U.S. election reveals problems with antiquated Constitution

By Karim Raslan

KUALA LUMPUR (JP): The message is loud and clear. We can no longer depend on the American people and more especially its political elite to deliver global leadership.

The treasured Constitution -- a document produced in the late 1700s -- is once again showing its age.

Moreover, and this is extremely worrying, the recent election underscores a noticeable diminution in the goodwill and public spiritedness of the Presidential candidates.

It is depressing that we should look back to the reviled Richard Nixon's famous decision not to contest the 1960 election. His forbearance now seems like an act of lofty self-sacrifice as Democrats and Republicans in turn badmouth one another in a series of demeaning and unattributed comments.

Whilst there is no denying the Constitution's initial appropriateness for a predominantly agrarian society spread out over a vast geographical area the document is simply out of date and irrelevant.

In legal parlance, it's as if financial contracts from the Hanoverian era were still in circulation, determining the legal respective responsibilities of banks and borrowers, notwithstanding the advent of derivatives and put options.

The Presidential system and the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution may not be able to cope with the exigencies of the modern era.

Additionally, with global leadership fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the American political elite, the looming logjam in Washington DC does not augur well for worldwide prosperity and stability.

By way of comparison, I am a committed advocate of the Westminster Parliamentary system -- a method of governance -- that does at least ensure a measure of authority and power to the electoral winner. And given America's global leadership, I would have hoped that its chief executive possessed the requisite authority to act when he or she deemed necessary.

Personally, I cannot comprehend the way the Americans have allowed the selection of their chief executive to be subjected to such a flawed process.

As far as I can see their haphazard and inefficient electoral system now leaves the balance of power in the hands of litigious lawyers, partisan officials and churlish power hungry candidates.

Aside from introducing the Westminster Parliamentary system, the second alternative to the impasse -- and it's certainly radical -- is for the entire world to accede to the union.

Why? Many of us already acknowledge American supremacy in the spheres of power politics, business and economics. Given the reality of global influence there are times when I wonder why we continue with the present charade?

Why do we pretend to have a say in world affairs? The UN Security Council is merely a smokescreen for American manipulation. We should be less idealistic and more practical. Let's admit to our utter irrelevance.

Having come to terms with our diminished stature and the relative unimportance of our supposed sovereignty we should -- unilaterally -- accede to the Union.

In essence I am arguing that since the Americans can't be trusted to uphold democracy and ensure an effective and dynamic Presidency then we should step forward, demand to join the union and then have a say in their decision making process.

Why should global government be decided by the American electorate alone? Why should there only be fifty-one states in the Union?

Why can't there be two hundred or even three hundred? Since Washington DC is the global capital we should demand actual representation and I don't mean by buying lobbyists.

The Pax Americana is much like the Pax Romana -- it enforces and ensures global security and prosperity. However, in both cases the citizens of USA and Rome have ensured that they benefited to the detriment of those excluded.

In the case of the Pax Americana, for example, decisions with regard to the WTO and the United Nations are determined by the whims and fancies of various American interest groups. Just imagine the reduced influence of the Jewish lobby if the entire Arab world was represented at Washington in the guise of Senators from Syria, Iraq and Congressmen from Aleppo and Mosul.

The rule of law advocated and supported by the Americans has benefited themselves first and foremost. In the days when they could be trusted to maintain a strong, stable and even-handed government we were all content to be supplicants. However the age of Marshall, Harriman, Roosevelt and Eisenhower has passed.

Now that the Washington is in danger of losing itself in a round of litigation, political infighting and name-calling we must demand admission to the Congress for ourselves. Just imagine the consequences if Puerto Rico could be joined in the Senate by Brazil, Tajikistan, Rwanda and Austria?

What state could possibly deny the importance of humanitarian intervention with the entire globe sitting in judgment?

Finally there is the issue of the drastic erosion of trust and responsibility amongst the political practitioners (Jeb Bush excluded).

Quite frankly, the present impasse shows that the USA is no longer as responsible or as steady as we once thought.

If shady business is the key to securing the White House then Malaysian politicians shouldn't limit their ambitions to Putrajaya.

I have no doubt that we could subvert the democratic process with equal effectiveness.

Missing ballot boxes, incomplete electoral lists, confusing voting forms, lengthy and inconclusive recounts, torn family loyalties, partisan officials and vulture-like lawyers are all aspects of the political process that we understand instinctively.

However, over and above the irregularities and my admittedly far-fetched solution, my chief concern is the glaring decline in integrity and public-spiritedness demonstrated by the candidates over the past few days.

The two candidates must surely realize that elections are not without their imperfections. Nonetheless the Presidential elections are intended to confer a mandate on only one candidate, however unfair the result.

Given this fact the manner with which Al Gore and his team have intimated that they will ensnare the electoral process in a flurry of litigation if there is any hint of impropriety reveals a worrying display of partisanship at a time when the American body politic is severely weakened.

Whilst Gore is entirely within his rights to prosecute his political interests, the recriminations will be disastrous for American prestige and global security.

It is hard to imagine the 43rd President of the USA brokering a deal between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak. In calling for a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and self-sacrifice, the interlocutor must be able to show that he himself is capable of the same.

The veiled threats issued by his campaign chairman William Daley reflect the dramatic erosion of trust within the Beltway.

The Clintonian era (and the Monica Lewinsky episode in particular) has underlined the extent to which the proponents of the American way have forgotten that their ultimate responsibility lies with the American people and the world and not with their greed and ambition.

The writer is a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer and writer. The article has appeared in The Business Times of Singapore and The Sun in Malaysia.