Second Bush Administration

The Republicans adopted a centralised approach and relied more on party loyalists and volunteers than on paid canvassers. This approach appears to have paid dividends. Contrary to expectations, the Republicans were able to bring out as many supporters to vote as the Democrats, thereby negating the idea that if there was a big turnout on election day, Democrats would win. What had held true since 1964, was not so this time round.

Karl Rove, Special Assistant to President Bush for his re-election, has since made some interesting observations. He has claimed that for 'the first time in recorded history -- since the time we have been taking accurate public opinion surveys -- more Republicans voted than did Democrats.' He also pointed out that President Bush had received more than 50 percent of the popular vote and had also secured not only the majority of electoral college votes but also an expanded representation in the Senate and in the House. This was 'even better than Clinton'. In this context, he also noted that 'late deciders, undecided and younger voters' all seem to have broken with the past tradition of voting against the incumbent.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

There were some other significant aspects. Bush also benefited from a higher support from the Jewish lobby (22 percent as opposed to 19 percent in 2000) and also from the Latino speakers (40 percent as opposed to 35 percent in 2000). The swing was also evident particularly in New Mexico and Florida, where Bush won this time with clear margins. The Republicans have also won a rash of seats in the South, further consolidating their grip on the Congress. The fact that Democrat Senator Tom Daschle has also lost will be a bad blow for the Democrats in the future.

The electorate in the 'heartland' of the USA has let its moral and traditional values determine the final vote. The centre has moved to the right and there appears to be a change that is here to stay. Despite overwhelming world opinion, middle America did a referendum of GWB and decided that security counted for more than 'lack of credibility' in Bush's 'war on terror'. It also proved that issues like economy and jobs were less of a consideration and less of a factor. Their vote indicated that it was not the right time to 'jump ship' as it were. It also reflected the unwritten and inherent 'advantage of incumbency'.

President Bush has been re-elected, but it is generally agreed that he will enjoy a negligible, if any, post-election honeymoon from a closely divided country. Many in the Republican Camp will also see him as a lame-duck and their attention will inexorably turn, like so many sunflowers towards rising Suns and the prospect of a Republican 44th President. In this regard they will be watching more critically how Bush handles the ongoing problems.

Bush knows this, and so do his strategists.

There has been diverse reaction from the rest of the world to the re-election of Bush. One thing has however been constant -- reminders about the many complex problems that Bush will need to solve, and that too urgently.

Terrorists have not gone out of business. Osama bin Laden has shown through his latest video footage that he is well and unperturbed by efforts to capture him. Musab Abu al-Zarqawi also continues to threaten the United States and its friends. North Korea's nuclear programme remains unchecked, a threat to its neighbours. Iran continues to be a headache as it thumbs its nose at both Europe and the USA.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, reflecting on current world order in the 'Newsweek' of 8 November, has made an interesting assessment. He has commented that "no President has faced an agenda of comparable scope. This is not hyperbole; it is the hand that history has dealt this generation. Never before has it been necessary to conduct a war with neither front lines nor geographic definition and, at the same time, to rebuild fundamental principles of world order to replace the traditional ones which went up in the smoke of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon."

One can only agree with Kissinger with regard to the difficult task that faces Bush. Nevertheless, a comprehensible effort needs to be undertaken to win back the high moral ground that has always been the trademark of his country.

One of the first steps should include addressing his attention to the controversial juridical aspects of incarceration in Guantanamo Bay. It offers constant evidence of America flouting international legal norms. The current Administration claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty. Yet it is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The 'Economist' (30 October, 2004) has correctly stated that 'the White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem.' Moral probity demands that such a situation should not continue.

It is equally important that the White House also gives more attention to jumpstarting efforts to find a solution to the problems faced by Palestine. It was encouraging to hear President Bush state in his first post-election news conference that 'life is bigger than just politics'. He has also remarked that he intends "to work for a free Palestinian State at peace with Israel." At this juncture, when Arafat is no longer the active focal point, it is vital that some concrete initiative is undertaken that will persuade the people of Palestine to believe that the USA can be even-handed. A degree of trust has to return to the scene if the post-Arafat era is to avoid greater upheaval. We are all hoping that a confident president will now make an effort to develop a European-US position as a part of 'a reinvigorated peace process' that might encourage reluctant parties to break the deadlock. This will also reduce anxiety in the neighbourhood, particularly in Syria and Lebanon.

Mr. Bush has been re-elected and will in all probability have changes in his team. He will also hopefully, after his victory, be able to shake-off his fealty to the extreme religious right. A more flexible approach might contribute towards the meeting of existing challenges.

It has to be understood in Washington that the world political cauldron, particularly Iraq, requires greater internationalisation. That is probably the only realistic path toward stability inside Iraq. Meaningful internationalisation would require a focus other than just security needs. It should also involve the participation of countries other than -- or in addition to -- NATO. One step might be the creation of an International Contact Group under UN auspices after the January elections in Iraq. This Group could be constituted to advise on the evolution of Iraq's future socio-economic and political processes.

The next four years will test US resolve. The USA will also have to understand that unilateralism in its own way can be self-defeating. The USA is a vast country and the sole super-power. However, it will need to reconcile consultation with its perceived strategic interests. This is probably the only way that it can achieve the required security system for Northeast Asia.

President Bush will also have to overcome other challenges in the socio-economic sectors and in the arena of trade and environment. It will include the need for a period of discipline in economic policy and for compromise on social policy. Environmentalists feel that his Administration will also have to take into account the repeated natural disasters, the increased air pollution and the steady deterioration in the degree of climate change. Unless he takes the lead, and the USA conforms to international regulations, we are looking at severe glacier retreat. Such a scenario is bound to have disastrous impact on island States, the South Asian subcontinent and China's east coast. We are talking here of half a billion people.

The only remedy lies in the second Bush Administration forsaking the one-dimensional approach and undertaking a more multi-dimensional and multilateral approach. This should apply not only towards Africa but also in all the activities of the United Nations.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador -- any response to mzamir@dhaka.net