Panel discussion on US Elections and Transfer of power: Historical, contemporary and Comparative Perspectives

Introduction

The panel discussion on “U.S. Elections and Transfer of Power: Historical, Contemporary and Comparative Perspectives” was successfully held on 23 January 2025. The session, organized as part of the U.S-India Cooperation Circle’s dialogue series, talked of U.S presidential elections, focusing on the critical process of the transfer of power. This session looked into the historical, contemporary and comparative dimensions of transitions of power and their implications for global  partnerships, particularly U.S-India relations. The discussion aimed to foster a deeper knowledge of transition in leaderships and governance emphasizing their relevance in the evolving geopolitical landscape.

The session featured eminent speakers from diverse academic and professional domains. Professor Russell Riley, the Co-chair of the U.S. Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia, Dr. George Varghese, Resident Editor of The Hindu.  The discussion also included contributions from young scholars representing Christ University and Nalanda University, Ms. Komal Pooja Ashokan and Ms. Anousha Antrolikar, bringing young perspectives to the dialogue. The event was moderated by Dr. Manoharan, Director of Centre for East Asian Studies, Professor at Christ University, Bengaluru. 

Opening Remarks

Dr. Manoharan welcomed attendees and introduced the session's focus: the transfer of power, examined through historical, contemporary, and comparative lenses. He then introduced the two main speakers. Professor Russell Riley, Co-chair of the U.S. Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia, addressed the historical and contemporary aspects of power transitions in the U.S. Dr. George Varghese, Resident Editor of The Hindu, provided a comparative perspective on power transfer in democratic systems.

Subsequently, Dr. Manoharan introduced two student perspectives to the panel: Ms. Komal Pooja Ashokan, a master's candidate in international relations at Christ University, and Ms. Anousha Anthrolikar, a master's candidate in international and peace studies at Nalanda University. He then extended a cordial welcome to all attendees, including the assembled scholars and other members of the audience, and invited them to engage in a discussion concerning the U.S. elections.

Panel Contributions

The topic of discussion revolved around the transfer of power in the U.S., and emerging political trends, and provided a comparative discussion between the U.S. and India. The panelists brought various insights into the conversation, while also addressing the historical and contemporary dynamics of power transitions, as well as broader geopolitical consequences of these transitions. Their analyses provided a comprehensive perspective of how structural factors influence transitions in the two democracies.

Professor Russell Riley,  ‘U.S. Elections and Transfer of Power: Historical and Contemporary perspectives’

Professor Riley discussed U.S. presidential transitions, analyzing their historical development, challenges, and risks. 1 He explained that this 11-week period between Election Day and Inauguration Day is crucial for the incoming president to establish priorities and staff key positions, often while still recovering from the campaign. 2 Riley compared transitions to a relay race, highlighting the lack of rehearsal and the opposing political directions of the "teams." While most administrations prioritize smooth transitions as a constitutional duty, the 2020 transition notably diverged from this norm due to contested election results and limited cooperation with the incoming administration.

Professor Riley traced the historical evolution of presidential transitions, noting their increased prominence since 1948. He attributed this later emergence to the expansion of presidential power post-WWII, a shortened transition period due to a 1930s constitutional amendment, and increased media scrutiny. He cited Richard Neustadt's argument that transitions extend beyond inauguration, lasting roughly two years. Riley also highlighted the risks, describing the early days of new administrations as a period of "maximum ignorance and maximum arrogance," where overconfidence and inexperience can lead to significant errors, like the Bay of Pigs incident. He concluded by offering a comprehensive historical and contemporary perspective on U.S. presidential transitions, emphasizing their complexities, challenges, and inherent risks.

Dr. George Varghese, ‘U.S. Elections and Transfer of Power: Comparative Perspective’

Dr. George Varghese compared government transitions in India and the U.S., focusing on structural and procedural differences. He highlighted the unique characteristics and institutional frameworks of each system. He contrasted the U.S. presidential election with India's parliamentary system, where legislators elect the Prime Minister based on majority support (typically 272+ members of Parliament), which can be uncertain post-election. Varghese explained that in India, the transition is usually negotiated before the new administration takes office, with a temporary government ensuring continuity between the election and swearing-in.

Varghese also discussed political appointments, noting India's requirement for cabinet members to become parliamentarians within six months, contrasting with the U.S.'s numerous political appointments with each new administration. He emphasized the importance of bureaucratic continuity in India, where permanent bureaucrats, overseen by the Union Cabinet Secretary, manage the technical aspects of the transition and swearing-in, providing briefings and information to ensure smooth governance. He observed that Indian Prime Ministers often have more national political experience than U.S. Presidents, potentially easing their transitions. Varghese concluded that India's transitions are generally smoother due to bureaucratic continuity and a more streamlined process compared to the U.S.' often personnel- and policy-heavy transitions, highlighting the impact of institutional frameworks on governance transitions in both democracies.

Youth Perspectives

Komal Pooja Ashokan, a postgraduate student and senior research affiliate at CEAS, discussed the American voting system and power dynamics. Highlighting the U.S. as a model of democratic resilience, she cited George Washington's two-term precedent and the peaceful resolution of the 1800 election dispute as key historical examples. Komal also addressed contemporary challenges to democracy, including disinformation, hyperpolarization, and institutional distrust, pointing to the 2020 election and the January 6th Capitol events as significant threats to peaceful power transitions. She argued that these events demonstrate the vulnerability of democratic norms to polarization and misinformation.

Ashokan also explored the balance between combating misinformation and free expression, questioning necessary reforms to preserve election integrity and public trust in democratic institutions. She emphasized the need for both societal involvement and systemic changes. Focusing on social media's role, she acknowledged its potential to create echo chambers and exacerbate polarization, urging her generation to address these challenges through active, imaginative, hopeful, and inclusive engagement in democratic processes. Ashokan stressed the enduring importance of democratic values, election integrity, and peaceful power transitions, concluding with a call to action for her generation to actively participate in upholding democratic institutions.

Anousha Antrolikar discussed power transfers in India and the U.S., focusing on governance priorities, youth engagement, and the robustness of democratic institutions. Highlighting procedural and symbolic changes, she emphasized their importance in preserving democratic principles, citing the U.S. presidential inauguration as a key example. Antrolikar praised the resilience of American democracy, even amidst social and political upheaval, and the strength of its institutions in upholding democratic norms and the will of the people.

Turning to India, Antrolikar cited the 2014 election as a smooth leadership transition, with the BJP's victory and Narendra Modi becoming Prime Minister. She noted the resulting shift towards development-oriented governance and national objectives.  She contrasted U.S. government employment transitions, where new administrations bring new federal officers, with India's civil service system, which ensures bureaucratic continuity regardless of political changes. Antrolikar urged youth involvement in democratic organizations to shape policies. Quoting Ronald Reagan, she emphasized upholding fundamental values during transitions. She concluded that youth dedication to democratic values is essential to ensure these transitions strengthen governance and sustain democratic ideals in both countries.

Panel Discussion

Professors Russell and Varghese praised the youth perspectives, expressing admiration for their understanding of American history and institutions. Russell noted the value of cross-cultural dialogue and humorously acknowledged that Americans can be "insufferable" about their politics. He expressed a desire for similar political awareness among American college students and suggested inviting Indian youth to educate their American counterparts, reflecting on a perceived decline in American appreciation for their own history and institutions. He hoped for a renewed sense of appreciation.

Dr. Varghese echoed Russell's praise for the youth speakers' insightful presentations. Dr. Manoharan then facilitated a discussion between Russell and Varghese on U.S. and Indian perspectives on governance transitions. Russell asked Varghese about India's view of the new U.S. presidency. Varghese explained that while some unpredictability exists, there's also reassurance due to familiarity with the current administration's leadership. He noted a mixed reaction to the former president's potential return, citing possible alignment on China and Russia, and less intervention in internal matters. However, concerns remain regarding stricter immigration and trade policies. Varghese highlighted the former president's stance on China as an adversary, aligning with India's interests, contrasting with the Democratic view favoring engagement with China over Russia. He concluded that India is weighing the potential pros and cons while preparing for various outcomes.

Dr. Manoharan asked Professor Russell about H-1B visas, citizenship policies for children of Indian immigrants, and American public sentiment regarding post-election power transfer. Professor Riley acknowledged his potential bias as an academic and noted that with the 2024 election, Trump narrowly won the popular vote. He emphasized that the polling data did not indicate a significant shift toward conservative populism but rather largely showed the voters' concerns about Biden’s age and leadership. He explained that many voters supported him without fully understanding his policies, and some were apprehensive about unexpected measures, particularly regarding immigration, which impacted industries reliant on immigrant labor.

Dr.Varghese posed additional questions to Professor Russell, exploring whether Trump’s victory was more of a rejection of the Democrats than an endorsement of his policies. Professor Russell talked of the complex nature of Trump’s support base, noting that various groups voted for him for different reasons. Overall, the discussion offered a new exploration of the U.S.-India relations, emerging challenges, and the possible dynamics in American politics.

Q&A Session

Q. Why is there a lack of youth participation in Indian politics and how does the knowledge production sector promote greater youth participation?

Asked by: Anusha Shrivastava, Answered by: Dr. George Varghese

A. There exists a significant age disparity between Indian politicians and the population, as well as the high entry barriers to politics. While acknowledging the better opportunities for youth in bureaucracy and administrative roles, there is a high need for younger Cabinet members to align leadership priorities with the aspirations of the younger population.

Q. There is a situation of growing oligarchy in U.S governance, with the inclusion of billionaires in Trump’s cabinet. Are there any possible consequences due to this?

Asked by: Roktim, Answered by: Prof. Russell Riley

A. We see a lack of checks and balances in Trump’s administration that has allowed prominent figures to wield more influence in the system. With that said, the Republican Congress’s alignment with Trump and the simultaneous erosion of traditional aspects on governance can lead to a prediction that a potential Democratic majority after the 2026 midterms can also restore balance.

Q. What is the role of the media in facilitating or hindering the peaceful transfer of power in an age where misinformation looms large?

Asked by: Dr. Manoharan, Answered by: Dr. George Varghese and Professor Riley

A. Media has a market-driven partisanship which acts as a destructive force in democracies. Misinformation can originate from politicians, while media can amplify it, reflecting and accentuating societal divisions. There is an erosion of public trust in the media, with only 24% of Americans expressing confidence in it, and highlighting the challenges posed by the media's incentive structure, which prioritizes sensationalism over objective reporting. Professor Riley further pointed out that describing that the current “information ecosystem” reinforces biases rather than informing citizens. There should be a free press for a functioning democracy, referencing Thomas Jefferson’s ideals, and expressing hope that younger generations could bring solutions to this alarming challenge. Both the panelists agreed that misinformation and the erosion of trust in media remain critical issues undermining democratic institutions and processes globally.

Q. With President Trump revoking 80 executive orders shortly after taking office, what could be the possible implications on continuity of administration, or will there be a potential discontinuity created by the sweeping reversals? Also how could this impact long-term governance? 

Asked by: Mohammad Sabtain, Answered by: Professor Riley

A. Revoking a large number of executive orders is seen as a common practice for incoming presidents, while bringing a quick and efficient way to undo policies without needing to go through Congress. Here, the new administration reverses most of its predecessor’s executive orders on day one, followed by the issuance of their own orders over time. Specific actions taken may differ, the overall number of revocations is within the standard pattern. So, this trend points to a shift toward more presidential governance, where presidents act independently rather than working collaboratively with Congress to pass laws.

Q. What were the initial difficulties faced by President Biden in achieving a peaceful transition of power, given that there was an initial refusal of the outgoing Trump administration during the 2020-2021 period?

Asked by: Jairam Prabhu, Answered by: Professor Riley

A. The 2020 transition was an exception to the usual smooth process. Peaceful transfers of power are considered a constitutional obligation and President Biden, despite the contentious nature of the period when he was elected, chose not to pursue retribution but instead focused on fulfilling his duties as a President. Certain concerns regarding the integrity of the election that had been raised during the transition largely dissipated after President Trump’s defeat in the subsequent election cycle.

Q. Which Presidential transition in the U.S history had the most significant impact on shaping future transitions?

Asked by: Hansika Sah, Answered by: Professor Riley

Thomas Jefferson's transition following the election of 1800 was the most significant. This transition could have marked the end of the American experiment, but instead, it demonstrated the nation's commitment to democracy. Both the winners and losers in this election exhibited a devotion to the democratic process, with the peaceful transfer of power helping to solidify the foundations of American governance. There exists a crucial importance of the losing side gracefully accepting the results of elections for democracy to function effectively.

Conclusion and Closing Remarks 

Kishore Kumar (CEAS) concluded the session with a vote of thanks. He thanked panelists Professor Riley and Dr. Varghese for their insightful contributions on the U.S. elections, and youth speakers Antrolikar and Ashokan for enriching the discussion. He acknowledged the audience, including students, for their active participation and diverse viewpoints. He expressed appreciation to Dr. Manoharan for expertly moderating the session. Finally, he thanked all participants and reiterated the Centre's commitment to future discussions.