POLITICAL POWER IS NOT A LICENCE TO TAKE THE PEOPLE FOR GRANTED: THE AMERICAN AND ISRAELI POLITICAL WARNINGS

Political power can intoxicate those who occupy its corridors. It sometimes creates the dangerous illusion that winning an election confers an unlimited mandate to govern as one pleases, make controversial decisions without adequate consultation, disregard public concerns and expect citizens to remain loyal regardless of the consequences. But democracy has a way of reminding political leaders that power belongs to the people, and that the same people who elevate them to positions of authority can withdraw their confidence when they feel betrayed.

The recent political developments in the United States and Israel should therefore serve as an important warning to political leaders across the world, particularly those who have mistaken electoral victory for permanent political ownership of their countries.

In the United States, President Donald Trump's Republican Party has suffered a major electoral setback in the November 3, 2026 midterm elections, with the Democrats taking control of both chambers of Congress. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud-led coalition has emerged from the October 27 parliamentary elections without the numbers required to secure a governing majority. Although Netanyahu's party secured the highest number of seats, his political bloc fell short of the 61 seats required to form a government.

These developments are not merely political statistics. They represent an important expression of democratic accountability and raise fundamental questions about leadership, public confidence and the consequences of taking citizens for granted.

In America's case, the Republican defeat must be understood against the background of widespread public dissatisfaction with the Trump administration. The cost of living, concerns about government conduct, foreign policy decisions and the consequences of military involvement in the Middle East have all featured prominently in the electoral conversation. The war involving Iran, in particular, has raised questions about the wisdom, costs and wider implications of America's military engagements.

Indeed, subsequent reactions from the Trump administration have further reinforced the significance of these concerns. President Trump acknowledged that the war involving Iran and the resulting increase in petrol prices had hurt his party electorally. Vice President attributed much of the Republican setback to the consequences of the conflict.

Preliminary voter polling by ABC News provides further insight into the reasons behind the Republican defeat. Approximately 55 per cent of voters identified government corruption as crucial to their voting decisions, while 49 per cent pointed to the cost of living. About 34 per cent considered the war involving Iran a crucial factor. These figures suggest that the Republican defeat was not attributable to a single issue but reflected a combination of economic frustrations, concerns about governance and dissatisfaction with the administration's foreign policy decisions.

A government cannot indefinitely ask its citizens to bear the economic and social consequences of its decisions while expecting them to remain unquestioningly supportive. When military engagements contribute to economic uncertainty, increase public expenditure or create fears about the country's international standing, citizens are entitled to demand explanations and accountability.

The presidency of a country as powerful as the United States does not place its occupant above democratic scrutiny. The authority to direct foreign policy must not be confused with an unlimited licence to make decisions without considering constitutional checks, congressional oversight and the interests of the population.

The Democratic victory in both chambers of Congress is particularly significant because it gives the opposition greater institutional power to scrutinise the administration, investigate its activities and challenge its legislative agenda. Although Trump remains president, the electoral outcome has considerably altered the political balance of power in Washington.

The Israeli situation presents another dimension of the same democratic lesson. Benjamin Netanyahu's political difficulties cannot be separated from years of security controversies, prolonged military engagements, public disagreements over the handling of the October 7, 2023 attacks and domestic tensions surrounding military-service exemptions.

For many Israelis, the question is no longer simply whether their country possesses military superiority or whether their government can pursue its security objectives. It is also whether the leadership has a convincing political and national strategy that can deliver lasting security, social cohesion and a sustainable future.

The consequences of prolonged warfare, the fate of hostages, the security failures that preceded October 7 and the burden placed on ordinary citizens and military reservists have all contributed to difficult national conversations.

Netanyahu's failure to secure a parliamentary majority does not mean that his party came last or that the opposition has automatically formed a government. The officially certified election results, received by President Isaac Herzog on November 4, confirmed that Netanyahu's political bloc secured 53 seats, while the anti-Netanyahu bloc secured 48. The remaining 19 seats went to Arab-led parties. With 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority, neither of the principal political groupings secured sufficient numbers to govern independently.

However, developments on November 5 have further complicated Netanyahu's political future. Following consultations with the political factions, President Herzog announced that representatives controlling 67 parliamentary seats had recommended opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot to form the next government, compared with representatives controlling 46 seats who recommended Netanyahu. Herzog indicated that he intends to designate a candidate to form the government on Sunday, November 8.

Although this recommendation does not automatically make Eisenkot the next prime minister, it represents a significant political development. It suggests that Netanyahu is facing an increasingly difficult battle to retain power and that the opposition has gained considerable ground in the struggle to establish a new government.

The lesson emerging from these two countries is that political leaders cannot indefinitely insulate themselves from the consequences of their decisions.

What makes these developments particularly instructive is that both countries have strong political institutions, established democratic traditions and electorates that are capable of expressing dissatisfaction through the ballot box. Yet, even in such established democracies, political leaders can become disconnected from the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens. This should be a warning to political leaders in Africa, including Ghana.

Too often, politicians campaign on promises of economic transformation, employment opportunities, improved healthcare, quality education, infrastructure and social protection. They appeal to the frustrations and aspirations of ordinary citizens, solicit their votes and make commitments that suggest a genuine understanding of the hardships confronting the population.

But once political power is secured, the relationship between the governed and those governing can change dramatically. The enthusiasm with which politicians seek the people during election campaigns sometimes disappears after electoral victory. Consultation becomes less frequent, criticism is treated as hostility, public concerns are dismissed, and political loyalty is increasingly demanded rather than earned.

Some political leaders appear to believe that because they have won an election, citizens must tolerate whatever decisions they make until another election arrives. This is a dangerous misunderstanding of democracy.

A parliamentary majority is not a certificate of perfection. An electoral mandate is not an endorsement of every subsequent government decision. Neither should a party's numerical strength in Parliament be interpreted as permission to disregard public opinion.

Political leaders must understand that citizens do not suspend their rights, expectations and intelligence after voting. They continue to observe, evaluate and remember. They notice the difference between campaign promises and government performance. They see when public resources are spent without convincing justification, when political appointees enjoy privileges while ordinary workers struggle, and when governments appear more concerned about protecting their political interests than improving living conditions.

The ordinary citizen who queues under the scorching sun to vote is not doing the political establishment a favour. That citizen is exercising a constitutional right and entrusting elected representatives with the responsibility of managing the affairs of the state. Such trust must never be abused.

Indeed, the most dangerous mistake any political administration can make is to confuse the silence of dissatisfied citizens with satisfaction. People may remain quiet for a while because of economic dependence, political divisions, fear, disappointment or a lack of credible alternatives. But silence should never be interpreted as unconditional approval.

The ballot box remains one of the most powerful instruments through which citizens can communicate their displeasure without resorting to violence. It is a peaceful means of reminding political leaders that public office is held in trust and that the electorate retains the ultimate authority to renew or withdraw its mandate.

There is also a lesson for political parties that become excessively dependent on personalities. No individual, however influential, should become bigger than the democratic institutions that sustain the party or the country. A leader who refuses criticism, marginalises dissenting voices and surrounds himself with people who merely applaud every decision may eventually lose the ability to recognise the political realities developing outside the corridors of power.

Leadership requires humility, consultation, accountability and the willingness to reconsider decisions when evidence shows that they are hurting the people. It requires understanding that national security must be pursued alongside economic stability, that international influence must not come at the expense of domestic welfare, and that political ambition must never supersede the collective interests of citizens.

The American and Israeli political developments should therefore not be celebrated merely as victories for one political camp or defeats for another. They should be examined as democratic reminders that no government is permanently entitled to public confidence.

To political leaders everywhere, the message is simple: do not take the people for granted. Do not mistake your current parliamentary majority for an eternal political guarantee. Do not assume that party loyalty will forever protect you from the consequences of unpopular decisions. And do not wait until the electorate speaks through the ballot box before you begin listening.

Power may give you the authority to govern, but it does not give you ownership of the people. The people may give you the mandate to rule, but they also reserve the right to remind you that you were elected to serve.

The Trial news