When President George W. Bush was re-elected for a second
term in America eight years ago, I remember he used the term ‘political
capital’. He felt he had a clear mandate to carry out certain things
that he had spoken about during the election campaign.
Last week,
President Barack Obama won with a clear margin. He can claim he has
political capital to carry out many policies, which he and his
Democratic Party colleagues have promised the voters to implement during
the campaign.
The Congress, the American Parliament, is split
with a majority for the Democratic Party in the upper house, the Senate,
but the Republican Party has the majority in the lower house, the House
of Representatives. Although Obama won clearly over his opponent
Governor Mitt Romney, he and the Democrats still have to negotiate and
compromise with the Republicans to pass laws in the Congress. Obama has
already indicated that he wants higher taxation to keep the government
coffers liquid and meet obligations and avoid insolvency and the USA
falling off the ‘Fiscal Cliff’, risking another recession.
America’s
recovery after the recession, which began about four years ago, has
been slower than hoped; the unemployment rate remains high, and
unacceptably high in certain subgroups and geographical areas. The
unemployment situation in Europe, indeed in Greece, Spain and Portugal,
is worse, with severe consequences for ordinary people. In the rest of
the European Union countries, the unemployment situation may also
sometimes be worse than in America, but due to a much better safety net
with unemployment benefits and social health and other services, the
consequences are cushioned and ordinary people are not as badly
affected.
Obama’s main mandate, his political capital, is to
continue to work for reduced - not growing - inequalities among people
in America. That was also the focus of his campaign when he won his
first presidential term. The recession left little room for keeping that
campaign promise, although inequalities would most likely have grown,
at least in the short-term, if the Republicans had been in power.
The
Republicans argue that it is the private sector that creates
employment, which is correct, too! They argue that taxes should be lower
to make the private sector companies competitive and not to lose out to
foreign companies, which nowadays would often mean local and foreign
companies in China. That would lead to lower unemployment, too, and,
hence, less need for the government allocating more unemployment
benefits.
The problem in all countries, not least in the developed
economies in the West, is that the government sector has become very
large, supporting a number of sectors that it, in theory, could be left
to the private sector, such as education and health services. In the
West, the government regulations and the government budgets increased
tremendously in the last century. In the recent decades, it is more
mixed, with privatisation too in many fields.
It is the private
sector that must create most of the future employment. Although the
government’s power is limited in making this happen, it must find
policies that can stimulate the private sector’s job creation. But the
government has a major role in seeking ways of creating redistribution
of wealth without constant economic growth. This is a field that nobody,
but the government can lead, with researchers and innovators in the
private sector. Yes, Obama knows this, but will he dare introduce the
debate?
America’s two parties, especially the Republican Party,
must review their policies as regards the government’s role in general
at home and abroad. It includes what ideal values and policies it wishes
to recommend worldwide. We should realise that USA’s military,
economic, democratic and moral importance remains tremendous. In Obama’s
second term, his administration should clarify these issues for the
people at home and for all of us worldwide.
Yes, it is true that
the American economy needs restructuring and the serious debt problem
must be solved; it cannot continue living above its means. But it is
still for a while the world’s largest economy, just with a quarter of
China’s population. Both countries must take redistribution of wealth
seriously. The USA must, indeed, be able to reduce resource consumption
without necessarily reducing standards. And both countries must reduce
pollution and take environmental issues and global warming seriously -
again, an area where the government leadership and regulations are key,
controlling and curtailing the private sector.
Obama knows this
well, but will he get the Republican Party with him to pass laws?
Earlier this year, America experienced the worst draught ever, and the
recent storm and floods in New York and the East Coast were further
wake-up calls for all.
In the foreign policy fields, there are
important issues to reconsider. The ‘war on terror’, as we call it, is
the most important field. To what extent is it real and to what extent
is it a made-up ‘war’? Who are the enemies really? What causes are there
and how should the response be? Can dialogue and inclusion of people,
who feel marginalised be the main way of avoiding violent and terrorist
actions?
In future, if we cannot stop the growing inequalities in
the world, there may be many large groups, who will feel excluded and
will use non-parliamentary and even violent actions to voice their
grievances. If all such groups and actions are termed terrorist-related,
we paint them unfairly, and we may be on a dangerous road towards
undemocratic and totalitarian rule.
I am not sure America is the
best country to lead this debate, but they must be central in it. I
believe the ‘old world’, the European democracies, should take the lead,
including the young states in the developing world. In addition, the
United Nations must play a much more prominent role in avoiding a
permanent ‘Cold War’ mindset.
In the Arab countries, and now in
particular in Syria, Obama’s administration has severe challenges. I
hope they will not intervene militarily. Generally, I believe that
military interventions are more harmful than helpful in securing peace,
and they are often rather about economic and other dominance than
creating peace.
Iraq and Afghanistan are both examples of that,
and we have also seen the terrible suffering of innocent people, fallen
soldiers and civilians, physically and mentally injured people, millions
becoming refugees, and so on. How many collateral victims can Obama
allow, especially when I believe he does not really have a military
mind?
Well, I never really know if it is the American President
and elected politicians that decide the country’s military policies, or
if it is the military establishment and hawks.
The fact that
Obama was not able to close Guantanamo prison, as he promised before his
first presidential term, proves that the President was sidelined and
that he had to let the opinions of hawks rule. For America, or any
country, to have people detained without trial, maybe for the rest of
their lives, is a serious human rights crime and it diminished the
country that does it, and such a country loses its moral leadership.
In
Pakistan, we hope that Obama’s policies will become more realistic and
practical, and much more in the interest of Pakistan. The policies in
the tribal areas are, indeed, harmful to the men, women and children
there, in the short and the long-term. Drone attacks cannot be morally
or legally justified. I hope Obama will realise that drone attacks are
wrong; they harm Pakistanis tremendously and they also reduce America’s
standing in the world.
I hope that President Obama’s second term
will show his true colours, which I believe we saw less of in the first
term than we had expected, based on his original election campaign.
Being
a European myself, I hope he implements more social democratic
policies, and that he pulls back the ‘world hegemony’ thinking. I am
hopeful that Obama will become a better President in the second term for
America at home and for the world, including for Pakistan and the
region.
The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist with experience from research, diplomacy and development aid.
Email: atlehetland@yahoo.com