In the end

By Mohamed Hakki
No matter who wins the US presidency, the split is now complete. The US Supreme Court was the last place on earth we expected to be divided on an issue as fundamental as the presidential elections. However, on Saturday afternoon they proved to be as divided as the nation -- bringing this vaunted court of justice down into bitter reality. The pundits and commentators have exhausted all available descriptions of the progression of complicated and contradictory events that is taking the US on this scary roller-coaster ride: uncharted waters, murky, unpredictable, unprecedented, defining moment and solely dependent on the forces of gravity.
Some have even regretted the fact that most other democracies like Mexico and Canada have managed to conclude their elections without all the electronics or histrionics, pregnant chads or dimpled ballots, or any of the sad and even ridiculous events that are continuing both in Florida and across the country. Even in India, the world's largest democracy, which has to cope with 600 million voters, there was no whining, no undercounts and recounts and no, "Oops, I meant the two bulls but voted for the palm tree by mistake."
No one is questioning that the American democracy is strong, or that America will survive this frustrating and uncertain time. However, people are beginning to mention the unmentionable "constitutional crisis" for the first time since 7 November. Everyone is clinging to the constitution, but the constitution does not draw a very precise and clear road map. As a result, everyone is treading very softly around his or her own interpretation of this hallowed document, realising they are setting new precedents for the US. That is why they will probably continue to debate this election's results for weeks, months, and maybe years to come.
Everyone is concerned that the final results should be considered fair, legitimate, honest and just. If the outcome is viewed in any other way, the new president will not be seen to carry credibility and validation to lead. Most people are saying that whoever is sworn in as president on 20 January will receive the American people's support and best wishes. However, watching the feverish and emotional volleyball of hostile ideas indicates that the political fault lines that divide the American people today are much deeper that anyone anticipated. It will take years of dedication and hard work to overcome the damage that has been done by these elections.
The action of the Florida Supreme Court on Friday struck many people as being too partisan and not constitutionally defensible. Even The Washington Post, which cannot be considered a friend of George W Bush by any stretch of the imagination, suggested in its editorial on Saturday that "We felt that with legitimacy at stake, their own, as well as that of the election outcome, the courts should intervene with utmost caution. It is far from clear to us that that high standard has been met in Florida." As in everything else, perception is of utmost importance. Otherwise, a Gore win under a constitutional cloud will be deemed an act of judicial usurpation, making it difficult for the country to "move on."
If Vice President Gore ultimately wins, it will be more difficult for him to bring the country together. There is too much anger, rancour, and litigation involved. The country was already beginning to prepare for a Bush win and settling down to accept it and celebrate the end of the nightmare. Even some democrats, after the US Supreme Court order to recount votes in Florida, were also ready to accept defeat. Despite the fact that they denounced the Supreme Court's decision as divisive and polarising, they began asking how to put the bricks back together and work for the benefit of the nation.
But the majority of the US Supreme Court, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, said that "to count first and rule on legality afterwards, is not a recipe for election results that have public acceptance." The minority, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, argued that stopping the recount would "cast a cloud" upon the legitimacy of the elections.
Those who believe that Bush has a better chance of unifying the country say that Bush campaigned "not as an expert on domestic or foreign affairs, but as a man who, he said, knew how to bring antagonists together effectively," The New York Times suggested. If he gains the presidency, the article went on, "he will have ample opportunity to demonstrate the truth of that claim in a political culture that seems less and less able to find a middle ground."
It is said that, on Friday, Vice President Gore was already working on his concession speech -- for the second time. In the opinion of most people, the US Supreme Court would not have taken on Bush's case unless there were enough grounds for success. It is still possible, but highly unlikely now, that the high court will come out with a ruling in favour of Gore. But unless one of the five justices who stopped the recount switches sides in the final decision, the champagne party that Gore had at his house on Friday may prove to be premature, and he may still find himself working on his concession speech for the third time. Either way, many people will be left with a deep sense of betrayal. If Gore wins, they will feel that "we will have a presidency achieved by litigation and judicial fiat." It will be much harder for him to fulfil any of his campaign promises, let alone rule. Gore supporters, on the other hand, insist: "Don't listen to Ralph Nader, who says there are no differences between Gore and Bush. There is a fundamental difference, and Bush will be a disaster."
When the Supreme Court justices celebrate the start of their four-week year-end recess with the trimming of the court's 22-foot Christmas tree on Wednesday, maybe the country can celebrate the end of the most bizarre six-week post-election cultural, political and judicial turmoil in the history of the US. Maybe then they can join the chief justice in a sing-along and the mood can change, and a period of healing and rebuilding can begin.
WILL THERE BE A SEQUEL?: The protester bearing tidings of finality seems confident that the US Supreme Court's Tuesday decision to end further recounting of ballots in the Florida vote for the US presidential election is in fact the last word, but he may be the only one.
The court ruled there was no time for recounts before the Electoral College meets on 18 December.
Until early Wednesday in Washington, however, neither Bush nor Gore had affirmed that this was indeed "the end."
Both men seem to be planning carefully what to do next. Bush does not want to seem foolhardy and declare victory, and Gore, after so much wrangling, could appear foolish if he gives up now. Although top Democratic officials are advising Gore to concede, other party big-wigs think he may use the fact that the nation's highest court has now returned the matter to the Florida Supreme Court, and make yet another bid to get hand recounts in the next five days.
But even Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard Law School professor who argued for Gore in an earlier Supreme Court case, doesn't "believe that there will be an act three in the court."
Related stories:
Desperate measures 7 -13 December 2000
Keeping the populace entertained 7 -13 December 2000
All hat and no cattle 30 Nov. - 6 Dec. 2000
Bushestan defeats Gorestan 30 Nov. - 6 Dec. 2000
The Florida fiasco 23 - 29 November 2000
The Undecided States of America 23 - 29 November 2000
Democracy laid bare 16 - 22 November 2000
See US Election 2000
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg