 |
 |
I have decided to write this article in
view of the fact that with less than 100 days to the date of the United
States of America’s presidential election on November 8, one of the
prominent candidates, Mr Donald Trump of the Republican Party, had to
say that it would be “a waste of time” if he lost the election. (CNNReport
, August 3, 2016). As a result, the election is likely to end with a
crisis of confidence if Trump loses. Such an outcome will be a
disservice to democracy all over the Western world generally and the US,
its avowed champion, in particular.
But what is democracy? The ancient
Greeks, as contemplative thinkers, fashioned out in the City of Athens ,
a radically people -oriented system of government that was operative
from 508 until 322 BCE whereby power was placed in the hands of the
people (demos) to debate among themselves, rich or poor and decide on
how they wanted to be governed by three important Institutions in the
polity as their pillars of Democracy , namely ( a) the Assembly of the
Demos (b) the Council of tested Elders numbering 500 and (c ) the
People’ s Court . The Assembly gave opportunity to all male citizens of
18 years and above, whose parents and themselves were free citizens and
not slaves to speak their minds and exercise their vote regularly.
After two centuries, the system broke down due to the inordinate
excesses of demagogues led by Demosthenes who perverted the wishes of
the people.
Since the modern era, democracy has
become the system of governance in the Western world with variants of
the system being championed by Britain and the United States of
America ever since. The rest of the world has come to respect democracy
defined by one of the finest presidents of the USA as “the government
of the people, by the people and for the people”. Its greater
workability and better success in lifting the innate spirit of man to
soar higher to achieve socio-economic exploits not only for himself
but for the good of the generality of the governed has endeared the
system to its friend or foe the world over.
It is clear from the names, Democratic
Party and Republican Party , the two dominant political parties in the
USA, that it has always been the intention of the founding fathers
and subsequent leaders of the country that their desire was to be
governed as a “democratic republic “ as distinct from a “monarchical
democracy” that still obtains in Britain from which the US broke away
in 1766. With this background, it is my intention to express my
observations, reflections and fears for the future of democracy in the
US from the prism of an “armchair” dispassionate observer of what has
transpired since the campaign for the election of the next President
of the greatest ( not largest) democracy in the world started about a
year ago.
Incidentally , I also had the
opportunity to comment on the 2000 election between George W. Bush
and Al Gore in the article, “One Shot in the Bush and an Ox is Gored”
published that year in The PUNCH.
For the success of democracy, most
writers are agreed that there must be some minimum preconditions. Some
essential Institutions must exist and function effectively to ensure a
level playing field. Political parties must exist as midwives for
ushering in the modus operandi of regulating the number of contestants,
political party manifestoes and guidelines , practical and ethical
arrangement for conduct of elections , funding of party and candidates
, and generally satisfying the people’s expectations and making it
easy for them to make their preferred choice of the party’s
torch-bearer. There must be an overall umpire – like a state
organisation and a legal court of last resort for resolution of
conflicting interests and disputes. As I will indicate later, my first
adverse observation is that imperfections in the setting up and
weakness in empowering the political parties vis – a -vis the
ambitions of the political gladiators constitute the Achilles’ heel of
the American system. Maybe, this is as a result of the respect for
individual freedom of choice as against the collective standpoint as a
way of American life and living .
Constitutionally, when there is a
sitting President not seeking reelection, as Barack Obama in this his
second term, it is provided that electioneering for the ensuing year
cannot begin earlier than 644 days before the Election Day. Therefore,
the candidates of the two major parties entered the race for the 2016
presidential election as follows:- (a) Hillary Clinton: a brilliant
Attorney at Law, former US Senator and who, was First Lady as wife of
President Bill Clinton later vied against Obama for the Presidency in
2014 and later served as Secretary of State during his first term of
office, started her campaign on April 12, 2015, that is 517 days to,
or one year and seven months before the Election Day. She was joined by
two others in the Democratic Party list including another strong
candidate, Bernie Sanders, a serving Senator who calls himself an
independent Socialist. ( b) Donald Trump: a reality Television star
and a real estate developer, a self-declared “multibillionaire “ who
was formerly a member of the Democratic Party, declared his
candidacy under the platform of the Republican Party on June 16, 2015,
that is 573 days or one year and nearly five months before the
election. Joined by a large motley team of contestants originally, 20
thinned down to 16 comprising four serving/former senators, 15 serving
/former governors, one businesswoman and one businessman in total.
Before the campaign matured, Trump was considered a weak candidate but
he turned the table against all odds and to the bewilderment of all. (
c) Until late July 2016, when the candidate of the Libertarian Party,
Governor Johnson and his running mate surfaced, the contest was
essentially between Clinton and Trump who had been officially
adopted as candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties
respectively.
However, the electoral campaign of both
candidates became some kind of hot, bitter, acrimonious and divisive
contest, described by the CNN as “election unlike any before” for several reasons.
Both can be seen as rebels not ready to
toe party lines, manifestoes (if any) and ideals. Both tend to succumb
to the dictates of the off-the-run young members of both parties and
some undecided voters but opinion- moulding or vocal community
influentials . Trump champions not only his own vision of government run
as a one-man business wary of what many business entrepreneurs of his
type call “paralysis of analysis”, jumping into conclusion without
careful investigation which may run his effort down the ditch. On the
other hand, Sanders sees himself as championing a movement ( don’t
call it a revolution ) towards the far -left repugnant to a majority of
Americans except the impatient young voters who feel left behind by
the system. Both are not party loyalists but their campaign slogans
seem to catch the fancies of the young, impatient, undecided voters or
new voters who seem at this point in time and history of the
American socio-economic landscape to be led by wrong champions. Trump
is too self-opinionated to build a cohesive team and too inexplicably
dirty- rich to successfully lead a rebellion of “ have-nots”.
However, given the challenges
confronting each of the candidates outlined above, Clinton and Trump
have had to use their best endeavours to run their campaigns without
rubbishing their political parties. This means that they would try to
utilise their personal qualities , resources and social and other
experiences gained over the years. On doing so, it is observed that
there are glaring challenges that can mar the success of their
campaigns. They both have clear chips over their shoulders. Clinton
having been in the public glare directly or indirectly for nearly
40 years is considered jaded by many of the young , undecided voters
and having loyally served Obama lately and so deserving some rest
and that having functioned as First Lady during the Presidency of Bill
Clinton is considered a surrogate of her husband or that of Obama both
of whose approval rating in their second terms would have qualified
them for a third innings if the American constitution had permitted.
In any case, she is considered generally as an “establishment
candidate “ , too smartly knowledgeable to be tainted by political
mudslinging or bothered by spurious inquisitions lined up by the
Republican Party. On the other hand , Trump, weaker in intellectual
prowess , political experience and lacking the social polish of
Clinton right from the beginning did not hide his aversion towards
research-based policies or what he termed “political correctness”.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment