There were a lot of hue and cry raised about the recent US election. The hype is all about a possibility of a very close tie and Kerry beating Bush based on an intelligent, spirited, and issue-based fight. The only significant result was the highest turn out of voters in the last four decades of US history. Interestingly a higher turn out has given the Republican candidate the much-needed margin in terms of popular votes over his Democratic opponent. Normally, in a poverty-ridden democracy like India, a higher turn out would indicate (through the result) an intense anger of voters towards the incumbent government. However, this was not only proved incorrect in US election but also added support to the incumbent President. This clearly indicates that in a developed country like USA, the citizenry is provoked to vote if something threatens the status quo. Unlike the whole world, the voters in United States thought about their security and domestic issues rather than what is right and what is morally correct. If Bush had lied to UN before attacking Iraq, so be it. For an average voter in America, it did not matter. If Bush can ensure safety and security of the nation by any means, they would go with him. Much less they are aware that this is not a long-term safeguard. Like in any other democracy, the American voters gave importance to their domestic issues such as health care, strategic reserve on oil, national security, same sex marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. Not all of them are emotive issues, as some of them are linked to their nation's economy and the livelihood of an average voter. However, the point to be noted from the list of issues that dominated the recently-concluded US election is that there was more space for emotive and conservative issues than for the economic and moral issues relating to governance. In this respect, even the US voters are not far ahead or different from the voters in many of the developing countries. 

The electoral issues and the stand taken by the voters on those issues reflect the thinking capacity of the powerful democracy in the world. In this regard, even the US election and its voters are not exceptions. The tension and excitement that surrounded the recently concluded US election is nothing but the media creation. In the final analysis, if one looks at the figures carefully, Bush had managed 3% more popular votes than what John Kerry got and it translates to 3.5 million popular votes. The total number  of votes polled in the recent US election was approx. 115 million. The Republican party secured more seats in the Senate too. Even the margin between the top two candidates was much higher than in 2000. The number of states that sided with each of the two top candidates remained the same like what happened in 2000. These data suggest that if at all anything 2004 US election is comfortably won by Bush than in 2000. In 2000, Bush polled less popular votes than what his Democratic opponent Al Gore was polled. Definitely Osama bin Laden was magnanimous enough to successfully campaign for Bush through his surrealistic election-eve foray. It is quite possible in a polarized electoral system like US Presidential election, there will be one or two key states which would
emerge as swing states. It is not by accident but it is bound to happen. 

If one wants to take an analogy to Indian election, take the case of Kerala State election wherein the two major parties (Congress and the Left Party) secure more than 95% of polled votes. Whoever forms the government they would be doing so only with a slight margin over the loser. It is not at all surprising in US Presidential election. The pathetic situation is that when literally every single vote can swing the result either way, there were thousands of invalid votes polled in US election. If those votes were deliberately polled invalid, it is their way of sending message to their candidates. If they were inadvertently polled invalid, something should be done to avert this in future as they can alter the result. The impact of the US election outcome for India would be that we have to tactfully withstand the pressures from USA as when the pressure is brought upon us in the name of curbing terrorism. We should not be seen siding on the wrong side on any international issue. For Indian IT industry, as is widely speculated, there would not be any threat for sometime to come as Bush does not believe in restricting the jobs outsourced from India. Out policy towards America should be to build a healthy respectful 'peer relationship' wherein we do not project ourselves as 'anti-USA' and at the same time do not go over board to show our amicability and end up in subordinating to USA. We hope that the Indian government led by Dr Manmohan Singh is capable of walking on this tight-rope and perform this balanced-act to the benefit of India. 

The only take out of this election result is that the Americans reacted to 9/11 through their ballot by endorsing the actions Bush took in the last 3 years. Have the Americans, without a loud thinking, walked into Osama bin Laden's trap whereby he threatens to drag America into fighting war with terrorism and push them to bankruptcy? Or have they emboldened Bush's iron-hands towards containing international terrorism? The result for this million dollar question lies in the future and it would not only decide the fate of USA but also of the entire world. Unfortunately Americans declined the international concerns from their domestic emotive issues when they cast their ballots to elect their President. However, the fact is that the rest of the world's destiny is linked to the way America behaves. The rest of the world can only hope and pray that Bush does not interpret this victory as a visa to enter into any sovereign territories in the name of disciplining the world. This success should not mislead Bush into disrespecting the United Nations and the collective wisdom of the world. If he thinks himself (and his country) as a big-brother to the world countries, he must realize that the big-brother owns more responsibility than the younger kin's.