Daily Times

Elections have always held an important place in the study of politics. All over the world, with all kinds of variations in electoral rules, the number of parties and their stances, as well as the composition of the voting body, the basic idea of an election stays the same: individuals get to exercise their rights and decide on their collective fate through their votes. While it would be naïve to say that contemporary elections are representative of this original idea in every sense of the word, we can still safely assume that elections are a desirable characteristic of democratic systems, and have enjoyed global recognition and legitimacy since the advent of democracy to the present day.
But even though elections remain crucial components of any state’s domestic political structure, it is the run-up to the elections that ignites the imagination of the voters and makes them come out on election day to exercise their voting rights. In modern times, parties and individuals spend millions in an effort to appeal to the most number of eligible voters. In this effort, some try to stick to their ideals and let their dedication and commitment bring them home whereas others hide behind shiny and glamorous facades that appeal to people on a more primeval level. Whatever the case and howsoever complex the rules, the basic purpose behind electoral campaigns is to firstly differentiate among different candidates and secondly lay the foundation for beating others in the quest for supremacy.
Now, electoral campaigns are a sight to behold when it comes to any and every country but nowhere in the world are they more grandiose than in the US. Electioneering is in fact a multi-billion dollar industry that has sprung many associated and specialised fields. Resultantly, if you have enough greenbacks to spend, candidates can hire advisors to see them through the challenges of the campaign trail, be it the choice of the correct stance on a foreign policy issue or choosing the colour of a tie during a speech. In recent times, the run-up to the US presidential elections has been a strange mix of faux commitment and modesty, with enough fanfare thrown in to appease the media spotlight. Sadly though, all this has meant that there is very little substance that can be fleshed out from campaign promises.
This week will see the Republican Party — one of the two major US parties, the Democratic Party being the other one — host its second primary debate among its own 2016 hopefuls who are trying to secure the party’s nomination. This time round, the Republican candidates have been especially prominent, not only because of their absurd policy stances, but also because there are just too many of them hoping for a tap on the shoulder from party elders. From Jindal to Bush to Trump, it seems that the only thing combining such a strange coterie is to lead their supporters astray and provide a huge smokescreen that diverts focus away from the real issues plaguing US society.
But a look at the Democratic Party candidates does not inspire a lot of confidence either. Sure, the front runner and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has the powerful Clinton legacy and concomitant electoral machinery running her campaign but she has so far been unable to steer clear from the controversy of her use of a private email address and server for exchanging sensitive information with other colleagues. Furthermore, her elite background makes it hard for ordinary US citizens to relate to her and put their faith in her.
On the other hand, the runner-up playing catch-up Democratic candidate in the form of Bernie Sanders has been steadily building on his support among middle-class US citizens, and his ability to fill gigantic stadiums with supporters remains unmatched among this cycle’s candidates. But many question his unfettered pro-socialist stance, which is almost a taboo concept in the US, even though some European states have proved that it works if implemented with the right ideals.
But, simply, no one candidate has been able to match the ascendancy of a certain Donald Trump. The high-flying, over-the-top businessman has held the US gaze hostage for quite some time ever since he announced his foray into politics from the Republican platform a few months ago. Being a highly successful real estate baron, Mr Trump has decided to test his mettle in the field of presidential campaigns, since the only thing he lacks — even after his multi-billion dollar valuations and lavish lifestyle — is the full weight of the US presidency behind him.
Each day brings with it innumerable possibilities where one gets to witness the antics of Donald Trump, which are amusing and frightening in equal measure. But his vitriolic stance on immigration and US supremacy has caught on like wildfire, and the candidate who was once considered a joke has forced others to take notice. However, apart from antics, it is interesting to see how the dynamics of the presidential campaigns — and in effect, of US society — are evolving over time. The insecurities borne out of socio-economic instability have found refuge in xenophobic slogans that purposely distort realities for ill-gained popularity. So extreme is the polarisation, and so visible the class divide in the contemporary US, that people preaching tolerance and common sense are left high and dry as voters and donors flock to their favourite posers and bashers.
So far then, one is yet to hear calls for meaningful reform from candidates of either party. Most campaigns remain focused on empty rhetoric, and even though Bernie Sanders has a better track record of constantly touching upon this topic in his campaigns, his inability to tailor his socialist-friendly stance for a US audience has meant that he is portrayed as an anomalous case, rather than a genuine challenger to the Clinton machine. And the situation is even more dire on the Republican front, where all sanity has in essence been dumped in the nearest trash can and selfishly extreme positions have been taken by virtually all candidates on issues such as immigration, economic reform and civil liberties.
As such, the running field for the 2016 US elections remains disappointing. In the coming days, as candidates employ even more outlandish measures to garner support, and as political pundits waste even more hours trying to extract some meaning where there is supposed to be none, there is a genuine concern that the ordinary voter will have to make a choice between potentially undesirable options.

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