Farce of democracy

While representing the prospect of the first woman US president, Hillary has a proven track record of poor judgment

The 2016 US election cycle is far from maturity, but it is already historic by many standards. The positive aspects are that there are more registered voters casting ballots than ever before and that, for the first time, one of the two major parties are set to nominate a female president. The bad news is that despite the best efforts of an invigorated electorate, the voters often found themselves shut out of the nomination process. Mark Twain’s prophecy comes of age, “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.” The power of the voter has been diminished by the corporate lobbyists and large donors focused on protecting their vested interests and weakening regulation to increase their profits. Somehow Americans are facing a choice between two presidential candidates that the majority of the population despises. According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have unfavourable ratings of 56 per cent and 59 per cent, respectively. Is this the new face of democracy; to vote for the lesser evil? The veil of governance being a way to represent the will of the people or conduct business for their wellbeing has never been so transparent.

In a damning indictment of democratic principles, neither party was capable of putting a candidate forward who the public could trust. Trump, the Republican nominee, is a four-time bankrupt billionaire who lacks any governing experience. Ironically, that may be his biggest asset. Otherwise, he relies on much of his support from the fringe of society, the type who retweet racist and sexist remarks. The presumptive Democratic candidate is Clinton. While representing the prospect of the first woman US president, she has a proven track record of poor judgment and backed by the same banking industry which destroyed the US economy not too long ago. Her support for the Iraq war and other misguided forays is also a source of disgust. For a sense of the public’s reaction to her pending nomination, search Twitter for #GuessImWithHer, a play on her own campaign slogan.

Here, in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a developing country, things are no different. It does not matter how damning the Panama leaks are, nor what the people say or even what the media insinuates; the rulers will govern despite such accusations. There are moral red lines or ethical limits restricting the good, the bad or the ugly from looting the nation. In a parliament that accepts uneducated legislators, who don’t pay taxes, and whose speediest legislation is to raise their own pay and allowances, how can opinions matter? It’s no longer about what is right or wrong but how much can be defended, what the law facilitates or what one can get away with. The common defence for poor behaviour is to point across parliament at the guy who got away with even worse actions last week. It’s all relative, the lesser cheat deserves to win, right?

There is growing cynicism of politics the world over. It is unfortunate that the most successful political idea of the 20^th century has eroded to this farce as well.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 13^th, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.