2004: A Retrospective

2004 was the year of elections which told us about the feelings of people, writes Binay Kumar.

As we approach the New Year, it is always useful to peer back over time through the mist of winter to evaluate the months gone past. As you would remember, last year's assessment proclaimed 2003 as the year of fear. This year the title is less sensational. For me, 2004 was the Year of the Election.

Like previous years, the elections in 2004 told us about the feelings of people – we learnt what the people of the United States and Australia thought of the ‘War on Terror’; in India, we saw how the people failed to notice the BJP’s shine; and, most recently, in Ukraine, we witnessed the anger of a population whose democratic rights were hijacked unfairly.

The American elections were probably the most watched in the history of elections. Newspapers, magazines and television channels translated the event for viewers across the world. By the time it came to the last few days of the vote most analysts were finding it hard to call victory for either side. At one point in the night before the election, Bush and Kerry were locked evenly against each other in the polls. Kerry’s subsequent loss and the surge in the Republican vote were the most explicit indicators of the conservative trend in America so far. People have been talking about ascent of the right for a long time now. However, until the 2004 election the greatest post-Regan triumph of the conservatives was the Bush 2000 victory, which was marred by widespread allegations of electoral misdemeanors. The overwhelming popular majority this year finally gave them an election of which they could be truly, unashamedly proud. Bush came back to the oval office with an edge of almost four million more popular votes on his opponent. Furthermore, the Democrats also lost control of the Capitol, where, tellingly, even the Senate majority leader was not spared in the cull.

Bush’s triumph means that we cannot expect much improvement in the way the war on terror has been conducted. The victory has essentially given him a blank cheque to do as he pleases. Prime Minister Howard’s return in Australia has only made 2004 sweeter. Many people had expected him to pay for his support for the Americans in Iraq with loss. But here again the incumbent was swept back into office on the tails of a resounding majority that was in favour of his conservative policies. With such strong public support we can only expect Bush and his allies to continue with their oblique foreign policy that has done more to divide the world than to bring it together against a common a cause.

Our own elections in India were somewhat different in that they led to the ejection from power of the traditionalists, the BJP. Vajpayee’s India Shining campaign didn’t succeed in convincing the rural poor of the merits of call centers. But apart from the people that really mattered everyone else was absolutely certain of a BJP return: the media and the experts were predicting a landslide for the incumbent, and some even went so far as to claim that by the end of the affair Vajpayee would not need to depend upon a coalition. His loss was important, and indeed necessary; not only was it an answer to the odious resurgence in Hindu nationalism, but, more importantly, it was a reminder to the flocks of economic optimists of how far the country has to go before it can make claims of the type that characterised the BJP re-election campaign.

The Congress’ return to power is also built upon a tenuous coalition of varying ideologies and we’ll have to wait and see how it bears out in the years ahead. For now, all I can say is that Dr Singh would do well to take the scope of development beyond the confines of urban centers and narrow industries. The IT movement, for all its allure, cannot be a foundation for overall development.

Moving on, and finally we come to Ukraine. This election was important because it showed us how the cold war still colors the relationship between the west and Russia. The international furor following Yushenko’s loss was contrasted by the early congratulations from the Kremlin to his opponent, the now discredited Yanukovich. The ensuing argument revealed how much Russia still craves to have absolute influence over the affairs of its former allies from the communist era, and also showed how far Europe and America were prepared to block those ambitions, playing, as they were, at the risk of precipitating a rift with their new friend in Moscow. The disagreement has been resolved for now, however it should serve as a reminder about how much still needs to be done to build real bridges between the west and the former soviet bloc.

This was a quick overview of what happened in the year gone past, and I’ll return to this topic next week to look more closely at how all of these events might shape next year. Until then, please accept my wishes for a very Happy New Year.

(Binay Kumar is a resident of California, in the US. His column appears every Thursday.)