After Thought: the US Presidential Race 2012

With a 2-party system, with seemingly "same same" options and power to be bought with billions of dollars, what is the big deal with US democracy, anyway? 

First of all, let me congratulate myself for having correctly predicted the outcome of the elections. I feel like telling everyone, "I TOLD you so!' So, yes, I should become a political pundit and be invited to television talk shows. Let me also cash in on democracy. 

I now have a track record of having made two accurate predictions: Sirleaf 2011 and Obama 2012. Both ran for second terms and the way I saw it was that the public prefers stability and, also has very little alternatives. In the case of Liberia, Sirleaf's bid for a second term was marked with controversy for a range of reasons: she had first promised not to run for a second time; she was singled out by the TRC Report for having had a role in the civil war and was recommended for lustration; for not having done enough to alleviate poverty and bring about employment; and, the international community unabashedly displayed its bias by awarding a Nobel Peace Prize her in the heat of the elections. 

Liberia's is a nascent democracy, having literally been planted in post war Liberia with the assistance or intervention of the international community. Dependent on aid as well as foreign investment to run its state, it's a quite a different democracy from the United States one.

Or is it?

The recent elections in the US, an established and mature democracy, are rife with their own controversies. Billions of dollars were spent by the candidates on advertising and campaigning. Bizarre comments on pregnancy, rape and abortions were made by seemingly civilised people and one wondered what made these American politicians so very different from the fundamentalist Taliban trying to take over Pakistan and Afghanistan? For many of "us" (whoever we are), lot of focus was on the conservative and right-wing tactics of the Republican Party, the oily businessman image of Romney, and how righteous and dignified Obama's opposition was out to return the US to the very same disastrous economic and foreign policies that have put the US into the apparently dire situation it finds itself in today. 

For us foreigners who are concerned and affected by US Foreign Policy, there was a very real fear of Romney coming to power and waging war in our neighbourhoods. In Pakistan's case, though, there was either indifference, concern over Obama continuing the same drone attacks, or even an uninformed hope that Romney would change American policy in Pakistan. 

See this article in the Guardian: "Pakistan's reaction to Obama's election victory." See Dawn's editorial "Obama and Pakistan" and this particular line: "Will the new Obama administration reassess some controversial aspects of its foreign policy, like the unceasing drone attacks in the northwest, or will the new mandate serve to reinforce its belief in the righteousness of its policies and stay the course?" And, I loved Imran Khan's sarcastic zinger: "“Now he (Obama) is no longer under the pressure to be re-elected we hope that he will give peace a chance which we so desperately need.” As much as Imran Khan is accused of being a Taliban sympathiser, for being re-born as a conservative and made marriages of convenience with the religious parties, and having his head in the sand, his sarcastic line really drives the point home! 

For most of us, we forgot a little bit that Obama's tenure has not been any more peaceful despite the Nobel Peace Prize lumped on his head hardly a year into his first year as leader of the free world.  US Foreign Policy closely tied to its domestic economy has not changed and does not look like it will change. 

As much as some Americans are delirious over having a good-looking President with a rags to riches story, one who delivers passionate speeches and effortlessly convinces everyone he is an honest man, I hope they also realise he is also responsible for re-instating the very same system that brought the US economy to collapse in the first place. Moreover, this system is part of the same one that fights wars of aggression abroad in America's name and spews the most idiotic, hypocritical, patronising and self-serving rhetoric. Yes, I can't stand hillary Clinton's bloody face or her stupid voice when she is going on about what the bloody American position is on in the Middle East, for example. And you know what, I nearly vomit when Obama goes around saying "America is the greatest nation on earth." Yeah, we know you guys are the greatest - in fact, by 2030, half of Americans will be the greatest on earth, they'll be obese. 

There is an excellent programme on Al Jazeera "How the White House was Won" that gives a very interesting perspective on the US Presidential Race 2012. It presents a very cynical view of the US Elections, how power is effectively bought, and what a giant media circus American democracy actually is. It was also interesting that it was shown that Obama and Romney's positions are not very different at all. With a 2-party system, with seemingly "same same" options and power to be bought with billions of dollars, what is the big deal with US democracy, anyway? 

All in all, it was exciting to be here in the US during these elections. In fact, I had a very exciting evening at a friend's house as we were watching the detailed elections coverage on TV as the results were rolling in, state by state, channel by channel, and, commentator by commentator. I had already made my predictions very clear i.e. that Obama was going nowhere and was going to breeze through. In fact, as Obama's success was becoming clearer and clearer, I wondered why the commentary up until then was saying it was such a tight race. 

Obama won by a landslide in terms of electoral college numbers and, he even got Florida giving him, in the end, a 126-point victory over Romney. See "Barack Obama proclaimed winner of Florida." So, is the US really that divided or is it that the electoral college vote process does not actually reflect the popular vote? What did the results of the election actually reflect? That Americans would - 'no way' - bring in a Romney and were really happy with Obama?  

One of the analysts on MSNBC - while going over the rolling results county by county in the key swing states - said that it was clearly evident that the Republican Party was around 20 years behind in terms of understanding the new demographics and had alienated the new and growing non-white communities which eventually lost them the race. Moreover, towards the end of the night, another commentator said that the Republican Party actually needed to re-think it's entire ethos. 

A positive outcome of the elections was victory of female Senators, at least one openly gay one, and some states voting positively on gay marriage and, even on legalisation of marijuana. 

It looks like American democracy has a long way  to go in terms of becoming more progressive, modern, and tolerant.  The process of electing its leaders seems to be a money-making one, especially since these recent Presidential elections have been the most expensive to date. Moreover and most importantly, American democracy believes in promoting a so-called universal ideal of democracy and freedom through violence. 

In so many ways, it seems the democratic liberal paradigm has reached its limits, especially when seen against the backdrop of the global financial crisis. But perhaps, it still has room to innovate and adapt. The question is, will it innovate and change to accommodate those on the bottom or continue to serve those in power?

Thinking about democracy whether in little postwar Liberia or in the greatest nation on earth, its flaws and limitations remain painfully clear.