Daily Times

The political system in the US is
considered to be one of the oldest, most consolidated democracies in the world. Starting out from a revolutionary struggle against the vagaries of the Empire, the US experiment has largely been able to reap the benefits of independence and self-determination, rising to become not only the key power in the international system but also one of the most influential nations this world has ever seen.

Rooted deep in the US example is the system of democracy and elected representation. Many others have tried to copy the American way but have ultimately failed to reproduce the values that make the US stand out. Devoid of coups and usurpations, the story of US democracy is one of continuity and constant progress where the masses have always had a say in who gets to represent them, in one way or another.

However, this ideal has come under increasing scrutiny within the last few decades and many contend that the picture is not all that rosy as it is made out to be. US democracy, it can be argued, systematically shuts down voters with certain ethnic, racial and socio-economic backgrounds, so much so that the system starts representing a bargain among elites to compromise over power sharing as long as the masses are shut out of the system. From local to presidential elections, US democracy is perceived to be crumbling under increasing pressures and the state of the union does not look to be a particularly strong one.

With respect to the decision over how much influence elites can have, the presidential elections remain a key demonstration of how the political elite has been able to rig the scales in its favour. Money and corporate interests drive political agendas, and the voices of the masses are shut out of the legislative system. But before we can delve further, we have to understand the peculiarities of the system of presidential elections in the US, in order to better understand the debate at hand.

First of all, there is almost a two-year long, demanding campaign process that all potential candidates desirous of securing a nomination by either party have to go through in order to prove not just their rapport with the American voter, but also to demonstrate their revenue-generating abilities, a core tenet of the US political system. Secondly, the voting mechanisms in party primaries — where registered voters from each party get to voice their opinions as to which candidate should get the party nomination to run for president — differ so significantly across states that any comparison is doomed to fail. From delegates physically crossing floors to show their support for one candidate or the other to probabilistic coin flips that leave the fate of candidates up to chance in case of run-offs, presidential primaries are fraught with all kinds of worrisome procedures that leave a lot to be desired.

The real issue, however, is that the affluent classes are disproportionately represented in the political system. Over the years, the political elite in the US has institutionalised its influence in the system to such a degree that voters do no really have enough power to alter the status quo any more. Most elected representatives come to office not with the goal of better policymaking or effective representation, but to secure re-election in order to entrench themselves within the system. This creates a ‘careerist’ environment in a place that should be anything but.

But, from the looks of the campaign trail so far, voters in both parties are rejecting the advances of the establishment vociferously and choosing to support anti-establishment candidates over the usual suspects. In fact, such is the level of defiance among voters that traditional rubrics of measurement, for instance ethnic or gender-based voting, have fallen by the wayside. Many are terming this sea change as a bit of a political revolution; while that may be a bit of an exaggeration, the change in voting patterns is significant. Voters are following in the footsteps of the pied pipers that stand at the gates and draw the crowds towards their own agendas.

In the Democratic Party, the all-talk, idealist senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, has been able to upend the rival Clinton political machine in an unprecedented way. Vowing to limit the influence of corporate interests in Congress, he has refused to take donations from big corporations, instead relying on smaller donations from more people. This campaign model runs counter to every possible conception of the US political system, since when it comes to campaigning, money does make the world go round. The fancy ads, the gleaming fliers and the sharp speeches all come at a cost in an economy where services of all kinds are available for hire. And yet, even without huge donations, Senator Sanders has been able to match and even defeat his rival in the polls so far, leaving the disadvantaged masses hopeful about the possibility of reform.

Over at the Republican front, the candidate field has significantly thinned out and it now resembles a basketball team in terms of number of individuals rather than a cricket team. The Republican establishment would have Marco Rubio secure the nomination but Ted Cruz and Donald Trump — two candidates bidding to outdo each other in scare tactics — have so far been able to ruin the establishment’s dream. Ted Cruz gained a massive victory in the Iowa primaries whereas Trump secured a double-digit lead over his rivals in the New Hampshire primaries. As other states follow with their own primaries, it will be interesting to see if the current trends hold.

There are, however, issues with the front-runners: Senator Sanders is promising a lot but he will ultimately be unable to deliver because the reins of domestic power reside with Congress in Washington. He may be able to make a few changes here and there but significant overhaul in the healthcare, education and labour sector will remain a distant dream.

If inefficiency is the primary concern attached to a Democratic president, downright bigotry is something that will plague a Republic presidency on the other hand. All the front-runners – with Cruz and Trump being most prominent in this regard – have shown very little hesitancy to be aggressive and callous in their policies. The affluence and good fortune enjoyed by the Republican Party base as well as the candidates stops them from seeing the misery that many Americans live in on a daily basis, and they remain oblivious to core issues such as race, religious freedom and immigration.

There is still a long way to go before American voters turn out in the presidential elections in November this year. A lot can predictably change during that time but, then again, a lot may not. At this point in time, the voting lines among the supporters of the two parties are so divided that the presidential race is bound to be a tight one. However, the trouble with that is once a president gets elected, the opposing side will erect so many hurdles in the way of policymaking that deadlock will be the norm rather than being the exception, which will ultimately hurt the American voter.

The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations