Writing a new chapter in the US dream

SENATOR Obama and Senator Clinton have provided the US electorate in general, and those professing the democratic persuasion in particular, with drama of most interesting proportions. Their close contest has been carefully watched within the United States and analysed by others in the rest of the world. That has been so because in any US Presidential election, the electorate consists not only of US citizens but also those in other countries who might be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome.
This year, the world attention has gravitated more towards the process of finding a Democratic nominee because many think that Democrats have more than an even chance in the upcoming US Presidential election. There is also a growing belief that there will be consolidation of the Democratic presence in the US Congress. There is also another factor -- fascination about the possibility that for the first time an African-American or a woman might be a Presidential candidate from a major political party. This would be a historical breaking of new ground.
The latest round of Primaries that finished on 4 March has seen Senator John McCain anointed as the sole Republican nominee for the election. He has already secured the minimum number of delegates required for the nomination. In a manner of speaking, this will be a boon for the hard-pressed Republicans. They can now concentrate on future strategy while the Democratic nominees continue to feud amongst themselves and carry on a bitter, negative and divisive campaign till their Convention in June.
The already tense dead-heat situation within the Democratic electoral process has also been further compounded with the recent announcement that Mr. Ralph Nader has decided to run as an independent in the Presidential election. Mr. Nader has played some sort of role in every race for the White House since 1992 and has been an influential figure in American public life for 40 years. He has also been the scourge of corporate greed and wasteful defence spending and champion of consumer rights and the need to protect the environment. His public life as measured through the ballot box has not perhaps been very successful -- he achieved 2.74 percent of the popular vote in 2000.
However, he is best remembered for the central role that he played in the dramas of the 2000 contest between George W Bush and Al Gore that still rankles many Democrats to this day. That contest, a virtual dead-heat between the two main candidates in the state of Florida ended up for Bush by a few hundred votes, thanks to the loss of nearly 100,000 votes cast for Nader. Since then, Democrats have blamed Nader for handing the presidency to George W Bush.
In similar fashion, Republicans have also never failed to express their dislike for independent conservative candidate Ross Perot for having taken away 19 per cent of the popular votes during the US Presidential election in 1992. They believe that this enabled Democrat Bill Clinton to triumph narrowly over George Bush Senior. These past experiences have demonstrated that third-party candidates can have a real impact.
This time round, the Democrats are again becoming worried that Nader might cast a long shadow on any Democratic nominee who might emerge after a protracted bitter and negative struggle. They might just be right.
The electoral process in the USA is complex and interesting because of the various facets associated with selection of the nominee. Each factor impacts in its own way. They also create dimensions that affect not only perceptions about the candidate but also the issues under debate. Each factor is important by itself, but they all inter-act with each other and then generate a separate paradigm. One can in this regard highlight some of the following -- white votes (broken up into white men and women), African-American vote bank, middle-class voters, blue-collar workers, cross-over voters, Hispanic vote bank, Roman Catholic vote bank, rural and urban voters and voters who are senior citizens and younger voters. These apparently, are only some of the intricate divisions that influence decision-making.
Then comes the process of selection itself. I have been listening to analysts on several TV news channels and have like most others learnt something new every week. The electoral dynamics is intricate. There are the Primaries, the Caucuses, the pledged delegates and also the super delegates. Democracy can be confusing in the United States, particularly so, when you have a situation where a candidate might have secured higher number of pledged delegates in the Primaries and also a higher popular vote and yet lose the nomination because of independent super-delegates.
The role of these special delegates has gained significance with prospects of a deadlock looming large after the latest round of Primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. Pundits are busy predicting that the super-delegates will be the deciders. There are 796 of these "insiders", as they're called. They include members of congress, governors, former presidents and office holders as well as unelected officials. Their increased prominence has led to speculation of a return to the smoke-filled rooms that dominated politics before the party electoral procedures were reformed after 1968. Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are pushing hard to secure pledges of support from these key figures.
The last time the Democratic super-delegates played a decisive role was in 1984 when they backed Walter Mondale over Gary Hart. This year the competition is closer. Barack Obama's supporters, especially after the re-vitalized performance of Hillary Clinton on 4 March, recognize their added importance. They are pointing out that if they end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, then it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters. That is true, but Mrs. Clinton's supporters are now hinting that she should be treated as the right candidate to oppose McCain (despite a possible shortfall in pledged delegates) because she has shown her promise by winning big States like California, New York, Texas and Ohio -- all of which will matter greatly during the Presidential election in November. They have also stressed that, in recent memory no Democrat has won the White House without having won Ohio.
In any case, it is interesting to see how the entire USA has become involved in the selection process. This has included endorsements that in their own way are impacting on the elective progression. The classical case has been the division within the Kennedy family itself in their support for the rival Democratic candidates. Robert Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy have sided with Hillary and Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President Kennedy), Ethel Kennedy and Maria Shriver have endorsed Obama. This endorsement procedure has been applicable for all candidates from both the Republican and the Democratic parties. It has included politicians, musicians, representatives from the entertainment industry and newspapers. It has added talk-time to talk shows.
This has captured my attention and of many others in Bangladesh because we are also going to have a general election in this country by the end of the year. The only difference is that in the USA everyone is involved, and in the participatory mode, with full freedom of expression. Over here it is significantly different with many expected areas of activity (associated with any free, fair and credible election) being held back because of restraints that are in place due to a state of emergency.
It will now be interesting to see what transpires over the next few weeks. The Clinton campaign, after their recent success, is upbeat about their chances. They are also cautious about playing down expectations. They understand that they might have gained in Ohio and Texas playing on themes like Obama not being clear about his stand on NAFTA (which is a four letter word to blue collar manufacturing workers), being connected with controversial financiers or being experienced in matters of national security. They also realize that their recent aggressive streak, more likely than not will meet with stiffer opposition from Obama in the near future.
It will be an interesting Spring in the US political landscape. Obama has lost some of his 'momentum' to Hillary. It will however be important to find out whether Hillary can translate her immediate advantage into self-perpetuating action. The last week has seen grace, respect and dignity thrown out of the window within the Democratic Party and its rival contenders. It has been like offering a bowl of cream to their rivals in the Republican camp.
The Democrats will have to remember that a cocktail of bitter brawl and shrill accusations mixed with a tilted selection through special delegates might do more harm than good. It might be Walter Mondale all over again.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.