Not by George

The point about America8217;s elections isn8217;t Bush. It8217;s America

The liberal position is that the Republicans and more particularly George Bush lost on account of Iraq. The conservative position what I call the Wall Street Journal view is that the Republican defeat was well-deserved, because they didn8217;t stay faithful to their ideology of fiscal rectitude and small government. In fact one could argue that the egregious spending on homeland security is one of the greater assaults on small government we have seen in recent American history.

If one can detach oneself from the immediate, the silver lining is pretty clear: I was trying to think back to other times in American history when popular resentment has resulted in appropriate signals being sent to the detached leadership at the top. Lincoln could easily have lost the second term if he had not demonstrated that his will was unshakable. He was opposed by, of all people, by a popular military general. Nothing can be worse than being opposed by a general during a war. Lincoln heeded the message, and there8217;s still an American republic around. Wilson actually won a war and came up with an extraordinary solution to the problem of war. His people rejected the solution. Given what happened to the League of Nations later, the people turned out to be right. Despite tremendous achievements on the domestic front the civil rights bill among others Lyndon Johnson withdrew merely on the basis of opinion polls. Paradoxically, the beneficiaries were the Republicans.

It was Lincoln who first observed that the four-year term for president and the two-year term for the Congress were conscious well-thought-out decisions by the framers of the American constitution. Lincoln argued that there8217;s a limit to the damage that anyone can do in four years. It is interesting that he was concerned about the damage governments can do. Early American leaders were more concerned about what governments could do wrong than they could do right. They knew that left in power for too long, any government could achieve damage.

These sentiments are a testimony to the fact that democracies, especially robust ones, require 8220;an occasional references to others8221;, as Churchill said. Referring matters away from the elite to citizens gives everyone a moment to pause, it creates an automatic self-correction mechanism that precipitates mid-course change. It is not an accident that the American republic has lasted more than 200 years despite a bloody civil war in the middle of that period.

Checks and balances, separation of powers, fixed terms for leaders, judges who are in office for life 8212; each of these represents a conscious deliberate choice. To understand American politics one has to understand this: these mechanisms have helped control arrogance of power, prevented hubris. That applies to what the Republicans have suffered in these elections.

What happens after the current Republican setback remains to be seen. Those who believe that there will be a cut-and-run strategy in Iraq may be in for a surprise. What these elections certainly do however is to demonstrate to the people of Iraq that democracy in their country is worth struggling for. Citizens can have a say in running their country by going to polls peacefully. They can make an impact. They don8217;t need to explode bombs in crowded places merely because of political disagreement.

In fact the US midterm elections hold a salutary lesson to even the so-called advanced people of countries like France. Every time one disagrees with a new law one doesn8217;t have to take to the streets. There are more civilised forms of discourse than mob violence.

Story continues below this ad

Rather than demonstrating the power of their tanks or their soldiering which has exactly not been of high standards recently, America has offered another lesson to countries that need it most. By simply holding scheduled elections, and showing to the whole world that the most powerful man in the world can be humbled by the collective judgment of the people, it has demonstrated to unfortunate citizens of so many countries in the Middle East that the notion of improving their system of governance is valid, it is worth fighting for.

A chastened Bush offers to the region that supposedly dislikes him the most another political thesis: that if people want durable systems of governance and prosperity, if they want a chance to better their lives 8212; elections, debates and discussions are the way to go. In the loud noise that will follow the US verdict, all this will be forgotten. There will be too many pundits writing about the failures of George Bush. There will be a lot of commentaries on why Iraq was a mistake. There will be a lot of looking-back and gloating from the liberals about the Bush errors. But George Bush isn8217;t the story of this election. America8217;s ability to impose correctives is.

Which is why starting today, American politicians, of whatever stripe, will not be looking back but looking forward. The focus will be on the 2008 presidential elections. This is another wonderful feature of American politics. It is almost as if people in public life are on a perpetual treadmill. Don8217;t feel sorry for the politicians. There are plenty of rewards for being on the treadmill. And it is the paramount obligation of citizens to keep their leaders on the treadmill.

One of the fallouts this time of that feature of American politics is that the debate on Middle East policy will not get frozen. Much as some commentators may want, the US will look for other ways of engaging with the region. And the world should be thankful for that. The region remains the biggest question mark on the prospects of an orderly world. Its many regimes need changing, whatever the modus operandi.

Story continues below this ad

If the people of the Middle East rejoice at Bush8217;s humbling and praise America8217;s system and get inspired by it, George Bush should be happy. So should we be.

The writer is chairman, Mphasis