As the US presidential election enters its final leg, it has thrown up a real prospect of Donald Trump coming to power. Many fear this prospect, yet there are an equal number of people who love Trump and what he stands for. This raises another important question. If the US president has so much impact on global affairs and the lives of ordinary people, should not the international citizens also have a say in choosing the US president? Now, before you discard this question, let me give you some reasons.

A fundamental tenet of the US foreign policy is that global democracy is conducive to the interests of the American citizens. The main argument of this globalist agenda is that, in the words of George W Bush, “in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.” Consecutive presidents in the US—including Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, and Barack Obama—have portrayed dictatorships and theocratic rule as challenges to peace and freedom, especially in the Middle East. They assume that if people are allowed freedom, they will choose responsible leaders who will promote peace and stability. In vigorously pursuing this policy, the US frequently makes inroads into internal affairs of many countries, including that of Nepal. In the 1960s, the US waged a covert guerrilla war against the Chinese occupation of Tibet from Nepal. Until November 2005, they vigorously supported the monarchy in a bid to contain the Maoists. Then, there are also the positive elements of US support to Nepal’s democracy, development, and society.

Global player

The US efforts to protect its economic interests have a direct bearing on peace and development of areas around the world. The US is competing directly with Russia, China and Iran in controlling trade routes, markets, and natural resources, including oil and gas. The US economic interest, rather than the globalist democratic agenda, is the primary driver of conflict around the world. It is for this reason that the US started the Gulf War, and it is for this reason that there is tension in the South China Sea and in South Asia. The US pivot to Asia is a sustained military and diplomatic strategy that has led to the extensive militarisation of the region; it has a direct impact on the relations between India, China, and Nepal.

 The US has a significant impact on climate change. There is a huge difference between the two partisan presidential candidates regarding climate change. While Trump thinks the climate crisis is a hoax, Clinton thinks this is both a challenge and an opportunity to create more jobs. Ordinary farmers in Nepal do not need scientists to tell them about the impact of climate change, as it has begun to directly affect their everyday lives. Without the cooperation of the US, a leading contributor to global warming, efforts at combatting climate change cannot succeed. Ordinary Nepali farmers, therefore, have a real stake in the current US presidential elections.

The US war on terror has directly affected Nepali people. Hundreds of Nepali citizens have fought the war alongside the Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan. This goes way back to the First World War when thousands of Nepalis died protecting British oil interests in Mesopotamia. Massacres and deaths of Nepalis continue in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day, whether they are members of the British Gurkha or mercenaries enlisted in private security companies supporting the US war on terror.

Choose wisely

A fundamental tenet of democracy is that every individual should have a say in matters that determine their fate. Democracy is not just about representation, it is also about having a voice. If the US is a symbol of democracy, and if its actions have an impact on the lives of global citizens, then the US government must seek to protect the rights of these citizens and listen to their voices.

Even if the US were willing to allow the UN to lead the global agenda, including the war on terror and refrain from pursuing unilateral militaristic policies, the US would continue to have a significant impact on global affairs.

As it stands now, the US president is expected to represent only the interests of the American people. However, US presidents themselves have made claims that they represent the human civilisation and global progress. For example, in a famous globalist speech in 2003, George W Bush said Iraq War was part of the global democratic revolution and freedom. Ronald Reagan gave a similar speech in 1982, where he portrayed himself as a champion of democracy and freedom. If the US can intervene in global affairs to promote democracy and freedom, then as a corollary, global citizens should also be allowed to take part in US affairs to end racism and economic inequality and advance freedom within the US.

Allowing global citizens to have a say in the US presidential election can lead to the election of someone who might compromise US national interests. But then, allowing only the US citizens to vote can also lead to the same result. Expanding the electorate might actually help because global citizens appear to be more aware of the issues facing Americans than the US citizens themselves. In addition, there is no consensus on what constitutes the US interests; otherwise, there would not have been such a vigorous and animus-filled debate between the democrats and the republicans.

Insecurity and fear

The practicality of the whole thing may be the most significant counterargument. And this highlights the essence of my argument: it is important for the American people to realise that their choice, and their vote, can have a significant impact on the lives of global citizens, including that of ordinary farmers in Nepal.

While America is on a mission to end despotism and promote freedom in the rest of the world, it is surprising to see that the American people are supporting a person who could undermine these very values in their own country.

The advance of freedom is said to be the calling of the US, and yet, this very value is under threat. Could the US election help to prove that even if people are allowed the freedom to choose, they might choose someone who will do just the opposite? It is no accident of history that demagogues and extremist groups first create insecurity and fear and then feed on those very insecurities and fears to come to power. Isn’t the same true in the Middle East? Of ISIS? Of Putin?c

The author can be reached at [email protected]