A Former US Ambassador To South Africa Talks About Democracy

Winding down with lots of chill time ahead of you, you may want to save this mail for when you put your feet up. I came across the article below – reposted yesterday - and thought it may interest to you. It is insightful insofar it highlights how little (or how much) we really know about the various players and moreover, their interactions. It’s a damn fine article, well written. So enjoy (or delete). 03 December 2024 Former US ambassador also says SA Constitution would provide a model for reform of US system A Global Forum Patrick Gaspard in conversation with Ann Bernstein To mark 25 years since its establishment, in November 2020, CDE initiated a series of discussions with global experts and prominent individuals in South Africa on important questions on democracy, business, markets and development. The series was relaunched in 2022 as CDE Conversations. This is the 29th event in the series. Ann Bernstein: I am delighted to welcome the former U.S. ambassador to South Africa, Patrick Gaspard. He served as a leader and strategist in the Democratic Party and as executive director of the Democratic National Committee. President Obama appointed him as ambassador to South Africa from 2013 to 2016. He then became president of the Open Society Foundation for three years, after which he was appointed president of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank in Washington D.C. Let us begin with your personal story. I understand that your parents came from Haiti and decided to emigrate to the Congo, and that was where you were born? Patrick Gaspard: That is true. My father was a newly trained lawyer in Haiti when the brutal ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier regime came into power. During that time anyone who dared call for free and fair elections would be dealt with, often violently. My father had the disadvantage of being one of those people and was told in no uncertain terms that if he did not stop agitating for democracy he would ‘disappear’. He knew this was not an idle threat. The pressures at home coincided with the wave of post-colonial liberation movements sweeping across Africa, which provided an opportunity for my father to move to the Congo and work as an educator. Given the repression back home, my father decided to stay in Africa for most of the 1960s. My mother eventually joined him, and I was born there. Our family then migrated to the U.S., to New York, where I was raised. I am somebody who is proudly American, but also proudly Haitian-American, and always boastful of my Congolese origins. Ann Bernstein: You have been involved in city, state and national politics within the Democratic Party. Tell us a little bit about that, and especially your relationship with President Obama? Patrick Gaspard: My work as an activist started when I was young. My father would drag me off to one demonstration after another. We demonstrated outside the United Nations, the White House and many other places to promote accountability and social justice. We wanted to ensure that the power of the U.S. would be leveraged for human rights, for the empowerment of civil society, and shared prosperity around the world. That early training in protest work led to my involvement in an extraordinary organisation called the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, which I joined as a teenager. I then got swept up in the later stages of the anti-apartheid movement, protesting with luminaries like John Lewis and Harry Belafonte and many others, some of whom were arrested in front of the South African Embassy. I received my PhD in activism from that extraordinary generation. Through my work as a unionist, I understood that in America, electoral politics is the path to policy change. I made a concerted effort to learn all I could about local politics, and consequently helped to elect the first African American mayor of New York, David Dinkins. I worked in the Dinkins administration for some time and then made my way into the federal system. In 2003, as I was working with other union leaders to shape the path of the next national election, I met a young, bright state senator from Chicago, Illinois, who had an interesting name. It did not take me long to realise that Barack Obama had a powerful ability to distil complicated issues and express them in ways that resonated with America’s aspirational DNA. Shortly after the meeting, I told my wife that I had just met the person who would be the first black President of the United States, and that when he decided to run, I would be working with him. I served on President Obama’s national campaign as the political director and then became the White House political director and then the leader of the Democratic National Committee. Eventually, the President appointed me ambassador to the country that I had first visited 30 years prior, South Africa. The anti-apartheid movement is where I had cut my teeth as an organiser, and it was the privilege and honour of a lifetime to be appointed U.S. ambassador there. Ann Bernstein: I know you had a big impact in South Africa and still have many friends here. Now you head a leading American think tank in Washington, the Center for American Progress. This is a relatively new organisation compared to the doyens of think tanks in Washington. When and why was it founded and how has it helped the Biden administration craft and implement policy? Patrick Gaspard: I want to recognise and thank my South African friends for their role in my education. I arrived in South Africa with much to learn, and they were instrumental in enlightening me about the country’s history and the challenges it faces. The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded 20 years ago by a group of policy innovators with a flair for public communication who understood the interrelationship between social movements and the institutions of government and democracy. When John Podesta and colleagues founded CAP, Republicans held power in the Capitol and the White House. He and many others deemed it necessary to institutionalise progressive thinking and the values that would support an inclusive society by developing policies for education, the economy, healthcare, and national security issues. Their goal was to set up an organisation that would leverage deep and rigorous research, rely on a muscular kind of advocacy and utilise a nimble communication strategy. CAP was launched with a considerably smaller staff and a much smaller budget than it has today and proved to be effective from the time of its launch until today. In national security, specifically post-9/11, it was successful in advocating American retreat from the conflicts in the Middle East, helping to create a policy pathway for that withdrawal. Then, by insisting we needed considerable investment in health care in America, a policy was developed in a small conference room at CAP that eventually evolved into what is known as ‘Obamacare’. We are proud of our modest role in creating policies central to the Biden administration’s post-pandemic economic recovery efforts. That includes a new industrial policy, one that takes into account the role of non-traditional workers in the industrial space and ties it to what we call ‘the care economy’. It has been a great journey for the organisation, and it is a privilege to take it forward. Ann Bernstein: Is there a particular policy your think tank has crafted that has been implemented by the Biden administration and has that worked out as you planned? Patrick Gaspard: While I am careful about what it means to claim credit, we are clear about our influence. Our work in climate change and environmental justice has laid the groundwork for the United States to meet its emission goals, catalyse a real revolution in renewables and clean energy, and incentivise battery and computer chip production. Ultimately, these investments will increase American competitiveness into the second half of the 21st century. The real challenge has been in how we communicate the benefits that government actions have produced and will produce for ordinary Americans. We are seeing the positive impact of Biden’s policies in marginalised cities like Kalamazoo in Michigan, on small business owners, and on African American communities isolated from the centres of economic opportunity. Resources have gone into disconnected spaces and to revitalise economic thoroughfares. Those are the benefits we need to tell everyone about, in effective ways. Ann Bernstein: You were once asked in an interview what Americans get wrong about South Africa and Africa more generally. Your wonderful answer was, “everything”. Could you tell us a bit about how you see this? Patrick Gaspard: I would still give the same response about both sides of the Atlantic. There are a number of misperceptions in the U.S. about the continent at large and about South Africa in particular. Unfortunately, most African nations only feature in our news when there is a crisis there. Most often, our media presents African countries as aid recipients rather than as places of innovation and entrepreneurship. They know nothing about the burgeoning generation of young, optimistic, entrepreneurial people who understand that the future belongs to them if their journey is accompanied by democratic reform. Americans view South Africa as a place frozen in time. While they are aware of apartheid and Nelson Mandela, there is very little knowledge of the post-apartheid decades. Americans are unaware of our agricultural trade with South Africa, let alone that tens of thousands of cars in the U.S. are manufactured in South Africa. Most Americans do not know that healthcare excellence in South Africa has been transformational, not just for South Africa, but also for the U.S., as witnessed by the calibre of epidemiologists from South Africa making their mark throughout the world. I would also add that at a time when many Americans are looking for things we can do to reform our democratic institutions; we do not appreciate there is powerful scaffolding around the values we hold dear in the South African Constitution, which is one of the most advanced, sophisticated, progressive constitutions anywhere in the world. I once attended a dinner with the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former Supreme Court Justice, and she told me that if she could remake America’s Constitution overnight, she would draw on South Africa as her framework. There is so much that is not understood about South Africa and the African continent. But folks are coming around, albeit slowly. Ann Bernstein: Let us turn this around. I think most South Africans do not understand America very well, with all its many achievements as well as its challenges. What was your experience? Patrick Gaspard: I think that is right and would add that many South Africans understand us better than we understand South Africa, but there are considerable gaps in that knowledge. While the U.S. is the shining beacon of hope economically and democratically, there is a ‘Disneyfication’ in many places abroad, and definitely in South Africa. During my time in South Africa, I often had conversations with university students who would make comparisons between African states and the U.S., and I thought these views were somewhat distorted. There was an assumption that the upward mobility inherent in the ‘opportunity economy’ was an inevitable outcome for all U.S. citizens. These views lacked a nuanced understanding of the inequalities in our society, the fragility of our institutions, and the threats of illiberal actors that were exposed post-6 January 2021. Ann Bernstein: In relation to the U.S. elections, let me start with something you once said, that “the U.S. President will be chosen not by the American people, but by an archaic election system cobbled together in the 18th century that is both undemocratic and deeply vulnerable to corruption.” Tell us why you made such a sweeping charge about the U.S. electoral system. Patrick Gaspard: That sounds a little prescient. In 2016, I had several South African friends in my residence as we were waiting for the results of the U.S. election. There was a palpable gasp once it became apparent who the next President would be. It hit home that many people around the world have a deep connection to America and many understand that the direction of American democracy impacts their countries. I felt it that night in South Africa. I strongly believe it is right to call the Electoral College archaic. I think it is an anti-democratic system. There have been five times in U.S. history where the winner of the popular vote did not win the election due to the Electoral College; that is deeply undemocratic. The Electoral College was a compromise crafted in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention in America after the tension between the northern states and the southern states about whether or not there would be a system of one person one vote, or if there would be a different kind of representative republic. At the time, one-third of the population of southern states were slaves and were not counted as citizens who could vote. For that and other reasons, voters in the north outnumbered those in the south. The Electoral College system was adopted to placate southern concerns about the republic being dominated by non-slaveholding northern states. Consequently, a southern state like Virginia, where 60 per cent of its population were slaves, was able to boost its electoral power. That is why for the first 36 years of ‘democracy’, in 32 of those years the American president came from Virginia. Right now, a voter from Wyoming counts four times as much as a voter in California. If things continue on this trajectory, in about 20 years, 70 per cent of the U.S. population will be represented by only 30 per cent of U.S. senators. Additionally, candidates do not campaign nationally; instead, they primarily focus on the ‘tipping-point states’ to win the 270 electoral college votes. Currently, there are seven of those states , “in play where the margins are close”, and we are unclear whether or not they are going to move towards Republicans or Democrats. They are three of the industrial states known as ‘the Blue Wall states’ – Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin – and then four ‘Sun Belt states’ – Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina. We all know that states like California and New York will vote for Kamala Harris overwhelmingly. We also know that states like Arizona and Ohio will swing for Donald Trump, so neither candidate has to spend that much time or resources in those states. The U.S. election will therefore be overwhelmingly decided by about 10 per cent of the population. Until the U.S. moves to a system of one person, one vote, as opposed to the Electoral College, we will find ourselves in these difficulties. Ann Bernstein: At one level, one person, one vote, seems self-evidently the right way to go, for any country. But there are also scholars of constitutional systems and democrats who say that you need some geographic weighting, and that all electoral systems have problems. Is there any argument for a reformed Electoral College, with some kind of geographic or other kind of weighting? Patrick Gaspard: That is an important question, one deserving of a Congressional Commission or a Presidential Panel, or even a transparent and accountable public conversation to determine the merits of the system and whether it works. There are many reforms that I would propose in our system. One that requires examination is the process of electing candidates through primaries. Also, we have two major parties, and candidates who do not come from those parties struggle to get the resources and the public attention to capture large numbers of votes. Additionally, we have an extraordinary problem that does not exist to the same extent anywhere else in the world: the influence of big money in our politics. The sums we spend for local contests in America dwarf the resources used for national political campaigns everywhere else in the world. The numbers are absolutely astonishing. Finally, the growing polarisation that exists in our country is exacerbated by our first past the post-primary system. I am not going to pretend to be an expert in electoral systems all around the world, but I think there are things that I have seen in many places, including in South Africa, that could be the basis for real innovation in the U.S. One thing I do know: the Electoral College as it is currently constructed, needs revision and reform. We are no longer in 1787, and the assumptions made by the framers of that compromise have been proven to be incorrect. Yet we still have not reformed a system designed to deal with those antiquated challenges. The time to do that has come. Ann Bernstein: The whole issue of money in politics is such a difficult and fraught one, whether it is in India, South Africa, Brazil or America. But Michael Bloomberg put an extraordinary amount of money into his campaign to be a presidential candidate and was singularly unsuccessful. So, there is some indication that money is not everything. There are enormous dangers, but money is not always enough to win votes. Patrick Gaspard: Bloomberg became a national figure because he spent ungodly sums of money in his New York mayoral campaign. However, your larger point about his personal resources in the presidential contest not being sufficient to get him anywhere close to the finish line is well noted. I will note that at this moment, though, a select number of extraordinarily wealthy Americans are playing outsized roles in our politics on both sides. It is extraordinary that Elon Musk can use his social media platform in a way that is clearly partisan, but that is not counted as a political contribution in our campaign finance system. Then he can just announce that he is going to move over $100 million into a political action committee to elect a candidate while he is clearly in coordination with that candidate and his campaign. There are aspects about our system that are broken and need real examination and reform. Ann Bernstein: I always think electoral reform is so hard because it is like asking the turkeys to vote for Christmas, but hopefully we can get there. What do you think will happen in America if Donald Trump wins? Patrick Gaspard: We have several reference points from the past. His last presidency started its first day with a prejudiced, radical declaration banning Muslims from America. This led to instant mobilisation and litigation that his administration eventually lost, but it started on that footing and ended, infamously, with an autocratic grasp for power, which the whole world witnessed, on January 6. His presidency was characterised by prejudice on the front end and anti-democratic chaos on the back end. In the middle of his tenure, the only legislative success Trump can claim is a tax programme that benefited the richest one per cent of Americans, which significantly lowered corporate taxes and expanded the national deficit to an extent not seen before. This policy did not benefit the working-class Americans he purported to be a champion of, but instead exclusively benefitted his wealthiest friends. He did nothing to deal with the profound challenge of affordable housing in America, nor did he tackle the fentanyl and opiate crises that he had lamented about during his campaign. As President, he had a series of national security advisors, attorneys general, and chiefs of staff, who one after another, had to publicly rebuke him for executive overreach. Many fell on their swords and were removed for trying to keep some checks and balances on the president in place. We also saw chaotic governance of the U.S. response to the global pandemic that led, by some estimates, to hundreds of thousands more deaths in the country than would have occurred if Trump had simply followed the guidance from his own advisors and healthcare agencies. All that happened on his watch. Now we are in a moment where it is abundantly clear that Donald Trump not only intends not to surround himself with senior members of the Republican Party but also intends to replace 50 000 federal employees with political hacks that will do his bidding in agencies that are supposed to be independent of executive authority and above partisan politics. He has mentioned that he would weaponise the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the National Guard to go after people he deemed, “enemies of the state”. By that, he means his own personal, political enemies. He has threatened the press with this abuse of authority, as well as some members of the Democratic Party. There is a 922-page manifesto for the seizure of power called Project 2025. Seventy per cent of the authors of this authoritarian playbook declare that if they have another opportunity to be in power, they are going to blow up the federal civil administration currently in place. I could go on and on about the clear and present danger that this person represents for our democratic institutions and basic rights in this country, but I think his vulgarity, and inability to express any empathy at all for the vulnerable people in our country speaks volumes about how he would govern if he was given a second term. Ann Bernstein: The election is very close. What is going on in America, and why do so many people want to vote for somebody with the track record you are describing? And what happened to the Republican Party? Patrick Gaspard: I should note that cynicism and scepticism about democracy are not unique to the U.S. We have seen the rise of autocrats all around the world. There is something about the moment that we are living in. The confluence of multiple global crises like the Great Recession and the Covid-19 pandemic that have created downward pressure on public assets, and the lived experience of average folks who are buried by the cost of living, and by runaway inflation. This is further compounded by hypermigration and the politics of sovereignty around the world. Countries feel the need to build moats and pull up the drawbridge, not appreciating that all these issues are transnational in nature and require multilateral cooperation. The world over, citizens no longer see a democratic dividend. They do not believe that the economy will be better for their children than it was for them, and all of that leads to cynicism and scepticism. In Hungary, India, the U.S and South Africa, people are asking, “How have we benefited from democracy?” and reaching the conclusion that “We need a different direction.” Many of these responses, furthermore, are fuelled by a revolution in the communication ecosystem. We are going through the greatest revolution in human communication since the invention of the printing press. How we interact now, through our screens, in ways that are governed overwhelmingly by algorithms, is having profound global effects. It is also true that in the U.S. both political parties are seen as agents of the wealthiest people in the country. Working class or struggling people are feeling left out. Both parties need to address that perception through narratives and policymaking that puts the majority of people at the centre. As far as the Republican Party is concerned, they have been captured by the Frankenstein monster they built in their basement. Republicans brought some of the worst elements in society into the fold and thought they could control them. They opened the door to people affiliated with violent paramilitary organisations and to extreme white supremacists. They invited those who embraced the rhetoric of violence in politics, and thought they could control the Frankenstein in their basement. Frankenstein got out of the basement, and then became their candidate. Consequently, their primary base has been altered in a way that seems to embolden a cult of personality. Right now, if Donald Trump argues that the sun revolves around the Earth and not the other way around, 80 per cent of his supporters will believe it. We now have a fact-free space that has worsened in the era of social media, at a time when the beast of hatred and bigotry has been fed and become larger. Ann Bernstein: What do you think will happen if Trump wins? How do you think the Democratic Party and the population will respond? Secondly, are you worried about democracy in America? Patrick Gaspard: I and many others are doing everything we can to preserve, protect and promote a set of values that will strengthen American democracy. And those values, of course, must be attached to a set of policy outcomes that indicate that we are listening to our populations, learning and growing with them. Now, what will happen to the Democratic Party if Donald Trump is successful? First, there will be instant resistance across communities. Abortion rights are a huge issue in this campaign; I think the fear of the federalisation of the restrictions on women’s rights is real. There will be mobilisation by institutional democrats and by rank-and-file folk against those actions. There will be fights over tax cuts and Republicans in the U.S. Senate will seek to shut down government services in budget negotiations. There will also be a move away from long-held commitments overseas, NATO being one, as well as the commitment to Ukraine against the illegal invasion of that country by Vladimir Putin, who seems to be on a first-name basis with Donald Trump. The Democrats will contest and litigate to stop the worst offences from happening. And you will also see the protection of whistleblowers inside that government as Donald Trump and his Project 2025 cohort begin to take steps that would crumble checks and balances inside the government. Ann Bernstein: China is often said to be a country that likes certainty and stability for economic and other reasons. Who do you think they want to win? Patrick Gaspard: China would be pleased with a much weaker United States and instability in multilateral institutions like NATO and our traditional allies in the EU. The election of Donald Trump represents that weakness, chaos and instability. Given Chinese interference in the U.S. electoral system in 2016 and 2020, it is glaringly obvious that they have their thumb on the scale for Donald Trump. It is clear that President Xi does not have a tremendous amount of respect for Trump and, as with many other autocrats, he views Trump as somebody easily flattered and manipulated. From my point of view, Donald Trump presents China with an opportunity to extend their power and leverage. Ann Bernstein: This has been a fantastic and really fascinating conversation. Issued by the CDE, 3 December 2024 (Centre for Development and Enterprise) Warm regards Cliff photo CLIFF HALL