Democracy
Stabbed in Connecticut
By Siddique Malik
Louisville, KY
Senator Joe Lieberman has
not only stabbed his party in the back, he has
hurt the soul of democracy, and voters must punish
him for his erratic conduct.
Even before the Connecticut Democratic primary
was held on August 8, 2006, he said that in case
he lost the primary, he will run as an independent.
But Democrats hoped that he would not actually
take this drastic step. They thought that a Democratic
senator could not be so selfish and oblivious
to reality, when so much was at stake, not just
in terms of the interest of the party but also
that of the country that is teetering under the
Republican control of the Congress and the White
House.
However, hours after the primary results were
announced, Lieberman filed his papers as an independent
candidate. His divorce from democratic norms was
evident from the comments he made shortly after
making the concession call to the winner, Ned
Lamont. He said, "I'm disappointed not just
because I lost but because the old politics of
partisan polarization won today. For the sake
of our state, our country and my party, I cannot
and will not let that result stand."
On which planet has Lieberman suddenly landed?
Challenging an incumbent is as American and democratic
as democracy itself. It cannot be called polarization.
On the other hand, refusing to accept the will
of the majority of the party’s rank and
file is definitely polarization at its worst.
Saying “I cannot and will not let that result
stand” is an affront to the party and democracy,
contravenes all norms of responsible politicking,
and smacks of arrogance, typical of dictators
who think they are above the will of the people.
What happened to the aphorism “people are
never wrong”?
An essential democratic trait is being able to
bow gracefully before the will of the people and
the party members. It is easy to make a victory
speech but the test of one’s leadership
and commitment to democratic principles comes
while reacting to adverse election results. In
countries where democracy exists only in name
or has just been introduced, election results
engender turmoil because the defeated candidates
fail or are intellectually unable to accept the
reality. Today, what is happening in Iraq is no
coincidence.
At 11PM on August 8, 2006, Lieberman sounded more
like a Shiite or Sunni Iraqi politician than an
American senator. If he is as passionate about
the success of operation Iraqi Freedom as he claims
to be, he should set great examples for Iraq’s
self-centered and visionless politicians rather
than behave like one of them.
On March 7, 1977, for the first time and so far
the only time in the history of Pakistan, elections
were held after an elected government had completed
its constitutional term. The party of then prime
minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto won a landslide
but the opposition refused to accept the results
and launched agitation. This culminated in his
government being overthrown by the army. Bhutto
was subsequently hanged after being tried in the
army dictator’s kangaroo court. Pakistan
has yet to recover from this political trauma.
Luckily, America has much more political stability
than volatile Pakistan. Also, Lieberman’s
party is not as devoid of principles as him or
as were Pakistan’s opposition political
parties at the time of the 1977 Pakistan elections.
It is heartening to see that Democratic Party
leaders have accepted the will of the majority
of their Connecticut members and have vowed to
support Lamont. “For the sake of our state,
our country and my party”, Lieberman should
do the same.
When a politician starts to think that staying
in power is his/her eternal right and his party
members don’t have a say in this matter,
it’s time for him/her to be forced to relinquish
power. Politicians drunk with power are dangerous
for a country’s well-being. Lieberman’s
irresponsible behavior clearly suggests that he
is in a state of political drunkenness.
Those democrats who voted for Lieberman in the
primary obviously agreed with his approach on
the Iraq war. But it is no longer an issue of
his stand on the Iraq war. It has now become a
question of his moral and ethical commitment to
the essence of democracy. He said that he would
vote with Democrats senators, if he was elected
as an independent. Does this not portray a lack
of commitment to principles? Does he have no regard
for the Democratic Party which has now become
a laughing stock, and would suffer tremendously
as the election campaign picks up steam? These
reverberations could continue into the 2008 elections.
No matter, how close Lieberman wants to cling
to President Bush’s perception of unnecessary
wars, no Republican will vote for him. I strongly
urge the Democratic voters of Connecticut (especially
those who voted for him in the primary) to vote
for their party’s official candidate Ned
Lamont during the forthcoming senatorial elections.
Democracy is not about power-hungry individuals,
it’s about the people and their “unalienable”
right to control their destiny and choose their
leaders. Lieberman needs to learn this lesson
and only his fellow Democrats can teach it to
him. They owe it to “our state, our country
and my party”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
