'World's mightiest democracy' in the dock

The dismal performance of the Republican Party at the US Congressional election seems to be clinching evidence that the majority of US electors are considerably disenchanted with the Bush presidency and would strongly consider saying 'yes' to the Democratic candidate at the next presidential election.

As pointed out by some polls observers, the average US voter seems to have proved wrong, the hitherto unquestioned axiom that "all politics is local", with this electoral verdict. Polls surveys revealed that national issues far outflanked local issues in the Congressional election with 62 percent of electors who were interviewed by ABC television, for instance, saying that national issues were more important than local ones. Accordingly, greater importance could be considered as having been attached to foreign policy questions, such as the Iraqi crisis, by US voters at the Congressional contest.

Corroborating these disclosures were findings by a CBC television polls survey which revealed that 57 percent of respondents said that they disapproved of the war, with 41 percent saying that they did. By a 37-25 percent margin, more voters apparently said that they were voting against Bush than showing support for him. Among other things, these crucial statistics are revelatory of the maturity and soundness of judgement of the average US voter. The apparently failed US foreign policy initiatives in particularly Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan, are taking a heavy political toll with the average US citizen showing complete indifference to the high melodrama revolving around the personal fate of former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. The fact that there is a clamour for Saddam's head in some quarters, does not seem to be weighing very heavily with the US electorate which could be more concerned about the rising death toll of US servicemen in Iraq and the seemingly botched attempt by Washington to put together an effective, broadbased administration in Baghdad which would halt Iraq's seemingly inexorable slide into anarchy.

Inasmuch as the world is deeply divided on the question of whether a fair rial was given Saddam Hussein, the US electorate too seems to be having its doubts on the same score. While international opinion is by no means arguing that Saddam could be innocent of the crimes attributed to him, valid questions are raised by it on the correctness and fairness of the procedures adopted by the US-backed Maliki government to administer "justice" to the former Iraqi strongman. On the face of it, the latter objections could be said to be holding some water. If Saddam Hussein is standing accused of "crimes against humanity", then, the ideal forum to try him would be a war crimes tribunal or the International Court of Justice. The big question crying out for an answer is why Saddam was not tried by internationally - accepted judicial fora, such as the ICJ? Was there a lurking fear in the Bush administration that "justice", in its opinion, would not be delivered by such fora and with the quickness desired by Washington ?

These posers need to be grappled with in addressing the degree of fairness with which Saddam was tried.Botched or unfair trials of both the notorious and the famous are not news but when the "world's mightiest democracy" figures in such exercises, the world is conscience-bound to sit up and take notice.

Ideally, Saddam should have faced an international tribunal but the pervasiveness of politics is so great that the trial in Baghdad, on hardly neutral soil, should have been only expected.

The Bush administration was apparently calculating that the "weapons of mass destruction" bogey and the subsequent hunt, seizure, trial and conviction of Saddam would win for it an abundance of support both internationally and locally.

This is populism at its highest but the political fallout from the Saddam - centred "dark comedy" has certainly not gone in Washington's favour.

The crux of the matter is that natural justice principles could never be seen to be violated by world powers without the incurrence of corresponding heavy political costs. Western Europe, for instance, is unlikely to be solidly behind the US on the Saddam trial and its outcome.

Today, Nazism and Nazi war criminals stand unreservedly condemned by the world because, among other things, natural justice principles were never violated in bringing these wrong-doers to justice. The neutrality of the relevant war crimes tribunals were hardly questioned.

Ideally, the prosecution and conviction of Saddam too should meet the standards of natural justice. It is then that there would be a containment of crime and power abuse by ruthless power-wielders operating outside the democratic framework.

[email protected]