Tomorrow’s US presidential election is unlike any other in living memory. Previous contests have been rancorous and some were described in existential terms.
Never, at least in the past few decades, have Americans faced the realistic prospect of the incumbent rejecting the outcome, and rarely have partisan divisions risked escalating into armed conflict.
We at the International Crisis Group have a mandate to end, prevent and mitigate violent conflicts wherever they emerge. While our efforts over the past quarter-century have taken us all around the world, not until this year have they required us to focus squarely on the US.
In many countries, elections often come with a risk of bloodshed, owing to such factors as extreme political polarization, winner-take-all stakes, a proliferation of weapons in the hands of armed groups with political agendas and flawed electoral processes that leave many people doubting the results.
Under these conditions, elections can be particularly dangerous when each candidate has a sizable and committed base of support. These risk factors are all in some measure present in the US today.
However, the one that stands head and shoulders above the others is the incumbent’s refusal to commit to respecting the will of the voters.
US President Donald Trump continues to insist that the only way that he could lose is if the election is rigged, and he has yet to call on his supporters to refrain from violence.
If the world were to look at the US the way the US often looks at younger, less robust democracies around the world, it would see a country still experiencing the lasting legacies of slavery, civil war, lynching, segregation, labor strife and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples.
It would observe a country awash in firearms, where the number of gun homicides each year is unmatched by any other high-income country.
It would find that there is a deeply rooted white-supremacy movement that the US government’s own experts warn is growing in virulence.
The wider world would also shake its head at the racial discrimination, economic inequality and police brutality that constitute chronic sources of tension in the US, periodically bubbling over into street demonstrations and, sometimes, civil unrest.
It would note that many major US cities have heavily militarized police forces that deploy weapons and tactics similar to those used by the US military in war zones and interventions abroad.
It would see that the dominant political parties are at loggerheads over profound questions of national identity, with many Democrats framing the election as a make-or-break moment for democracy, and many Republicans viewing Trump as a bulwark against cultural and demographic changes to the nation’s character.
In short, outside observers can see in the US today a lot of what the US historically has warned others about.
Moreover, the US election is being held under the cloud of a runaway pandemic. A massive increase in mail-in voting would likely create openings for Trump to contest the outcome.
Given the perceived stakes, both sides can be expected to fight any dispute over the result fiercely, and, given how convoluted US election laws are, a contested or inconclusive result could lead to months of tense indecision.
Equally worrying is the gathering threat posed by armed far-right cells, like the 13 men who were last month arrested for plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat.
These groups might try to intimidate voters at the polls and could stir up trouble if the outcome is disputed.
If they take to the streets, they will most likely be challenged by activists from the left; violent fringe actors could join in the mix, raising the risk of bloodshed.
A clash that disrupts voting or ballot counting in a crucial state could escalate quickly, particularly if Trump claims victory before the formal procedures are complete and calls his backers into the streets.
To be sure, the US has a fair chance of making it through this difficult moment without a spike in violence.
It still has advantages that other countries studied by the Crisis Group typically lack, including an apolitical military, a vibrant press and a well-developed civil society.
Leaders from both parties — including, notably, senior Republicans — have already signaled that their candidate could lose, which helps to head off demagogic claims of vote rigging after the fact.
Nonetheless, the situation warrants extraordinary precautions. State and local officials, along with the relevant civil-society groups, should be acquainting themselves with the legal tools at their disposal and preparing to use them to ensure that voting and ballot counting proceeds without disruption.
Media outlets that have not already done so should establish policies to avoid declaring a winner prematurely, and the major social-media platforms will need all hands on deck to police disinformation.
Foreign heads of state and government also have an important role to play. Trump might on the night of the election try to pre-emptively declare victory, claiming that only votes tabulated that day should count and pressuring his foreign counterparts to recognize his purported success.
They must resist doing so. Until one candidate concedes, or the process has run its course, foreign officials should refrain from making any congratulatory calls.
Should things take a turn for the worse, those with direct channels to Trump and his inner circle should send a clear message: “If you interfere with the vote count or refuse to accept a peaceful transfer of power, you will be on your own.”
With luck, and perhaps a little help from its friends, the US can dodge the election bullet and start repairing the social fractures that have helped bring it to this dangerous precipice.
For that to happen, it would need to apply some of the lessons it so frequently dispenses to others.
Robert Malley, a member of the US National Security Council (NSC) staff under former US presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group. Stephen Pomper, a NSC staff member under Obama, is the group’s senior director for policy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS