Is Democracy Finally Coming to the USA?

The US election highlighted the dangers and limitations of mass media coupled with the desire for instant information

Like most Europeans, I assumed that by the time I woke Wednesday morning and turned on my television set, I would know who the new President of the US would be. And so I had, like so many others, when I saw network after network definitely proclaim George W. Bush as the 43rd president of the US. Bored with waiting for his victory speech, I switched off the set, did some productive work, and an hour or so later switched on the television set again, only to find bewildered presenters saying that the election was too close to call after all, and that no-one was yet declared the official winner.

I actually enjoyed myself at this point. I watched as Tom Brokaw had a panic attack trying to explain to viewers what had happened. Then came tinges of fear, as Brokaw pondered as to what this political uncertainty would mean to America's adversaries, not to mention the stock market. Funny, only an hour or so he had smugly remarked how the election was over, America elected a new president, and there were no soldiers or tanks in the streets (obviously a side remark to how great -- that is, calm, cool, and collected -- American elections were as opposed to other places in the world). But don't worry Tom, the reason the National Guard wasn't out in full force is because they were probably as confused and paralysed as yourself -- and most of America.

But where Tom and others were more focused was in their observation of the system by which the US elects its leaders. This election made apparent for all to see how archaic democracy is in the US, and that it needs to modernise. Out of about 160 democracies worldwide, the US places around 130; this latest fiasco, among the nation's chronic low voter turnout, should thus come as not that much of a surprise.

Even so, people were nonetheless surprised. In fact, what was surprising for me was how the election results were labelled as "bizarre" and "strange" by almost all the networks, both within and without the US. What is so bizarre or strange about a close election? Of course, in a real democracy you would have a run-off or second round. For a nation too used to ready-made solutions and TV dinners, this is understandably a shock: my God, life is not so simple and easy after all, is it?

Yet the biggest challenge this election brought to the fore was not the archaic nature of the US political system or people's perception of politics, but the role of mass media in the whole affair. The US election highlighted very clearly and distinctly the dangers -- and limitations -- of mass media coupled with the desire for instant information.

In a way, there is a little poetic justice at play here. The Clinton presidency was one centered around pollsters. Often, the way he acted and even some of the policy decisions were based purely on poll numbers. Thus, the media mishandling of the election results was simply an extension of a political culture run amuck.

But there is more. By already declaring victory before official results were in, the media establishment in the US were, in effect, playing out the worst-case scenario envisioned by the historian C. Northcote Parkinson over 30 years ago. In his book entitled "Can Democracy Survive?", Parkinson noted how the propaganda possibilities of communication satellites pose a substantial threat to democracy. In essence, there is nothing to prevent the media establishment from building a dream world where dramatized leaders with purely fictitious ability give the appearance of prosperity, the extent of which has been grossly exaggerated. Indeed, there have been some remarkable achievements to date, for "so far the known results include the popular election by enormous majorities of both scoundrels and lunatics."

The way the US media handled the presidential election not only raises the question of media ethics, but strikes at the very foundation of the so-called "information society". The mantra of the digital age -- in particular, that of the "new" economy -- is that information must move as quickly as possible, and then be acted on in a like manner.

However, what is often lost in this process are a variety of checks and balances, as well as quality control, authenticity, and the ability to consolidate "knowledge" -- and not just "consume" it as if it is some kind of commodity. We have already come across this dilemma in various ways, most notably the influence of day traders on the stock market.

There is actually nothing wrong in doing something quickly, yet our need for speed should not sacrifice our need for reliable and accurate sources of information. The media fiasco over the US election merely drives this point home, and has now initiated a debate (at least in the US) of not only changing American political culture, but the question of media responsibility as well.

All this will no doubt also affect our understanding of the information society and the new economy. Whether this will lead to substantial changes in the near future remains to be seen, but at least it has brought the debate more into the open.