Mal Fletcher comments on world reaction to Donald Trump's first weeks in power.

The first is the fact that if people elect a non-politician to occupy a nation's highest political seat, they (and we) should expect a few missteps and perhaps more than a little ignorance of the normal way of doing things.

Though President Obama was, in terms of earlier presidents, a relative political novice, he had a large percentage of his cabinet officers approved within days of his election. Given some political cover, then, he was able to move ahead with the best available advice.

President Trump, however, has been made to wait. It might be argued that the obviously bungled immigration "ban" - I've written more about this elsewhere - might have been handled far more effectively had his intended political counsel been in place.

Second, we must not forget that the US system does not readily lend itself to being overtaken by tyrants. This and the goodwill of the American people has been the major reason that their system of government has remained relatively stable for as long as it has.

As the respected BBC journalist Alistair Cooke once revealed, the closest America came to a coup was when President Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed for himself extraordinary powers over the economy in response to the Great Depression. Roosevelt, it must be remembered, was an urbane Democrat who was re-elected to office three times, before the current restriction to two-term presidencies was enacted.

As measured as he seemed, writes Cooke, "Roosevelt set up an administration which for a year or two actually appropriated the law-making powers of Congress. Having promised to weaken the powers and the patronage of the central government, he seized power at the centre."

A taste for autocracy need not be limited to one side of the political aisle. As yet, I would argue, Mr Trump has not, in his actions, approached anything like the audacity of Mr Roosevelt.

It is also worth noting that thus far President Trump is doing pretty much exactly what candidate Trump promised to do. He and his supporters can argue, with some justification, that he has been given a democratic mandate.

We voters can't very well complain, as we often do, that political promises too often turn out to be chimeric and then complain about someone who actually does what he committed to do.

A fourth consideration, for those of us who live in such places as the UK, Europe and Australia is that Mr Trump is not accountable to us. We are definitely affected by presidential decisions on hugely important foreign policy issues such as US engagement with Russia, China and North Korea.

Foreign policy is the one area where a US President has fairly wide latitude. We must hope that the generals and diplomats on Mr Trump's staff will, when they are finally in place, provide a restraining hand.

So far, however, domestic policies have been at the fore and their greatest impact has arguably been in shaking up the sense of entitlement which seems to have gripped many liberal voters in the US and abroad.

The liberal wing of international politics is now making the same mistake that conservatives made in the 1980s. They have talked themselves into believing that their approach is the only sane one and that the wisdom of the collective will accept this as a done deal.

Let's also bear in mind that the last US election saw the American people presented with what looked like a fairly poor choice.