Thursday, 7th February 2008
Should the world have a vote in the US election?
The USA is currently immersed in its most exciting electoral campaign in recent history, and we’re still nine months away from knowing who will be the next President, and by designation, the most powerful leader in the world.
The Democrats are odds-on to bag the post, with both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama a welcome and worthy change from current incumbent George W. Bush, arguably the worst US President ever. Barack Obama is especially exhilarating the voting public, with his infectious message of hope and change.
If I were American, he would definitely be my choice, but alas I’m not, and have no say in this. And really, why shouldn’t I? In such an age of globalisation, and with “it’s a small world after all” ringing in my head as I write this, why shouldn’t I be able to have my truly effective and democratic say in who leads the world?
Why shouldn’t we, the wider world, be given the chance to at least in part determine our future? Does the geographical fortuitousness that bestows upon Americans their citizenship detract from the worthiness of global citizens who live elsewhere?
I am obviously not advocating that we should have an equal say in this; every nation does of course have its right to self-determination. Yet how noble would the USA be to give a voice to other nations. It would really stand on high moral ground if it acknowledged that due to its great power and hence responsibility, it had a duty to listen and take note of otherly concerns. This could perhaps even be a prelude to some form of world government, which it is hoped would end the possibility of nuclear carnage once and for all.
Just imagine if the world had the equivalence of a voting state in the 2000 election. Although it was Al Gore who garnered the most votes nation-wide, George W Bush won the election because he was successful in his dubious challenge of a few votes in court. Had we had a vote though, perhaps we could have nipped President Yee-hah in the bud, and wouldn’t be in this mess we’re in. Yet until such Utopia comes to be, all we can do is hope that US voters consistently elect a leader responsible enough not to harbour and act upon selfish and destructive imperialist ambitions, and instead choose one who at least tries to make this a better and just world. And hope is always last to die.
Mark Sciriha is a former editor of The Insiter and is currently completing the final year of his LLD degree
RSS
Comments
The US elections are very interior, whether or not the election has an impact on the rest of the world. It's a system designed to produce some order and leadership to solve US problems. It is a highly decentralized system. Also, most of the decisions get made by state governors and U.S. Congress--or even the US Supreme Court.
Mark, you made some valid points in your article; if anyone should have a say, surely its the iraqi's who's lives have been turned up side down and are afraid to even leave their house now, or the palestinians who are now being collectively oppressed while their country is occupied....they are the real casualties of the USA.
However, while you may think that he is the worst presedent (and surely most people do) the astounding thing is that he has stayed two full terms, surely this says more about the average americans mentality, which leads me to believe that fundamentally, nothing much will change one a new presedent is elected (oh god please dont allow it to be McCain)
PS: Oh, by the way, here's an interesting topic to discuss: why are Maltese Abroad not allowed to vote in Maltese Parlimentary elections? Just about every democracy in the world does, why not Malta?