Dr Zakir Husain

The US presidential elections is a spectacle, an entertainment and media extravaganza; is a complex and long drawn out process extending well over a whole year that even American voters seem to find boring or baffling.

Yet, for better or for worse, the whole world watches and waits with bated breath. It matters to them because what the Americans decide affects the rest of the world. America is the unchallenged superpower of the planet.

America is willing and able to project its power and impose its prerogatives with the international community if possible, without if necessary. In addition, American presidents including the current incumbent have done that. Yet again, there also are limits to the exercise of unilateral military or moral power even for the mightiest with its exceptional prerogatives.

Elections 2008 will be over soon and there is hope, whether fulfilled or not, of a ‘change’ this time around. That is what makes the 2008 elections so exciting, interesting, and aroused such enthusiasm at least among the Democrats.

The same could not be said of the Republican Party which has overwhelmingly nominated John McCain who according to some political analysts will if elected be nothing more than a third term of George W Bush.

Perhaps a bit uncharitable for a famous Vietnam veteran but on campaign trail McCain is beginning to make noises that are music to the ears of neoconservative gurus. Indeed, the contest for presidency has been confined to the Republican and Democratic parties, effectively barring a third or independent challenger.

The enormous money and organisation needed to contest prohibits an ‘upstart’ offering a third alternative. Yet, there is something new this time around. The race for Democratic Party nomination between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is still ‘neck to neck’; the delegates count from the ‘primaries’ held so far is too close to call.

The Democratic Party is poised for a lengthy nomination process extending perhaps to the party convention in August 2008. Should that happen, and it looks like it will, the ‘super delegates’ packed in the convention halls could make the decision. Super delegates are not obliged to go by how the primaries and caucuses had voted.

They would decide ‘independently’ – perhaps relying on best judgement and opinion about things like ‘electability’ and long-term party interest. How democratic a process that would be remains questionable – and questions have been raised. Yet given the compulsion of established practice conformity would prevail over challenge. So, what makes this contest exciting and important?

Both Obama and Clinton have proved strong and articulate campaigners. However, Obama elevated it to a higher than ordinary level by his inspiring message for ‘change we can believe in’. It is on this platform Obama has staked his claim which Clinton has enormous difficulty to counter. Change from business as usual has touched a chord deep within of many Americans disillusioned and doubtful after eight years of Bush White House.

The outcome of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the falling image of America abroad, the slowdown if not outright recession of the once robust economy have combined to deeply trouble the majority of the electorate. US foreign policy did not matter much if at all in the elections. Yet, it does this time around.

An end to Iraq war and brining back troops home, a looming threat of yet another war ( on Iran), and rising tensions with a resurgent Russia, are problems demanding immediate solution. After eight years of Bush Jr. (2000-2008), many Americans are yearning for a change. Young Americans are looking for a new message to regain American prestige in the world.

The poor and working class Americans are deeply worried about income and jobs; are not wholly convinced of the external security threats. This election is also about ideas for ‘change’; perhaps never before an idea spelled out with such stinging rhetoric; an idea that challenges the establishment’s conventional compromise and consensus built around wheeling and dealing in the White House and the Congress.

This election pits experience (Clinton’s eight years as the first lady in the White House) against intuitive foresight (Obama’s vote against Iraq war in the Senate). This is also between rhetoric and substance: Clinton claims her proposal on universal health insurance for Americans is of greater substance than Obama’s proposal, which is vague and less comprehensive.

Obama exudes style and rhetoric that inspires and stokes urge for change especially among the many young and earnest. Clinton comforts the minority (Hispanics) and the hard pressed middle class offering each something without the risk of uncertainty of change. No wonder this nomination has been so close to call. It still is. Nevertheless, there is something else in the campaign that extends beyond the usual bit of mud slinging or calculated leaks around personal and family profiles.

A certain amount of these has been evident during the Texas and Ohio key primaries though in fairness it could be said Clinton has been more aggressive while Obama more restrained. How long or how intense it will be in the coming months is not certain. If it does take a virulent turn, Obama could confront the race card.

That could be a pernicious turn that would distract the main theme of change – change that could profoundly arouse hope and trust in many, if not most Americans. The enthusiasm found among the voters springs from hope; they would go to the November polls in huge numbers.

However, electorate in America could be swayed not by swing voters alone but also by events during the long run-up to actual nomination and the eventual voting at the November polls. There are many proverbial slips between the cup and the lips.

There is no denying the possibility that this contest is also about race and colour – unmistakably or inevitably even though not explicit yet. Obama is African American; he has no reason to be defensive for the term is accepted in political and social lexicon in America. Nevertheless, racial equality is still not a reality.

Obama being of African descent cannot wash his colour away. Worse still, the ever-prying media dug and dissipate what in tabloid media is called ‘Pay Dirt’. Media has already probed into Barack Obama’s ancestry in native Kenyan village; gratuitously interviewed his family members too. No one is making the dimmest noise of his mother – a pure White from Midwest Kansas. Half White is of no avail. To the red-blooded Conservatives, being Black is bad enough. Being of Arab origin is worse.

Thus came the TV show repeating his middle name – Hussein – to antagonise the conservative Islamophobics. The divide between Obama and Clinton is more than one of style or rhetoric. Obama inspires; his rhetoric resounds and resonates among many young voters across the colour divide.

‘We are the change we are seeking’ and the ‘Change we can believe in’ are powerful calls reminiscent of past Kennedy or Reagan rhetoric. Barrack Obama is no naïve daydreamer. He knows how far he could get with his change agenda. He knows how deeply entrenched the US is by the stakes of the corporate, military industrial, and financial groups. These are constraints an incumbent has to overcome.

However, it needs commitment and will to change. Barack Obama gives promise of genuine change in Washington – change the large majority of Americans yearn for; he offers the hope those changes they can believe in. The greatest irony of this election could well be the rejection of a historic opportunity for change so many Americans rally around as seen in so many primaries won by Barack Obama.