Watching the partisanship of this election from close quarters was an experience. The desperate efforts of both Democrats and GOP to win were not without reason; the ruling GOP had a tight control over the government at the centre. Democrats wanted to break this stranglehold; much was at stake. And the stakes were high for not only Americans; the rest of the world too had a big stake in the outcome of that election. America is now the only superpower and its actions make life and death difference in far too many countries in Asia and Africa.

The people in far too many countries will want to know what does this change presage? What will the US now do vis-a-vis the Israelis-Palestinian dispute; what will it do in or about Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; or generally about traditionally pro-west Arab potentates. American policies in Latin American states are up for review; large number of elections have thrown up leaders who tend to be defiant to America. African continent remains engulfed in obscure wars, insurgencies and at places ethnic cleansing. In most cases African resources are at the root of trouble where outside powers are playing dirty. There is some uncertainty about what role will the US now play.

The Republicans had acquired a vision, formulated by neo-con thinkers, who were cock-a-hoop over the US being the only super- or indeed hyper-power. They had planned to mark the 21st century America's: for it to emerge as a New Rome by establishing a new Holy Roman Empire that should also last a millennium. The new imperialists were not slated to be colonialists; they will promote "freedom": democracy plus capitalism. Among the means to be adopted included preemptive wars and the US, when necessary, should take action unilaterally, as in Iraq. It was an alluring vision and many Americans were bewitched by it.

As the results of this elections show, the GOP lost it because of this vision's underlying assumptions: that America can adjudge a state guilty before that state commits the said offence; it can unilaterally take action. UN was a bunch of nobodies. So it can be, when required, left alone. The pursuit of this vision has involved an unending and imprecise War on Terror, beginning in Afghanistan. For obscure reasons, Bush picked on Iraq as a most repulsive and dangerous country, although it had not the least connection with any Islamic extremist groups.

While a victory was quickly achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the normal sense of the term; but no one expected, or knows what to do with, the consequences of the military victory. None of the neo-cons had factored in the reaction of the conquered people. Both Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns have ended in a mess. The people, for reasons good and reasons bad, want foreign troops out; they want to take their countries back from foreign troops. Now the US, UK and Nato do not know what to do. They are constantly under attack from heterogeneous insurgents and no end to bloodshed is in sight.

It is this mess that has led to GOP's defeat. The Democrats had no alternative vision or program of action as to how to clean up this mess that Republican actions have made. November 7 was not so much the victory of Democrats as a definitive defeat for GOP, despite so much was going for it: pots of money, support from large sections of media and a well-oiled election-winning machinery. People simply did not want Republicans to win.

The Bush administration was insistent in making more mess in Northeast Asia, in Central Asia and of course in the Middle East with its entirely bogus idea of changing regimes. This notion is fundamentally wrong. For instance, Saddam Hussain was a detestable dictator. But it should have been for the people of Iraq to overthrow him. What the Americans have done has made the ME a dangerous place to be in. Al-Qaeda was an insignificant group in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The US military action against Taliban has cemented Taliban's alliance with al-Qaeda and both owe their rapid growth in recent years to Bush policies.

The War on Terror has been perceived by Muslims, at least in ME, as being a war against Islam. This is the result of careless conduct by western armies and ambiguous speeches by politicians. While the west does face a genuine threat from Muslim fanatics, the treatment of Muslims in the west as so many suspects does not help in arresting the growth of extremist groups in places like Pakistan and Bangladesh. This fillip to the growth of "terrorism" may be the most notable legacy of Bush years in White House.

Another is the growth and growth of Israeli intransigency vis-a-vis the Palestinians. No doubt American governments have behaved the way Israel wanted them to. But no tail can wag a dog, not until the dog has reasons to create the impression that the tail is wagging it. The Israeli brutality and greed for ever more land have astonished the world and has underscored the helplessness of the UN -- much the same way as Mussolini's aggression against Abyssinia paved the way for League of Nations' demise.

Afghanistan may have been destroyed as a state in much the same way as Iraq is all but dismembered amidst a gruesome civil war. Iran is in the sights of US ships and aircrafts, as also in those of Israel. It look as if North Korean nuke problem has been ladelled out to Japan and South Korea -- and China. But Iran is not likely to be so treated. Iran happens to be so positioned that it can hurt the US and west as a whole. The US behaviour has heavily underlined the UN's irrelevance as an independent force upholding international law.

It is to be hoped that the phrase that had virtually paralysed the world -- the sole superpower's uni-polar world is no longer heard as much as two or three years ago. An emerging multi-polar world is now being noted by all thinking people. This is a hopeful sign, though it is no guarantee against wars and injustice. But multi-polarity would require international law. That is the hope. May be UN can, in years to come, be refurbished -- provided Americans can be brought on board.

Pakistani officials are tentatively upbeat about the future of US-Pakistan alliance, based on this country's utility to America -- thanks to its strategic location and a modern army. And if Democrats takeover the presidency in 2008, they will also still need Pakistan, as a senior Democrat wrote in a major American paper. That may really be so. But they ignore the full implications of the change that has occurred.

Does it go in their favour that Democrats have no alternative vision for America? They seem to want to get by with the Bush program, suitably pruned, with a changed style and minor amendments. But that program is predicated on the US doing much of the required work by itself and ignoring the UN. These two things go together. Something will have to give way, especially through the dynamics of multi-polar world. Where will be the wishful thinkers, then?

MB Naqvi is a leading Pakistani columnist.