
Democracies rediscover the importance of bread, housing and a decent life
The rise of Zohran Mamdani, who last week won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City, the largest and most impressive city in the US, has jolted the American public out of their slumber, which had seemed endless since Donald Trump entered the White House.
To avoid drawing hasty conclusions, we must acknowledge that this young Afro-Asian Muslim who openly identifies as a socialist has only won a single round.
Just one round in the fierce battle that the moderate and progressive wings of Western democracies are waging with the rising far right in its conservative, fascist and racist iterations across Europe and its control over the world's two largest democracies: India and the US.
On these pages, I have written about what a university professor of mine once told me: If the 20th century was the century of ideology, the 21st is the century of technology. His claim is that the incredible pace of technological progress in our era will, in practice, solve many of the economic and ideological struggles that once pushed humanity to develop theories and abstract solutions.
Of course, we cannot fully endorse or entirely reject this claim just yet. We are only a quarter of the way through the 21st century and technological progress continues at a truly astonishing pace. Achievements and discoveries that once took centuries or generations are now emerging in months, not years.
Even in Western democracies that have long found comfort in the stability of their institutions, everything is changing
Eyad Abu Shakra
The whole is no longer what it was, and it will never again be what it is today, given the pace of economic shifts, innovations, shifts in professions, evolving beliefs and interests, the tremors shaking the structures of societies and their interactions, and the limbo that politics and value systems have entered.
Our societies, all of them, are intellectually teetering between extremism and counterextremism, and between isolationism and the collapse of barriers to invasions that had stood in their way regardless of pretext.
In short, these are uncertain times. And the wisest among us are those who place no bets, believe no one's rhetoric and take no risks backing any political project.
Even in Western democracies that have long found comfort in the stability of their institutions, unlike our own 'young' states in the so-called Third World, everything is changing before our eyes and the eyes of their citizens.
The very notion of the nation state, although it seemed firmly entrenched and secure after the end of the Cold War, is now threatened by populist and racist politics. The Ukraine war has sparked immense fear across Europe, which has become terrified of a power that is still nostalgic for the era of czars and red banners.
Meanwhile, the UK's exit from the EU was driven by the far-right isolationists who now threaten to dethrone the country's two major parties, the Conservatives and Labour, with the rising proto-fascist isolationists well placed to replace them. At the same time, a resurgence of the Labour left seems to be on the cards, as the credibility of the current Labour government declines. The state of affairs in Britain is part of a broader pattern across Western Europe: moderate forces on the right and left are in decline, while the extreme right and, to a lesser extent, the radical left are gaining ground.
This is also obvious in France, where Marine Le Pen's far-right and Jean-Luc Melenchon's left-wing movements have gained ground. In Germany, it can be seen in the rising popularity of the Alternative for Germany party, while Italy's Giorgia Meloni is the leader of the Brothers of Italy party. In Portugal and Spain, the far right (Chega and Vox, respectively) are embracing the legacies of the fascist regimes, led by dictators Antonio Salazar and Francisco Franco, that imposed their rule for decades.
With its strategy for reversing the challenge posed by the far right's upward trajectory, the traditional moderate left is losing its soul and ability to resist. Frankly, this outcome is not surprising at all. The most these anti-far-right forces can hope for is to build fragile, ad hoc alliances that have no credibility, principles or platform.
Yes, all the moderate Western left has done is evade honest conversations, buy time with empty rhetoric and seek to contain the rise of the far right, whose fervor drives its pursuit of wiping out its opponents entirely. The result? The far right is now dictating the political agenda and determining priorities.
In Britain, for instance, the far-right Reform UK party recently surpassed the ruling Labour Party in opinion polls. This is a telling message and a dire warning delivered to a party that has sacrificed its core principles in an attempt to appease powerful lobbies and temporarily broaden its appeal in the face of a populist force willing to ride any wave.
Mamdani has shown his party that victory is impossible without clear principles, no matter how risky sticking to them may seem
Eyad Abu Shakra
In the US, the Democratic Party has made serious mistakes, dragging its feet far too long and trying to cash in on empty slogans.
Democrats understood the nature of the battle they faced in 2016 against Trump and his populist 'Make America Great Again' base. However, they have committed two grave errors. First, they underestimated the far-right's capacity for stirring anti-immigrant sentiment among unskilled workers and the Rust Belt.
Second, they ignored the material demands at the heart of this struggle. The US' most prominent left-wing politician, Sen. Bernie Sanders, did recognize this problem. He tried to appeal to disaffected working-class voters and bring them back into the Democratic fold to ensure they did not become easy prey for Trump and MAGA.
The Democrats repeated the same mistake later. This time, it was more egregious. The unconditional support of Joe Biden's administration for Benjamin Netanyahu and his Gaza war cost the party's 2024 candidate, Kamala Harris, tens of thousands of votes from the left, as well as the votes of Muslims and Arab Americans in key swing states … votes that could have gone her way, at least in theory.
Mamdani may or may not win November's mayoral race in New York — a city that remains the hub of Jewish American life. Nonetheless, he has shown his party that victory is impossible without clear principles, no matter how risky sticking to them may seem.
Mamdani understands that the people of New York face urgent material crises that need solutions, not the empty slogans of opportunists and domestic and foreign lobbies that are amplified by Fox News and the like.
Even in the century of technology and virtual worlds, people still need bread, jobs, medicine, employment and social security.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Deal or no deal: What happens with Trump's July tariff deadline?
A week before US President Donald Trump reimposes steep tariffs on dozens of economies, including the EU and Japan, many are still scrambling to reach a deal that would protect them from the worst. The tariffs taking effect July 9 are part of a package Trump imposed in April citing a lack of 'reciprocity' in trading ties. He slapped a 10 percent levy on most partners, with higher customized rates to kick in later in countries the United States has major trade deficits with. But these were halted until July to allow room for negotiations. Analysts expect countries will encounter one of three outcomes: they could reach a framework for an agreement; receive an extended pause on higher tariffs; or see levies surge. 'There will be a group of deals that we will land before July 9,' said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last Friday on CNBC. Policymakers have not named countries in this group, although Bessent maintains that Washington has been focused on striking deals with about 18 key partners. 'Vietnam, India and Taiwan remain promising candidates for a deal,' Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) Vice President Wendy Cutler told AFP. Without a deal, Vietnam's 'reciprocal tariff' rises from the baseline of 10 percent to 46 percent, India's to 26 percent, and Taiwan's to 32 percent. Josh Lipsky, international economics chair at the Atlantic Council, cited Indian negotiators' extension of their US trip recently in noting that it 'seems like a frontrunner.' 'Japan was in that category, but things have set back a little,' Lipsky said, referring to Trump's criticism Monday over what the president called Japan's reluctance to accept US rice exports. The deals, however, will unlikely be full-fledged trade pacts, analysts said, citing complexities in negotiating such agreements. Since April, Washington has only announced a pact with Britain and a deal to temporarily lower tit-for-tat duties with China. Bessent has also said that countries 'negotiating in good faith' can have their tariffs remain at the 10 percent baseline. But extensions of the pause on higher rates would depend on Trump, he added. 'With a new government, (South) Korea looks well positioned to secure an extension,' Cutler of ASPI said. Lipsky expects many countries to fall into this bucket, receiving an extended halt on higher tariffs that could last until Labor Day, which falls on September 1. Bessent earlier said that Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by Labor Day, a signal that more agreements could be concluded but with talks likely to extend past July. For countries that the United States finds 'recalcitrant,' however, tariffs could spring back to the higher levels Trump previously announced, Bessent has warned. These range from 11 percent to 50 percent. Cutler warned that 'Japan's refusal to open its rice market, coupled with the US resistance to lowering automotive tariffs, may lead to the reimposition of Japan's 24 percent reciprocal tariff.' Trump himself said Tuesday that a trade deal was unlikely with Japan and the country could pay a tariff of '30 percent, 35 percent, or whatever the number is that we determine.' Lipsky believes the European Union is at risk of having tariffs snap back to steeper levels too—to the 20 percent unveiled in April or the 50 percent Trump more recently threatened. An area of tension could be Europe's approach to digital regulation. Trump recently said he would terminate trade talks with Canada—which is not impacted by the July 9 deadline—in retaliation for the country's digital services tax, which Ottawa eventually said it would rescind. This week, EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic is in Washington in a push to seal a trade deal, with the EU Commission having received early drafts of proposals that officials are working on.


Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Federal judge halts the Trump administration from dismantling the US African Development Foundation
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from dismantling a US federal agency that invests in African small businesses. US District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, DC, ruled that Trump violated federal law when he appointed Pete Marocco the new head of the US African Development Foundation, or USDAF, because Marocco was never confirmed by Congress. As a result, Marocco's actions — terminating most of the agency's employees and effectively ending the agency's grants — are void and must be undone, the judge found. Congress created USADF as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the US Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the US Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. Trump also fired the agency's board members and installed Marocco as the board chair. Two USDAF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF sued on May 21, challenging Marocco's appointment and saying the deep cuts to the agency prevented it from carrying out its congressionally mandated functions. The staffers and consulting firm asked the judge for a preliminary injunction, saying Marocco's 'slash-and-burn approach' threatened to reduce the agency to rubble before their lawsuit is resolved. They said the Federal Vacancies Reform Act prohibited Marocco's appointment to USADF, and that the same law requires that any actions done by an unlawfully appointed person must be unwound. 'This is a victory for the rule of law and the communities that rely on USADF's vital work,' said Joel McElvain, senior legal adviser at Democracy Forward, the organization representing the USDAF staffers and consulting firm in their lawsuit. 'We will continue fighting against these power grabs to protect USADF's ability to fulfill the mission that Congress gave it to perform.' US Attorney Jeanine Pirro had written in court documents that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act doesn't apply to USADF, and that the president has the authority to designate acting members of the agency's board until the Senate confirms his nominees. Any claims about the cuts themselves, Pirro said, must be handled in the Court of Federal Claims, not the federal district court. The judge found in a separate case that Trump had the legal authority to fire the previous members of the USADF board. Pirro wrote in court documents in that case that the president also has the legal authority to appoint someone to run the USADF, consistent with Trump's policy goals, until the Senate could confirm his nominees.


Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
US won't send some weapons pledged to Ukraine following a Pentagon review of military assistance
WASHINGTON: The US is halting some shipments of weapons to Ukraine amid concerns that its own stockpiles have declined too much, officials said Tuesday. The munitions were previously promised to Ukraine for use during its ongoing war with Russia under the Biden administration. But the pause reflects a new set of priorities under President Donald Trump. 'This decision was made to put America's interests first following a (Defense Department) review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe,' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. 'The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran.' That was a reference to Trump recently ordering US missile strikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The Pentagon review determined that stocks were too low on some items previously pledged, so pending shipments of some items won't be sent, according to a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide information that has not yet been made public. To date, the US has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion worth of weapons and military assistance since Russia invaded in February 2022. Over the course of the war, the US has routinely pressed for allies to provide air defense systems to Ukraine. But many are reluctant to give up the high-tech systems, particularly countries in Eastern Europe that also feel threatened by Russia. The halt of some weapons comes after Russia launched its biggest combined aerial attack against Ukraine over the weekend, Ukrainian officials said, in an escalating bombing campaign that has further dashed hopes for a breakthrough in peace efforts championed by Trump. The US stoppage was first reported by Politico. Trump met with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit last week and had left open the possibility of sending Kyiv more US-made Patriot air defense missile systems, acknowledging they would help the Ukrainian cause. 'They do want to have the antimissile missiles, OK, as they call them, the Patriots,' Trump said then. 'And we're going to see if we can make some available. We need them, too. We're supplying them to Israel, and they're very effective, 100 percent effective. Hard to believe how effective. They do want that more than any other thing.' Those comments reflect a change of thinking about providing weapons to Ukraine across the administration in recent months. In opening remarks at a Senate defense appropriations subcommittee hearing in June, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he has moved quickly to quash wasteful programs and redirect funding to Trump's top objectives. Hegseth said a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine, which has been promoted for months by Trump, makes America look strong, even though Moscow is the aggressor in the conflict. He also said the budget includes hard choices and 'reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent. And President Trump deserves the credit for that.' The defense secretary said during that testimony that some US security spending for Ukraine is still in the pipeline, but provided no details. Hegseth also acknowledged that funding for Ukraine military assistance — which has been robust for the past two years — would be reduced. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' Hegseth said. 'We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' Last month, Hegseth skipped a meeting of an international group to coordinate military aid to Ukraine that the US created three years ago. Hegseth's predecessor, Lloyd Austin, formed the group after Russia attacked Ukraine, and Hegseth's absence was the first time the US defense secretary wasn't in attendance. Under Austin's leadership, the US served as chair of the group, and he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff attended monthly meetings, which were both in person and by video. Hegseth had previously stepped away from a leadership role of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group — turning that over to Germany and the United Kingdom — before abandoning the gathering altogether.