British Elections
Watched from America
By Dr Syed Amir
Bethesda, MD
The British elections and political campaigning
as it unfolded over the past months was watched
with considerable interest and fascination in
this country. The British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair, has after all been the most ardent supporter
of the Iraqi invasion, and since 9/11 has inextricably
linked his fortunes with that of the Bush administration.
Although he succeeded in winning an unprecedented
third term for the Labor party, the results did
not represent a ringing endorsement of his government
by the electorate. The Labor majority in the 646-seat
parliament was reduced from more than 160 to a
mere 66, and the campaign turned out to be an
excruciatingly painful experience for Blair personally.
At every campaign stop, he was assailed by the
audience for dragging the country into a needless
war with Iraq on false premises.
The most grievous charges against the Blair government
surfaced on the eve of the British election which
took place on May 5, 2005. The Sunday Time of
London published confidential notes taken by the
head of the British intelligence service (MI5)
during his meeting in Washington with US officials
some seven months before the invasion of Iraq.
The report ominously warned the prime minister
that president Bush had already decided to take
military action to remove Saddam Hussein, even
though “he (Saddam) was not threatening
his neighbors and his weapons of mass destruction
capacity was less than of Libya, North Korea or
Iran”, and that “the facts were being
fixed around the policy” by the Bush administration.
The contents of this secret report, nevertheless,
were never divulged to the British public and
the war was rationalized based on arguments that
subsequently proved patently false and untenable.
The revelations raised a firestorm of anger in
Britain during the final phase of the campaign,
turning many voters against Labor, but the number
was not large enough to change the final outcome.
It is generally agreed that a combination of a
weak opposition and a strong economy saved Tony
Blair from losing the election outright.
The famed playwright, George Bernard Shaw, once
remarked that “Britain and America are two
countries divided by a common language.”
In reality, the differences in language are minor
compared to those existing in the political processes
by which the two countries elect their leaders.
George Bush is barely five months into his second
term, yet potential presidential candidates are
already positioning themselves optimally to contest
the next elections, not due until November 2008.
A year before the election, the two major parties,
Democrats and Republicans, will kick off an intense,
interminable campaign, spanning a period of months
and involving expenditures of hundreds of millions
of dollars, to select their candidates. In this
country, campaigning for the office of presidency
never seems to quite end.
In Britain, in contrast, the entire campaign from
start to finish lasted only a month. Both in the
United States and Britain, incumbents were seeking
a renewed mandate to govern for an additional
term. However, the campaigning styles and political
strategies employed by the two leaders differed
greatly. The US presidency over the years has
acquired many trappings of monarchy; the president
is often referred to as the commander-in-chief
to bolster the mystique of this powerful office.
During last year’s election campaign, candidate
Bush traveled with the usual paraphernalia, characteristic
of the modern presidency — a contingent
of secret service men, a bevy of press correspondents,
the presidential plane (Air force one), and a
cadre of White House staffers. Admission to all
town meetings, which the president addressed,
was carefully controlled, with the officials of
the Republican Party or secret service checking
the identities and political affiliations of those
permitted inside. Consequently, Candidate Bush
rarely, if ever, had to face an unfriendly, hostile
crowd during his quest for the second term. On
rare occasions, when some individuals succeeded
in gaining admission and attempted to raise unpalatable
issues, they were quickly overpowered and rushed
out of the meeting by the campaign staffers. A
similar pattern is also followed in presidential
press conferences; reporters likely to ask difficult
questions are rarely given the opportunity.
The British prime ministers are not so well shielded
from the public, and Tony Blair especially faced
more than his share of angry, vocal opposition
during the May elections. In July 2003, he came
to Washington to address a Joint Session of the
US Congress, which awarded him the Congressional
Gold Medal for his enthusiastic support of the
US invasion. In his acceptance speech, Mr. Blair
commented on the warmth of the reception he had
received: “It is more than I deserve, and
more than I’m used to, quite frankly.”
The Congressmen were enthralled and charmed by
his self-deprecating remarks. The differences
in the style by which the political dialogue is
pursued on the two sides of the Atlantic were
underscored by the recent elections in Britain.
Those who watched the British prime minister on
television often saw a lonely, hapless figure,
facing outspoken, hostile audiences with equanimity.
He was often called a liar to his face; however,
no one ever intervened to protect him from his
detractors.
One of the worst moments came when, following
long tradition, Tony Blair stood up on the stage
along with other candidates on the night of elections
waiting to hear the results of the election in
his Sudgefield constituency. He won the election,
but, at this celebratory moment, he faced the
angry passion of one of his opponents. Reg Keys,
father of a soldier killed in Iraq, addressed
him directly. “I hope in my heart that one
day the prime minister may be able to say, ‘I
am sorry.’ ”
Tony Blair looked as if he was about to cry. In
America, incumbent presidents watch election results
in the comfort and luxury of the White House family
quarters.
The discordant way in which the Iraqi war influenced
the outcomes of the American and Brinish elections
has initiated a serious analysis of election strategies
pursued in the two countries. In Britain, the
Labor government is credited with orchestrating
one of the economic miracles in Europe in recent
years. Yet, the war seemed to have captured the
attention of the electorate far more than the
strength and vibrancy of the economy. A different
situation prevailed in the United States.
President Bush during his election was not held
accountable by the American public for invading
Iraq, even when it was becoming clear that Saddam
Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction.
The Republican Party succeeded in representing
the war as a campaign against terrorism, a preemptive
strike to prevent future 9/11-style terrorist
attacks. Many Americans continue to believe that,
contrary to all credible evidence, Saddam Hussein
was behind the 9/11 attacks. The administration
has done little to disabuse them of this notion.
The Iraqi war related expenditures are escalating,
approaching the staggering figure of $300 billion.
More than 1700 American soldiers have lost their
lives and tens of thousands have been injured.
Few voices have been raised in the news media
or even the opposition party to question the war.
The 9/11 tragedy that befell this nation has had
a traumatic effect that will take years perhaps
decades to dissipate, and it might also explain
some of the public response to the war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
