US Presidential Election and Pakistan

By Rana Abdul Baqi
rabaqi@sapulse.com

United States, the third largest country in the world and the world's only military super power, which can possibly exert its influence anywhere around the globe, is once again on the threshold of electing its most powerful President, amid increasing concern against terrorism and the worst US economic crisis. No doubt, the US President enjoys wide administrative, legal and constitutional powers, however, he or she is accountable to the two houses of the Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Since the US Congress equally enjoys vast constitutional powers, therefore, on many critical occasions the US government looked like a divided government with a Republican President, while the two or at least one house of the congress was either controlled by the Democrats or vice versa. Despite the enthusiastic nature of party based politics in United States, the critical and extremist political gimmicks applied by the party activists against each other were always counted in US constitutional history as the beauty of the US democracy.

While studying the US election process, it may not be over looked that the US political system is unique as well as unusual because its citizens have strong belief and commitment in the two-party system, although there is no bar for organizing the third party. Therefore, many political scientists believe that comparative political process in United States represent a different paradigm that structures critical definitions of politics as compared to other democracies in the world. Thus, the unusual precedents set forth in the American history, most voters had, with the passage of time, developed a strong sense of loyalty or party identification while joining judicious party based election campaigns. This only signifies that relatively minor shifts from one election to the next occurred occasionally because the two parties i.e., the Republican and Democrats had broad-based coalition of loyal voters. But at times, even minor shifts become a major factor in bringing a qualitative change in election results.

As a matter of fact, the US civil rights movements and occasional anti-war protest on national level do reflect public concerns and sentiments largely contributing to the aforementioned minor public opinion shifts during election process. Previously, civil rights movements and the war in Vietnam did attract chunks of US public opinion, while the present scenario of US economic crisis too, is filled with anti-war group demands for the with-drawl of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in the backdrop of adverse budgetary provisions. Bush policies in Iraq and South Asia has after-all irritated many American citizens, seemingly hurting the current election campaign of Republican party to a tremendous extent.

Meanwhile, the current keenly contested presidential election between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain has focused war of terror in Afghanistan with special reference to the ongoing Pakistan's anti-insurgency campaign in FATA and Swat. The resultant growing violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan has not only become a leading issue in the US Presidential campaign but has also overshadowed other burning international issues like Palestinian-Israeli conflict, situation in Iraq, the Iranian and North Korean nuclear pursuits, etc.

Although most US citizen of Pakistani origin initially supported the candidature of Barack Obama, however, Obama's severe criticism of Pakistan for the reported inept handling of anti-terror efforts has made many Pakistanis at home and abroad angry to Obama's reported comments. Pakistanis generally feel that contrary to their hopes, John McCain adopted a more matured outlook on Pakistan then Obama, who seemed misinformed. Obama who is still liked by many Pakistanis at home and abroad, needs to review his comments on Pakistan to avoid unnecessary controversy. Obama's managers must properly study the ground realities in Pakistan before allowing Barack Obama to make sweeping statement, which is in nobody's interest. Similarly Huntington's book on clash of civilizations in fact, targeted the Muslim civilization after Nine Eleven with out realizing its implications on modern Muslim states.

So much so that the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Late Benazir Bhutto had to address "Huntington's work" in her last book, "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West." She says, "Huntington's work, initially derided by many, has become more and more accepted in the half decade since the September 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. But let me be clear from the outset: I disagree with the thesis in the "Clash of Civilizations" and fear that this work has actually helped provoked the confrontation it predicts. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of fear that disregards history and human nature, molding the world to conform to a theory. The assertions about Islam are widely misinformed...The clash of civilizations theory is not just intellectually provocative: it fuels xenophobia and paranoia both in the West and the Islamic world. I believe its mythology is flawed, and its conclusions are historically unsupported."

In view of the aforementioned, it is imperative to review all those rhetoric and misconception on Pakistan and Afghanistan, based on conjecture and half-truths. The fact may not be ignored that US, British and Saudi Arabian dignitaries are currently pursuing track diplomacy to bring peace in Afghanistan. Hence the said peace initiative may not be flawed in Pakistan by sending wrong signals, as the new elected US President will have to address the intricate issues concerning to war against terror in South Asia and negotiated settlement of issues being one of the options. By the way, Pakistan has already paid huge price for undertaking very judicious operations against terrorists, so lets be fair to Pakistan.