Not again!

The contest for the US presidency has once again expanded our lexicon of electoral democracy. In the long night following election day, George W. Bush believed he had notched up enough of a lead in the decider state of Ohio to claim victory in the Electoral College. No, not till the last 8220;provisional ballot8221; is scrutinised, returned his Democrat challenger John Kerry. In 2000, the quagmire in Florida provided instruction to the rest of the world on chads, those punched out pieces of ballot paper, and how they could hang and paralyse regime change in Washington for days and weeks. Now, it transpires that there are a variety of ballots, and they are assessed at varying speeds. There are votes cast on election day, advance votes, absentee votes 8212; and provisional votes whose validity, by Ohio8217;s state laws, can take more than 10 days to be ascertained. In the meanwhile, once again, America may not know who its next president will be. Once again, a political process could be held hostage to legal wrangling.

The US has been on such a frenetic democratising mission in recent years that this enforced pause could provide a welcome breather for it to acknowledge that some of democracy8217;s best tricks are employed elsewhere. Handovers spread over two months 8212; from election to inauguration day 8212; may have passed muster with the founding fathers used to the unhurried economy of their east coast plantations. Today they are a drag on globalised economies that react to events real time. Time, then, for the hyperpower to learn the mechanics of swift, legally insulated counting from larger democracies like India, procedures that permit incumbent governments to lay claim to clear mandates.

Else, the US will continue to visit its electoral schizophrenia on the rest of the world. Last time, the month-long delay in announcing a winner meant the Bush team hit the ground running, suspense over its claim to victory contracting time available for the process of appointments and confirmation. Lingering doubts over the legitimacy of that victory robbed them of a fair bit of credibility in claiming a mandate to undertake military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Four years later, greater ideological divisions are being projected on the rest of the world. Will the most powerful country maintain a lead in securing fair trade and abjure all protectionist instincts? Will it separate other nations as allies or friends based on national interests of the moment, or will it adhere to universally agreed norms of diplomacy? In waging its war on terror, will terror be defined solely in terms of American interests or in terms of world peace? The next president will certainly play a significant role in setting the rules of economic, military and diplomatic cooperation. No president-elect deserves to have his programme thrown into dispute simply because his country8217;s electoral laws are so archaic.