US should practise what it preaches on democracy

America is not in a strong position to lecture the rest of the world about political systems, says Sholto Byrnes.

As Hillary Clinton ponders a run for the US presidency, American bombs are raining down on Iraq. Jim Young / Reuters

No serious contender has officially declared yet, but the 2016 US presidential race came close to having its first entrant on Sunday. Hillary Clinton teased the crowd at senator Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry fund-raiser in Iowa. “It’s true,” she said, referring to what almost everyone believes is an inevitable bid for the White House by the former secretary of state. “I am thinking about it.”

Thus the never ceasing wheel of US elections – presidential, congressional, senatorial, gubernatorial, mayoral and beyond – takes another turn. But as American bombs once again rain down on Iraq in the attempt to bring functioning democracy to the country, it is worth asking: what kind of an example of that vaunted system of government is the United States setting at home?

The pursuit of the presidency is becoming a marathon to the middle. On the Democratic side, Mrs Clinton’s nomination is seen as a certainty not just because of her track record, but also because she has been careful to steer a course sufficiently centrist not to scare off Wall Street and the wealthy. Just as importantly, she also appeals to the large part of the electorate that aspires to be wealthy, and therefore tends to favour policies that benefit the class they hope to join, rather than the one they are currently in. (The New Republic ran a cover story last year titled “Joementum”, cautioning not to count out the vice president Joe Biden. He may well run, but such cheerleading has been notable by its absence since then.)

Such has been the importance placed on ideological purity in the Republican party that genuine moderates have to pretend to be more conservative than they are during the primaries, leading candidates such as Mitt Romney to flip-flop to the point of ridicule, thereby undermining their candidacies when it comes to the general election.

Meanwhile interesting, thoughtful candidates on either side – Senator Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats, Senator Rand Paul for the GOP – stand next to no chance in the US duopoly and no candidate can succeed outside it. The current need to play safe would likely rule out many who aspired to, and sometimes won, the highest office in the past.

When I interviewed one former president, Jimmy Carter, a few months ago, he told me: “I think the US, since the Second World War, has been the most warlike nation on Earth. We’ve been involved probably 30 times in military action in foreign countries, which has been almost invariably a mistake.” Would a candidate who harboured any hope dare say that today?

The senate used to be a place whose members prided themselves on honourable deliberation, where “bipartisan” was not a dirty word. A generation ago, as the former senator Chris Dodd recently recalled, the senators-only dining room used to see opponents such as Ted Kennedy of the Democrats and Jesse Helms of the Republicans having lunch and discussing subjects “that ranged from the silly and ridiculous to the very substantive and important”. Now, the area is nearly always empty and such amity rare. “It was a liberating space,” Mr Dodd continued. “I regret that it doesn’t exist today.”

It is a sign of how gridlocked and partisan both houses of congress have become. Members, elected to govern, prefer to shut government down if it represents a “victory” over the other party rather than compromise an inch, no matter how much damage it does to the country. Those who cling to the old ways, like senator Lamar Alexander, are accused of being RINOs (Republican In Name Only) and face Tea Party challenges in primaries. Mr Alexander won his: but what does it say when a man who has been not only a senator, but also a governor and a member of the first president Bush’s cabinet, all under the Republican banner, is considered suspect?

But in any case, the American voter’s ballot has never counted for less. The highly-regarded political analyst Nate Silver estimated that in 1992 there were 103 congressional districts out of 435 that might be considered “swing” seats. By 2012 that number – which represents the only truly contested seats – had gone down to a mere 35. So many districts have been gerrymandered that the possibility of votes being even vaguely proportionately represented has sunk to a new low. Democrats won 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, yet the latter took the House of Representatives 234 to 201.

All of this adds up to two questions: do American voters have a real choice? And do their votes count in any case?

Throw into the mix a couple of other facts: first, the extraordinary number of state governors who have been involved in scandals – former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell’s conviction of corruption is only the latest, while four of Illinois’s last seven governors have gone to prison.

Second, that the constitution is still in some aspects stuck in a model that dates from nearly 250 years ago. Representatives are determined by population; so Vermont, population just over 600,000, has only one congressman, while California, with 38 million, has 53 – but because of a rule dating to 1787, both have two senators.

And one has to conclude that if American democracy is not completely broken, it is damaged to the point that it cannot function properly at all. Moreover, if one were to create a democracy from scratch, one would not model it on the mess it has become in the US.

The phrase “Physician, heal thyself” rather comes to mind. In which case, one can’t help also wondering: while all can agree on the necessity of combating ISIL, in general might it not be better for America to tend to its own form of democracy first, and only then return to its self-appointed task of attempting to impose it on others, regardless of whether they desire it or not?

Sholto Byrnes is a Doha-based commentator and consultant