Latest news with #Trotskyite
Indian Express
12-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Zohran Mamdani — a threat to Wall Street and the US financial empire
Amidst the million hot takes about Zohran Mamdani's victory in the Democratic Party primary for New York City's mayoral race, two stood out. The first involved the undisputed don of the Democratic Party's macroeconomic policymaking and former president Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, Larry Summers, taking to X to berate Mamdani. Summers accused him of advocating 'Trotskyite economic policies… following the most problematic aspects of Britain's Labour Party' and hoped that Mamdani would learn and eventually reassure Americans who are committed to a 'market economy as an American ideal'. The second: A friend from Delhi posted a half-sarcastic story on Instagram that read, 'Congratulations to all the residents of NYC' — ribbing her fellow South Delhi folks for going gaga over Mamdani. These disparate reactions highlight two fascinating trends evident in the aftermath of Mamdani's primary win. First, the sudden burst of enthusiasm and hatred (in equal parts) around the world about Mamdani — a name that most, perhaps, didn't know until a month ago. Second, how rattled some sections of Wall Street and the larger mainstream American economic establishment and commentariat seem to be when thinking about the prospects of a Mamdani victory in November. On the face of it, the reasons for both are straightforward. New York no longer boasts the world's fanciest skyline; kids watching stray reels of Chongqing's infrastructure in interior Uttar Pradesh and Bihar might testify to this fact. Yet New York, with its filthy subway and rat-dominated streets, remains enthroned as the world's cultural capital. When a staunchly left-leaning politician rises in the city, it animates the global left and right in equal parts. This, at least on paper, explains the global fascination with Mamdani. For Wall Street and the larger US economic mainstream, the idea of rent freezes and a wealth tax might be ones they are used to hearing in the American political discourse, but these need to be kept away from New York City, the heart of the global financial system. New York boasts the broadest, deepest, and most sophisticated financial markets in the world and accounts for a chunk of the US's systemic global power. Yet, these are just symptoms of a far more structural factor behind New York's disproportionate role in the global imagination. The late Italian economist and sociologist Giovanni Arrighi presents a masterful analysis in his book The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times, of how global financial centres like New York City have risen and fallen for centuries. More substantively, he contends that over the past six centuries, Genoa (the Italian city-state), Holland, Great Britain, and now the US have built capitalist global empires, which he refers to as 'regimes of accumulation'. These have had a few common features. First, each regime rests on a state-capitalist consensus, where economic sophistication arises from building world-class production and trade capabilities, supported by stable policies and institutions. This phase of development hinges on fixed capital investment driving productivity and mass consumption, seen clearly in early British and American dominance. Second, when further investments in fixed capital begin to turn less productive and cause rigidities, the state-capitalist consensus facilitates the financialisation of the economy, which leads to a rapid financial expansion across the capitalist global empire. The Genoese made the switch in the 15th century. Around 1740, the Dutch withdrew from commerce and emerged as the bankers of Europe. The British also followed suit and, after accumulating heaps of capital during the Industrial Revolution, shifted to comprehensive financialisation centred around London. Similarly, the Americans, following the industrial success during the pre- and post-war period, shifted to rapid financialisation of their domestic and global economy by the mid-1960s. Third, while each cycle of capitalist accumulation shares core traits, they differ in institutional complexity and regime sophistication. Genoa monopolised commerce but relied on external security; the Dutch internalised defence costs. Britain industrialised and absorbed both production and security. The US went further, internalising global transaction costs through its unique financial markets. This marks a clear evolutionary arc from Genoa to Holland to Britain to the US. Lastly, every phase of financialisation has carried with it seeds of the new regime of accumulation. A financial expansion has historically resulted in the flow of capital to another country, allowing it to develop production capacities more sophisticated than the incumbent, resulting in an increase in overall interstate competition and an eventual regime change. According to Arrighi, the shift from trade and production to financial expansion marks the beginning of the end of that regime of accumulation. As a side note, these four factors would have been quite instructive in predicting the emergence of the US-China rivalry. After all, it was the rise of the US financial system and the flow of its capital and technology to China that eventually allowed Beijing to become a competitor. Albeit significant, it's beyond the focus of our discussion. By virtue of evolution, the US capitalist global era has produced the starkly financialised form of globalisation, where the losers and winners have never been as apparent. While the current US regime has internalised the greatest number of costs, it is also the one regime that has overlapped the most with actual democratisation. Therefore, over the past six centuries, no other empire has faced such high domestic political costs and discontents. This is precisely what has resulted in the American political system being swept away by politicians like Donald Trump and Mamdani. How do these recurring patterns of global capitalist regimes explain the international obsession with Mamdani and Wall Street's angst with him? This is because New York isn't just the cultural capital of the world; it is effectively the capital of the US-led global financial empire. If the US created the widest and most comprehensive form of globalisation ever seen, then New York has been at the heart of it. In that sense, a small but significant upwardly mobile population across the world seems to be a part of New York's fabric and its politics. On its part, the city obliges by ensuring even its local election campaign is flooded with foreign policy debates and developments across the world. For folks on Wall Street and the like, Mamdani isn't some run-of-the-mill social democrat. He at the very least poses a challenge to the capitalist class at the heart of the US economy. He isn't just a threat to New York City but seemingly to the whole US global financial empire. Never mind that he might need some hard bargaining with Albany to fulfil his promises. The writer is associate fellow, Observer Research Foundation
The Spinoff
10-07-2025
- Business
- The Spinoff
Winston Peters finds his sweet spot as NZ First enjoys polling surge
The party has leapfrogged the Greens for the first time in years, buoyed by a weakened opposition and a newfound sense of stability in government, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. NZ First surges ahead New Zealand First's latest poll result marks a milestone moment in the party's unpredictable history. Yesterday's Taxpayers' Union–Curia poll has Winston Peters' party at 9.8% – its highest figure in a mainstream poll since August 2017 and the first time it has overtaken the Greens since a single poll in April 2020. It's a sharp jump of over three points from the previous poll in June and puts NZ First firmly in third place, ahead of both the Greens and Act, RNZ reports. For Peters, who just handed the deputy prime ministership to Act's David Seymour, the result is vindication that he still knows how to read the political room. If repeated at an election, NZ First would add four seats to its tally and become a powerbroker once again, showing remarkable resilience in an MMP environment where small coalition partners usually fade. A rare moment of stability For decades, Winston Peters' career has been defined by big swings – in, out, and back again. As Luke Malpass notes in The Post (paywalled), Peters has never clung to government by switching allegiances immediately after a loss; rather, his party has bounced between power and oblivion. What makes this term different is that NZ First isn't fighting for its life. Instead, it has found an unusual patch of stability, consistently polling above the 5% threshold. This resilience comes in part from the struggles of its rivals: the Greens have edged leftwards into what Malpass calls a more 'Trotskyite hue', and Te Pāti Māori's assertive agenda has unsettled some swing voters. Meanwhile, Labour's long road back to credibility – particularly in Auckland – has left gaps for NZ First and Act to fill. The result is a coalition where Peters' party, for once, looks comfortably secure rather than holding on by its fingernails. 'This time, the run-up to the election looks likely to be from a position of stability and relative strength,' writes Malpass. 'Can he finally get two terms in a row?' Freedom to criticise A key reason for NZ First's steady numbers is the unusual freedom minor partners have enjoyed this term. As Dan Brunskill highlights in Peters and Seymour have both had room to air differences and push back on the major party line, something rarely tolerated in past coalitions. The recent spat between Peters and Christopher Luxon over how to frame the 'trade war' with the US is a prime example. While Luxon described the growing US–China tariff standoff in stark terms, Peters publicly scolded him for 'hysterical' rhetoric, arguing for careful 'quiet diplomacy' instead. Far from hurting NZ First, this independent streak has reminded supporters what they like most about the veteran politician. Backed up by savvy social media – including a stream of punchy, conflict-heavy YouTube videos – the party's base sees a leader unafraid to stand up to power, even when he's part of it. Hot-button bills keep NZ First in the spotlight While Peters' personality is still NZ First's strongest weapon, the party's steady stream of headline-grabbing member's bills keeps its brand firmly in the culture war trenches. From proposals to define 'woman' in legislation to restricting DEI language in the public service, these moves play directly to its socially conservative base. Its latest proposal, however – to force retailers to accept cash for transactions up to $500 – broadens that pitch. Ostensibly aimed at protecting the elderly and rural communities, the bill also appeals to those wary of their privacy being eroded in an increasingly digital economy. Another less-noticed recent member's bill would ban any flag but the official New Zealand flag from government buildings – a neat dog-whistle to voters fatigued by what Peters calls 'cultural, woke, or divisive political ideology'. If the current polling holds, these stances could help Peters do what he's never done before: bring NZ First back for a second consecutive term in government.
New York Post
03-07-2025
- Business
- New York Post
NYC's business community aims to shove wishy-washy Andrew Cuomo out of the mayoral race — whether he likes it or not
Andrew Cuomo keeps saying he hasn't made up his mind about dropping out of the New York City's mayor's race despite getting trounced in the Democratic primary last week by the upstart Trotskyite, Zohan Mamdani – but an increasingly large contingent of the business community is planning to make the decision for him, On The Money has learned. The plan is to effectively defund his attempt to run as an independent in the general election this fall to allow the current mayor, Eric Adams, to have a clearer shot at preventing what they fear will be a Communist takeover of City Hall that was abetted by Cuomo's lackluster campaign against Mamdani. If they can galvanize enough support, they're hoping that Cuomo realizes he will have no money to compete in November, and they would force him to drop out. 3 A large contingent of the business community plans to defund Andrew Cuomo's attempt to run as an independent in the general election this fall to allow the current mayor, Eric Adams, to have a clearer shot at Zohran Mamdani. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design 'As far as we're concerned, what Andrew wants to do doesn't matter,' said one billionaire businessman and former Cuomo supporter who is behind the dump Cuomo effort. 'He lost after running a horrible campaign and we can't afford for him to screw up again. There's a lot at stake.' What's at stake is maybe the most far-left politician in the country taking over the epicenter of capitalism, and advancing policies like government-run groceries and defunding the police – and imposing massive tax increases on wealth creators to pay for all the stuff he promised during his campaign. And while the NYC business community is far from the largest voting bloc in the city, Cuomo and Adams need its support, aka campaign cash to combat Mamdani's well-oiled campaign that appears not to be short of financing from mysterious donors and money from the city's matching-fund election program. Cuomo, sources close to him say, understands the threat posed by these defections (former supporter Bill Ackman, a hedge fund billionaire, just threw in for Adams) and has been busy working the phones since last Tuesday's humiliating loss to the 33-year-old unknown, attempting to persuade his big money supporters not to jump ship and fully support the current mayor — who is running as an independent. 3 What's at stake is maybe the most far-left politician in the country taking over the epicenter of capitalism, and advancing policies like government-run groceries and defunding the police. Getty Images But the former governor is facing a lot of skepticism, particularly over his excuse for not more aggressively attacking Mamdani during the primary. 'Cuomo is nowhere right now,' said one government affairs executive at a major Wall Street firm. 'He needs two or three big donors to publicly call on him to continue to run. He needs that for credibility and so far it hasn't happened.' Cuomo has tried to deflect blame for being a no-show on the campaign trail, saying pre-election polls showed he was up comfortably and didn't need to rally support to offset Mamdani's progressive base. He's also arguing even after his own staggering defeat — by more than 10 points after final votes were tallied Tuesday — that it is Adams who is 'unelectable.' 3 'Cuomo is nowhere right now,' said one government affairs executive at a major Wall Street firm. John Angelillo/UPI/Shutterstock Cuomo and his people say Adams — who won four years ago as a Democrat — sat out the Democratic primary because he's tainted by the corruption scandals that engulfed his mayoralty. Also, the federal indictment that was dropped only when he embraced President Trump's deportation efforts, which in of itself, is a losing issue in very blue NYC. As evidence of Adams' unelectability, Team Cuomo pointed to a recent snap poll released by a firm called the Honan Strategy Group, showing Adams polling far behind Mamdani if Cuomo drops out. If Adams drops, the poll shows Cuomo up slightly in a general election matchup. The release of the poll may have slowed the anti-Cuomo momentum, but not enough to erase the deep-seated fears among business leaders – and past supporters – that the former governor shouldn't be given a second chance, several business leaders tell On The Money. They point to what was described as a weak concession speech by Cuomo that even congratulated Mamdami for his victory despite his advocacy of radical policies, including, as suggested on his website, taxing white New Yorkers more to pay for his redistributionist schemes. Adams, through his former chief of staff Frank Carone, has been holding around-the-clock meetings with top city business people, and slowly building a consensus that Cuomo blew it the first time and shouldn't be allowed a do-over, these people say. 'We're not calling people, but people in the business community are calling us asking how we can help and hear our plan on how we are going to win,' Carone told On The Money. 'That began literally at 10 p.m. on primary night when Mamdani won.' Last weekend, Cuomo was spotted at the East Hampton wedding of Democratic power broker Patricia Duff and real estate magnate Richard Cohen. According to one person who quizzed him on his future candidacy, Cuomo said at least for now he's in the race, but circumstances could change later if there isn't a path to victory. Cuomo's people tell me he was speaking in hypotheticals and as of this writing is still in it to win it, even preparing to release more polling data showing his relative strength in beating Mamdani, as compared to Adams, and GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa. The business community doesn't seem to be buying it.
Los Angeles Times
02-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Zohran Mamdani's victory in an NYC primary has billionaires and Democrats in a panic. Here's why
That deep-bass rumble you may have been hearing since June 24 is the sound of heads exploding on Wall Street and in certain Democratic Party smoke-filled rooms, provoked by the victory of self-described 'democratic socialist' Zohran Mamdani in New York City's Democratic primary for mayor. Here's my personal response to the handwringers over Mamdani's convincing win: Now you know what some of us have been living through. To be precise, they're reacting to the sudden inversion of a political world they thought they had in hand; it resembles the feeling we've felt as Donald Trump runs rampant over political norms that have been in place since the 1930s, or longer. Partisan forces are already mustering to deny Mamdani what has been close to a Democratic birthright since 1945 — the New York mayoralty (with the exceptions of Lindsay, Giuliani and Bloomberg). The question is why? History offers some answers. First, a quick look at some of the proposals Mamdani advocated during his campaign. They include a freeze on rents in the city's million rent-stabilized apartments, paired with a commitment to build 200,000 new rent-stablized apartments over time. Mamdani proposed establishing city-owned grocery stores; that sounds like socialism, all right, but as John Cassidy explained in the New Yorker, Mamdani was talking about a pilot project of five stores, all to be located in 'food deserts' — low-income neighborhoods that established supermarket firms don't touch. Then there's free bus transportation and free universal child care for families with children 6 weeks to 5 years old. As for where the money for these initiatives would come from, Mamdani proposes a city wealth tax — 2 percentage points on individual incomes over $1 million — and said he would ask the state Legislature to increase the state corporate tax. With these plans on the table, Mamdani's victory provoked the city's billionaire class and its water carriers to rhetorical paroxysms, including forecasts of economic armageddon for the city. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, for example, pronounced himself 'profoundly alarmed' by, among other things, Mamdani's 'Trotskyite economic policies.' Summers didn't explain which policies he meant and what made them 'Trotskyite.' I asked him for a clarification but haven't received a reply. What I learned from my professors of post-revolutionary Russian history, however, is that Trotsky advocated a policy known as 'permanent revolution,' which meant spreading a culture of Marxism from the Soviet Union to other countries; this was a counterweight to Stalin's ideology of 'socialism in one country,' which was Stalin's way of chickening out on conflict with countries outside the USSR. In any case, the debate was settled in Stalin's favor, not through reasoned debate but via an ice axe buried in Trotsky's skull by an assassin in 1940. Anyway, the debate was over politics much more than economics. The coalescing of the anti-Mamdani forces, especially the alliance between billionaires and machine Democrats, bears curious similarities to the attacks on another self-professed socialist running for public office as a Democrat. He was Upton Sinclair, who ran for governor of California in 1934 on a platform he called 'EPIC,' for 'End Poverty in California.' Sinclair had become world-famous with the publication of 'The Jungle,' his bestselling expose of the meatpacking industry in 1906, when he was 26. He followed up with a series of investigative novels about the coal and oil industries and the Sacco and Vanzetti case, as well as militant tracts on religion, the newspaper industry, finance, and education. He moved to Southern California in the 1920s and twice ran unsuccessfully for the state Legislature as a Socialist. He came out of political retirement in 1934 in part because the long-running GOP domination of California politics looked to have run out its string — the colorless Republican governor, Frank Merriam, was detested for upholding a sales tax that overburdened the middle class and vetoing an income tax, thereby leaving the upper classes in full possession of their wealth. Meanwhile, the Democrats had been left in disarray by their years in the wilderness. In the primary, Sinclair was opposed by seven challengers. But he was unique among the Democrats in speaking directly to the disaffected and dispossessed middle class. These voters 'gravitated to Sinclair by default,' observed Carey McWilliams, that indefatigable chronicler of California politics. Sinclair announced, in a campaign book titled 'I, Governor of California and How I Ended Poverty — A True Story of the Future,' proposals that included replacing the sales tax with a progressive income tax and estate tax, and providing a state pension for seniors and the needy of $50 a month. 'I say positively and without qualification we can end poverty in California … I will put the job through, and it won't take more than one or two of my four years,' he wrote in the book. The similarities to the present-day Democratic Party are inescapable. Despite their narrow loss to Trump in the 2024 election, the Democrats, with their sclerotic leadership, appear to have little clue about how to regain voters' favor. Mamdani's main rival in the primary was former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had resigned that office amid a miasma of sexual harassment accusations. Mamdani's victory was so complete that Cuomo conceded before all the ballots were counted. Cuomo says he will stay in the race until the general election in November. Sinclair's primary victory unleashed an immediate backlash from establishment Democrats, who made common cause with Republicans and industrialists. California's movie industry, which was led by some of the state's most reactionary businessmen, produced newsreels and still photographs depicting tramps and hobos surging over the state line to partake of EPIC's generous pensions, much of the 'documentation' drawn from feature films then in production. The daily newspapers, including the rock-ribbed conservative Los Angeles Times, lampooned Sinclair mercilessly. It was soon lost on nobody that his proposals, popular as they were, did not pencil out fiscally. Sinclair lost the 1934 election. Merriam was reelected with a 49% plurality. Sinclair returned home to Pasadena to write his campaign memoir, which he mordantly entitled 'I, Candidate for Governor — And How I Got Licked.' But he took solace in the fact that Merriam actually implemented some of his proposals, including replacing the sales tax with an income tax. A similar wave may be building against Mamdani, a native of Uganda who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018. (Trump has questioned whether Mamdani is a legal resident.) Establishment Democrats have seized on his appeals for fair treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and throughout the Middle East as though he is promoting anti-Semitism. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who represented an upstate New York district in Congress before moving to the Senate, accused him of having made references to 'global jihad' and called on him to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada.' In fact, he never used either phrase. She later apologized for 'mischaracterizing Mamdani's record.' Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen, who represents a suburban Long Island district, accused him falsely of calling for 'violence against Jewish people.' Neither of the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, has endorsed Mamdani even in the wake of his primary victory. Mamdani said, in a June 29 interview on NBC's Meet the Press during which anchor Kristen Welker pressed him to condemn the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' that 'that is not the language I would use.' He talked of his 'belief in universal human rights.... That includes the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians alike.' Among the differences between Sinclair and Mamdani — as Mark Twain is said to have observed, history doesn't always repeat itself but it does rhyme — Mamdani can make a plausible case for covering the costs of his proposals through a wealth tax. His chief obstacle may be politics, chiefly the state Legislature's resistance to the many proposals that require its assent. Given that money is the mother's milk of American politics, the greater threat to Mamdani's candidacy may come from Wall Street's denizens. 'It's officially hot commie summer,' billionaire hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb tweeted the day after the primary. Others predicted that Mamdani's election would drive wealthy people out of New York. Real estate executive Danny Fishman told the Wall Street Journal that Mamdani's mayoralty 'would be the death penalty for the city. And it would be the best thing to happen to Miami and Palm Beach since Covid.' Yet others question whether anything like a Mamdani mayoralty would really provoke millionaires and billionaires to decamp. High-rise New York apartments have acquired totemic significance for the superrich. Residences in Florida can't approach the bragging rights endowed by co-ops in the Manhattan clouds. Mamdani's overwhelming victory should give smart Democrats a road map to the way forward in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election. Plainly, he spoke to a deep-seated desire by voters for an escape from a domestic oligarchy's domination of politics. 'Taken together,' 31 economists wrote in an open letter supporting his candidacy, 'Mamdani's responsibly costed economic policies form a coherent agenda that rejects austerity and embraces the city's power to make life more affordable for New Yorkers.' As Republicans in Congress move ahead with a budget plan that will raise prices for ordinary Americans on healthcare, housing, child care, and so many other aspects of daily life, is that really a message that Democrats can afford to ignore?
Time of India
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
NYC Mayoral Race 2025: Decoding Indian-origin Zohran Mamdani's politics - through his father's books
At 33, Zohran Mamdani has done what few thought possible. The Indian-Ugandan-American state assemblyman is now the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, having defeated seasoned names like Brad Lander and even former governor Andrew Cuomo. He did it not with flashy billboards or donor cash but with lo-fi subway videos, rent freeze montages, and a policy platform that mixes TikTok aesthetics with Trotskyite rigour. Free buses, higher taxes for the rich, a Green New Deal for New York, and an uncompromising stance on Palestinian liberation. But to really understand Zohran Mamdani, you have to go beyond his press releases and Instagram reels. His campaign is deeply rooted in a political worldview shaped by his father, the Ugandan-born scholar Mahmood Mamdani. If Mira Nair brought art, Mahmood brought argument. A towering figure in postcolonial scholarship, Mahmood is not your typical academic. Born in Bombay (now Mumbai), raised in Kampala, exiled during Idi Amin's regime, and now based at Columbia University, he has spent his life dissecting the violent architecture of the modern world. His work explores colonialism, genocide, citizenship, and the political construction of identity. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cuối cùng, chơi miễn phí game chiến thuật hay nhất 2025! Sea of Conquest Phát ngay Undo His writing does not flatter the West, nor does it offer the easy moral binaries that dominate cable news. Instead, it explains how victims become perpetrators, how modern nation-states are built by creating permanent minorities, and why today's global order is structured by violence and historical amnesia. Take When Victims Become Killers , a chilling study of the Rwandan genocide. Mahmood refuses to reduce the massacre to ancient tribal hatreds. Instead, he traces how colonial powers imposed ethnic hierarchies that were then absorbed and repurposed by postcolonial regimes. Genocide, in this view, is not inexplicable horror but a foreseeable consequence of state-building built on exclusion. It's the kind of systemic lens that appears in Zohran's critique of Israeli apartheid. For him, it's not just a moral issue, but a structural and historical one. In Citizen and Subject , Mahmood explores how colonial rule in Africa created a split political identity. Urban citizens were governed through civil law, while rural populations were administered through tribal custom. The result was a decentralised despotism that survived well beyond formal independence. This analysis is echoed in Zohran's understanding of inequality in New York — a city divided not just by income but by how power and policy are distributed between neighbourhoods, between gentrified enclaves and neglected boroughs. Neither Settler Nor Native , perhaps Mahmood's most provocative work, presents the idea that settler colonialism and the modern nation-state evolved in tandem. From North America to Israel, the creation of political majorities required the simultaneous creation of political minorities. Mahmood argues that the violence of the nation-state lies not in its failures, but in its very design. He points to South Africa as an unfinished experiment, a vision of a post-national political community. That idea, of shared civic belonging rather than fixed ethnic identity, forms the heart of Zohran's political style — a coalition that includes immigrants, public housing tenants, young activists and first-generation voters. In Good Muslim, Bad Muslim , Mahmood traces how Cold War-era US foreign policy fostered political Islam, only to later demonise it after 9/11. He urges readers to reject the simplistic division between moderates and radicals and instead examine the geopolitical scaffolding beneath the rhetoric. This scepticism of Western moral posturing is visible in Zohran's foreign policy positions, especially when he challenges US military aid to Israel or surveillance of Muslim communities at home. Even From Citizen to Refugee , Mahmood's memoir of being expelled from Uganda, avoids the easy trap of martyrdom. He reflects on how colonial racial hierarchies shaped post-independence politics, and why Asians in Uganda were seen as alien even after generations of residence. His refusal to romanticise victimhood or flatten identity into a single narrative is mirrored in Zohran's discomfort with tokenistic representation. In his campaign, identity is not the message. Solidarity is. In Saviours and Survivors , Mahmood offers a critique of humanitarian intervention in Darfur. He warns that military responses in the name of saving lives can obscure deeper histories and serve strategic interests. The West, he writes, often projects its own moral anxieties onto other conflicts without addressing structural causes. That same suspicion of moral theatre shows up in Zohran's critique of performative politics, where statements are made for applause rather than outcomes. Across all his work, Mahmood returns to one foundational idea. Terms like native, settler, citizen, refugee — these are not neutral. They are manufactured, enforced, and sustained by systems of power. If they were made, they can also be unmade. That idea is not just theoretical. It is the driving force behind Zohran Mamdani's campaign to reshape the city he calls home. His mayoral bid may be happening in New York, but the ideas that fuel it come from Kampala, Kigali, and Khartoum. This is not just a son following in his father's footsteps. It is the continuation of a larger intellectual project, now playing out in the politics of America's biggest city.
