N

ot only did Republican candidate Donald Trump win the US presidential election on 5 November 2024 by a landslide, but the Republican Party also captured majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, painting the US map almost entirely red. The fact that the colour blue, representing the Democrats, was confined to certain states sparked intense debate about the political future of the Democrats in the US. Joe Biden’s weak leadership and Kamala Harris’ failure to make an impact as Trump’s opponent have brought arguments about a leadership problem within the Democratic Party to the forefront.

With Trump in the White House and the Republicans holding both houses of Congress, Democratic elites in Washington were contemplating the party’s future when an unexpected name emerged: Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani won the mayoral election in New York, the country’s financial heart, leaving his rivals, who had the support of almost all the elites, behind. The question now being asked in the US media and among the public is: What could Mamdani represent for the future of the Democratic Party?

The Mamdani phenomenon: From zero to mayor in one year

The New York mayoral election, held on 4 November, essentially became a political contest that concerned not just one city, but the entire American political landscape. Mamdani, who won the Democratic Party primaries against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, has become such an extraordinary figure in American society that, just a year ago, it would have been unimaginable that he would become mayor of New York. Mamdani, who is only 34 years old and was born in Uganda, has defined himself as a ‘democratic socialist’ from the outset.

He has also clearly emphasised his Muslim identity on every issue, including Gaza and opposition to Israel. Furthermore, he has promised many socialist-style reforms for the city if elected. He was therefore elected as ‘New York’s first Muslim mayor’. Not only did Mamdani defeat the establishment elites and the traditional Democrat-Republican voter perception in these elections, he also defeated his rivals, who had the strong support of the Israel lobby and Jewish groups. In this respect, Mamdani’s election victory will be remembered as a success story worthy of many books on American political history.

What does ‘democratic socialist’ Mamdani represent for Democrats?

Mamdani won over 50 per cent of the vote in New York, a city that is already democratic and liberal, leaving Cuomo behind. He received the most votes from young people. According to exit polls, he won 78 per cent of the vote among 18- to 29-year-olds, while 56 per cent of voters over 65 voted for Cuomo. This reveals how Generation Z currently views politics in the US.

It is clear that young people are forming their own political views and voting based on them, rather than being influenced by big corporations, the Israel/Jewish lobby, the established elite or the mainstream media. This relatively ‘independent’ approach among young people is quite fitting for the political spectrum represented by the ‘progressive’ wing within the Democratic Party. However, Mamdani occupies a slightly different position due to his Muslim identity. Nevertheless, given his ‘democratic socialist’ rhetoric and his closeness to Bernie Sanders, the ‘most socialist’ senator in the US Senate, Mamdani exemplifies the growth of the progressive wing within American society, particularly among young people under the age of 30.

Undoubtedly, the founding members and moderate elements of the Democratic Party are not particularly pleased with the growth of this progressive wing that is shifting towards socialism. These core elements of the party believe that progressive politics will never win presidential elections in the ‘cradle of capitalism’, and are closely monitoring the potential influence of figures like Mamdani within the party.

While Democratic Party leaders and 40-year-old Democrats in Congress may have their reservations, one thing is certain: young Democrats in the US may well prefer a 34-year-old figure like Mamdani, who promises to tackle economic inequality, to more traditional political figures. While Mamdani’s economic promises were a key factor in his election victory, his identity as a ‘democratic socialist and Muslim immigrant’ also enabled most New Yorkers to see part of themselves in him.

Where could Mamdani go in US politics?

The impact of Mamdani’s highly successful social media campaigns on the public is undeniable. However, the events during and after the election suggest that he could play an even more significant role within the Democratic Party in the future. Although Mamdani was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to become president under the US Constitution, he is widely seen as a strong contender in the near future of Democratic politics.

However, his performance as mayor of New York will, of course, largely determine this potential. If he continues his sympathetic leadership and rhetoric during the election process, as he is doing now, he will maintain his popularity, particularly among young people. This could open new doors for the still very young Mamdani in US politics. His calm and composed demeanour during his meeting with US President Trump at the White House was also seen as an example of his ability to survive in the long and dark corridors of politics.

Ultimately, Mamdani won the New York election with his performance and political rhetoric in just one year. His true strengths and weaknesses will become apparent as he serves as president, but if he can maintain his current momentum, he could become a key figure for the Democrats in the short to medium term. The 2028 presidential elections and the political landscape that emerges afterwards will reveal more about how far he can go in US politics.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

The U.S. has now chosen its new president: Joe Biden. But despite a united front against Donald Trump, Democrat’s victory was on a razor’s edge. In the U.S., many pessimists claim that Donald Trump lost but Trumpism reigns regardless of the election outcome. Nihan Duran interviewed Human Rights Advocate and the former Vice President of World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) Poka Laenui (Hayden F. Burgess) on the future of the U.S. democracy after the Trump administration, rights of the indigenous people, and finally the root causes of Trumpism as another form of populism in the Western world.

When we compare the 2020 U.S. election with the one in 2016 when Donald Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, back then, people were associating Trump’s victory with a reaction to something called “the establishment.” Yet this issue was never raised during the current election. Why do you think it is so?

It is so because, after four years in the White House, Trump’s finger-pointing at the “Establishment” would be a self-critique. Biden did not make an issue about the “Establishment” because he had much bigger fish to fry, Trump’s absolute failure in the Corona Virus war!

Was the debate on “the establishment” baseless?

Yes, as promoted by Trump. His “draining the swamp” of those establishment crooks during Trump’s administration showed that he brought in the dredges into his administration, directly counteracting his accusations against “the establishment.”

So, what did happen to “the establishment”? Simply evaporated?

It is a matter of whose establishment we are trying to address. Trump’s new Republican establishment will evaporate. The Democratic establishment will assert itself, especially in areas where the Republicans will have abandoned as a result of the loss of the White House, the loss of the House of Representatives in 2018, and the loss of its strength in the Senate, still undetermined the extent of their Senate loss.

There have been efforts to recognize the rights of indigenous people both locally and internationally. This paved the way for what you refer to as decolonization. What makes “Trumpism” so peculiar and worrisome for the future of the U.S. democracy and the rights of indigenous people?

I see Trumpism over the last four years as an aberrational swing of the political pendulum to the extreme right, almost to the extent of the early days of Adolph Hitler, who is also elected to lead his country. In the case of the U.S., the election process was able to hold strong and finally oust Trump. But the swing to the Right has left its mark. The pendulum will now swing to the Left.

How extreme will that swing go is questionable, but the center of that question is the character of Joe Biden and the administration he puts together, as well as the team of Pelosi Schumer, as well as the influence of Kamala Harris.

If you ask whether there will be a greater movement to the decolonization of Hawaii to the extent of Independence, I will say, not immediately. But under the Democratic administrations, there has been a loosening up of the present colonization. In 1979, the formation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in Hawaii, in 1993 the public confession in the form of the U.S. Apology Resolution, and in 2016, the adoption of Federal Rules for the recognition of a Native Hawaiian nation. All of this falls short of the call for decolonization, but it shows that under Democratic control, this progress has occurred.

Under Trumpism and his “America First” mantra, the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world and within the current borders of the United States had no room in the Trumpist master plan.

What were the root causes of Trumpism to reign over the last years?

Power! The office of the Presidency, but a fluke of U.S. structure which allows the “electoral college” to select not the most popular but one who managed to collect a majority of the college. Once Trump possessed this power of office, he was able to threaten the weak-kneed Republicans to go along and violate long-established norms in American political life. Those Republicans did so and continued to do so as long as Trump held the power.

How do you connect Trumpism with the overall rise of populism in the Western world?

It is part of the pendulum swing from the threat of non-Western populations and countries. It is a fear of the rise of China especially, as well as Vietnam, India, and North Korea in the East. As Europe looks to the Middle East, they see those countries and peoples whom Europe had reigned over, now bursting forth and not willing to kowtow to European/American influence.

While these events are occurring, the Western world is seeing the decline of their economy, culture, and unity. Trump’s call for “America First” has many pessimists claim sound to the United Kingdom, as well as many other European countries.

Instead of embracing the changing face of the world, the European/American approach is to “circle the wagons” and take a defensive posture against the “barbarians”. They turn to build walls to keep them out, such as Trump’s wall along the U.S. Southern border which never materialized, or his immigration policies which will soon be reversed. European countries have also followed the same approach.

What would embracing the changing world mean? It could mean shared prosperity for all, through the enrichment of peoples’ cultures, religions, economy, and humanity. It could mean denuclearization among a more trusting community of nations, of decolonization allowing all peoples to guide their own futures which would allow for wiser governance and use of resources, and a wider and deeper appreciation of the peoples of the world and all of the treasures they can offer the world.