The reaches of democracy
The general perception about what’s been happening in the US of A since the Nov 7 Presidential Election is that it’s bad for the US and bad for democracy. One daresays that in the first flush of the confusion that followed the divided count, that perception stayed with most of us. Four weeks later, with the endgame in sight we come away with a far different perception, despite the travails the rule of law prevails in a civilised society. A recent cartoon said it all, a contested election in Russia would have had tanks coming out in the streets to influence the outcome, in Sierra Leone machetes and knives would ensure the result, but in the US an army of lawyers waded into the breach. And what a contest for democracy! With 50 million voting for each candidate (with about 3 million lawyers probably on either side) across the length and breadth of the land, the battle finally raged in three Counties in Florida (Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Brawar), slightly more than 537 votes separating Bush from Vice President Al Gore. The Democrats waged a last-ditch guerilla warfare, their wild card is to try and to toss out 25,000 absentee ballots in Seminole and Martin Counties. That would erase about 8,000 votes for Bush and hand the Presidency over to Gore. All the pillars of democracy, the legislature, the judiciary and the administration, are inter-acting with each other in a contest where there may have been technical irregularities, no hint of fraud or intent thereof. Strident voices on the extreme edges notwithstanding, Republicans and Democrats have remained civil to each other, never even raising their voices in Court. Even on the streets protest has been muted, the odd exception notwithstanding. This speaks volumes for a real democracy, a rare privilege in this world of the unhampered right of vote for every individual citizen.
The first portents were indeed alarming, even now Rev Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are engaging in a diatribe about race issues, coloured people being discriminated against by conservative extremists in not being allowed to vote. Democrats are normally painted as the party of the have-nots as opposed to the Republicans. With passions running high in the first flush of the election morass, possibilities of deep polarization loomed ominously over the US body politic. As the dust settled and legal eagles swung into action for the two Parties, an amazing display of logic and debate thereof took over. Each side was careful not to cross the line in the matter of civility, abstaining from the type of abuse which we are very used to hurling at each other in Third World countries. While it would be too much to expect our politicians to emulate, or for our administration and our judiciary to exercise the same neutrality and restraint, this has been a lesson in democracy at its best, something that needs learning by our exponents. In sheer contrast to our flawed system, the US of A has an inherent advantage with its very high rate of literacy, Americans are therefore less likely to allow their frustration to spill over. In Third World countries where expectation is inversely proportional to the literacy level, frustration comes to an easy boil.
Technology failed spectacularly, with voting machines not clearly punching holes and voter intent sought to be ascertained from “dimples” and hanging “chads”. Partisanship is alive and well in USA as much as it is in Uzbekistan but it is filtered through with the legal ascertaining of ballots rather than letting bullets fly. And in a Federal system one saw the jealous prerogative of each individual State while remaining absolutely loyal to the nation’s Constitution. And this was quite apparent by the attitude of the Honourable Justices when the Florida SC met again. In stark contrast to the normal penchant of Third World judiciary to shove decisions down people’s throats and then revel in it, the US Supreme Court was careful to couch the language of their decision to vacate the Florida Supreme Court (SC) ruling in such a way as to give them a chance to revise their own judgement in the light of State’s laws coming into conflict with Federal Statutes. Brilliant lawyers from the other side brought the supremacy of logic into their arguments, rather than allow the law of the jungle to take over.
Al Gore can hardly be faulted for using all his legal options, but clearly time is not on his side and he is steadily losing the PR battle with the public. With more popular votes countrywide, almost 260,000 more than Gov Bush out of the 100 million cast, he was four short of the magic figure of 271 electoral votes needed to win. The vote being so close, he would have been “nuts” to have given up despite the obvious body blows he got from the US Supreme Court and the Leon County Court last Monday. Once Florida’s Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, certified that Gov Bush had won the State by 537 votes, US public opinion polls suggested by a margin of 60% to 40% that Gore should concede. Even Gov Bush observed that despite the tremendous pressure, it was very difficult for the Vice President to concede. Gore’s brilliant lawyer David Boise wanted a “scorched earth” policy but indications were that leading Democrats were quietly advising against anything that would cause lasting bitterness. A telling moment came when Vice President Gore said that if the person taking oath on Jan 20 as President was Gov Bush, he (Gore) would work overtime to unite the country under the new Chief Executive. Would the uncomfortable allies in Nawabzada Nasrullah’s latest creation “Alliance for Restoration of Democracy” (ARD), Mian Nawaz Sharif and Ms Benazir Bhutto, say the same about each other if placed in similar circumstances?
Faced with Accountability a la Pervez Musharraf, to save their own necks “the enemy of an enemy (has become) a friend” (to paraphrase the 5000 year old Arthasashtra). Having looted the nation, and there is no doubt that they have, do they not feel any embarrassment at embracing those they have been condemning in language intemperate in any civilised society? Faced with its worst-ever examination in history after the 1861-65 Civil War, the integrity of the foundation of US democracy is clearly based on what governs civilised society, a strong belief in the rule of law without resort to the law of the jungle. The Republicans narrowly retained control of the Federal House of Representatives by about 8 votes, the Senate is divided evenly 50 : 50. So what are the Republicans doing? To achieve rule by consensus, they are already reaching out to include some conservative Democrats in the possible “Bush” Administration. Al Gore is probably engaged in similar exercise, to do what is good for the country rather than rely on partisan politics. That is the essence of democracy, to accommodate as much as possible of the various schools of thought in national policy-making.
As the clock winds down, a possibly historic confrontation could be on the cards between the Florida SC and the Legislature this weekend unless there is closure. The Bush team contends that Federal Law mandates that rule changes should have taken place six days before the elections and that the rules have been changed in support of Gore after the elections. With the US Supreme Court ruling vacating the Florida SC extension of the certification date all eyes will be on the Florida SC to see what they do to comply with their Federal counterpart. The US Supreme Court is an institution very much respected by all Americans. The Florida State Legislature may well discard any Florida SC ruling and send their own electors to the Electoral College meant to meet on Dec. 18. On the other hand Judge Nikki Clark, a Democrat appointee turned down by Florida Gov Jeb Bush for higher office only 2 weeks ago, could well throw out all absentee ballots in Seminole County and give Gore the Presidency. However, her body language is to the contrary, she asked the Plaintiffs (Democrat) Attorney why should the individual voters suffer because of the mistake of the County Administration? A model lesson in the neutrality of the judiciary!
As much as individual Americans will almost always stand up for the underdog (except in Pakistan’s case in Kashmir), American public opinion is also historically averse to bad losers and that fact may force Gore to concede inspite of the fact that he had won both the popular vote and his conviction that he was being finagled out of the electoral vote.
The washing of dirty linen in public may have not been conducive for favourable world public opinion but in the long run civilised debate (instead of anarchy) between the various branches of democracy, i.e. administration, legislation and judiciary, (and positive inter-action thereof), is inherently necessary for an equitable solution. US Elections 2000 may be a historic watershed, it will not only ensure that all elections lacunas in the US will be eliminated before the next electoral exercise but be seen as one giant step for democracy and a live model lesson for established democratic institutions throughout the world.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment