The outcome of the US presidential elections determines the health of American democracy, argues Hassan Nafaa* By the time this article goes to print the US presidential election will be over. As I write Bush and Kerry are running a very close race, so close that many predict a repetition of the legal battles of 2000. Both presidential candidates are taking the likelihood of legal proceedings seriously. Both have an army of lawyers and legal experts ready. As you're reading this, the elections will have either produced undisputed results or be mired in a process of recounting and litigation. This should not dissuade us from looking into the significance of these elections, for they are unique in as much as they will provide an insight into the maturity of the American people and the strength of the US political system. Will that system prove capable of resisting the sickness that currently assails US democracy? Should President Bush be re-elected it would signal a collapse in the health of the US political system. It would mean that American democracy has been infected by the viruses of the neo-conservatives and their ill-conceived schemes. Should the American people, however, decide to change the president, this would be a sign that the neo-cons' days are numbered and that their religiously-tinged imperial scheme is breathing its last. A Kerry victory will not automatically set the scene for a new social contract at home and abroad, however much needed such a social contract is. But it will be a significant step towards that end. For the first time in US presidential elections foreign policy issues have become entwined with matters of internal security. Influential sections of the US elite are beginning to sense the risks involved in the policies pursued by the Bush administration, both in terms of domestic and international security. A Kerry win, rather than being a sign of public enthusiasm for Kerry and his programme, would be an indication that the American people have had enough with the neo-cons. And the change will open the door to new answers to the one question that has haunted the American public since 9/11: Why are we so hated? Many inside and outside the US are by now convinced that the neo-cons, who failed to win the popular vote in 2000, used 9/11 to promote their scheme for global hegemony, a scheme with messianic traits. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the American people placed their trust in the small and fanatical minority led by George Bush, whose public approval ratings soared in an unprecedented way. US elections are invariably a race between Republicans and Democrats, but it is the undecided segment of voters, those with no strong party affiliation, who decide the outcome. Until recently the margin between the two candidates was wide. Some pollsters placed Bush 14 points ahead. That margin eroded once Kerry began pointing out that the war in Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time; that it was harming the US materially and morally, had weakened its position in the war on terror, and isolated it internationally; that the world is less safe now than when Bush took office, and that Bush lied to the Americans, concealed facts, and manipulated information to promote the neo-con agenda rather than bring security and stability to the US and the world. Kerry's forceful message helped close the gap between the two candidates. Undecided voters were in need of a leader capable, and willing, to expose the errors of the incumbent president. The majority of Americans want something new, but until recently they were unsure of Kerry's intentions and capabilities. Suddenly Osama Bin Laden emerged on the scene, through the tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera. The man Bush wants dead or alive looked well- rested and reasonably fit. The Bin Laden tape came as a shock to both candidates, who then proceeded to turn it into electoral capital. Bush argued that Bin Laden's emergence was a challenge to the American people, a proof that the threat of terror remains and that he should, therefore, be re-elected. Kerry maintained Bin Laden's assertions showed Bush was failing in his war against terror. Pursuing that battle, he said, requires a more sophisticated policy which only he can provide. It is difficult to predict the impact of Bin Laden's message on American voters. Certainly it will have served to remind the American public that the ball is in their court, that the elections are not about putting someone in office to run the country but about selecting a leader at a crucial stage of human history. And yet there are few, if any, reasons to be confident that the current US political system affords this great nation the chance to make an informed choice. The world may be heading to the brink of catastrophe if Bush wins a second term. The neo- cons would take a Bush victory as a public endorsement of their schemes, assuming a renewed mandate to do more of the same. One could not then rule out that the US administration would try to resolve the Iraqi crisis solely through military means, and might think about using force against Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah, throwing the entire region into chaos. I know I sound pessimistic and that some commentators argue that the US right, misguided as it is, has not yet taken complete leave of its senses. The neo-cons, they believe, have begun to comprehend the limits of US power. But I cannot bring myself to trust the wisdom or vision of the US right. Countries in thrall to ideological regimes never know when, how, or where to stop. History is full of examples of nations likely to hurtling along the same path, convinced that they are right and the rest of the world wrong. Kerry's election would at least give the world a breathing space. And he is far more likely, in his search for a workable exit strategy in Iraq and a more effective means of fighting terror, to explore non-military options than Bush. Perhaps he is aware that the US will only be able to fight terror effectively through upholding international justice and law and that, if it wants to promote security the US must do more to resolve thorny international issues, not least problems festering in the Islamic world, in Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya. * The writer is professor of political science at
