Sexism Still Stronger Than Racism? What Kamala Harris’s Loss Tells Us About U.S. Politics

 Dr. Asis Mistry

As part of an astonishing political recovery, Donald Trump won the United States presidency for a second term, ending the battle with Kamala Harris. This is the ultimate course reversal for the most divisive figure in this land one whose appeal fluctuated from one extreme of ecstasy to the other-from heaven to hell. The outcome also raises profound questions on what role gender and race played in America on the decisive day. The results hint at a grim truth: sexism is more stubbornly ingrained in America’s psyche than racism itself. Harris, the woman who would have become this country’s first woman president and its first woman of colour in the job, just could not bridge the chasm.

Trump won it with a landslide that caught everybody off guard. Despite what the polls indicated for a while, showing the election within striking distance of hers, buoyed by a good platform and an iconic symbolic appeal. Yet at the end of the day, she could not mobilize the key constituencies to the level required for a win. Exit polls showed a huge gap in support from women and a decline in support from Black and Latino voters, especially compared to Biden’s four years earlier. Only 54% of female voters supported Harris, while Biden had received support from 57% of women. Many had expected a vote for Harris as a way to achieve gender solidarity. But what her numbers reflected, instead, was a society that hasn’t gotten used to women—particularly women of colour—at the top.

But this election wasn’t only about gender; it also threw into sharp relief the deep complexities of race in America. Harris’s being Black and South Asian added an extra layer of complexity to her candidacy. Yet her identity seems to attract resistance from within both the majority and the minority, and paradoxically, while candidates are assessed for gender and racial background, that can sometimes go against their advantage. The female colour candidate threatens deeply instilled norms, an uncomfortable prospect for parts of the electorate that prefer a candidate like Trump, who embodies more traditional forms of masculinity and authority.

Trump’s election also fits into a more general trend: American society may be more willing to accept some kinds of “difference” over others when it comes to political candidates. If we compare the reception that Harris received to the one that former President Barack Obama got, we may see that, although so much has been and will be made of the barriers that are still race-oriented in politics, gender-oriented hurdles may prove more daunting to overcome. Obama confronted staggering racial barriers to penetrate; he still could go on to appeal to a good part of the voting populace. But Harris had to contend not only with the dynamics of race but also with those of gender expectations, often far more rigid, punitive, and less amenable to reconciliation with the iconography of executive leadership.

Another telling aspect is the way voters judged Harris’s policies, especially regarding her abortion rights stance. Harris had been a very vocal proponent of women’s rights, yet she failed to garner female support in substantial numbers. This may be a sign of a more complex, sometimes contradictory relationship between gender and policy in the United States, where even female voters sometimes exhibit reluctance in supporting a female candidate pushing for progressive issues traditionally seen as part of women’s rights. Harris’s failure to perform well with women voters, despite her activism, indicates that American society is not ready to accept feminism fully when personified by a female leader.

But the problem is beyond the policy stance. As Clinton’s campaign noted, powerful women are often attacked personally and held to a different standard than male politicians. Harris, like Clinton, had to deal with scrutiny that did not relate to her qualifications or her positions on the issues. Both women were forced to grapple with notions of “likability,” a subjective measure that has rarely, if ever, been a hurdle for male candidates like Trump. At a minimum, Trump’s conduct has continuously been role-playing being a strong leader, undiscerning and rude as that will appeal to the voters within eyesight, who envision him to embody some type of “tough” and “authentic” figure. In addition, during this campaign cycle, his image was augmented with vows to be a protector, and defender against political adversaries matched with incendiary remarks against both immigration and the economy. To most voters, those qualities trumped any ethics or law problems surrounding him.

Comparing Harris’s campaign with Clinton’s experience also exposes the depth at which leadership expectations remain wedded to masculine authority. Trump’s return to the White House was a victory for traditional masculinity and reflected an instinctive distrust in female authority, especially of ambitious females such as Harris or Clinton. Clinton’s loss in 2016 was surprising to many who had begun to view her as perhaps the most qualified presidential candidate in modern history, but her defeat nonetheless revealed that those qualifications would be trumped by the invisible yet powerful force of gender bias. Similarly, Harris’s achievements and historic presence on the ticket were overpowered by an electorate that refused to entrust the presidency to a woman.

Of course, there is a cruel irony to Trump’s victory. His presidency has been marked by divisive rhetoric, personal scandal, and criminal conviction. And yet his “tough” persona, standing firm against political opponents, resonates with a certain subset of voters who find comfort in the worn familiarities of traditional authority symbols-even though those symbols may carry moral or ethical ambiguities. The controversies somehow seem to have enhanced the appeal of Trump to a section of people who are viewing his defiance as being a virtue rather than a vice in American leadership.

There is so much more to dig into from this election than just its result. Harris’s campaign has thrown into view a far deeper unease with women in the highest office that even some women in America share. For a woman, and especially a woman of colour, running for president remains an uphill battle; her qualifications and platform are superseded by societal biases impossible to put a number to but hard to deny.

This election has therefore confirmed that while America has made strides toward racial equality, gender equality in leadership roles still has a long road ahead. It appears that America may be more willing to accept racial diversity within certain parameters but is still resistant to women in power, particularly at the highest echelons. If anything, Trump’s victory teaches us that the way to real equality is long and complicated, demanding honest reckoning with the biases we all carry and the work that remains to be done.

Author: Dr Asis Mistry, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta, Email- asismistry.cu@gmail.com

More Sexist than Racist? What Trump’s Victory Over Kamala Harris Reveals About America

 Dr. Asis Mistry

In a stunning political comeback, Donald Trump has once again captured the U.S. presidency, defeating Kamala Harris. For Trump, a polarizing figure whose popularity has fluctuated sharply, this victory signifies a remarkable reversal of fortune. It is also a moment that raises profound questions about the dynamics of gender and race in America. The results suggest a hard truth: despite progress, sexism remains a deeply ingrained bias in American society, often more potent than racism. Harris, who would have been the first woman president—and the first woman of colour in the role—was ultimately unable to bridge this divide.

Trump’s decisive win was unexpected. Polls suggested that Harris was within striking distance, buoyed by her platform and powerful symbolic appeal. Yet in the end, she failed to galvanize key groups to the degree necessary for a victory. Exit polls revealed a significant gap in support from women and a dip in support from Black and Latino voters, especially when compared to Biden’s numbers four years prior. Just 54% of female voters backed Harris, whereas Biden had received support from 57% of women. Many anticipated a gender solidarity vote for Harris. Instead, her numbers reflected a society that remains uncomfortable with women—especially women of colour—in the ultimate leadership role.

But this election was not only a referendum on gender; it also brought to light the enduring complexities of race in America. Harris’s identity as a Black and South Asian woman added layers of meaning to her candidacy. Yet her identity seemed to face resistance within both majority and minority communities, highlighting a paradox where candidates are scrutinized for both their gender and their racial background, sometimes to their detriment. A woman of colour running for president presented a challenge to deeply embedded norms, an unsettling prospect for segments of the electorate who preferred a candidate like Trump, who embodies a more traditional model of masculinity and authority.

Trump’s victory also underscores a broader trend: when it comes to political candidates, American society may be more willing to embrace certain kinds of “difference” over others. If we compare the reception of Harris to that of former President Barack Obama, it is evident that while racial barriers remain in politics, they may be easier to overcome than gender-based ones. Obama faced significant racial obstacles, yet he could appeal to a broad swath of the electorate. Harris, however, contended not only with racial dynamics but also with gender expectations—expectations that often remain more rigid, punishing, and less easily reconciled with images of executive leadership.

Another revealing point is how voters evaluated Harris’s policies, particularly her stance on abortion rights. Despite her vocal commitment to women’s rights, Harris struggled to consolidate female support. This may reflect a more complex, often contradictory relationship between gender and policy in the United States, where even women voters sometimes show hesitancy in rallying behind a female candidate championing progressive issues traditionally associated with women’s rights. Harris’s underperformance with female voters, despite her advocacy, suggests that American society has yet to fully embrace feminist principles when embodied by a female leader.

But the issue extends beyond policy positions. As Clinton’s campaign also revealed, women in power are often subjected to personal critiques and double standards in ways that male politicians are not. Harris, like Clinton, faced a level of scrutiny that went beyond her qualifications or her stance on issues. Both women had to contend with perceptions of “likability,” a subjective standard that has rarely, if ever, hindered male candidates like Trump. Trump, by contrast, has consistently positioned himself as a strong, unapologetic leader, and his brashness has enhanced his appeal among voters who see him as embodying a “tough” and “authentic” persona. In this election, Trump’s image was further amplified by his promises to be a defender against political enemies and his controversial statements about immigration and the economy. For many voters, these qualities seemed to outweigh any ethical or legal controversies surrounding him.

The parallels between Harris’s campaign and Clinton’s experience also reveal how deeply ingrained expectations of leadership continue to favour male authority. Trump’s return to the White House exemplifies a preference for conventional masculinity and an underlying scepticism toward female authority, especially when it is embodied by ambitious women like Harris or Clinton. Clinton’s loss in 2016 was a shock to those who saw her as one of the most qualified presidential candidates in recent history, but her defeat nonetheless demonstrated that these qualifications could be eclipsed by the invisible yet powerful force of gender bias. Similarly, Harris’s accomplishments and groundbreaking presence on the ticket were overshadowed by an electorate that seemed unwilling to entrust the presidency to a woman.

There is, of course, a distinct irony in Trump’s triumph. His presidency has often been marred by divisive rhetoric, personal scandal, and criminal convictions. Yet his image as a “tough” leader who stands firm against political opponents resonates with a subset of voters who find comfort in traditional symbols of authority, even if those symbols come with moral or ethical ambiguities. Trump’s controversies seem to have amplified his appeal among those who view his defiance as a virtue, rather than a vice, in American leadership.

As we digest the outcome of this election, it’s essential to understand the deeper implications. Harris’s candidacy illuminated a profound discomfort with the idea of female leadership at the highest level—a discomfort that even some female voters share. For a woman, and particularly a woman of colour, running for the presidency remains an uphill battle, one where her qualifications and platform are overshadowed by societal biases that are hard to quantify but difficult to deny.

This election has, therefore, confirmed that while America has made strides toward racial equality, gender equality in leadership roles still has a long road ahead. It appears that America may be more willing to accept racial diversity within certain parameters but is still resistant to women in power, particularly at the highest echelons. If Trump’s victory tells us anything, it is that the path to true equality is long and complex, demanding an honest reckoning with the biases we all carry and the work that remains to be done.

Dr Asis Mistry

Assistant Professor

Department of Political Science

University of Calcutta

Email- asismistry.cu@gmail.com

Monarchy Redux? The Paradox of Democratic Disillusionment in Nepal

 Dr. Asis Mistry

In 2008, Nepal bid farewell to its centuries-old monarchy, embracing a republican system with promises of democracy, inclusion, and social justice. The abolition of the monarchy marked a watershed moment in Nepal’s political history, as the people sought to dismantle feudal structures and usher in a new era of participatory governance. Yet, nearly two decades later, an unexpected paradox has emerged—a growing wave of pro-monarchy sentiment is taking root across the country.

This resurgence of monarchical nostalgia is not merely a reflection of romanticised memories of the past but a stark indictment of the failures of Nepal’s democratic experiment. As public frustration with corrupt political elites and dysfunctional governance deepens, the monarchy—once dismissed as a relic of the past—is being resurrected as a symbol of stability, order, and national pride. The question now confronting Nepal is not merely whether democracy has failed but whether the current political disillusionment is paving the way for a “monarchy redux.”

From Revolution to Regression: The Democratic Promise Unfulfilled

Nepal’s transition to democracy was fuelled by aspirations for greater accountability, economic development, and social justice. The 2006 People’s Movement (Jana Andolan-II) culminated in the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a federal republic in 2008. However, despite these monumental changes, the dreams of a just and inclusive Nepal remain largely unfulfilled.

Over the years, Nepal’s political arena has become synonymous with corruption, nepotism, and inefficiency. The unchecked dominance of three major political parties—Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), and Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC)—has resulted in a revolving door of political elites prioritising personal power over public welfare. Leaders such as Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Sher Bahadur Deuba have consistently demonstrated an insatiable appetite for control, leaving the nation’s democratic ideals battered and bruised.

Institutional decay has further deepened public disillusionment. Parliament has been reduced to a space for partisan bickering, the judiciary’s independence has been compromised, and the executive has become a playground for patronage politics. Ordinary citizens, who once believed that democracy would empower them, now find themselves marginalised and alienated from the very system that was meant to serve them.

The Return of the Crown: A Cry for Stability Amid Chaos

In this vacuum of accountability and governance, the monarchy is being reimagined—not as a return to feudalism but as an antidote to the chaos of Nepal’s political disorder. The growing pro-monarchy sentiment reflects a deep-seated yearning for stability and order in a system where unpredictability and incompetence have become the norm. For many, King Gyanendra’s brief return to power in 2005—despite its authoritarian overtones—represents a period when national unity and sovereignty were prioritised over political gamesmanship.

This narrative of monarchical resurgence is not without its complexities. Pro-monarchy activism is no longer confined to the older generation nostalgic for the past; it has found resonance among Nepal’s youth, many of whom were born after the abolition of the monarchy. This generation, disillusioned by the systemic failures of democracy, perceives the monarchy as a stabilizing force capable of restoring national identity and dignity. Social media platforms have become fertile ground for pro-monarchy discourse, with hashtags such as #BringBackTheKing and #SaveNepal gaining traction among the country’s disillusioned youth.

A ‘Five-Legged Dog’: The Dysfunction of Nepal’s Political System

Nepal’s post-monarchy political structure is often likened to a “five-legged dog”—an unnatural, dysfunctional, and unstable system struggling to move forward. The fragmentation of power among political elites has led to a system where personal ambitions trump national interest. Governance has become a zero-sum game where political parties are more focused on maintaining their grip on power than addressing the grievances of the public.

The consequences of this dysfunction are profound. Economic stagnation, rampant corruption, and the erosion of public trust have left Nepal teetering on the brink of a political abyss. In this context, the monarchy is being recast as a beacon of stability—a sentiment that is not entirely irrational given the failures of Nepal’s current political landscape.

The Myth of the ‘Golden Age’: Fact or Fiction?

At the heart of the pro-monarchy revival lies the myth of the ‘golden age’—a romanticised vision of a time when the monarch was perceived as the custodian of national unity and integrity. However, this idealised view glosses over the harsh realities of monarchical rule, which was characterised by authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, and structural inequalities. While King Mahendra and King Birendra are often remembered for maintaining stability and sovereignty, their reigns were far from democratic.

Yet, political memory is selective, and in times of crisis, people often look to the past for solutions. The failure of Nepal’s democratic institutions to deliver on their promises has created fertile ground for this myth to flourish, making the monarchy appear as a preferable alternative to the existing chaos.

The Geopolitical Chessboard: India, China, and the Monarchical Question

Nepal’s political evolution cannot be viewed in isolation from its geopolitical environment. Sandwiched between India and China, Nepal’s strategic significance has made it a playground for competing regional interests. Both India and China maintained close ties with Nepal’s monarchy, viewing it as a stabilising force that safeguarded their respective strategic interests.

A potential revival of the monarchy raises questions about the future trajectory of Nepal’s foreign policy. While neither India nor China may overtly advocate for the return of the monarchy, they are unlikely to ignore the implications of such a shift. If pro-monarchy forces gain significant traction, regional actors will undoubtedly recalibrate their strategies to safeguard their interests in Nepal.

Is Monarchy a Democratic Alternative?

It is essential to recognise that monarchy cannot be a democratic alternative. By its very nature, monarchy centralises power and contradicts the core principles of participatory governance. However, the growing sentiment for the restoration of the monarchy is less about embracing authoritarianism and more about rejecting a dysfunctional democracy.

If pro-monarchy forces succeed in galvanising widespread public support, the issue should be addressed through democratic processes—possibly through a referendum. A ceremonial monarchy, modelled after constitutional monarchies in the United Kingdom or Japan, could potentially act as a unifying symbol while preserving democratic institutions. However, such a transition would require not only constitutional amendments but also widespread public consensus, which remains elusive in Nepal’s fragmented political landscape.

The Way Forward: Restoring Trust in Democracy

Nepal stands at a critical juncture where the crisis of democratic legitimacy threatens to undo the hard-fought gains of the last two decades. The resurgence of pro-monarchy sentiment is not a rejection of democracy but a reflection of the public’s disillusionment with its current form. To safeguard Nepal’s democratic future, political leaders must undertake bold reforms to restore public trust in governance.

Restoring legitimacy will require dismantling the culture of corruption, ensuring judicial independence, and fostering an environment where dissent is not viewed as a threat but as a vital component of democracy. Unless these structural deficiencies are addressed, Nepal risks slipping further into a dangerous terrain where nostalgia for autocracy replaces hope for democratic progress.

Monarchy Redux or Democratic Renewal? The Choice is Nepal’s

The question facing Nepal today is not whether the monarchy is a better alternative but whether Nepal’s political leadership can rise above partisan politics to redeem the promise of democracy. A democracy that fails to deliver justice and equity breeds discontent, and in Nepal, this discontent is finding its voice in the growing calls for monarchical restoration. The onus is now on Nepal’s political elites to confront this paradox and chart a course that ensures democratic renewal before it is too late.

 

@ Author: Dr. Asis Mistry, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta, Email- asismistry.cu@gmail.com

Crisis of Legitimacy in Nepal: Why are pro-monarchy voices growing louder?

 Dr. Asis Mistry

Exactly a decade ago, during my fieldwork on the bustling streets of Kathmandu, I encountered a passer-by who identified himself as a staunch monarchist. He nostalgically extolled the virtues of King Mahendra’s rule, declaring with unwavering conviction that democracy in Nepal would not last beyond a decade. At the time, his views seemed like the last echoes of a fading political order, but today, his words resonate with startling relevance. The resurgence of pro-monarchy activism in Nepal is not merely a nostalgic yearning for the past but a profound response to the deepening crisis of democratic legitimacy.

Democracy in Decline: A Decade of Disillusionment

Nepal’s transition from monarchy to a federal democratic republic in 2008 was heralded as a monumental shift toward inclusive governance and social justice. Yet, nearly two decades later, the aspirations that fuelled the democratic transition remain largely unfulfilled. Political corruption, institutional decay, and the failure of successive governments to address the pressing concerns of ordinary citizens have eroded public faith in democratic institutions.

The nation’s political landscape has been marred by the unchecked dominance of three major political parties—Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), and Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-MC). Their leadership, characterised by a revolving door of oligarchic elites—Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Sher Bahadur Deuba—has prioritised political manoeuvring over national interest. Their repeated failure to ensure economic stability, curb corruption, and promote good governance has led to widespread frustration, leaving the populace disillusioned with the democratic process.

Kakistocracy in Action: Governance for the Few

The rise of pro-monarchy sentiment is not a rejection of democracy per se but an outcry against what political theorists describe as kakistocracy—a system governed by the least qualified and most corrupt individuals. Nepal’s democratic experiment has been hijacked by self-serving leaders who have turned governance into a theatre of nepotism, patronage, and exploitation. The electorate, yearning for stability and order, finds itself trapped in a cycle where political elites thrive while ordinary citizens languish.

Public confidence in key democratic institutions—parliament, judiciary, and political parties—has reached an all-time low. Scandals such as the Mahakali Treaty debacle, land ordinance controversies, and the Bhutanese refugee scam have reinforced the perception that Nepal’s democratic system serves the interests of political elites rather than the public. In this vacuum of accountability, pro-monarchy voices have emerged as an alternative narrative, promising a return to order, stability, and national pride.

A ‘Five-Legged Dog’: The Dysfunction of Nepal’s Political System

Nepal’s post-monarchy political system resembles what can only be described as a ‘five-legged dog’—a structure that is inherently unstable and dysfunctional. The power struggle between political parties has resulted in a fragmented polity, where personal vendettas and political survival dictate governance. This system, plagued by indecisiveness, corruption, and lack of vision, has failed to meet the expectations of the public.

The result is a population that feels alienated and marginalised—conditions that historically breed a yearning for authoritarian stability. Pro-monarchy voices are finding traction among these disillusioned citizens, many of whom view the monarchy as a stabilising force amid political chaos. To them, King Gyanendra’s rule, despite its flaws, represents a period when national identity, sovereignty, and stability were prioritised.

The Myth of the ‘Golden Age’ of Monarchy

Pro-monarchy activism is often driven by the myth of the ‘golden age’—an idealised vision of a time when the monarch was seen as the benevolent guardian of the nation. However, this nostalgia ignores the structural inequalities and suppression that characterised monarchical rule. While the monarchy may have provided a semblance of stability, it was far from democratic or inclusive. Yet, in the absence of genuine democratic accountability and transformative change, this myth has gained renewed traction.

The monarchists have skilfully tapped into public frustration, presenting the monarchy as a viable alternative to the chaos of contemporary politics. Social media platforms, street protests, and public demonstrations have become the battleground for this renewed activism, where pro-monarchy voices frame their narrative as a struggle to ‘save the nation’ from corrupt politicians.

International Dynamics and Regional Implications

The resurgence of pro-monarchy activism in Nepal cannot be viewed in isolation from the region’s geopolitical realities. Nepal’s strategic position between India and China makes it a hotspot for competing regional influences. Both nations have historically maintained close ties with Nepal’s monarchy, viewing it as a stabilising force that could safeguard their respective strategic interests.

The prospect of a monarchic revival, therefore, raises questions about the future trajectory of Nepal’s foreign policy. While India and China may not overtly advocate for the return of the monarchy, they are likely to engage with pro-monarchy movements if such forces gain significant traction. This geopolitical chess game adds another layer of complexity to Nepal’s fragile democratic transition.

Is Monarchy a Democratic Alternative?

It is essential to recognise that monarchy cannot be an alternative to democracy. By its very nature, monarchy is an undemocratic institution that centralises power and undermines participatory governance. However, in a democratic system where corruption, inequality, and inefficiency persist, nostalgia for monarchy thrives.

If pro-monarchy forces succeed in galvanising public sentiment, the issue should be addressed through democratic means—possibly through a referendum. A ceremonial monarchy, akin to the models in the United Kingdom or Japan, could serve as a symbolic head of state while preserving Nepal’s democratic institutions. However, this would require constitutional amendments and an extensive public mandate, neither of which is easily achievable.

The Way Forward: A Democratic Reckoning

Nepal stands at a crossroads where the deepening crisis of democratic legitimacy threatens to derail its political future. The resurgence of pro-monarchy activism is not a rejection of democracy but a reflection of the people’s disillusionment with the current political order. To safeguard Nepal’s democratic aspirations, political leaders must undertake comprehensive reforms to restore public trust and accountability.

This requires dismantling the culture of corruption, strengthening democratic institutions, and fostering a political culture where dissent and diversity of opinion are respected. Without such corrective measures, Nepal risks sliding further into a dangerous terrain where nostalgia for autocracy replaces hope for democratic progress.

As history has shown, a democracy that fails to deliver justice and equity breeds discontent, and in Nepal, this discontent is finding its voice in the growing chorus of pro-monarchy activism. The question that Nepal’s political elite must confront is not whether monarchy is a viable alternative, but whether democracy can redeem itself before it’s too late.

 

@ Author: Dr. Asis Mistry, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta, Email- asismistry.cu@gmail.com