adminsecond term.
According to various opinion polls, Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney are running neck and neck, and in some cases, Romney is leading. This is the bad news that a sitting president seeking a second term dreads most. And, American posterity demands that a president serve his two terms.
The 2012 election has also deeply polarised Americans, and nothing is certain until the morning of November 7.
However, as we reported yesterday, the country that fancies itself the repository of democratic principles and values has been found wanting. The US has shocked its European allies by denying observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), an affiliate of the United Nations, from observing the elections in the state of Texas — a Republican stronghold.
OSCE has described the move as unacceptable after Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a letter warning that it might be a criminal offence for the observers to “maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance.”
OSCE has 56 participating states located in Europe, the former Soviet Union and North America and covers most of the northern hemisphere. This has surprised us since we have been on the receiving end. Notwithstanding that the intimidation has been issued by one state, we ask why the US is refusing to have its electoral process observed so that it can also be deemed free and fair?
Election observers are a hallmark for any working democracy. The US has used former president Jimmy Carter’s Carter Centre as a tool to demonstrate the importance of allowing for checks and balances in an electoral system.
When international observers, especially those affiliated with the UN are barred and/or threatened with arrest, is the “world’s policeman” telling us that while it insists on observing elections in other sovereign states around the world, sometimes without invitation, it cannot be bound by the same international rules and regulations?
If countries like Zimbabwe had issued these threats, there would have been a hue and cry in Washington and all European capitals. The matter would have been taken up with the regional body Sadc, the African Union and the United Nations.
The moment the statement was issued, allegations of vote rigging and unfree and unfair elections would be flying all over.
The so-called international community would be asking that the winner be illegitimatised, especially if the winner is a Zanu-PF candidate and President Mugabe in particular. But this is the 21st century and there should be no sacred cows. We have witnessed vote rigging in US elections in the past.
By issuing such a stern warning against a UN-affiliated organisation, the Texas attorney general was actually alerting the world that there is a likely possibility that the vote will not be free and fair, or that rigging was also possible.
If the OSCE has observed US elections for the past decade, why would the US system not have confidence in them now?
While it is their prerogative to invite whoever they want, what we reject are the double standards they have always displayed when other countries, especially developing nations say that they do not want certain observers, especially those who come with hidden agendas or preconceived ideas.
Let this be a major talking point at the UN. We would also want to hear responses from the US ambassador to the UN Ms Susan Rice. By denying one UN-affiliated organisation, the US has shown that it does not have confidence and respect for the whole UN system, although they abuse it at will.
The United States’ electoral process should also now come under international scrutiny. If they expect multi-party democracy in other countries, why has theirs remained a two-party race? Why has the world allowed a large majority of voters who do not support the Democratic and Republican parties to be disenfranchised?
Why should a sitting president also be allowed to cast an early vote as did Obama and his wife Michelle? How does this influence the democratic process, and at the end of the day, why set a date when you can vote any time?
We hope that some of the events leading up to next Tuesday’s poll will make the US reflect on the abuse of its super power status in pursuit of its so-called permanent interests.
So tricky is the 2012 poll because after the September 11 Benghazi disaster, which resulted in the death of US ambassador to Libya and three Navy Seals, it seems as though Obama has been left clutching to straws, expectantly hoping that his kith and kin, the African-American voters, women and the gay community will deliver him the victory he now desperately seeks.
As if the economy and the Benghazi debacle were not enough, an act of God has become the latest addition to the candidates’ race to the White House.
The “monster storm”, Hurricane Sandy currently pounding half of the US will add its portion of who the White House’s next occupant will be.
It would have been a double jeopardy for Obama if the mild tsunami that struck his birthplace Hawaii last weekend had been as deadly as hurricane Sandy.
The costs in this election are too huge, and they should make the US realise that they belong to a community of nations where the benchmarks they want others to follow should also apply to them.
Online Reporter