The election of Obama: its scope and limitations
The celebrations surrounding the inauguration of Barack Obama have sparked a new outbreak of Obama Fever among our media. Let us try to go beyond the ‘people’ aspect in order to gauge more effectively the scope of the election of the Senator from Illinois.
In America itself, Barack Obama’s victory is the United States’ victory over the ghosts from its past. The fact that the African origin of the Democratic nominee played virtually no role in influencing the voters’ choice is strong evidence of the excellent state of health of American democratic society. This victory is reshaping the view that the rest of the world has of America: the superpower is finally giving up trying to impose democracy by force, and, accordingly, is cleaning up its own back yard, choosing to lead by example in providing the rest of the world’s leaders with an African-American negotiating partner. In so doing, it has regained the respectability and the power of fascination that it had lost under George Bush.
This is quite an achievement, but for now… that’s all, folks. As from 21 January, the newly inaugurated US President’s image is set to change as he becomes the man in charge of all of his country’s troubles and a significant portion of the world’s woes to boot. He will now be judged on his deeds rather than his Hollywoodesque profile, his moving eloquence, his tremendous electoral talent and his own personal story: in the midst of raging storms, all that is asked of the captain is to be a great sailor.
In setting an example of openness, is the United States breaking new ground? Less so than is portrayed by the media, who have the memory of a goldfish. It was the German voters who, in a noble spirit of openness, elected a woman from the former GDR as their Chancellor – the Oval Office is still waiting for a female occupant. Obama is not a descendant of a slave but the son of a Kenyan immigrant married to an American woman of European origin: indeed, Nicolas Sarkozy is not black, but the fact that, at a time of widespread unease over France’s immigration policy, the French were able to elect the son of two first-generation immigrants without that fact affecting the outcome of the election in any way is no less remarkable than what has happened in America one year later.
It is only our reprehensible disdain for other continents that has prevented us from admiring the most extraordinary example of the participation of minority representatives in the highest offices of the State: that of India. Although originally constituted as a predominantly Hindu State, the Indian Union was able to elect a Muslim President in 1967 (Zakair Hussain); two others have since been elected. In 1997, a member of the country’s lowest social caste — the Dalit, traditionally considered to be ‘untouchable’ — was elected to the highest office of the President of India (Kocheril Raman Narayanan)! At present, the office of President is held by a woman, the leader of the ruling party is an Italian woman, Sonia Gandhi, and the Prime Minister is a Sikh, while the country’s largest industrial group, Tata, is owned by members of the dwindling Parsi minority group: such a record would, admittedly, be hard to beat.
These examples could inspire other countries. There is a wide range of relevant contexts. It should be noted that some of those who were the harshest critics of the US political structure continue to regard a home-grown Obama – i.e. a representative of an ethnic, religious, cultural or historical minority – as inconceivable.
Since its independence nearly half a century ago, and despite being a zealous advocate of the rights of the Saharawi people abroad, Algeria has promoted up the ranks, all in all, only three of its Saharan Blacks: the head of the General Union of Algerian Workers (UGTA) trade union federation in the 1970s, then a general, and, lastly, Hamid Bessalah, current Minister of Postal Services and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), the only Black among the 36 members of the Algerian Government.
Latin America presents a very interesting case. The descendants of non-European immigrants were able to make a career for themselves there relatively early on, as shown, some 20 years ago, by the rise to power of Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Carlos Menem, of Syrian-Lebanese origin, in Argentina. However, it took two centuries for a representative of the indigenous Indian population to be elected as President of a Latin American republic (Evo Morales in Bolivia).
It would seem strange to many of Obama’s French supporters if a Copt were to take power in Egypt, a Kurd in Turkey, a Christian – or, Heaven forfend, a Muslim – in Israel, a citizen of Chinese descent in Indonesia or a White in a country formerly governed by apartheid. How many Muslim countries do not consider conversion to Christianity a criminal offence? However, we should not think that Europe is totally free from this kind of perception: just try to plead the cause of a Walloon as Prime Minister in Belgium, a ‘non-citizen’ of Russian origin in Latvia, or a Turk in Bulgaria! Even among our British neighbours, the inventors of parliamentary democracy and authors of the earliest declaration of human rights – the 1688 Bill of Rights – the very popular former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, decided to wait until after leaving office before converting to Catholicism.
Other countries have tried to find in their constitution a way of ensuring that the largest minorities are represented, regardless of election results. Such agreements have often been reached in order to put an end to a long civil war, or to prevent one. In one way or another, this is the case for Lebanon, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Sudan and Angola, as well as the Scandinavian countries with regard to their small Inuit communities. All of the solutions envisaged for the future of Cyprus also centre around a dual community formula.
The situation is quite the opposite in many countries where the system of government is structured in such a way as to ensure the domination of a minority over the majority; in some instances, a minority group may argue that it must fight against the majority if it is to survive. The sad events in Rwanda immediately come to mind, but Rwanda is far from being an isolated case: the congenital weakness of Saddam Hussein’s regime was the dictatorship imposed by the Sunni minority against the Shiite majority – a successful reform, however undemocratic, in Iraq presupposes that the Sunni minority will be prevented from abusing the majority that it is expected to win in the forthcoming elections. The situation of Syria and the ruling Hassad family is similar; here, the Alawite minority holds power despite making up only 10% of the population.
Will the Obama model catch on outside the United States, and especially on the continent of his forefathers? That would not be the least of his successes.
Alain Lamassoure, 20 January 2009