The MMA has won the world election for the president of America.
We refer, of course, to the Moral Majority of America or Moral Middle America. But mistaking it for a distant cousin of the Muttahida Majlis Amal of Pakistan might not be such an unforgivable sin under the circumstances. Never before has such an unprecedented swing been so critically dependent on the “moral brigade” of America nearly 18% of all American voters voted for Bush only because of their “moral” views against gay rights, abortion, etc. Never before have middle American states voted so solidly against the liberal peripheral states. Never before has any American election gripped the rest of the world like this one as though it were a matter of life and death for every citizen of the world outside America regardless of caste, colour or creed. Never before has the overwhelming sentiment of the world against George W Bush been so arrogantly spurned by a majority of Americans. Never before has the bitter division inside America been as remarkable as the fearful divide between George W Bush’s America and the rest of the world. And never before was such an issue-oriented election fought in such a personality-obsessed America.
In 2000 George W Bush lost the popular vote but still won the election. However, in 2004 George W Bush won only 51% of the vote but also won both Houses of Congress and is poised to dominate the Supreme Court. When was the last time an American politician seized control over all three branches of the state and negated the principles of separation of powers enshrined by America’s founding fathers? How will the world fare in the next four years?
Most people believe that President Bush will continue to wreck international law and order, alienate world public opinion, fuel anti-Americanism across the globe and give succour to Islamic terror. In this scenario, Osama bin Laden will be gloating over his successful strategy of dividing America and isolating it in the world. But is President Bush as stupid as he looks and sounds? Will the “ground realities” at home and abroad allow him to run amuck as feared?
President Bush will certainly throw everything he’s got into Iraq and Afghanistan to stitch up two bleeding wounds. He will back Ariel Sharon’s two-state solution in the Middle-East at the cost of the Palestinians. He will forcefully pursue “the war against terror” in the Muslim world. In so doing, he will vindicate the “clash of civilization” thesis, making Muslims in America and abroad angry, fearful and vengeful. But will he open another military front against Iran over its nuclear programme? We think not. Will he insist on bilateral negotiations with N Korea and hold out the threat of military action? We don’t think so. Will he extend the doctrine of unilateralism to embrace significant new military adventures across the globe? Probably not. Whatever his own inclinations and those of his neocon advisors and friends, the “ground realities” – an unprecedented budgetary deficit, a weakening dollar, a massive overstretch of precious American boots and an agonisingly divided nation – will be important causes of restraint. By the same criterion, and for much the same reason, his rhetoric could be quite aggressive. Indeed, in order to avoid physical actions around the globe he may seek to employ the most hostile threats and postures.
Europe will be circumspect, to be sure, hoping to draw Bush out instead of fencing him in. The UN has no option but to follow suit. But South Asia may actually benefit from a Bush presidency.
The Indian ruling elites see this as a great opportunity to establish the strategic relationship they have long sought with America. That’s why the Bombay stock market soared 1.5 points after the Bush victory. This inclination will be strengthened by the views and actions of the 2 million-strong Non-Resident Indian (NRI) community in the US which is America’s richest ethnic group with increasing sympathy for Bush’s conservative agenda. No wonder Indian leaders and strategic thinkers are already smacking their lips in anticipation. Who cares whether lay Indians like Bush or not?
Similarly, the perspective of the Pakistani elites and state favours a Bush presidency even though most Pakistanis abhor the man and his policies. Greater American economic assistance, military aid and trade facilitation are on the cards in exchange for increased cooperation in turning the tide of radical Islam, stabilizing the Hamid Karzai regime in Afghanistan and building peace with India – three areas in which success is desperately required by the Bush administration to vindicate electoral promises and actualize threats. Surely, when push comes to shove and concrete jobs are on the line, most Pakistanis will curse Bush for propping up the Musharraf regime and hurting Muslims even as they line up to grab the goodies from rising economic growth and trade, greater moderation in every day life and enduring peace with neighbours east and west that result from Bush pressures and policies in the region.
However the landscape shapes out and whatever the legacies, we can be sure of one thing: the world will be in terrifying flux during the next four years.