Errol MillerIF ANYBODY wanted prime examples of the strained and sometimes tortured relationship that politics have with principles they could not have asked for better than what has been happening with the Presidential elections in the United States. Principles are only truly principles when they are applied in circumstances that are not to the benefit of those professing them. Insistence on principles where they suit the adherents raise suspicions of self-serving rhetoric.
Prior to the elections, Democrats, fearful that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the Electoral College votes, were at pains to point out that the popular vote is really of no consequence in the Presidential elections, which is really decided by gaining 270 votes in the Electoral College. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and its Gore that has won the popular votes but Bush may yet win the Electoral College, Democrats have come full circle. They are now advocating the same moral authority that derives from winning the popular vote.
Prior to the Elections it was Republicans that were the champion of State Rights and staunch opponents of Federal interference is matters at the State-level. Accordingly to this position it is people and state law, not the Federal structures, which must decide matters. It is the State Courts that should settle matters in the State and not interventions from activist Federal courts. Now in circumstances in which it is people in their different Counties who determine the types of ballots, mechanisms to record votes and methods to count the votes it is the Republicans that have appeal to Federal Courts to overturn the ruling of Florida Courts and to impose common standards. Likewise it is Democrats that have always been the defenders of Federation inventions that are now arguing the virtues of State Courts to be the final arbiters.
Governor Bush signed a Bill into law in Texas that asserts that hand-counts are the preferred methods of settling disputes in close elections, but in Florida his lawyers are asserting that hand-counts are biased and even unconstitutional. What is good enough in Texas is not good enough in Florida simply because the good Governor runs the risk of losing if the votes are counted by hand.
All the arguments used by these American politicians have been those that suit their case at the particular time. It is whatever will allow their side to win the Presidency. Any close examinations of the arguments over the last five weeks is almost bound to find that these American politicians have not been abiding by their well known professions of principles. The reality has been any position if that position serves their interests. If that means going and acting contrary to previous professions of principles so be it.
What is as remarkable is the speed and uniformity with which adherents of both side latch unto the arguments of the moment that their Candidate is advocating. There can be no doubt that political tribes in the United States are alive and well and unprincipled. The tribalists are everywhere, including the media.
There is only one principle that both sides seem to have adhered to. It is that they would not resort to violence and blood in insisting on their way. However, this adherence to one principle it is of monumental importance. It is in fact the redeeming feature of this embarrassing hiccup in the practice of American democracy. It is one of the few lessons that we in Jamaica could learn from this American election drama.
We have our fair share of political tribalists who only assert and verbalise so-called principles when it serves their interest. We have our tribalists that are everywhere, including the media. The difference between our political tribalists and those in the United States is that we do have political adherents who have resorted to violence and blood in seeking their way. It is the principle of stopping short of violence and blood that our political tribalists are yet to adhere to.
Errol Miller is Professor and head of the Institute of Education, UWI, Mona.
