Connect with us

Features

The Second Term of Donald Trump: What could we expect?

Published

on

Donald Trump

by Tissa Jayatilaka

(This article is based on a talk given to the members of the Sri Lanka Foreign Service Association on the 10th of December, 2024).

I was invited to address you today on the topic of what the second coming of Donald Trump, as President of the United States holds for the United States and the wider world outside of its shores. I was also requested to explain to you the Electoral College process by which a president is elected in the United States. This is a process that baffles even those familiar with the United States and the way its institutions function, as it is markedly different from the way in which other democracies elect their presidents and prime ministers.

I shall try my very best to not confuse you in my attempt to explain the manner in which the POTUS, to use the abbreviation for the President of the United States first used by telegraphic code operators in the 1890s, is elected.

I shall focus, initially, on the second part of my assignment and get it out of the way as soon as possible. That is, I will attempt to explain the US Electoral College process first and then deal with the more fraught and the more alarming first part – which is to deal with the likely consequences that would stem from the return of Donald Trump to 1600, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, District of Columbia – the White House.

In the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the President and Vice President. How this election should be held is described in Article 11 of the Constitution of the United States which says:

Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1961, allowed the citizens of the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections as well: The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States which is treated like a state has consistently had three (3) electors.

As stipulated by the Constitution, every state has a number of electors or members of the Electoral College equal to its number of senators and members of the House of Representatives. Each of the 50 states of the United States, regardless of its size and population, has two senators. The number of members of the House for each state depends on the population of that state. Hence, smaller the population of a state, smaller will be the number of members of the House it is entitled to. Conversely, the bigger states are entitled to a bigger number of House members. So, if we take Oregon as an example, with its six House members and two senators, the state has eight electors, Montana with two House members and two senators has four electors, while California, with a far bigger population than both Oregon and Montana, has 52 members of the House and two senators, which entitles it to 54 electors.

Besides California, Texas, Florida, and New York have the highest number of electoral votes. Except for Nebraska and Maine, 48 of the 50 states in the US and the District of Columbia use a winner-take-all system, awarding all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. The Electoral College system also means a candidate can win the election without winning the popular vote, as seen in Donald Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton who won 2.8 million more votes than Trump.

One major criticism of the winner-take-all system is that the candidate who receives a majority of the popular vote in a given state gets all of that state’s electoral votes. Let us take Oregon again as an example. As we noted earlier, Oregon has eight electors. If a candidate wins Oregon, even by one vote, he/she gets all eight of its Electoral College votes.

Critics of the winner-take-all system think it is undemocratic for a winner of the popular vote of a state, to get all of that state’s Electoral College votes. Bruce Lohof, a valued friend, congenial colleague and former United States Foreign Service Officer, in an article titled What Must the Other Democracies Think? compares US democracy with fellow democracies and observes:

But how is it that in the 21st century, a Montana Elector represents only 282,000 Montanans while a California Elector represents 720,000 Californians. Worse, how is it that the candidate who receives a majority of Montana’s – or California’s – popular vote gets ALL of the state’s Electoral College votes? Shouldn’t voters be represented equally? And shouldn’t candidates who get, say, 55% of the popular vote, get 55% of the electoral vote? Why do they get to clear the table, poker style?

On five occasions, including two of the last six elections, candidates have won the Electoral College, and thereby the presidency, despite losing the nationwide popular vote. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 addresses some of the shortcomings in the Electoral College process but not all of them. There are those Americans who argue for the dismantling of the Electoral College. According to a September 2024 report of the Pew Research Centre, 63 percent of Americans support the abolition of the Electoral College. According to the US National Archives, public opinion polls have shown that Americans favoured abolishing the Electoral College by majorities of 58% in 1967; 81% in 1968; and 75% in 1981.

The United States came close to abolishing the Electoral College when the late Democratic Senator Birch Bayh (Indiana) led an attempt to amend the Constitution in September 1969 in order to do so. The House voted 339 to 70 in support of the measure. However, led by the Southern senators and helped by extremely conservative Midwestern Republicans, the proposal was defeated in a filibuster.

Be the above criticisms and observations as they may, what we know is that during a presidential election, a citizen does not vote, odd as it may sound, directly for the president, but for a slate of electors pledged to vote for one or the other candidate. In the months leading up to the presidential election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, the political parties in each state typically nominate their own slates of would-be-electors. The state’s popular vote determines which party’s slate would be made the eventual electors.

In total, the Electoral College comprises 538 members (made up of two senators for each of the 50 states =100 + 435 members of the House of Representatives from all of the 50 states and three from the District of Columbia). A presidential candidate must win a majority of the Electoral votes cast to win – that is, at least 270 if all the 538 electors vote.

Members of the Electoral College meet and vote in their respective states on the Monday, after the second Wednesday after election day. Then, on 6 January, a joint session of Congress meets at the Capitol to count the votes and declare the outcome of the election, paving the way for the Presidential inauguration on 20 January.

We must bear in mind that the Electoral College is neither a place nor a permanent body. As I stated at the beginning, it is only a process and also as noted above, in each state, political parties designate their slate of potential electors well before the November presidential election. The Electoral College of 2028 will most likely be different from that which elected the President of 2024.

Now, for the second part of my presentation today. What are we to expect from the 47th President of the United States once he is inaugurated on 20 January, 2025? Crystal ball gazing or trying to forecast anything about the future as I plan to do in the next several minutes is, to say the least, a colossal undertaking, especially so when attempting to predict what an unpredictable man, such as Donald Trump, would do once he is back in the saddle as President. In addition to all of the foregoing I must confess that I strongly dislike Donald Trump, the man who is more flawed than most of his predecessors. And this fact makes a dispassionate assessment of him and what his second term might be like, an enormous challenge. Subject to these caveats, let me chance my arm. And I take heart from a comment made by the well-known journalist David Brooks in his recent piece in the Atlantic titled How America got so mean in which he says:

America became a place where 74 (sic) million people looked at Trump’s morality and saw Presidential timber.

It has been said that there is no Republican Party any more, only a Trump Party. And this distorts everything. The Republicans have signalled that they will render complete loyalty to the agenda of their leader. Troy Nehls, a sycophantic, Republican congressman from Texas recently said of the President elect:

He’s got a mission statement, and his goals and objectives, we need to embrace it (sic). All of it. If Donald Trump says jump three feet high and scratch your head, we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads.

If Nehls’ language is extreme, the sentiment behind it, is not. Many Republicans have vowed nearly unquestioned support for Trump’s policies and decisions. Many invoke what they call Trump’s mandate to justify their unwavering support, the kind of rationale normally reserved for a large electoral victory. Yet Trump did not actually win in a landslide. According to available statistics, Trump won less than 50% of the popular vote, beating Kamala Harris by a mere 1.6 points. That is, the smallest margin of victory in a US Presidential Election since 1888!

Trump’s picks for his Cabinet to-date and to other major positions leave much to be desired. Not only are most of them seriously unqualified but are uncouth and allegedly guilty of criminal conduct. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s former nominee for Attorney General, who consequently withdrew his candidacy, is a good illustration of the foregoing. A Trump loyalist with little legal experience, he has been investigated by the House Ethics Committee over allegations that he may have “engaged in sexual misconduct and illegal drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favours to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct”.

(To be continued)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Rethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya

Published

on

University of Peradeniya

A recent discussion by former Environment Minister, Eng. Patali Champika Ranawaka on the Derana 360 programme has reignited an important national conversation on how Sri Lanka plans, builds and rebuilds in the face of recurring disasters.

His observations, delivered with characteristic clarity and logic, went beyond the immediate causes of recent calamities and focused sharply on long-term solutions—particularly the urgent need for smarter land use and vertical housing development.

Ranawaka’s proposal to introduce multistoried housing schemes in the Gannoruwa area, as a way of reducing pressure on environmentally sensitive and disaster-prone zones, resonated strongly with urban planners and environmentalists alike.

It also echoed ideas that have been quietly discussed within academic and conservation circles for years but rarely translated into policy.

One such voice is that of Professor Siril Wijesundara, Research Professor at the National Institute of Fundamental Studies (NIFS) and former Director General of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya, who believes that disasters are often “less acts of nature and more outcomes of poor planning.”

Professor Siril Wijesundara

“What we repeatedly see in Sri Lanka is not merely natural disasters, but planning failures,” Professor Wijesundara told The Island.

“Floods, landslides and environmental degradation are intensified because we continue to build horizontally, encroaching on wetlands, forest margins and river reservations, instead of thinking vertically and strategically.”

The former Director General notes that the University of Peradeniya itself offers a compelling case study of both the problem and the solution. The main campus, already densely built and ecologically sensitive, continues to absorb new faculties, hostels and administrative buildings, placing immense pressure on green spaces and drainage systems.

“The Peradeniya campus was designed with landscape harmony in mind,” he said. “But over time, ad-hoc construction has compromised that vision. If development continues in the same manner, the campus will lose not only its aesthetic value but also its ecological resilience.”

Professor Wijesundara supports the idea of reorganising the Rajawatte area—located away from the congested core of the university—as a future development zone. Rather than expanding inward and fragmenting remaining open spaces, he argues that Rajawatte can be planned as a well-designed extension, integrating academic, residential and service infrastructure in a controlled manner.

Crucially, he stresses that such reorganisation must go hand in hand with social responsibility, particularly towards minor staff currently living in the Rajawatte area.

“These workers are the backbone of the university. Any development plan must ensure their dignity and wellbeing,” he said. “Providing them with modern, safe and affordable multistoried housing—especially near the railway line close to the old USO premises—would be both humane and practical.”

According to Professor Wijesundara, housing complexes built near existing transport corridors would reduce daily commuting stress, minimise traffic within the campus, and free up valuable land for planned academic use.

More importantly, vertical housing would significantly reduce the university’s physical footprint.

Drawing parallels with Ranawaka’s Gannoruwa proposal, he emphasised that vertical development is no longer optional for Sri Lanka.

“We are a small island with a growing population and shrinking safe land,” he warned.

“If we continue to spread out instead of building up, disasters will become more frequent and more deadly. Vertical housing, when done properly, is environmentally sound, economically efficient and socially just.”

Peradeniya University flooded

The veteran botanist also highlighted the often-ignored link between disaster vulnerability and the destruction of green buffers.

“Every time we clear a lowland, a wetland or a forest patch for construction, we remove nature’s shock absorbers,” he said.

“The Royal Botanic Gardens has survived floods for over a century precisely because surrounding landscapes once absorbed excess water. Urban planning must learn from such ecological wisdom.”

Professor Wijesundara believes that universities, as centres of knowledge, should lead by example.

“If an institution like Peradeniya cannot demonstrate sustainable planning, how can we expect cities to do so?” he asked. “This is an opportunity to show that development and conservation are not enemies, but partners.”

As climate-induced disasters intensify across the country, voices like his—and proposals such as those articulated by Patali Champika Ranawaka—underscore a simple but urgent truth: Sri Lanka’s future safety depends not only on disaster response, but on how and where we build today.

The challenge now lies with policymakers and planners to move beyond television studio discussions and academic warnings, and translate these ideas into concrete, people-centred action.

By Ifham Nizam ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Superstition – Major barrier to learning and social advancement

Published

on

At the initial stage of my six-year involvement in uplifting society through skill-based initiatives, particularly by promoting handicraft work and teaching students to think creatively and independently, my efforts were partially jeopardized by deep-rooted superstition and resistance to rational learning.

Superstitions exerted a deeply adverse impact by encouraging unquestioned belief, fear, and blind conformity instead of reasoning and evidence-based understanding. In society, superstition often sustains harmful practices, social discrimination, exploitation by self-styled godmen, and resistance to scientific or social reforms, thereby weakening rational decision-making and slowing progress. When such beliefs penetrate the educational environment, students gradually lose the habit of asking “why” and “how,” accepting explanations based on fate, omens, or divine intervention rather than observation and logic.

Initially, learners became hesitant to challenge me despite my wrong interpretation of any law, less capable of evaluating information critically, and more vulnerable to misinformation and pseudoscience. As a result, genuine efforts towards social upliftment were obstructed, and the transformative power of education, which could empower individuals economically and intellectually, was weakened by fear-driven beliefs that stood in direct opposition to progress and rational thought. In many communities, illnesses are still attributed to evil spirits or curses rather than treated as medical conditions. I have witnessed educated people postponing important decisions, marriages, journeys, even hospital admissions, because an astrologer predicted an “inauspicious” time, showing how fear governs rational minds.

While teaching students science and mathematics, I have clearly observed how superstition acts as a hidden barrier to learning, critical thinking, and intellectual confidence. Many students come to the classroom already conditioned to believe that success or failure depends on luck, planetary positions, or divine favour rather than effort, practice, and understanding, which directly contradicts the scientific spirit. I have seen students hesitate to perform experiments or solve numerical problems on certain “inauspicious” days.

In mathematics, some students label themselves as “weak by birth”, which creates fear and anxiety even before attempting a problem, turning a subject of logic into a source of emotional stress. In science classes, explanations based on natural laws sometimes clash with supernatural beliefs, and students struggle to accept evidence because it challenges what they were taught at home or in society. This conflict confuses young minds and prevents them from fully trusting experimentation, data, and proof.

Worse still, superstition nurtures dependency; students wait for miracles instead of practising problem-solving, revision, and conceptual clarity. Over time, this mindset damages curiosity, reduces confidence, and limits innovation, making science and mathematics appear difficult, frightening, or irrelevant. Many science teachers themselves do not sufficiently emphasise the need to question or ignore such irrational beliefs and often remain limited to textbook facts and exam-oriented learning, leaving little space to challenge superstition directly. When teachers avoid discussing superstition, they unintentionally reinforce the idea that scientific reasoning and superstitious beliefs can coexist.

To overcome superstition and effectively impose critical thinking among students, I have inculcated the process to create a classroom culture where questioning was encouraged and fear of being “wrong” was removed. Students were taught how to think, not what to think, by consistently using the scientific method—observation, hypothesis, experimentation, evidence, and conclusion—in both science and mathematics lessons. I have deliberately challenged superstitious beliefs through simple demonstrations and hands-on experiments that allow students to see cause-and-effect relationships for themselves, helping them replace belief with proof.

Many so-called “tantrik shows” that appear supernatural can be clearly explained and exposed through basic scientific principles, making them powerful tools to fight superstition among students. For example, acts where a tantrik places a hand or tongue briefly in fire without injury rely on short contact time, moisture on the skin, or low heat transfer from alcohol-based flames rather than divine power.

“Miracles” like ash or oil repeatedly appearing from hands or idols involve concealment or simple physical and chemical tricks. When these tricks are demonstrated openly in classrooms or science programmes and followed by clear scientific explanations, students quickly realise how easily perception can be deceived and why evidence, experimentation, and critical questioning are far more reliable than blind belief.

Linking concepts to daily life, such as explaining probability to counter ideas of luck, or biology to explain illness instead of supernatural causes, makes rational explanations relatable and convincing.

Another unique example that I faced in my life is presented here. About 10 years ago, when I entered my new house but did not organise traditional rituals that many consider essential for peace and prosperity as my relatives believed that without them prosperity would be blocked.  Later on, I could not utilise the entire space of my newly purchased house for earning money, largely because I chose not to perform certain rituals.

While this decision may have limited my financial gains to some extent, I do not consider it a failure in the true sense. I feel deeply satisfied that my son and daughter have received proper education and are now well settled in their employment, which, to me, is a far greater achievement than any ritual-driven expectation of wealth. My belief has always been that a house should not merely be a source of income or superstition-bound anxiety, but a space with social purpose.

Instead of rituals, I strongly feel that the unused portion of my house should be devoted to running tutorials for poor and underprivileged students, where knowledge, critical thinking, and self-reliance can be nurtured. This conviction gives me inner peace and reinforces my faith that education and service to society are more meaningful measures of success than material profit alone.

Though I have succeeded to some extent, this success has not been complete due to the persistent influence of superstition.

by Dr Debapriya Mukherjee
Former Senior Scientist
Central Pollution Control Board, India ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Race hate and the need to re-visit the ‘Clash of Civilizations’

Published

on

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: ‘No to race hate’

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has done very well to speak-up against and outlaw race hate in the immediate aftermath of the recent cold-blooded gunning down of several civilians on Australia’s Bondi Beach. The perpetrators of the violence are believed to be ardent practitioners of religious and race hate and it is commendable that the Australian authorities have lost no time in clearly and unambiguously stating their opposition to the dastardly crimes in question.

The Australian Prime Minister is on record as stating in this connection: ‘ New laws will target those who spread hate, division and radicalization. The Home Affairs Minister will also be given new powers to cancel or refuse visas for those who spread hate and a new taskforce will be set up to ensure the education system prevents, tackles and properly responds to antisemitism.’

It is this promptness and single-mindedness to defeat race hate and other forms of identity-based animosities that are expected of democratic governments in particular world wide. For example, is Sri Lanka’s NPP government willing to follow the Australian example? To put the record straight, no past governments of Sri Lanka initiated concrete measures to stamp out the evil of race hate as well but the present Sri Lankan government which has pledged to end ethnic animosities needs to think and act vastly differently. Democratic and progressive opinion in Sri Lanka is waiting expectantly for the NPP government’ s positive response; ideally based on the Australian precedent to end race hate.

Meanwhile, it is apt to remember that inasmuch as those forces of terrorism that target white communities world wide need to be put down their counterpart forces among extremist whites need to be defeated as well. There could be no double standards on this divisive question of quashing race and religious hate, among democratic governments.

The question is invariably bound up with the matter of expeditiously and swiftly advancing democratic development in divided societies. To the extent to which a body politic is genuinely democratized, to the same degree would identity based animosities be effectively managed and even resolved once and for all. To the extent to which a society is deprived of democratic governance, correctly understood, to the same extent would it experience unmanageable identity-bred violence.

This has been Sri Lanka’s situation and generally it could be stated that it is to the degree to which Sri Lankan citizens are genuinely constitutionally empowered that the issue of race hate in their midst would prove manageable. Accordingly, democratic development is the pressing need.

While the dramatic blood-letting on Bondi Beach ought to have driven home to observers and commentators of world politics that the international community is yet to make any concrete progress in the direction of laying the basis for an end to identity-based extremism, the event should also impress on all concerned quarters that continued failure to address the matters at hand could prove fatal. The fact of the matter is that identity-based extremism is very much alive and well and that it could strike devastatingly at a time and place of its choosing.

It is yet premature for the commentator to agree with US political scientist Samuel P. Huntingdon that a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is upon the world but events such as the Bondi Beach terror and the continuing abduction of scores of school girls by IS-related outfits, for instance, in Northern Africa are concrete evidence of the continuing pervasive presence of identity-based extremism in the global South.

As a matter of great interest it needs mentioning that the crumbling of the Cold War in the West in the early nineties of the last century and the explosive emergence of identity-based violence world wide around that time essentially impelled Huntingdon to propound the hypothesis that the world was seeing the emergence of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Basically, the latter phrase implied that the Cold War was replaced by a West versus militant religious fundamentalism division or polarity world wide. Instead of the USSR and its satellites, the West, led by the US, had to now do battle with religion and race-based militant extremism, particularly ‘Islamic fundamentalist violence’ .

Things, of course, came to a head in this regard when the 9/11 calamity centred in New York occurred. The event seemed to be startling proof that the world was indeed faced with a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ that was not easily resolvable. It was a case of ‘Islamic militant fundamentalism’ facing the great bulwark, so to speak, of ‘ Western Civilization’ epitomized by the US and leaving it almost helpless.

However, it was too early to write off the US’ capability to respond, although it did not do so by the best means. Instead, it replied with military interventions, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan, which moves have only earned for the religious fundamentalists more and more recruits.

Yet, it is too early to speak in terms of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Such a phenomenon could be spoken of if only the entirety of the Islamic world took up arms against the West. Clearly, this is not so because the majority of the adherents of Islam are peaceably inclined and want to coexist harmoniously with the rest of the world.

However, it is not too late for the US to stop religious fundamentalism in its tracks. It, for instance, could implement concrete measures to end the blood-letting in the Middle East. Of the first importance is to end the suffering of the Palestinians by keeping a tight leash on the Israeli Right and by making good its boast of rebuilding the Gaza swiftly.

Besides, the US needs to make it a priority aim to foster democratic development worldwide in collaboration with the rest of the West. Military expenditure and the arms race should be considered of secondary importance and the process of distributing development assistance in the South brought to the forefront of its global development agenda, if there is one.

If the fire-breathing religious demagogue’s influence is to be blunted worldwide, then, it is development, understood to mean equitable growth, that needs to be fostered and consolidated by the democratic world. In other words, the priority ought to be the empowerment of individuals and communities. Nothing short of the latter measures would help in ushering a more peaceful world.

Continue Reading

Trending