Irfan Husain

IF a writer had been asked to script the ongoing struggle for the nomination of the Democratic party in the American primaries, I doubt he could have come up with such an exciting screenplay as the ongoing battle.

In a play with three acts, the first act saw a number of contenders in the party. In this phase, Hillary Clinton was the front-runner, and it was widely assumed that she would be nominated without a problem, given her name, experience and domination of the field. In the second act, we have seen the number of contenders reduced to two, with Obama taking the lead after a bitter struggle. This phase has been marked with some nasty digs, mostly coming from the Hillary camp. Momentum has shifted between the two from one primary to the next, but currently, Obama seems the favourite to win his party’s nomination. Whatever the third and final act brings in terms of the outcome of the presidential race itself, I doubt there can be any more excitement than the current Democratic race.While Americans are obviously deeply engaged in the struggle, the rest of the world is spellbound too. What could make more absorbing theatre than the sight of a woman and a black American of mixed parentage slugging it out from one state to another? We are all glued to our TV sets to watch the results, and deep in our hearts, most of us are rooting for Obama. Across the world, people who don’t even know about the American electoral system are hypnotised by the debates and the speeches. Above all, nobody is neutral.

One thing the American system is designed to do is to test candidates virtually to destruction, while putting them under the microscope. As a result, we probably know more about Hillary and Obama than we ever wanted to. But if the contest thus far has revealed a lot about the candidates, it has taught us more about the country they are both hoping to lead. Until fairly recently, the chances of an African-American or a woman having a fair shot at becoming the most powerful individual in the world would have been considered very remote.

Among all the issues regarding race that have emerged, pundits have pointed to the fact that while most white voters have supported Clinton, most blacks are voting for Obama. But this facile observation misses one point: in the Indiana primary, while 60 per cent of all white voters supported Clinton, 40 per cent supported Obama. This is a remarkable result in a white-dominated state, and speaks of a major transformation in race relations. Obviously, blacks still suffer from gross inequalities, and instances of discrimination are widespread. But if nothing else, Barack Obama’s remarkable campaign illustrates how far the African-American community has come in the last fifty years.

In the context of American race relations, I am reminded of an anecdote my father related to me years ago. In the early Fifties, he was on a lecture tour of various American campuses, and in a Southern town, he had an appointment with a professor at his hotel one evening. He went down to the lobby at the appointed hour and was informed by the staff that there was somebody waiting outside. He went out and asked the professor why he hadn’t come in. “Blacks aren’t allowed inside,” was the answer. Now, of course, wide-ranging legislation has made this kind of shocking discrimination impossible, although subtler ways of drawing the line remain. Obama might make it to the White House, but would not be welcomed as a member to hundreds of clubs across the country. Nevertheless, we must admire how far American society has travelled in two generations. Many of us view the United States as the source of all that is evil in the world, ignoring the good it has done. For instance, while we rightly blame it for its open-ended, unquestioning support of Israel against the Palestinians, we give it no credit for coming to the assistance of the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. And while Pakistanis shout anti-American slogans, they forget that it was the Americans who provided the biggest amount of financial and medical assistance when the earthquake struck Kashmir four years ago.

The truth is that the United States, like any other country, is not monolithic. It has different aspects, and judging it only from one angle of its foreign policy is to lose sight of the whole. At various times, I have been guilty of this kind of lazy thinking as well. My anger at its invasion of Iraq, or its refusal to halt the Israeli bombing of Lebanon two years ago, made me lose my objectivity. But the current race for the Democratic nomination reminded me that very often, it has been a force for good. Obviously, it has been easy to lose sight of this during Bush’s presidency. Single-handed, he has done more to tarnish America’s image in the world than any other individual. Even the much-maligned Nixon did not come close to this president in terms of damage done to the ideals the country stands for.

Should Obama get elected, a distinct possibility now, his mere presence in the White House will say more about the United States than all the propaganda the Bush administration has put out to change perceptions. Indeed, it would be a defining moment in American history. Apart from atmospherics, American policies might change in significant ways. The fact that Obama had a Muslim father, spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, and has visited Karachi as a young man, would seem to indicate that he would be more aware of sensitivities in the Muslim world. And being black in America would have given him an invaluable education in what it means to be a member of the underclass.

From what he has said thus far on the campaign trail, he seems to have absorbed his lessons well. In fact, he appears uniquely qualified to tackle the issues of the world today. Only time will tell if the Americans are prepared to elect somebody so outside the mould as Obama, but if I had a vote, it would go to him.