Following months of continued political deadlock, the Lebanese PM-Designate Saad Hariri has stepped down from his role of forming a new government. As a result Lebanon is without a government for nine months. This resignation has plunged the nation further into a crisis, as it is currently also facing social, economic, and political turmoil. 

Lebanon has not had a functioning government since the massive explosion in Beirut that left over a hundred dead. The deadly explosion that took place in August 2020 resulted in the resignation of the previous government. Mr Hariri was then selected to form a new one. However, after months of disagreement with President Michel Aoun over cabinet positions, Saad Hariri has given up on the task. 

Currently, Lebanon is suffering from an unprecedented economic crisis, described by the World Bank as one of the worst in the world in the last 150 years. As a result of the currency collapse, there is a nation-wide shortage of food, medicines, electricity and fuel, which has left the nation desperate for help. 

The recent departure of Hariri is likely to cause further uncertainty and chaos for Lebanon, as it reduces its chances of receiving aid. The international community is refusing to offer any assistance to Lebanon until the nation forms a new government with a crackdown on corruption.  

President Macron described Lebanese political leaders as refusing to “act in good faith” and “favouring their partisan and personal interests at the expense of their country.” 

“They totally failed to acknowledge the political and economic situation of their country” said Mr Macron.

While the resignation of Saad Hariri remains a political matter, civilians are paying the price. The failure to form a new government and consequently the lack of international aid available, means that children are skipping meals during the day and going to bed hungry. The sick are unable to access their necessary medications.

The nation’s economy shrank by over 20% in the year 2020 and poverty worsened, with over half of the population now living below the poverty line.

Given the current state of the nation’s political and economic crisis, if Lebanon fails to form a new government, the country’s situation is expected to worsen further in the near future.

Many saw the re-election of the conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison in 2019 as a return to normalcy in Australian federal politics. This was, of course, after Canberra became the world’s laughing stock swinging through six prime ministers (technically five, as one got his job back before losing the election) in just over 10 years. What started as a loss of confidence in the prime minister by his party’s MPs quickly became a numbers game. Add to that the lack of legislation regulating leadership spills, and anyone, at any time can pass an internal party motion, and an hour later Australia would have a new prime minister.

This is why the recent change of deputy prime minister poured salt on old wounds. For those not familiar with Australian federal politics, here’s a quick rundown: the two major parties are the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. The former being the equivalent of Britain’s Labour Party or America’s Democratic Party while the latter being equivalent to Britain’s Conservative Party and America’s Republican Party. The Liberal Party has typically governed in a coalition with the Nationals Party since its founding in the 1940s, so one deputy leader of the coalition is the leader of the Nationals Party who is also the deputy prime minister. The Nationals Party derive their voting base from the regional, rural, and non-metropolitan parts of the country.

Now, back to Barnaby Joyce . He is no stranger to being deputy prime minister back when he was the sidekick to former prime ministers, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull from 2016 – 2018. He knows the ins and the outs of the job very well and he also knows how to play politics, which is the main criticism against his retaking of the post. Commentators such as David Crowe, Katherine Murphy, Troy Bramston and even former Liberal leader John Hewson have piled on to say one thing: that his ascension back to the spotlight does not make the country better off. They argue him resigning the first time after being caught having an affair, allegations around sexually harassing women and his bold willingness to block any progress on climate change – much to some Liberals’ frustration – make him unfit to lead.

Joyce’s main claim to the Nationals’ throne rests with the assertion that McCormack was not standing up for the Nationals’ priorities, lest of which to publicly oppose any net-zero emissions target from Prime Minister Morrison after he alluded to one at the backdrop of this year’s G7 summit at Cornwall, England. This is a fair claim, and precedence shows that the Nationals will put on a tantrum if they are not taken seriously. Recently, the New South Wales government was threatened with a minority government status after its deputy premier and Leader of the Nationals John Barilaro threatened to divorce the coalition should a proposed policy increasing the protection for koalas be legislated. 

The premier, Gladys Berejiklian, stared her deputy down in what was the most prolific and rare example of disunity for an otherwise popular premier and her well-functioning frontbench. This is where Joyce comes in, claiming that McCormack has cozied up to the prime minister and so he must be replaced. For them, it was the prime minister’s growing acceptance of a net-zero emissions target that sounded the alarm bells for the Nationals to vote their leader out.

An interesting point to note is it was not Joyce who brought the motion to topple the leader, rather it was his ally, Senator for Queensland Matt Canavan who passed a spill motion and started the numbers game. A few days later Canavan wrote in an opinion piece for The Australian that making Joyce the leader again “restores a strong advocate for the economically nationalist, Australia-first approach that has always served us well”. The rest of his piece consisted of criticising China and trashing the idea of a net-zero emissions target. 

The title of this article indicates that Joyce could prove to be a double-edged sword at the next federal election. Both outcomes are being touted with Joyce back in the spotlight. The arguments in support of a Morrison-Joyce partnership argue that Joyce brings a personality and a buzz that was missing in McCormack. As Niki Savva writes in The Australian, “McCormack became the invisible man” after not promoting the National Party’s successes well enough to make a name for himself and allowing Morrison to sidestep him and not demand concessions in terms of both policies and ministerial appointments that the Nationals would find favourable.

His opponents cite allegations of Joyce sexually harassing women and his affair with one of his staff as reasons against his re-election. Alana Johnson, a founding member of the Australian Women in Agriculture, reacted to the leadership spill telling The Guardian that “the National party is obviously just not listening, otherwise they would never have chosen Barnaby to be the leader again” and claiming the party is trapped by “power plays between the boys”. Elaborating on the female factor, Nationals MPs Anne Webster and Michelle Landry both publicly claimed that “many women would be unimpressed” should Joyce be re-elected. Yet the response seems to be mixed. While some women are openly stating their disappointment, others, like Nationals Senator Perin Davey is more wanting to ‘focus on the future’.So, the question remains, is Joyce’s re-appointment worth it? Well, if Morrison and Joyce can strike the balance between the needs of their electoral bases and close any window of opportunity that Labour could exploit and drive a wedge between them, then all that remains is for Joyce to show that he has “come back a better person”.

On 20th August 2020 Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader and anti-corruption activist was poisoned with a Novichock nerve agent leaving him hospitalised in Germany until late September. When Navalny was well enough he returned to Russia despite warnings that he would be arrested once he arrived. Navalny was convicted for two years and eight months for violating the conditions of a suspended sentence. Since then, many believe that the Kremlin was behind the poisoning of the opposition leader as a way to silence him and his work. Many believe this, because Novichock was used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War as a way to slowly get rid of their enemies. So, is Russia truly a democracy if they are suspectedly ‘silencing the opposition’?

The poisoning and silencing of Alexei Navalny in a country which claims to be a democracy is not new, rather it has been going on for as long as Navalny has been exposing the Russian Government. There are three main aspects which make a country democratic: free media; free and fair elections; and fair law. Russia has none of these.

The 1993 Russian constitution declares Russia to be a “democratic federal law-bound State with a republican form of government”. Thus, it is considered to be a democracy. In the 2018 Presidential election, the candidates that were supposedly running against Vladimir Putin (the current Russian president) were fake as they were hand-picked by the Kremlin. The point is Navalny, one of the strongest opposition candidates who was the one to expose the corruption within the Russian Government, was not able to run against Putin. Therefore, not making the 2018 election free and fair at all.

In addition, Russia lacks free media. Navalny started his blog in 2008 in order to expose malpractice and corruption within the Russian Government. Navalny believed that the media was not exposing this and therefore decided to do it by himself, as he believed that Russian citizens had the right to know. And he was correct. One thing Vladimir Putin was seen doing very early on in his presidency is centralising many aspects including the media. In the early 2000s independent Russian media companies were slowly coming under state control as a way for the Russian Government to decide what is said and what is not said about them to Russian citizens i.e. a way to censor the media. Thus, it was a way to silence the corruption within the Russian Government.

To assess whether a country has fair laws you need to assess whether a country’s constitution successfully grants citizens civil liberties. Civil liberties are the freedoms that protect citizens from tyranny. However, Russia yet again fails at this. Putin has had Russian law on his side ever since he became President. In early April 2021, the Russian President signed a law that paves the way for him ruling until 2036. If Putin remains President until 2036 then there will be an endless cycle of lack of free media, lack of free and fair elections and lack of fair law. Therefore, ultimately leading to a lack of democracy. Thus, continuing to silence his opposition as everything is still under Putin’s control. So, what does all of this mean for Russia’s democracy in the future?

It is clear to say that Russia does not have a liberal democracy like many countries around the world including the USA, UK, Australia etc. However, just because Russia does not have a liberal democracy does not necessarily mean they are not a democracy. There are many types of democracy and on many occasions, Russia has been identified as a democratic dictatorship. A democratic dictatorship is when Russian voters are allowed to vote but there is no point in voting for a candidate other than Putin, as evidence suggests that the candidates running against Putin are fake and controlled by the Kremlin. Like Russia, China is known for being a democratic dictatorship because they allow Chinese citizens to vote but there is only one option on the ballot paper.

Granting Russia a liberal democracy which will be better for their citizens is not as easy as it looks. In order to achieve a liberal democracy, citizens need to be granted civil liberties. To achieve this, these civil liberties need to be granted through the constitution. However, as shown changing the constitution under a leader like Putin is hard as everything including the law is centralised. Thus, it ultimately comes down to the leader. With a new leader there can be a possibility for Russia to become a liberal democracy but that is only if the law grants for another leader to be President. Therefore, Russia is stuck in this loophole.

The culmination of the Star Wars saga – at least until the muddled storytelling of the sequel trilogy – is the jubilant image of the Rebels gathering on Endor and celebrating their toppling of the Empire. John Williams’ score reverberates through the galaxy as humans and Wookies alike embrace on the rooftops of Coruscant and the steppes of Kashyyyk to mark a change in their political fortunes. The parallels between our comparatively mundane existence and the distant swashbuckling galaxy of bounty hunters and lightsabers are admittedly few and far in between. However on 8^th November, as chyrons flashed with President Joe Biden’s electoral victory across CNN and MSNBC and millions gathered on the sidewalks of cities across the United States, George Lucas’ concluding storyboard for Return of the Jedi had sprung to life. After four long years, in the duel of fates, the dark side had finally been vanquished. Or so we thought.

The days following Election Day were fraught with nail-biting anxiety and anticipation for millions of Americans glued to their television sets. The ongoing pandemic impeded in-person voting and scores of Americans – over 100 million – opted for the convenience of mail-in ballots to cast their votes. John King and Steve Kornacki explained every electoral permutation of states swapping between red and blue as votes trickled in and the political calculus changed within hours. Over the next several days, Wisconsin flipped from red to blue, followed by Michigan, and finally, as voting machines sorted the ballots from Philadelphia and Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, the mathematical exercise finally had an answer: Joe Biden had won the 2020 Presidential Election. 

Biden during his campaign coined the election as a battle for the “Soul of America.” For four years, Donald Trump’s administration subverted political norms for personal gain and expediency. Mired not only by Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Investigation, but an impeachment, a myriad of unscrupulous behavior by his cronies, and a bungling of domestic policy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet despite the abundant impropriety, Former President Donald Trump received the second highest popular vote tally in American history. Buoyed not only by the increasing political divide between rural-urban voters but also the disproportionate parity given to “red” states in the Electoral College. Biden comparatively had all but been ruled out as a candidate until his resurgence after the South Carolina primary. With Bernie Sanders failing to ratchet up support after his breakout 2016 election campaign, much of the Democratic party consolidated behind Biden. The career partisan with a mixed legislative record promised to “build back better.” Over 150 days later, Biden’s legislative promises largely hang in the balance of an inert Senate shackled by an antiquated parliamentary procedure. 

In particular, this week’s blockage of Biden’s For the People Act (H.R.1) – coined as the most ambitious voting rights legislation in a generation – is the latest measure of obstruction by Senate Republicans. Fresh from an attempted putsch by QAnon and Trump loyalists on 6^th January and enactment of state voter suppression laws across the country, the bill promised to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws, and limit partisan gerrymandering. Yet its failure in the split Senate portends further doom and gloom for Biden’s rather quixotic agenda. 

Biden started off with a bang. A litany of executive orders in his first week intended to undo Trump era directives and his landmark achievement thus far, the American Rescue Plan. The bill injected the recovering economy with nearly $2 million dollars in stimulus, including expanded unemployment benefits, direct payments to individuals, expanded the child tax credit, and earmarked grants for small businesses struggling to stay afloat amidst a recession. However, by using the parliamentary procedure of budget reconciliation, Biden overrode the filibuster rules and the 50-50 senator split in the Senate to pass his bill with a simple majority; Kamala Harris providing the tie-breaking vote in her capacity as president of the Senate. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans used the same reconciliation process to shoehorn the now infamous tax cuts of 2017. Biden however, forsaking austerity for increased deficit spending, has proposed over $4 trillion of additional funding under his Build Back Better Plan. Significant appropriations intended to bolster climate policy, child care, infrastructure, and job creation. Such exorbitant spending is anathema to conservative ideology and top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell has deemed Biden’s budget as “radical” and the “wrong prescription for America.” The same obstinacy that hampered the Obama administration now threatens to derail Biden’s legislative mandate. 

It’s rather facile to suggest that the filibuster is the thermal exhaust port on the senatorial Death Star. However, in a split Senate, a practically untenable supermajority of 60 Senators is required by parliamentary rules to pass major legislation. Much of Biden’s signature legislation is unlikely to receive the endorsement of ten Senate Republicans. Additionally, the specter of Donald Trump as kingmaker looms large over the 50 Republicans in the Senate. Despite Trump’s second impeachment and election defeat, he has consolidated control over the GOP and its electorate. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows over 53% of Republicans still view Donald Trump as the legitimate President of the United States. Liz Cheney’s sacking as House Republican Conference chair last month is widely seen as punishment for her impeachment vote during Trump’s second impeachment trial earlier this year. One Republican voting with the Democrats is tantamount to political suicide. Ten is fiction. The polarization of the country has only intensified political differences and the whispers of the “Big Lie” threaten to ignite the crucible of American society. 

Yet Biden remains unabated in his plea for comity and bipartisan legislation, much to the chagrin of the progressive wing of his party. Many of Biden’s pleas are ostensibly for political theater, intended to convey to the American public that he remains committed to his campaign promises of re-establishing norms of unity and civility. However, the precarious nature of Democratic senators and their diverse “Big Tent” of constituents also requires placating moderates. Namely, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Both Manchin and Sinema have publicly stated their opposition to abolishing the filibuster through op-eds in the Washington Post. In doing so, they have effectively provided the death knell to much of Biden’s legislative hopes ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. The Democrats can hope to pass another bill through budget reconciliation this year, however under the Byrd Rule, any of Biden’s ambitious promises deemed extraneous to budgetary spending would be discarded in the final bill. Even so, a simple majority requires the approval of Manchin and Sinema, both of whom have balked at the mounting cost of Biden’s legislative proposals. 

Yet despite voicing opposition against the For the People Act for its partisan scope and promises, on Tuesday both Sinema and Manchin voted to begin debate on the ultimately blocked bill. This signals for some that both Senators may cave to public pressure and ultimately use the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster. The nuclear option allows for the Senate to override the existing filibuster by closing debate and advancing legislation with a simple majority. The nuclear option has been used by Senate Democrats in 2013 to eliminate the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations, and most recently by Senate Republicans to end the debate on Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Despite these precedents, Manchin continues to argue that ending the filibuster will “destroy our government” and Sinema states that the filibuster “compels moderation.” Other critics have cited that nuking the filibuster will ultimately give Republicans free reign to legislate when they eventually take power. However, proponents of filibuster reform argue that the party with majorities in all three branches of government — Republican or Democrat — deserves to use its legislative entitlement. Barack Obama – long a victim of McConnell’s obdurate Senate – has vehemently rebuked the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic.” Others have offered alternative proposals such as gradually lowering the filibuster threshold to 55 votes or re-enacting a “talking filibuster” where Senators must hold the floor with speeches in order to delay legislation. While the debate to end all debate rages on, a failure to legislate ensures a failure to galvanize the electorate in the upcoming midterm elections. 2022 brings with it heavily gerrymandered districts and several Congressional Democratic seats up for grabs. Historically, majorities have failed to maintain their momentum going into the midterm elections. A split legislative branch and McConnell’s machinations after the 2010 midterms all but hamstrung the remainder of the Obama-Biden administration. If history repeats itself and Republicans seize control of the House or the Senate, the new FDR will all but be a legislative bystander for the remainder of his term. For too long the United States has fallen behind its allies and adversaries due to incrementalism, congressional gridlock, and a regressive parliamentary rule. If the filibuster remains and Democrats fail to go big as promised, it’s a question of when, not if, the Death Star floating above Mar-a-Lago is fully operational once again.

Throughout history, attitudes of the great powers have been changing on the legality of the use of force. Great powers such as the United States rejected International law at various moments. International law is defined as the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries. But both the Clinton and Bush presidencies in the 1990s and 2000s also used international law to justify military interventions and implement liberal imperialist foreign policies. However, unlike Clinton and Bush, Trump followed his predecessor Obama by wanting to take a step back from protracted wars around the globe and becoming less interventionist. Then Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo claimed that America had always been a “liberating force, not an occupying power” but the time of “self-inflicted shame” was now over. So how did America come to this point? Has America’s need to maintain its hegemony become less attractive and more expensive? Or has this been a change based entirely on a shift in morality and mindset?

US intervention during the Reagan era

It’s clear that even from the Reagan era of the 1980s, the aims of successive US administrations were to overthrow democratically established governments and to impose aggressive policies and actions in order to protect its own interests. For example, the International Court of Justice found that from 1981 to 1984, the US undertook an “act of aggression” by providing funds for military and paramilitary activities by the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. However, the US justified its actions and the sanctions it imposed on the Nicaraguans as a “collective self-defence because of Nicaragua’s indirect aggression against El Salvador”. Geopolitically too, the US claimed its use of force was to preserve political stability in Central America and to combat the threat of communism by the Sandinista government. These arguments were widely rejected by international lawyers and human rights organisations. For example, former Professor of Law, Pete S Michaels, examining the legality of US intervention in Nicaragua, commented that the Neutrality Act and the Boland Amendment both suggested that the United States intervention in Nicaragua was illegal. But America was also protecting its financial and business interests. Various US companies had still had either businesses based in Nicaragua such as United Fruit, Monsanto and over 30 other US businesses or held significant interests in Nicaraguan firms for example 50% interest in the Gemina flour mill, 75% interest in B.C.I. Chemicals and a 30% interest in the Polycasa plastics company. 

Probably one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in the history of the United States was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Along with Britain and other countries, the US declared that Iraq posed the “greatest security threat” – being a rogue state with connections to terrorist organisations such Al-Qaeda; and that Saddam Hussein was harbouring weapons of mass destruction which he wouldn’t think twice about using against the West as he had used them against his own people. However, under the guise of helping the Iraqi people and spreading democracy, the US was actually found to have breached the UN Charter by going headlong into an illegal war. In contrast to the 1991 Gulf War which was seen as a “morally defensible war” with the support of the UN Security Council to remove an invading power, the Iraq war this time around had very little to do with WMDs and human rights but was entirely “motivated by a desire to (re)establish American standing as the world’s leading power”. 

Obama and his approach

Fast forward to 2011 where there appeared to be a change in tactics. President Bashir Al Assad of Syria was accused of brutal crackdowns of civilian protests, including using chemical weapons against his own citizens. However President Obama had been elected at a time when the global financial crises had had a huge impact. Thus, his administration adopted a more “geopolitical realism” approach – trying to avoid being mired in a yet another expensive and endless conflict in the Middle East. Obama admitted himself that Syria was of no vital strategic importance to the US – ironically serving to also acknowledge that past foreign interventions were undertaken primarily to protect US interests rather than the humanitarian reasons professed at the time. 

But at the same time, did America still have a duty to uphold its “policeman of the world” status by acting decisively when a sovereign nation appeared to be killing its own citizens? As it is, when the US had evidence that Assad was “preparing to use chemical weapons” and that this was a major threat to national security, Obama clarified that US intervention would not be “open ended” and that there be “no [American] boots on the ground”. But was this too little, too late? Did Obama’s reluctance to use force early on and possibly reduce or even avoid the humanitarian crisis and chaos that followed, put a question mark over those policy decisions? It is possible that the protection of millions of defenceless Syrians against the horrors of civil war, might have been enough justification for forceful American intervention in the beginning, in this case. 

Is the present time different? 

The election of Trump meanwhile ushered in an era of “America first” further favouring a non-interventionist style. Trump made it clear that the US would be employing a completely counter position to previous administrations. It would not now be interfering in other countries’ affairs but would be putting the “interests of the American people and American security above all else”. Thus, the United States should pursue its interests and would not be constrained and controlled by international law. Moreover, in the case of Syria, Trump made a decisive statement at the National Security Council meeting that he did not want to stay in Syria for a lengthy period. This itself revealed that his approach was different to the normal US rhetoric. Prior to his presidency Trump opposed attacking Syria and his tweets were always focussed on forgetting about Syria and instead prioritising America, its people, jobs, healthcare system etc. However, as President in 2018 he justified the US military to conduct precision missile strikes against the Syrian government as a response to a reported chemical attack on its own citizens by the Assad regime. Thus, legality of the use of force was on humanitarian grounds. The US put forward a legal argument that the use of chemical weapons, both in Iraq and Syria, was a threat to world security, peace and stability. But this is problematic as it’s hard to claim when and how force should be used and also the war in Syria has turned out to be a devastated site of proxy wars between great powers. This ‘shared power’ makes it very difficult for any one party to declare war. 

And so to today and Biden’s “foreign policy for the middle class”. Biden promises to take a much more multilateral approach in order to “defend the liberal international order”. So does that mean normal service will now resume and Uncle Sam will retake its position in policing the world? From the so-called threats of Cold War communism and terrorism through to self-proclaimed protection of democracy and human rights, America has used a gamut of reasons to justify foreign interventions and wars. But it seems there has been a definite shift in the last 40 years to reduce its observable presence on the world stage but not necessarily its influence. The US still appears to be intent on protecting its hegemony and its own interests as it always has been and will likely continue to bend the rules when it suits – regardless of cost to other nations. In the meantime, we just have to watch and wait.

Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Months after the end of the Trump administration, division and discrimination continue to ravage politics in the United States. Perhaps the most troubled political entity is the Republican party, whose opinion on Donald Trump, the state of the party today, and its future has become divided. Trump, who garnered near unanimous Republican support following the 2016 election, has now become a point of contention primarily due to his false claims regarding wide-spread election fraud during the 2020 presidential campaign, as well as his support for the insurrectionists during the January 6^th Capitol siege. Nevertheless, 59% of Republicans still want Trump to remain active in the party, while 54% want him to be the presidential nominee for the 2024 elections. 

Most Republicans remain loyal to Trump. In fact, 53% still believe Trump is the true president; however, some party members have openly rebuked them for their refusal to accept Biden’s victory in the recent election and the  continued support for Trump in spite of his false claims. Seven Republican senators voted against the party’s recommendation to convict Trump during his second impeachment. Furthermore, 35 House Republicans voted in favour of a commission investigating the Capitol siege. This move contradicts Republican leaders who wish to underplay the violence at the siege and prevent further investigation due to fears it may demonise the party and Trump, which can sway  the 2022 midterm elections in the democrats’ favour.

Despite this, Republicans who criticise Trump find the party against them. For example, former Republican nominee Mitt Romney has received immense backlash because of his outspoken criticisms of Trump. More recently, House Republican Liz Cheney became a target for senior Republicans after she targeted Trump and the party itself on the House floor. Cheney condemned Trump’s claims of a stolen election and his role in the Capitol siege. Slamming the GOP for their support for Trump’s false claims, Cheney stated, “I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president’s crusade to undermine our democracy.”

This resulted in the Senior Republicans voting Cheney out of the House shortly after citing a need for unity in the party. Unsurprisingly, Cheney was replaced with Elise Stefanik who is well known for her unfailing support for the former president.  Despite his loss, support for Trump remains a pillar of the Republican identity, whereby any criticism of him is met with hostility and immediate action, demonstrating the stronghold Trump continues to have on the GOP. 

Cheney’s forced departure has left a trail of bitterness in the party as over 100 prominent Republicans recently signed a letter addressed to the GOP in response. In it, they threaten to split into a new party if current trends persist. These Republicans want the GOP to release itself from Trump’s influence feeling that the “party has divorced itself from truth and reason” and no longer “supports free minds, free markets, and free people.” 

As the party currently stands, it is clear that Trump will remain a key player in the future of the GOP. The majority remain Trump loyalists and hold power over the party’s current activities and future directions. While voters have expressed animosity towards the two-party system, the US remains one. It is unlikely that a third, smaller party would be able to immediately infiltrate a political system that has existed for centuries. In the immediate future, only a shift in voter behaviour can devalue Trump as an asset for the party. 

Social media was accredited by many to play a significant role in Trump’s election in 2016. Analysis of Trump’s tweets leading up to election demonstrate that he was able to use Twitter to reach his target audience efficiently and persistently. Trump used “informal, direct, and provoking communication style” to improve his identity as a political outsider and “construct and reinforce the concept of a homogeneous people and a homeland threatened by the dangerous other.” Communication through social media was Trump’s biggest strength; however, following his social media ban, he may no longer be able to maintain his influence over voters. Trump was de-platformed after being permanently banned from popular social media sites like Twitter and Facebook following the Capitol siege. His blog, which he started in retaliation to the ban, has seen little traffic; he is no longer able to reach the masses and is receiving considerably less media attention. It is possible that without Twitter, Trump may not be able to rile up voters even if he is selected as the Republican nominee for 2024.