Who runs America?

President Obama was elected three years ago on a platform of 'Change that we believe in' and his campaign slogan was 'Yes, we can!' It was a time where everybody in America felt the need for a change after eight years of Republican rule that pushed the country forward to a few wars and backwards in its economy. Average Americans rightfully entertained sanguine hopes for changes towards a better order and the Nobel peace foundation awarded Obama an advance award of the Nobel prize, just for his advocacy on world peace.

However now with four years on and with elections staring in his face, the general feeling, not only in America but all over the world, is that President Obama has not been able to deliver what he promised. All over America the chances of an Obama re-election is considered slim unless Obama pulls something out of his hat! There are demonstrations in America demanding that he closes the Guantanamo prison as promised during election time and then again at Wall Street the American people are demanding a more representative economy. They alleged that under the present economic system a mere 2 percent of the people are controlling the balance 98 percent. Considering the long felt need to cover all Americans with an adequate healthcare system Obama made national health care his priority. But even after three years despite that presidential initiative, health care for the average American is proving to be elusive.

World democracies

Americans believe that their country is run by an Executive President elected every four years by the vote of the people and regulated by two legislatures, Congress and Senate, composed of people's representatives. Hence these men and women elected by the people, as against the ruler in medieval times, is said to run the government in a democracy in keeping with people's aspirations. At present this form of government appears to be the ideal form of government for a country where people are enlightened enough to take responsibility and conduct their own affairs. But does the practical situation in many world democracies that claim to have empowered the people through democracy conform to this theory? If democracy is about achieving people's aspirations why did Obama, whose policies were so overwhelmingly endorsed, fail in his attempts to change America?

Land of opportunity

Obama is an articulate speaker. He mesmerized the audience during his run up to the democratic ticket and during presidential stakes with his brilliance in oratory. Does that mean that he is only a talker who took the American people for a ride? Like Obama some of his great predecessors were men who could command an audience with their philosophic ideals and speech.

In comparison, Obama could count himself alongside the greats like Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy when it comes to power of words. Both these Presidents were identified, like Obama with the common stock of Americans, Lincoln freed the blacks from slavery and Kennedy stood for a new world order based on justice and humanism. Ironically both those Presidents could not go in to a second term because they were both assassinated.

America would like to call itself the land of opportunity signifying that it affords every man on the road to become the President only if he possesses the capacity and tenacity. But how do these people's representatives get elected to their office and what should they do to keep that office? The fact about American elections is that they are dominated by big co-operate funds. There are interested groups who contribute to the campaign funds in a big way and often to both the parties ensuring their stakes in the elections. Hence after the elections, the many who voted the winner is not listed but those who contributed to his campaign budget are. Thus the elected representatives stand obliged primarily to those who contributed and identified than to those who voted but unidentified. This eventually transforms the people's representatives to be the representatives of corporate funds.

These corporatists represent organized bodies but mainly business interests ranging from media organizations to arms manufactories. During the 2008 campaign the LTTE was among the contributors to 'Hilary for President'. So the American President elect could promise to end the wars but what does he politically stand to gain by doing it? The choice before him is in choosing between the organized and potent bodies that finance his campaign and the unorganized and impotent many who desire a just America in a just world. Therefore Obama could close Guantanamo if he wishes but then would those who feel good by that act buy him a plane to tour all over America for his second term campaign? Those corporatists in the arms industry certainly would. As for the majority all what you need is a powerful media organization to convince that all those wars, America is engaged in, is required for the country's national security.

Fifty eight thousand young Americans died during the Vietnamese war killing nearly two million. Vietnamese of all ages in the process. Finally America lost that war but up to today it is not clear how it endangered American national security. Thus the 'free world' is only free to the extent the corporate funds would permit it to be.

[email protected]