The world holds its breath as it waits to see which way America will sneeze

All eyes will be on Washington this week as Americans go to the polls on Tuesday to elect a leader whose enormous influence will invariably affect every nook and cranny in the world. In fact, with more than a third of the electorate having already voted, Tuesday is the last day of the election.

Because of the power it wields, the US evokes all sorts of emotions around the globe. Everybody has their tuppenceworth about the country. Love it or loathe it, it’s almost impossible to ignore it. As the cliché goes, when the US sneezes the world catches a cold. Any process that is likely to lead to a change in its leadership will therefore hold the world’s attention.

Attitudes towards the US in this country tend to vary, which may explain the often unfocused or inconsistent nature of the South African government’s relationship with Washington. There’s always been a strand of ideological antipathy towards the US, especially from the critics of the so-called Washington consensus. It is seen as the queen bee of the capitalist system.

Part of the animus is also a holdover from a past in which the US gave succour to the apartheid government while being hostile to those fighting for its downfall. Some of these critics are now in government or have some influence on it. It’s interesting that the so-called radical economic transformation brigade, the looters who are essentially supporters of Jacob Zuma, have hitched a ride on the bandwagon, decrying the US as the high priest of what they call white monopoly capital — a catch-all insult for those with money and perceived to be harbouring Western or capitalist sympathies

Then there are those who criticise US critics, saying people in glass houses should not be in the business of throwing stones. They’re at a loss for words as to how people living in a country such as SA, riddled with so many problems, could have the temerity to find fault with the paradise that is the US. Don’t we have enough problems of our own? They’re particularly exercised about any criticism of Donald Trump, who’s taken an interest in the fate of SA’s white farmers. What about Zuma? is the rejoinder one gets to any criticism of Trump — and we should, I guess, all carry the can for Zuma.

But irrespective of our views or ideological inclinations, we have to talk about the US and praise or criticise it where necessary, because it matters. What it does or says affects us, probably more than any other country except our own. In the world order that emerged after World War 2, the US and its friends tolerated SA with its racist policies because it was regarded as a bulwark against the communism that was viewed as a bigger and more immediate threat to Western interests.

The US also turned a blind eye to apartheid because it had its own skeletons in the form of slavery and its aftermath. Apartheid SA always viewed its relationship with the US as crucial to its own survival. And it would do anything to nurture that friendship. For instance, John Vorster sold Rhodesian leader Ian Smith down the river to ingratiate himself with the Americans — a decision that thankfully ultimately led to a free Zimbabwe.

Perhaps no US president was more supportive of the South African regime than Ronald Reagan. His policy of constructive engagement was nothing but appeasement of apartheid. “Our experience is that the Americans are not at present trying to make trouble for us,” the then foreign minister, Pik Botha, said in a letter to a sympathetic MP. SA was so certain of US support that it sent its troops into Angola in an effort to expel the Cubans fighting in the civil war on the side of the ruling MPLA — doing its bit to keep the region free of communists. It failed to either get rid of the Cubans or bring down the MPLA government.

But when the tide finally turned, not even Reagan’s support could save apartheid. Sanctions by the US congress, which survived a Reagan veto, were ultimately crucial to the eventual demise of apartheid.

Many people around the world will be hoping Trump gets his comeuppance and that a saner man takes over. The aversion has nothing to do with ideology. He’s not a man of ideas. He seems to have neither anchor nor principle. He’s just an awful individual who should be nowhere near any position of authority, not least that of so-called leader of the free world. People have had enough of the blatant lies, the childish name-calling, the bullying and the bigotry. He has not only diminished his country’s standing, he’s lowered and poisoned the quality of international dialogue, bedevilled alliances and emboldened autocrats. Only Vladimir Putin apparently seems pleased with his performance. The world can’t afford another four years of Trump in the White House. What’s so scary, though, is that, despite his shenanigans and corruption, a huge chunk of the US electorate seems determined to reward him with a second term.

But in a sense Trump has done Americans a favour by alerting them to the inadequacies and flaws of their constitutional order. It has taken one man who wants no truck with norms or precedents a mere four years to game the system. For instance, the country is already on edge because of his refusal to say if he’ll concede should he be defeated. Four more years of Donald Trump could do irreparable damage not only to the US but to world order.

Many people around the globe will be glad to see the back of Donald Trump. It’s a pity only Americans enjoy the privilege of giving him the boot.