increasingly polarised and a tense journey. Malawi has been going through economic and political strife for some time now and under then President Peter Mutharika (80) and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), despite his government’s commitment to deal with these challenges, in addition to the high rates of corruption, unfortunately his administration failed to quell these myriad of problems. The planned 2019 election even before it occurred had already been viewed from afar as a ‘make or break’ election and just as Mutharika wanted to continue his rule into a second term, so too did the opposition which comprised of high-profile candidates one of them being Mutharika’s own Vice President whom he had a fall-out with in 2018 (interestingly enough a similar situation that plagued Peter Mutharika’s late brother and former President Bingu Wa Mutharika and his Vice President Joyce Banda), Saulos Chilima (47), a successful business man who was once in charge of the country’s largest cellular network Airtel Malawi and a much younger candidate than his previous boss. There were several others but the third most prominent one was Clergyman Lazarus Chakwera (65) of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP). Mutharika was declared the winner of that election but opposition leaders such as Chakwera vehemently challenged the results on the grounds of wide-spread voter irregularities, such as the use of tippex which was a correctional fluid used to alter some results.

This led to a court case with the country’s Constitutional Court making the difficult but brave decision of nullifying the election and calling for a new one, a decision Mutharika opposed, and was only the second time that an African country had cancelled an election. The first country to do so was Kenya following its disputed election in 2017. However, Malawi stands out as the only country in Africa where the opposition won following the re-run of the election. This decision by the court went a step further and changed the electoral system from “first-past-the-post” to a system where the winner must receive more than 50% of the vote. Chakwera, who initially came second in the 2019 election formed a coalition with Chilima’s United Transformation Movement (UTM) and eight other parties, including the Peoples Party (PP) which is led by former President Joyce Banda, called the Tonse Alliance and the alliance won the election by a majority garnering almost 59%. Malawi has now passed the period of transition and an end of more than a decade of Mutharika rule, with a brief respite between 2012-2014, by the Mutharika brothers and is now in a time of its new government to deliver on its promises.

“The elephant in the room”

Malawi like most countries on the African continent has been bedevilled by corruption which has brought its economy to its knees and several high profile cases come to light such as Malawi's biggest financial scandal known as “cashgate” in 2013 which likely led to former President Joyce Banda losing elections that year and coming number three. The rates of corruption are shocking for a country largely dependent on donor funds and its lack of a diversified economy as the country lacks the diversity or rather quantity of mineral deposits that its neighbouring countries enjoy means it is cash strapped and its only meaningful source of economic output is its fertile land as its economy is largely based on agriculture, followed by tourism as the country enjoys a variety of wonderful natural sights such as the famous Lake Malawi, game reserves and its largest mountain, Mount Mulanje. Hence, Chakwera has his work cut out for him as he mentioned in his inaugural address after been sworn in to office that “we must clear the rubble of corruption” which was one of his campaign pledges, in addition to reviving the economy and in a time of the novel coronavirus his task to rebuild the economy will indeed be very great. Chakwera will also have to make great strides in uniting the country as it is divided along ethnic and regional lines, with Chakwera’s party enjoying support from the central and northern areas of Malawi.

According to Dewa Mavhinga, Southern Africa director at Human Rights Watch, President Chakwera must place human rights and rule of law at the centre of his new government. This is because the country experienced a spike in political violence, particularly electoral violence with opposition politicians and activists being harassed prior to the re-run election in June. This will be in line with the Presidents own inauguration speech in which he said “Malawi will be for everyone” and putting action to this early in his presidency without unnecessary delays or diversions will put his government on the right trajectory, which will improve its image both regionally on the African continent and internationally.

‘Regaining trust with the international community and becoming less reliant on donor aid’

Malawi needs to reclaim the trust of donors following revelations of plunder of public resources in October 2013. “Development assistance in form of direct budget support is an important part of financing for Malawi”, according to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) resident representative Farai Gwenhamo, and while the there have been some improvements in public finance management to safeguard financial resources for the government, the country has to regain the trust of development partners. Hence, the IMF will wait and see whether such reforms towards public finance management will produce results and this is where Chakwera can really show sound leadership through being transparent on how his nation uses these funds which will go a long way in regaining donor trust, alleviating poverty and improving economic productivity.

However, Malawi is among the world's most aid-dependent countries accounting over 40% of its national budget which is a concern. One way this opinion piece puts forward for Malawi to reduce its dependency on donor aid is to confront the scourge of corruption which has become endemic in the country. Cashgate stands out as one of the biggest corruption scandals to hit the country where a forensic audit commissioned by the government of Malawi, with support from the UK’s Department for International Development saw as much as 20 billion Malawian Kwacha (approximately US$42 million) disappearing from government coffers. Hence, the urgency in tackling corruption by this new government by enforcing strong measures against this scourge which Chakwera has promised to do.

‘Diversifying its agro-based economy’

One of Chakwera’s campaign pledges was to "revive the Malawian economy" which will indeed be his biggest challenge and the hopes of all Malawians to finally have its own version of the Rwandan economic miracle, which I will call “the Malawian economic miracle”, whereby successful government policy will play an important role in growing the country’s economy through well thought out measures. In order to achieve this Malawi seriously needs to diversify away from cash crops and indeed beyond agriculture because, it leaves the entire economy susceptible to weather shocks and the adverse effects of climate change. As mentioned earlier, Malawi is heavily reliant on donor aid to fund its own needs, hence having an economy largely based on the primary sector, in addition to its budget mainly funded from outside really does not bode well for the Malawian economy and a continuation of this pattern will simply keep the country in its current stagnant state. 

Hence, the new government needs to ‘think outside the box’ and look within its boundaries and see areas that could actually generate sufficient revenue. One area is tourism which generated US$43 million in 2018 and this can be expanded as Malawi is indeed a beautiful place to visit with a variety of places to visit as mentioned in Malawi’s official tourism website, key among them being Lake Malawi which is the fourth largest fresh water lake in the world by volume and third largest lake in Africa, and is an area the government can harness particularly once the current coronavirus pandemic ends. Indeed, it is about time that Malawi changes its trajectory and become one of the fastest growing economies on the continent as it has all the necessary mechanisms for it to succeed. Malawi is not known to be mineral rich like its neighbours in its region but the recent ‘gold rush’ has risen hopes that the country sits on gold deposits which could bode well for its economy in the long run and with a new administration which wants to destroy the scourge of corruption this could further improve the country’s economic fortunes and make it less reliant on donor aid, as well as further diversifying its economy.

‘Chakwera’s new cabinet’

Chakwera recently announced a new cabinet consisting of 31 ministerial positions. This is considered large, especially for a small country like Malawi and the President’s recent appointments did not inspire the confidence the country was hoping for as allegations of nepotism and conflict of interest have arisen. However, Chakwera is fully aware of this, he has to be as Malawians expectations were really high following the dismal performance of the previous administration. According to my own analysis of Chakwera’s decision to select a large cabinet maybe due to the fact that he is in a large coalition which requires positions to be shared amongst the parties involved. The Human Rights Defenders Coalition, which led sustained countrywide protests against the disputed 2019 elections, were not impressed and said it was concerned by nepotism and regionalism in the selection of ministers. President Chakwera defended his new cabinet and emphasised that his decision was based on merit, in a speech to reassure the nation. He also further stated in a message to his new cabinet that, “I want you to hear me and to hear me clearly …You each have five months to produce results that will give Malawians confidence that change has come. Should you prove the sceptics right by being lazy, abusive, wasteful, arrogant, extravagant, divisive and corrupt, I will not hesitate to have you replaced.” Should Chakwera indeed stay true to his word Malawi may finally be on the ‘right path’ to a brighter future.

Vladimir Putin 3.0

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been in power for 20 years now since been appointed firstly as the successor of Boris Yeltsin on December 31 1999 under whom he served as Prime Minister and winning all subsequent elections since 2000 which have often been seen as a rubber stamp to legitimise his rule which has often come under scrutiny of late, particularly the Kremlin’s heavy handed approach to the Russian opposition. However, he came into power at a time of turmoil in the country following almost a decade of upheaval under Yeltsin and was seen by many Russians as someone who would bring order. The Russian constitution stipulated that the President serve two terms only and in 2008 Putin stepped down as President as he had served his two terms and Dmitry Medvedev (Who was previously endorsed by Putin) was elected President following the 2008 elections. Putin was never going to make himself fade away from the political scene as he was soon appointed Prime Minister for a second time, and it is without a doubt that most executive power remained in his hands. Putin also has a grand strategy for Russia to ‘reclaim’ its status as a superpower which was found waning under his predecessor Boris Yeltsin who’s rule coincided with the fall of the Soviet Union and loss of territory and sphere of influence which Putin has stated was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20^th century”.

Hence, his ambitious strategy to recreate Russia to its former powerful place in history through a variety of well-constructed and controversial means as it goes through a period of revision. Russian Irredentism (a claim to reclaim so called “lost” territory) seems to have been revitalised following the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine which was in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and it appears this ideal could be on Putin’s agenda in the 21^st century, something that resembles ‘neo-sovietism’. In 2012 he was back at the podium as President after previously accepting a proposal to stand as President in the 2012 elections as the Russian Constitution allowed him do so as Article 81, Section 3 of the Russian Constitution clearly states that: “One person may not hold the position of Russian president for more than two terms in a row” according to The Brookings Institution. There were also constitutional amendments which allowed the new president to have a six-year mandate rather than four years as before and will be able to serve no more than two consecutive terms, allowing Putin to stay in office until 2024, an era I call ‘Vladimir Putin 2.0. By this time, it was evident that Putin was preparing a way to expand his rule well into the 21^st century and astonishingly the constitution is undergoing an amendment yet again to allow him to rule until the year 2036, a third way for Putin to reinvent himself as ‘Vladimir Putin 3.0’.

This opinion piece will discuss how Putin will attempt to reinvent himself for a third time as President and what will this next stage of his Presidency in Russia bring to his country as he attempts to create a ‘greater Russia’ through well thought out plans and strategies that he has constructed.

Putin’s ‘surprise’ announcement- ‘No not really’

This began in January 2020 when President Putin proposed plans to change the constitution which includes amending the rules that limit presidents to two consecutive terms and weakening the powers of the presidency. His current term expires in 2024. Following this decision by President Putin Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that the government was resigning to help facilitate these changes proposed by the President. According to some sources the government’s resignation caught some ministers by “surprise”. The surprise resignation should not be confused with an internal revolt or some apparent chaos which often inflicts even the most well managed governments. Make no mistake of it, President Putin likes stability, hence his somewhat military and authoritarian style of leadership which were likely influenced by his previous background in the Soviet-era security agency, the KGB, where he served as a nondescript midlevel officer.

Putin appears to want to strengthen the State Council which he has called “highly effective” and comprises the heads of Russia's federal regions and is also chaired by him. Long time ally and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigned but Putin asked him to serve as deputy of the National Security Council which is also chaired by Putin. This could be interpreted by some that Medvedev could be a possible successor to Putin since Medvedev has served as both President (2008-2012) and Prime Minister (2012-2020), which signifies Putin’s “trust” in him. Putin himself previously served as Prime Minister under Medvedev but it is widely believed that he still held most power and with a weakened presidency being proposed he could once again claim the position as Prime Minister yet again for a third time after his current term as President ends in 2024 but this remains to be seen and he could still have “other surprises” up his sleeve as he has gained a reputation of being a man of mystery.

The state duma (Russia's Parliament) passed this proposal unsurprisingly given the fact that Putin’s party, United Russia, dominates the duma and have been very loyal voters to Putin in the past. According to House Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin no members of the duma voted against it, although there were 43 abstentions.

What are Putin’s future plans, and will they succeed?

Putin’s relationship with the west continues to be frosty due to a number of factors, some of which includes interfering in other countries affairs, mainly those who were once under its sphere of influence when it was the Soviet Union. This includes Georgia (not to be confused with the US state of Georgia) following a brief conflict between the two in August 2008 following Georgia’s concerted air and ground campaign on Tskhinvali, the main city in South Ossetia (a disputed territory of Georgia), following clashes between Georgian troops and separatists and tensions were already high prior as in April 2008 Russia strengthened ties with South Ossetia while Moscow was angered by Georgia’s desire to join the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), (does the 2014 Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine ring a bell?). The Georgian forces were later pushed out by Russian forces who allegedly entered South Ossetia to aid its citizens and not long after Russia recognised South Ossetia’s independence, one of a few countries in the world to do so.

The most high-profile takeover was Crimea which violated international law and it is alleged that Russia is also supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine in the disputed regions of Donetsk and Luhansk . The conflict in these regions appear to be in a stalemate and there are fears by some observers that Russia may want to freeze the conflict to what is termed a “frozen conflict” in a similar manner as the Transnistria conflict to Russia’s benefit. Putin’s “dream” of uniting the self-declared separatist republics in eastern Ukraine under the name Novorossiya, or New Russia, was halted in 2015 following a Minsk ceasefire agreement and he argued that the territory which also consists of Novorossiya and even parts of what is now sovereign Ukrainian territory once belonged to the Soviet Union in a televised Q&A session on television. Russia has also been strongly accused of meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections allegedly in favour of Donald Trump. Russia’s place in the world is increasingly alongside the regimes of authoritarian rulers which include Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, and Xi Jinping of China to mention a few, and much can be said about someone by the company they keep.

Some of these leaders that Putin has close ties with are involved in increasing their influence in their region, whether through supporting disputed regimes or military expansion in a specific area, to interfering in the domestic affairs of a territory and not to mention cracking down on the opposition or any political dissent. This gives us a bit of an idea as to what Putin will be busy doing should he stay in power. Yet another interesting piece to this “political jigsaw puzzle” for advancing Russia’s sphere of influence is the Union State consisting of Russia and Belarus, which is a supranational union which Russia appears to want to deepen further so that the two countries can integrate into one country.

Russia appears to be the one pushing for this deeper integration with discussions on this deeper integration going on for about 20 years and it appears that Putin has become impatient with the progress and has put conditions on gas discounts that Belarus has heavily relied on for its energy needs. There is speculation that Putin will head this union should the ongoing talks succeed in deepening integration between the two countries as a way of staying in power once his term finishes in 2024 and this union project could be key to why Putin wants to change the constitution and help him achieve this highly likely endeavour to stay in control of the Russian Federation and perhaps “grow” its national boundaries. However, cracks in deepening this union are already showing as the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko feels Russia is bullying his country into joining this union and has gone as far as quipping that Russia should rather join Belarus than the other way round before controversially saying “Russia is part of Belarus”. Belarus has also developed “cold feet” over further integration with Russia following the takeover of Crimea.

There have also been fears in Kazakhstan that is northern regions could be taken over by Russia in the event of instability due to its large ethnic Russian population where it suspects Russia could annex the region under the pretext of “protecting” Russian citizens “Crimean style”, but most analysts argue that there is no imminent threat although it is without a doubt that Russia wants Kazakhstan to continue to be in its sphere of influence. This sphere of influence that Russia wants to increase can be linked to its much proposed Eurasian Economic Union which is argued to be the brainchild of Putin and was ratified in 2014 and came into force in 2015 and consists of some countries which were previously part of the Soviet Union and is seen as “the most advanced organisation for regional cooperation the former Soviet bloc has seen” and an alternative to the EU. However, this union just like its union with Belarus has also developed cracks, and my analysis of this is due to some of its members which include Kazakhstan and Belarus being well aware of Putin’s “grand plans” with Kazakhstan going as far as stating this economic union being a economic and not a political undertaking.  There are many other plans that Putin will want to implement as part of his strategy for strengthening Russia globally but in this opinion piece I have focused more on his desire to “expand Russia’s borders”. This is part of the revision of Russia as stated by Chester A. Crocker in his article, The Strategic Dilemma of a World Adrift, Survival (2015) as it seeks to expand its sphere of influence much to the chagrin of its immediate neighbours.

“Despite Russia’s internal weaknesses, Putin has boosted the country’s global standing. The lack of constraints on his power, his investment in modernizing his military, and his ability to exploit asymmetries of interest between Russia and the West have allowed Putin to seize opportunities, even those that violate international laws” according to Andrea Kendall-Taylor in Foreign Policy. Hence, his desire to "strengthen" Russia's position as a global superpower. He had been able to do this particularly from 2000 to 2008 thanks to high oil prices which enabled him to expand Russia’s influence. However, following the coronavirus pandemic this may well have slowed down his plans or at least put them aside to tackle this pandemic which has hit Russia hard as it has amongst some of the worlds highest infection rates. The recent drop in oil prices and economic growth have added to his woes and he might have to change cause drastically to maintain Russia’s stability. Russia has moved away from liberalism under Putin in favour of a more realist narrative. What I find interesting though is one of his most closest allies, Dmitry Medvedev did embrace liberalism to a lesser degree during his presidency and with Russia finding itself in a tumultuous period Putin could do yet another surprise like Yeltsin and step down and prepare the way for his intended successor, but unlike Yeltsin choose a more moderate figure like Medvedev or perhaps someone more authoritarian than himself. Although according to my analysis of how Putin has projected himself, it appears he is likely going to remain the kingmaker of Russian politics and remain in an influential position for some time to come, only time will tell.

Burundi after Nkurunziza

The East African country of Burundi is a country with a long history of conflict since gaining its independence from Belgium in 1962 but it has also been a country of resilience in the face of untold human suffering with its last civil war which lasted for almost 12 years from 1993 to 2005 as a result of the assassination of its democratic elected President Melchior Ndadaye in October 1993 and led to widespread civilian casualties with up to 300000 killed. The decade long civil war ended as warring parties saw the need for a peaceful settlement in 2005. Former rebel leader Pierre Nkurunziza won the 2005 elections and finally brought what the citizens of Burundi, the African continent as a whole and the international community were all longing for, a ‘lasting peace’ as the country took positive steps towards peacebuilding initiatives to help the country heal from its wounds of the past and ‘look to a brighter future’ where conflict would hopefully be absent. However this was never going to be a ‘smooth road’ and bear in mind that this country is located in the great lakes region which has long being a hotspot of militia activity as the country also borders the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and often has felt the effects of conflicts there as is evidenced by the frequent spill overs.

In the year 2015 the already fragile peace the country was in became severely affected by anti-government protests as the Nkurunziza regime went ahead with a vote for the President to govern for a third term which caused a lot of political upheaval to the point that the country precipitated towards a civil war, particularly when President Nkurunziza won the disputed elections which many election observers said was neither free nor fair. It is estimated that over 1000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands fled the country to neighbouring countries. The Nkurunziza regime has held on but not without severe criticism, including from fellow African states. Negotiations have been on-going to end the violent political stalemate that has heavily eroded what little was left of the country’s democratic political space and Nkurunziza being aware of this decided not to go for a fourth term to the surprise of many but did hand pick his successor which without surprise won the 2020 election which was not only disputed yet again but was held in a precarious time as the coronavirus pandemic has affected the whole world, including Burundi which received a lot of criticism for holding and for the government not taking the pandemic seriously enough. The new president was scheduled to be sworn in August 2020 but following President Nkurunziza’s untimely death from a ‘heart attack’ according to the Burundi government this appears to have left some sort of ‘power vacuum’ as Nkurunziza was without a doubt the ‘kingmaker’ and would have still influenced the country’s political sphere for a long time to come. This leaves the country in a period of uncertainty and a need for all its political players to respect the rule of law, support a democratic alternative rather than a military one to move forward during this time as the country finds itself in a catch 22 situation yet again in its history where it is in need of national healing, a peaceful solution to its political situation and for democracy to prevail in the country.

I will discuss three scenarios the country could take, and it is my hope that the country takes the right path to peace and allow for a truly democratic narrative to be at the forefront of this journey.

Scenario one: Another Civil War could erupt

The Burundi military has had a significant influence over the affairs of the country and are deeply embedded in the ruling National Council for the Defence of Democracy – Forces for the Defence of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) party which in itself is a product of such a system as it was previously a rebel movement and thus consists of a number of military officials many of whom ‘most likely’ harbour presidential ambitions if the country’s history is anything to go by. Evariste Ndayishimiye was handpicked by Nkurunziza as the ruling party’s candidate for the 2020 election as a compromise candidate due to his military background but has also been viewed by some political analysts as moderate and not engaging in identity politics. Although he was due to be sworn in as President in August, following the outgoing Presidents death a power vacuum was created leading to the country’s Constitutional Court to name president-elect Evariste Ndayishimiye as the country’s president with immediate effect and is due to be sworn in on June 18. This decision by the Constitutional Court appears to be in violation of the country’s constitution which stated that in the event of a president’s death the speaker of parliament should take over, as stated in Article 121 of the Burundi constitution (2018).

The speaker of parliament or the National Assembly is none other than Pascal Nyabenda who was actually Nkurunziza’s first choice. As a result of the Constitutional Court ruling this 'could' trigger a power struggle between the two and this could worsen the already precarious situation in the country which has experienced political instability of civil war proportions since 2015. This was accompanied by bloodshed and an attempted coup, and unless tensions are not diminished by more respected organisations such as the East African Community (EAC), the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN) and other international bodies as soon as possible given the country’s unfortunate track record of plunging into a crises, the country risks being exposed to another genocide. Hence, the need for a peaceful transition to power is extremely important and it is my hope that these two parties and any other ‘unknown’ parties who may already be planning to react or respond to protect their interests will set aside any of their differences amicably for the benefit of the country.

Scenario 2: A Democratic dispensation prevails

This scenario may look rather unlikely given Burundi’s deeply entrenched authoritarian system which epistemically can trace its origins to colonialism which created the animosity that prevailed particularly in the past between the ethnic Hutu’s and Tutsi’s and still lingers today. However, Evariste Ndayishimiye could change all that and use his moderate political views to unite the country beyond tribal designations so as to place the right people in government positions that are qualified to do so. It is said that Ndayishimiye abhors corruption, a ‘disease’ that has entrenched the country’s levels of poverty to appalling levels, leading the country to be one of the worlds poorest nations as result, and this view by the newly elected president is indeed welcomed and this could give a glimmer of hope that his disdain for corruption could hopefully be also translated into respect for the rule of law and thus a support for a democrat dispensation where by the rule of law will be respected, something that has largely been absent in the country as a number of human rights violations and extrajudicial killings have occurred under the administration of his predecessor.

The late President still wanted to have significant influence over the country’s political future and was even given a new political role known as the ‘supreme guide to patriotism’ as a way of influencing the running of state affairs. This arrangement would have weakened Ndayishimiye’s presidency but now that Nkurunziza is no longer around this effectively gives him much needed political clout to carry any of his plans through and seek to unite the country and repair its dented international image as the country is in great need of foreign direct investment. However, the election he won has largely been disputed by the opposition and the international community and the way it was held was far from democratic as rights groups say the vote took place under continuing repression of the opposition, independent media and civil society. According to Human Rights Watch “The elections took place in a highly repressive environment with no independent international observers”. Hence, Ndayishimiye has his work cut out for him and without a doubt he has to engage with the opposition as failure to do so will risk the country plunging into an ‘abyss’ which could engulf the whole region, hence the need for the international community to monitor this transition closely and understand the complex political situation in the country to enable them to handle the situation effectively and appropriately and not out of ignorance. Preferably as insider–partial mediators as they originate from the region where the conflict is occurring and have intimate knowledge of and connections to the disputants as defined by Ole Elgström, Jacob Bercovitch and Carl Skau in their journal article titled: Regional Organisations and International Mediation: The Effectiveness of Insider Mediators (2003), which would be a satisfactory start to any peace initiative that I encourage should occur to put Burundi on the right trajectory.

Scenario 3: ‘Rwanda as a development model’

This scenario is rather more of an outlier of scenario 2 but can nevertheless be also deemed as another scenario or sequence of events that could occur. I state this scenario as the best-case scenario for the country given its similarities to neighbouring Rwanda as the two countries share same cultures and histories. At one point in their histories both countries were part of a single territory called Ruanda-Urundi during colonialism before separating after their independence in 1962. Rwanda went through a brutal genocide in 1994 but has since been transformed into ‘a poster child’ for development in Africa and has experienced substantial economic growth as it has undergone rapid industrialisation due to the successful policies of the Kagame administration since 2000 which was influenced by Singapore’s rise and according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), poverty in Rwanda plunged from 56.7% in 2005 to 39.1% by 2014. According to the World Food Programme 65% of the Burundian population lives in poverty in 2018 and is ranked 185^th out of 189 countries in the 2019 Human Development Index.

The country has attempted to make economic gains since the end of the civil war but due to socio-economic issues, corruption and other economic malpractices this has not been forthcoming. The country has also been in turmoil since 2015 when Nkurunziza was allowed to rule for a third term leading to civil unrest that has significantly dented the already fragile economy which has witnessed international donors cutting financial support which accounted for 42% of the country’s budget due to the human rights violations caused by the Nkurunziza regime. This means the country desperately needs to improve its human rights image under the new administration to remove these sanctions to attract international investors and have policies in place to be a safe place for investments like neighbouring Rwanda which has pulled out the red-carpet to welcome investors and has even gone as far as creating a state agency to accelerate investment called the Rwanda Development Board. The new administration in Burundi will do well by replicating the Rwandan government on such initiatives to bring back investors through a creation of a ‘Burundi Development Board’.

It is very interesting to note that some observers see links between Rwanda’s development model and Rwandan President Paul Kagame as “the story of Rwanda’s economic emergence remains closely intertwined with the personal narrative of President Paul Kagame” according to African Business. Kagame’s rule has also brought stability which is what investors are looking for as opposed to Burundi, despite some of the Rwandan governments’ own accusations of human rights violations. This evidently shows how Kagame’s own ‘hands-on approach’ on the economic front has been extremely beneficial to the development of Rwanda and there are similarities between Paul Kagame and Burundi’s in-coming President Evariste Ndayishimiye as both have their origins in the military and both appear to be against identity politics and perhaps Ndayishimiye could be Burundi’s 'Kagame' in terms of improving the country’s dire economic situation, but not neglecting the democratic reforms as well for the country to truly reach ‘a turning point’ for the better.

Opinion: Paul Biya is still Cameroon’s President but for how much longer

Paul Biya has been President of the Republic of Cameroon since 1982 and served as Prime Minister from 1975-1982. This puts a combined total of almost 45 years in a position of political power, making him the longest serving leader in Africa when including both his tenure as Prime Minister and his current tenure as President which is now in its 37^th year (making him the second longest ruling President in Africa currently after the President of Equatorial Guinea) . However, as history has shown us on the continent, the longer the leaders reign, the more controversial it becomes and Biya is no exception. To give a vivid example of African leaders, both past and present, who are or have ruled for a long time and have been deemed as controversial include Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe (37 years), Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (42 years), Kamuzu Banda of Malawi (30 years), Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea (40 years) and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda (34 years), to name a few. Hence, this opinion piece seeks to explore Biya’s rule, what has kept him in power for so long and why at 87 years of age (he is Africa’s oldest ruler) does he still hold on to power.

 

From Prime Minister to President

Paul Biya was sworn in as the country’s first Prime Minister on June 30, 1975 following amendments to the country’s constitution for this post proposed by the ruling party, the Cameroon National Union (CNU), which he previously served as Secretary-General. In 1979 he was designated as the successor to the founding father of Cameroon Ahmadou Ahidjo following a law that designated the Prime Minister as the President’s successor, according to bona udeze, in his book: Why Africa?: A Continent in a Dilemma of Unanswered Questions (2009). Ahmadou Ahidjo resigned and this paved way for Biya to succeed him as President on November 6, 1982. However, by 1983 tensions developed between Biya and Ahidjo whom the former accused the latter of orchestrating a coup allegedly through his aides according to a book published by Europa publishers titled: A Political Chronology of Africa (2001). This clash between Biya and Ahidjo gives us a vivid example of how Biya has come to treat his opponents or those he distrusts which has been evidently with a ‘heavy hand’ as this opinion piece will discuss on.

Paul Biya a democrat?

Paul Biya’s rule can largely be described as authoritarian and it appears that despite the country been a multi-party democracy the behaviour of the state and its conduct in various domains, particularly in the conduct of elections has made it to be seen as anything other than a fledging democracy. This is because the country has been run by the same political party since its independence from former colonial power France in 1960, albeit a renewed version of it called the People's Democratic Movement (RDPC) party that was founded by Biya in 1985. However, it was under Biya’s rule that Cameroon transitioned from a one-party state dominated by the CNU to a multi-party democracy and implemented a number of democratic reforms which his supporters credit him for. The RDPC has faced little resistance from other political parties as is evidenced by its ‘successful’ but ‘controversial’ wins in elections since the first democratic election in 1992 which the party narrowly won and has won all subsequent elections to date. Thus, this makes Cameroon a dominant-party system which Andrew Heywood defines in his book Politics (2013) as “a competitive system in which a number of parties compete for power in elections but is dominated by a single major party that consequently enjoys prolonged periods in power”.

The RDPC has been in power for 35 years but overall if we are to take into consideration the CNU before Biya reformed it, this will total 60 years this year. Other notable examples of dominant-party systems throughout the world include the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, which was in power for 54 years until 2009, the Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) in Zimbabwe since 1980 and the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa which has been in power since 1994. Heywood goes on to further state that although this system should not be confused with a one-party system (a system where only one political party virtually controls all institutions unopposed with a disregard by some for universal suffrage) which appears to have multiple interpretations, it may at times exhibit similar characteristics, with the RDPC seemingly behaving more like a one-party system that is intolerant of opposition than a multi-party system.

‘Election Authoritarianism’

The 1992 Presidential election was a landmark moment in Cameroon’s post-independent history and probably a moment the opposition in Cameroon regrets to ponder on as it was the closest they ever got to unseating Biya who won the election narrowly with about 40% of the vote and opposition leader John Fru Ndi acquiring almost 36% according to the African elections database. The decision to have this election came as a result of popular discontent and the ‘democratic wave’ sweeping the world following the fall of communism in 1989 in what US academic and political commentator Samuel P. Huntington called ‘the third wave’ of democracy. Despite this gesture by Biya to allow for a ‘democratic dispensation’ to materialise in Cameroon, make no mistake that Biya was going to allow it to happen ‘democratically’ as this was further from the truth as I will explain.

The Ministry of Territorial Administration (MINAT) managed the election and evidence of its bias were laid bare, as noted in Yonatan Morse, in his article Electoral authoritarianism and weak states in Africa: The role of parties versus presidents in Tanzania and Cameroon (2017), as the MINAT was under the president’s purview. Officers were appointed by Biya and shockingly opposition parties were prevented from monitoring sub-divisional tallying centers resulting in many seeing these elections as fraudulent. This appears to be the case with subsequent elections in 1997, 2004, 2011 and 2018 where the opposition parties have alleged widespread fraud and with the exception of the 1992 election Biya has attained over 70% of the vote ever since. His rule is set to continue as a controversial amendment to the constitution scrapped the limit to presidential terms in 2008.

This undemocratic approach to elections reveals why Biya has remained in power to date with the recent elections in 2018 merely affirming this as Biya clinched yet another win in ‘authoritarian fashion’ as he has done so since 1992, hence the phrase ‘election authoritarianism’ being a fitting description to this political soap opera which has been well oiled and stage managed. The use of fake election observers or “zombie observers” as it is termed in the 2018 election was one of the most spectacular political circuses I have ever come across as was the case with so called international observers calling the elections “good” during an interview on Cameroon Radio Television and allegedly claimed were representing Transparency International which Transparency International denied according to Foreign Policy. This vividly shows how far Biya will go to stay in power and he has certainly mastered the art of staying in power but for how much longer as the state appears to be in an early phase of disintegration unless urgent democrat reforms are implemented.

This is because  “It is now facing widespread political strife and conflict on another front following the insurgency in the country’s North with Boko Haram, that has taken aim at the country’s very foundation, the combination of French- and English-speaking regions into a single state” according to Foreign Policy. This latest conflict in Cameroon’s anglophone region in the North-West and South-West has escalated into a dangerous separatist movement following protests by lawyers and teachers demanding better provision for the use of English leading Cameroon to be on the brink of a wide-scale civil war. The question that arises here is; does Biya really have the energy to face these crises and with old age creeping up could he eventually be disposed in the same manner as Zimbabwe’s late former President Robert Mugabe (aged 93 at the time) who was forced to resign following a military intervention in November, 2017.

 

‘Absent President’

Paul Biya is seen as having a “hands off” approach to governing Cameroon. This can be attributed to the country’s unusual dual heritage of both British and French colonial rule where the President since 1982 is from the francophone regions, while the Prime Minster is from the anglophone regions and as head of government Biya leaves the Prime Minister to do the job (however Biya who is the Head of State still holds most executive powers), hence Biya’s hands off approach according to a Cameroonian analyst. However, this absence which Cameroonians have become accustomed to has also been attributed to Biya’s poor health as he is almost 90 years old. Biya was largely absent from the campaign trail prior to the country’s 2018 election and made only a few public appearances and left most of the campaign work to his aides. His most recent high-profile absence even caused death rumours forcing the government to issue a denial of it. This is because, like almost every country in the world, Cameroon has also been affected by the recent outbreak of the coronavirus and finally made a televised address to the nation after two months of silence on May 19, 2020 with his previous address to the nation being on March 5, 2020, which is unusually scarce for such a serious situation where many world leaders have been making regular televised addresses, some having them almost daily to reassure their nations which Cameroonians have also come to expect from their leader. Biya is known for been out of his country for long periods of time which solidifies him being called an ‘absent president’.

According to the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) Biya has spent at least four-and-a-half years on his “brief private visits” during the course of his presidency and In some years, like 2006 and 2009, Biya has spent a third of the year out of the country, with his favourite destination apparently being the five-star Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva which has striking views of Lake Geneva and Mont Blanc. The coronavirus pandemic comes at an incredibly difficult time for the country adding to the woes of the already crisis hit nation where strong democrat leadership is needed with a visible president to help guide the country through this challenging period.

 

 

Who will win the 2020 US Presidential Election?

The United States of America (USA) is scheduled to hold its Presidential election on Tuesday, 3 November 2020 and the events leading up to this date have been a bumpy ride to say the least and with the current coronavirus pandemic still ongoing, with the United States having the highest number of cases globally of over 1500000 with over 90000 deaths according to worldometer (as of 20 May, 2020), this has led to the outcome of the election being increasingly uncertain. However, it is quite clear at this juncture that the presidential election is between the incumbent President, Donald Trump and former Vice President and likely the 2020 Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden. Trump received very little opposition within republican ranks, with the Republican National Committee (RNC) going as far as ‘pledging undivided support’ for his re-election as early as the first quarter of 2019. The opposite however can be said for Joe Biden whose presidential campaign has been on a ‘roller-coaster’ even before it left the ground and his front runner status often coming into question, particularly after some poor performances on the debate stage and early democratic primary losses which caused his campaign to tank before making a resounding comeback after a much needed win in South Carolina following key endorsements, most prominently from Jim Clyburn who is the highest ranking African American in congress. Bernie Sanders endorsement followed a fiercely contested primary in an effort to unify the party and align behind Biden to defeat Trump. Biden has also received the endorsement of former President Barack Obama who remains popular among democrats and is seen as a kingmaker in that party.  

‘The economic factor’

Prior to the coronavirus pandemic the US economy was doing well and of course President Trump was not shy in expressing it and mentioned that “it is the best it has ever been”. It also appears history has been on the side of US presidents presiding over strong economies, according to US News as it claims as many as five incumbent presidents failed to win re-elections because of being weighed down by economic crises, and these include Herbert Hoover, William Taft, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. However, the emergence of the coronavirus has sent the US economy into a tailspin to levels not seen since the 2008 global financial crisis and even greater to as far back as the 1929 Great Depression with the official unemployment rate hitting 14.7% in April with over 20 million Americans unemployed as a result of the shutdowns on economic activity. This economic crisis has put a dent on Trumps re-election chances where he previously had been seen as the favourite to a larger extent. Despite the economic carnage caused by the pandemic Trump is still hopeful for economic growth in the fourth quarter and if the tide turns against the coronavirus and the economy were to rebound before the elections this could improve Trumps standing in the race.

The coronavirus pandemic has also led to the rare occasion where the election is not exclusively about the economy which was Trumps ‘re-election card’ and according to CNN ‘whoever is most trusted to deal with the coronavirus will win re-election’ and according to one poll Biden has been seen as more favourable among voters than Trump on handling the coronavirus by 56% to 40% margin. Biden has performed better in swing states such as Florida and Michigan and this could help him capture the 270 electoral votes. However, despite the ‘tide’ going in Biden’s favour at the moment as the white house has faced some staunch criticism for its handling of the coronavirus, the 2016 presidential election has been a case study on how polls can sometimes be wrong forecasters which at the time appeared largely in favour of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 

‘The age factor’

President Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States at the age of 70 years old and this broke the record of the previous holder of the oldest tenant of the White House, Ronald Reagan who was 69 (Hillary Clinton would have also been 69 had she been declared the winner). The fact that the two front runners back in 2016 can be ‘considered old’ and Bernie Sanders (who was around 74 years old at the time) and has been popular among young voters and gave both Mrs Clinton and Mr Biden headaches on the campaign trail and at the time of dropping out of the 2020 democratic race at 78 still had considerable support. This vividly shows, in my view, that age will play a very small factor in this race with Trump (73) still having a considerable following and a strong base who feel the President has been unfairly targeted by the “ mainstream media” and “far-left”. We should also bear in mind that several leaders from around the world have been elected democratically such as the late Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi who was elected at 88 in 2014, and former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 2018 at the age of 92 with young people been credited for propelling his Pakatan Harapan political party coalition to power which will bode well for Biden who hopes to attract the many young people who previously supported Sanders in the democratic primary and will be 77 years old should he win the election and break the record set by Trump on being the oldest president. Although Biden could find some of his gaffes as his undoing if he is not careful which will definitely be fodder for the Trump campaign. Thus, predicting who will win this election has proven to be a challenge, particularly with the current circumstances caused by the coronavirus pandemic, with the US political landscape being deeply divided along partisan lines, but regardless I have a ‘hunch’ of who ‘could’ most likely win the election, and how about YOU?