Fidel Castro - Legacy

Fidel Castro by Ecuadorian painter Oswaldo Guayasamin

Sympathetic obituaries expressed by politicians, activists and intellectuals of the recently deceased Fidel Castro will doubtless be slated by those who claim that the political Left is blind so far as despotism, oppression and ideologically inspired maladministration is concerned with Left-leaning revolutionaries.

Fidel's charisma cannot cover up the failures of his Marxist inspired system of governance they will argue. Where pro-Castro ideologues and other sympathizers will argue that Fidel saved Cuba from being the perennial Caribbean whorehouse of exploitative US corporations and organized criminals, the political Right will assert that Augustino Pinochet saved Chile from becoming a pit of Marxist misery.

If Fidel's hardline policies created the success of its renowned education and medical systems, Chile's relative economic prosperity should be credited to Pinochet's Chicago School influenced neo-liberal shock therapy.

It is worth briefly exploring the notion of there been an equivalency between the fortunes of Cuba and Chile under the leaderships respectively of Fidel and Pinochet.

After the trials and executions which followed the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista, the level of coercion used by the Castro government diminished and was nowhere near the level of state sponsored violence employed by the Chilean junta which was among the Right wing Latin American military dictatorships that implemented 'Operation Condor'. The evidence garnered from the research undertaken into this project aimed at neutralising political opposition clearly demonstrates that the  homicidal violence and systems of torture applied in countries such as Argentina and in Chile was widely disproportionate to anything in Fidel’s Cuba save for the immediate aftermath of the revolution.

Furthermore, the violence of the Pinochet regime’s battle against Marxist guerrillas and intellectuals was indicative of the great level of resistance against Pinochet while Castro was and still is a largely beloved figure among most of the resident Cuban population.

It has also been strongly argued that the economic success Chile began to experience in the 1980s owed more -if not everything- to the policies implemented at the time and not to the inhumane levels of unemployment and widespread hardship caused by the shock therapy administered during the previous decade in the aftermath of Allende's overthrow.

Pinochet is said to have gloated over the death of Fidel's friend and co-ideologue, Salvador Allende whose government he violently overthrew in 1973, by claiming that Allende had committed suicide at the La Moneda presidential palace using a rifle given to him as a gift from Fidel.

But if he held out hope that the same fate would befall his 'rival' Fidel he was wrong. Fidel outlasted the US-backed military juntas and other authoritarian regimes of Latin and Central America and saw the coming to power of Left-leaning governments in the region including the Bolivarian revolution of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. He survived a crippling American trade embargo as well as the difficulties caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the coming of an age of US-dominated unipolarity.

His revolution is considered a cornerstone of the post-war anti-colonial movement. And after enduring the trials of the Cold War through the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis and numerous CIA-sponsored assassination attempts, Fidel endeared himself not only to Western Left-wing intellectuals but to many in the Third World for breathing life into the non-aligned movement.

He also won the gratitude and admiration of many on the African continent where Cuban soldiers shed blood during the Angolan Civil War; a classic Cold War-era proxy war waged between American and Soviet assets, and importantly one in which the Cuban armed forces inflicted a defeat on the South African Defence Force in the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.

Fidel was a dictator at the head of a one party system through which personal freedoms were curtailed and the operation of a planned economy had great ramifications for individual initiative.

But the genesis of Fidel from romantic revolutionary leader of the Sierra Maestra into the head of an Island fortress who aligned himself with the Soviet Union is one that still exercises analysts of the Cuban Revolution. While some assert that he was a communist from the very beginning, others claim that he was simply a Cuban nationalist imbued with an agenda which would be predicated on reforming economic inequities and fostering social justice.

The former school of thought finds justification in his political alliances with his brother Raul and the Argentine revolutionary, Che Guevara. Both believed in the tenets of Marxist thinking, with Raul growing closer to the Soviet Union and Che favouring Maoist China.

The latter viewpoint maintains that Fidel was forced into the arms of the Soviet camp by American hostility which in the Cold War period automatically ascribed communist leanings to most national liberation movements. It is a perspective also accommodating of a rationale for Fidel’s decision to turn Cuba into a closed society.

‘Open’, democratic  societies, Fidel and Che had noted had been susceptible to infiltration and destabilisation by covert action undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency in the overthrow of governments in Iran and Guatemala.

Since a democratised Cuba with a free press and independent non-governmental organisations could only make itself vulnerable to manipulation by the intelligence agencies of the imperialist powers, Fidel, who had closely studied the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, made a commitment to forswear the development of an open society if he came to power.

The trappings of a totalitarian state were evident. The purge at the outset of his coming to power was as violent and arbitrary as Mengistu’s ‘Bloody Saturday’ or episodes of Soviet state terror during the Yezhovchina.

Also, the fall and eventual execution of General Arnaldo Ochoa, Cuba's most decorated soldier, was a troubling episode which despite Fidel's explanations, a significant many believe was orchestrated to scapegoat a hero of the Cuban Republic in order to ensure that Fidel and his brother Raul saved face.

While his enemies, many of whom developed and entrenched a formidable level of political power in the US state of Florida, would say that his control of certain state land and properties equated to the amassing of great personal wealth, Fidel is viewed as a fearless and selfless liberator for the oppressed masses of Latin America and Africa.

His domestic programme included progressive policies aimed at alleviating centuries of racial and gender inequalities, improving housing, expanding medical care, securing agrarian reform and developing the country’s natural resources for the common good.

That he could transform his country from being a private bordello of US corporate gangsters and Mafioso to one possessing a first class health service and education system is evidence of his having been a force for the betterment of his people.

In raising Cuban society from the moral and economic cesspit of foreign domination and exploitation as well as in showing the sort of courage few African, Latin American or other leaders from the developing world could muster in standing up to imperialism, it is Fidel more than any authoritarian figure to the Left or Right of the political spectrum who for many reasons will leave a positive legacy whatever the shortcomings of his revolutionary government.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Fidel Castro (1926-2016)

'Fidel Castro'. Expressionist-style portrait by Oswaldo Guayasamin (1961)

He was one of the dominating figures in world politics and global events of the 20th Century: The Cuban revolution was a stunning part of the post-war anti-colonial movement. The Cold War brought the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuban involvement in proxy wars in Angola & Ethiopia. He was also a key figure in the attempt to breathe life into the non-aligned movement.

Domestically, and commencing with a bloody purge of the ancien regime, he was at the heart of social and economic reform not seen in Latin America since the time of Bolivar. Economic and social freedoms were compromised but accompanied by astounding developments in health and education.

And just as the Cuban system survived a long-term US-led embargo and the disintegration of the Soviet bloc which had followed in the wake of Gorbachev inspired 'perestroika' and 'glasnost', Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, it must be said, was the ultimate political survivor.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

My Father's Naval Career

Captain Emmanuel Makinde, F.S.S., N.N.

My Father joined the Nigerian Navy in 1964 as a Sub-Lieutenant.

He served in the following capacities:

. Flag Lieutenant & Flag Secretary to the Chief of the Naval Staff

. Deputy-Defence Adviser to the Nigerian High Commission in London

. Director of Supplies and Logistics

He also served on a five-man panel on the issue of Abandoned Properties stemming from Nigeria's Civil War set up in September 1975 by the regime of Brigadier Murtala Muhammad. 

My Father was awarded the Forces Service Star medal for meritorious service and retired from active duty in 1982.

His ranks were:

. Sub-Lieutenant (1964)

. Lieutenant (1966)

. Lieutenant Commander (1969)

. Commander (1974)

. Captain (1978)

© Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

My Father's Final Journey

Coffin draped in the Naval Ensign, My father is carried out of the compound of his country house by officers of the Nigerian Navy

My Father was born in Lagos, then part of the Southern British Protectorate of Nigeria. He served as an administrator in the Nigerian Civil Service and the Naval branch of the Armed Forces. He also served on a five-man panel on the issue of Abandoned Properties stemming from Nigeria's Civil War set up in September 1975 by the regime of Brigadier Murtala Muhammed. After retirement, he turned to the farming business in his hometown where he involved himself in many community development programmes. He died in October 2000.

The following text is from the funeral brochure entitled “Celebration of a Fulfilled Life”:

Navy Captain Emmanuel Oladipo Adeshiyan Makinde (rtd) was born on the 6th day of May 1932 in Lagos. He started his Primary Education at Ade-Oshodi Memorial Baptist Day School, Lagos and concluded it at Baptist Day School Oke-Ishokun, Oyo. He later attended Eko Boys High School for his Secondary Education.

Captain Makinde as he was generally called, was highly interested in Commercial/Secretarial activities. He got himself trained as a Verbatin Reporter focusing on the achievements of people like Mr. Horatio Agedah as a role model. His first appointment was with the Lagos City Council in 1949, where he was Stenographer in the Personnel Department and on many occasions took responsibility for very confidential letters of the Major of Lagos.

In 1957, he travelled to England on study-leave. It is remarkable to note that it took him less than 48 hours in London to get a stenographers job in the office of the director of the Ministry of Works. Captain Makinde, while in the Ministry of Works in the UK, demonstrated his capacity for athletics and eventually became the Captain of the Ministry’s Athletics Club. At the end of his studies, Captain E.O.A. Makinde qualified, by examination, as a member of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators.

He returned to the Lagos City Council in 1961. In Lagos, he quickly moved horizontally on transfer to the Audit Department of the Federal Ministry of Works, where he remained until 1964 when he joined the Nigerian Navy as a Sub-Lieutenant.

In the Nigerian Navy, he subsequently rose to the following positions before he voluntarily retired in 1981:

●      Flag Lieutenant to the Chief of Naval Staff.

●      Naval Attache to the Nigerian High Commission in the UK.

●      Director of Supplies and Logistics.

After he retired voluntarily as a Naval Captain at the age of 50, he moved to Oyo Town to set up a Poultry Farm. He was also involved in Community Development Programmes. He was however offered appointment as a Special Adviser to the then Civilian Governor of the old Oyo State, Dr. Omololu Olunloyo, a position he declined for personal reasons.

Between 1984 and 1987, he served as the Chairman of Associated Breweries Limited and Odu’a Textile Industries Ltd. He was also a Founding Member and Director of Akesan Community Bank, Oyo.

Late Navy Captain Makinde in his lifetime was a very active member of the Oyo Caucus and held the position of Financial Secretary until his death.

He was recently appointed the Chairman of the Pensioners Union Oyo.

Late Navy Captain Oladipo Makinde (rtd) was a devout Christian and an excellent family man. He offered his residence for many years as a place for Christian Fellowship Meetings. He would be long remembered for his friendliness, sound advice on knotty issues and numerous philantrophic gestures. Oladipo will live on in our hearts and minds.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

Forthcoming Interview on 'The Mind Renewed'

I will soon be making an appearance on 'The Mind Renewed', an internet podcast show about "thinking Christianly in a New World Order".

It is hosted by Julian Charles who has in the past interviewed the likes of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts,  the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during US President Ronald Reagan's first term in office who is a major voice in the 'alternative media' as a critic of US foreign and economic policy, and Dr. Daniele Ganser, an academic who wrote a book about Nato's secret armies; that is, the anti-Warsaw Pact stay-behind cells which later morphed into something very sinister during the Cold War years.

TMR Schedule Page on Adeyinka Makinde

We shall be joined by the lawyer and university lecturer Adeyinka Makinde for an interview centring in his forthcoming academic paper: "Can the British State Convict Itself?" Focusing on the Iraq invasion, "extraordinary renditions" and the UK's counter-insurgency strategy in the early years of the Northern Ireland "Troubles", Makinde questions the relationship between morality and "national interest" goals, and probes international and domestic law to make a case for the criminal culpability of high-ranking officials of the British state. He also challenges the opinion held by some experts, such as Geoffrey Robertson, that Tony Blair is not eligible to be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court.

Adeyinka Makinde trained for the law as a barrister. He lectures in criminal law and public law at a university in London, and has an academic research interest in intelligence & security matters. He is a contributor to a number of websites for which he has written essays and commentaries on international relations, politics and military history. He has served as a programme consultant and provided expert commentary for BBC World Service Radio, China Radio International and the Voice of Russia.

LINK: http://themindrenewed.com/schedule

© Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

Brexit: A Constitutional Argument for Completing the Process of Withdrawal from the European Union

The recent decision by the High Court in favour of an action brought to challenge the government’s decision to use powers under the Royal Prerogative to trigger article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which would effectively bypass Parliamentary supervision and approval, has reopened the often bitterly polarised debate among Britons over its association with the European Union. The challenge is largely seen by those in the ‘Leave’ camp as a strategy geared towards frustrating the United Kingdom’s exit. It is also correct to say that many in the ‘Remain’ camp see this move in much the same way, given the pro-European Union views of the applicants and their backers. However, while over 70 per cent of Members of Parliament were in favour of remaining in the European Union, there are strong constitutional arguments which endorse the position that Parliament, although the sovereign body within the United Kingdom, would be going against constitutional propriety if it sought to reverse the result of the referendum vote.

I presume that I have not been the only lecturer in constitutional law who has been inundated with queries from students about the mechanism of triggering Article 50 and Britain's withdrawal from the European Union. Is the referendum binding or can Parliament refuse to go through with withdrawal from the EU? My response was and continues to be that there is no specific rule which states that a referendum is binding on Parliament which in British constitutional theory is sovereign.

As A.V. Dicey asserted, Parliament can make or unmake any law and no other body within the United Kingdom can overrule its decisions. Further, the result of the referendum is, as even Nigel Farage concedes, 'advisory' not 'binding'.

There have of course been grumblings about the closeness of the vote, and also that both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted majoritively in favour of remaining in the European Union.

However, my position is that the referendum vote is required to be upheld and that Parliament, notwithstanding that a majority of its members favour ‘Remain’, is obligated to oversee the withdrawal of the United Kingdom for the following reasons:

1. The previous referendum over continued European Union (then European Community) membership in 1975 was upheld and Britain duly remained in the organisation. Therefore as a matter of precedence, the decision to leave should be followed through.

2. The fact that Britain had to call for a referendum over whether the European Communities Act (1972) should be repealed indicated that the will of the people would be given precedence.

The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty essentially means that law, even those with constitutional significance, can be repealed by a simply majority vote in Parliament.

In a country such as the United States which has a written constitution with the attendant express distinction between constitutional and ordinary law, this would be impossible.

Constitutional rules are, to use the technical term, 'entrenched'. In other words, they can only be changed through a special procedure which usually needs to have a healthy majority such as two-thirds consent.

The referendum requirement was an admission that the European Communities Act was effectively entrenched and that a vote by the people, the equivalent of a special procedure utilised by nations with codified constitutions, would decide whether to continue or reject the Act which gives up British sovereignty to a supra-national entity.

3. The referendum should be upheld and Britain should proceed with withdrawal on the basis of what is known as 'political sovereignty'. 'Legal sovereignty', that is, the power vested in a body with supreme law-making power in a country, rests with the United Kingdom Parliament. Its law making powers have no limitations so far as subject matter, geographical competence and time range are concerned. In fact, Parliament, to borrow a phrase used by King Charles I, historically possesses a "universal over-swaying power".

However, even Dicey acknowledged, "Behind the legal sovereign that the lawyer recognizes, there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow."

He continued thus, "This is the political sovereign. In democracies, the legal sovereign receives its authority from the electorate, whatever be the basis of the right of vote, and is answerable to it for the exercise of its powers."

In other words, Parliament is itself subject to the will of the people at regular intervals via the electoral process. Fresh mandates are sought after the expiry of a full term of Parliament or even -the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011 notwithstanding- before such expiry.

While it would be correct to characterise Members of Parliament as being the representatives rather than the delegates of their electors, it is pertinent to remind that Parliament makes laws based on policies broadly approved by the electorate.

If the argument that political sovereignty lies with the electorate is accepted, then the specific device of the referendum serves as a special mechanism through which Parliament is obliged to effect the will of the people. While the referendum is not binding, it arguably represents a conscious transfer of decision-making power to the people. Therefore overturning the result of the referendum would be unconscionable.

5. A simple majority vote has to be respected. The referendum vote while fairly close at 52 to 48 per cent in favour of exiting the European Union should not intrinsically serve as grounds for disputing the legitimacy of the result. While a much more decisive margin in favour of either 'Remain' or 'Leave' would have been welcome, the electoral culture of the British political process which is dominated by the 'first past the post' system has ensured that Parliament has received electoral mandates from the slimmest of majority votes. In fact, the system enables the winner of the 'largest' number of votes among election candidates to prevail over others whose combined votes may surpass that of the winner.

The uproar over the recent High Court ruling in favour of Parliamentary input into the terms of withdrawal is essentially one which is fearful of the possibility that Parliament could exercise its sovereign powers to ignore 'Brexit' and remain in the European Union.

There is a great deal of merit to the argument that Parliament, as the sovereign law making organ of the land and representative body of the electorate should be fully involved in the process of triggering the mechanism for Britain’s withdrawal as well as negotiating the details of the withdrawal before it formulates a great repeal bill.

It is Parliament after all which passed the relevant Act which took Britain into the then European Community and the detailed conditions of Britain’s departure which would define the nature of the country’s relationship with the European Union after departure should arguably not be left to the executive branch of government exercising powers under the ancient Royal Prerogative.

That said, there is also logic in the counter-argument that since the prerogative power related to the signing of treaties was used in signing the Treaty of Accession in 1973 which formalised the United Kingdom’s entry into Europe, there is nothing inappropriate in utilising the same power to trigger the process of the country’s withdrawal.

It is possible for Parliament to be involved in the process of triggering article 50 while remaining faithful to the referendum decision to leave. It would also be incumbent on the government to follow through with the United Kingdom’s exit if the High Court’s decision is overruled by the Supreme Court.

However, Britain operates under the auspices of an inherently flexible uncodified constitutional system of governance, and this factor taken together with the polarised circumstances over the terms of Britain's association with Europe may be enough to temper any assumptions of an absolutely correct theoretical approach to this matter.

(c) Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

Adeyinka Makinde teaches Public Law. He is based in London, England.

The October Surprise and the Futility of the American Electoral Process

The American presidential selection process with its debates and dirty election tactics including the ‘October Surprise’ enthralls an electorate that is severely divided by its ideological and identitarian positions and which continues to invest its hopes in the supposedly transformative powers invested in the office of president. But they are being ruthlessly played by a system in which ‘change’ is an illusion and will remain elusive if the system is not subject to root and branch reform.

Well it is October, and the idea of springing an 'October Surprise' in the presidential election season in order to alternatively damage and boost the prospects of a presidential candidate has become something of an election pastime.

Quite a few alleged 'October Surprises' are still subject to heated debate and have defied resolution so far as the issue of origin and intent are concerned. These include the allegation that Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon sabotaged peace talks with the Viet Cong to do down Hubert Humphrey's prospects in 1968, and that Ronald Reagan's team made a deal with the Iranian mullahs not to release the US hostages until after the 1980 election.

In more recent times, the Benghazi incident of September 2012 is suspected by some to have been triggered by an internecine struggle within the US intelligence community. A 'Mormon' faction of the CIA is claimed to have orchestrated events so as to favour the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney while he campaigned against the incumbent Barack Obama.

So is FBI director James Comey's decision to reopen the inquiry into the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal one in a long line of October surprises? It certainly bears the hallmarks of one.

But for what ultimate reason?

It could be because Comey himself may have Republican Party sympathies and has done it solely for partisan reasons. Alternatively, it could be because a faction of the American ruling elite have decided at the last minute to ditch Hillary Clinton in favour of Donald Trump because they see Trump as someone who will nonetheless enable them to fulfill their goals.

For instance, even if Trump wants rapprochement with Russia, the US oligarchs can still have a war with Iran. And if they are crazy enough to risk war with Russia, they can risk one against China. Trump's bellicose comments regarding Iran and China make these goals attainable.

The American empire continually seeks to assert control over the monetary and natural resources of other nations. Preserving the precedence of the dollar as the global reserve currency as well as initiating the destruction or marginalisation of recalcitrant nations remains a priority if its post-World War economic domination and its hegemony in the post-Cold War unipolar system are both to be sustained.

There is an indubitable logic behind the argument that a victory by either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, two of the most unattractive candidates in recent history,  cannot substantively alter the course of the United States. The political system will remain corrupt if there is no reform of electoral rules enabling politicians to be bought by the highest bidder.

Added to the malady of 'pork barrel' politicians is the fact that economic markets are rigged by the Federal reserve and by the U.S. Treasury. The financial sector of the United States is geared towards extracting economic surplus and capitalizing on debt obligations paying interest to that sector.

The governance of America is effectively one which is structured to serve the interests of an oligarchy. And while some have poured scorn on making an analogy between the resultant hierarchy of class relationships to that of a feudal order, surveys back up the claim that government policies do not often reflect the needs of the mass of people. Surveys, such as that conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, show that the majority of the American public have little influence over the policies adopted by incumbent administrations. The views of rich people have a much greater impact on policy decisions than those of middle-income and poor Americans.

The presidents and prime ministers of the Western democracies effectively work for the mega-banks and powerful corporations. While a President Donald Trump may set a different tone in the White House, he will not be able to overcome the fundamental workings of the system. While Hillary Clinton is correctly seen as a career politician immersed in the system, Trump, it should be reminded, is a product of the same system.

It is not difficult to work out the control exercised by banks and corporations on those in political office because they ensure that politicians are effectively on their payroll through campaign donations and remunerations paid for speaking engagements. This ensures that the holder of the office of president and those who sit on congressional committees will do their bidding. As Huey Long, the one time Louisiana state governor and senator once put it, officeholders are “dime a dozen punks.”

The Mega-banks such as Goldman Sachs, the large corporations such as those attached to the military industrial complex such as Lockheed Martin, the extractive industries as illustrated by the activities of the Koch brothers, and powerful interest lobbies such as those concerned with Israel, are all complicit in influencing government legislation and policies which may often run counter to the public interest.

These include the formulating of international trade agreements that are detrimental to American workers and consumers, the approval of projects which are not environmentally sound, adherence to ‘too-big-to-fail’ policies involving public-funded bailouts, the failure to prosecute criminally culpable bankers and the promotion of American interventions in foreign countries in the form of fomenting internal insurrections and the use of the United States armed forces in wars.

The notion that government works on behalf of big business is not a new one. Indeed, American history is replete with examples of where its intelligence agencies have been deployed or its military has been used to enforce the interests of corporations. Aside from the Cold War interpretations given to the machinations of the Dulles Brothers during the Eisenhower years, both were behind the overthrow of the governments of Iran and Guatemala, respectively in 1953 and 1954, for the benefit of American corporations. Their association with the powerful law firm Sullivan and Cromwell provides an example of the link between big business and government policymaking. Both had been corporate lawyers and the companies they worked for benefited from regime change.

American oil firms were well represented among a consortium of businesses in a renegotiated oil deal with the American-backed regime in Iran while the United Fruit Company reclaimed its fiefdom in Guatemala. The intention of restoring American corporate interests was crucial to the attempt to invade Cuba and destroy the Castro government as it was in the case of the successful violent overthrow of the government of Salvatore Allende in Chile in 1973.

The use of the US military as enforcers of America’s corporate interests is also nothing new. General Smedley Butler, in 'War is a Racket', plainly admitted that he was a "gangster for capitalism"; a racketeer for big business as represented by Wall Street and the mega-banks. This has been an important factor in the United States reinforcing its dominance both hemispherically and globally.

Today, the animosity towards Russia and the resulting dangerously confrontational policy towards this nuclear armed power via the fomenting of conflicts on its borders as well as resistance to Russian anti-Jihadist action is Syria is rooted in Russia having broken away from the economic stranglehold held by United States corporate interests during the tenure of Boris Yeltsin. It is an animosity set to endure so long as the United States cannot control Russia’s oil, natural resources and public utilities.

Notwithstanding Trump’s conciliatory approach towards Russia, the war agenda, which has markedly contributed to the national debt, will continue regardless of who is elected in November. The Turkish invasion and increased American activity in parts of Syria have been designed to effectively partition the country and keep the conflict going, making it difficult for a President Trump to reach an accommodation with Russia. Any appointments made by Trump would have to be approved by the lobby-controlled Congress and he would have to rely on many civil servants in the mould of Victoria Nuland, the arch-neoconservative behind the 2014 coup in Ukraine, who has served both Republican and Democrat administrations

The present election campaign has brought into sharp focus the subversion of the democratic process in the interests of those who make major contributions to aspirants for political office. It demonstrates how the party political system, a duopoly of Democrat and Republican parties, both beholden to Wall Street interests, does not serve the needs of the overwhelming majority of the population.

Neither candidate has specifically advocated a concrete course of action that would negate the effect of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United of 2010 which allowed unlimited money in the electoral process, including that of a constitutional amendment. Although Trump once mentioned that the Federal Reserve should be audited, neither he nor Clinton have made any proposals in relation to constricting the modus operandi of the financial markets.

In the meantime, the American electorate continues to bicker over ideological and identitarian positions and invest their hopes and energies in the supposedly transformative powers invested in the presidency.

Americans need to wise up on the fact that they are being played by a ruthless system. ‘Change’ is an illusion and will remain elusive if the system is not subject to root and branch reform. Election debates, fomented scandals and October surprises notwithstanding, nothing will change in America until there is a fundamental rewiring of the existing political and economic structures.

Anything short of this means they are acting merely as cheerleaders within an elaborate dupe posing as democracy.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England