By Prof. Abdullahi Danladi
Elections are often celebrated as the triumph of democracy and the right of people to choose those who govern them. Political parties campaign, candidates make promises, citizens cast their votes, and governments are formed. But beyond the excitement of election campaigns and the announcement of results lies a question that is often overlooked: What happens to people outside the countries holding these elections? Can the decisions of voters in one country affect the lives of millions of people elsewhere who have no say in the process?
This question becomes particularly important when we consider the political developments in the United States and Israel. Both countries occupy important positions in world politics, and decisions taken by their governments often have consequences far beyond their borders. Their influence extends to international security, military conflicts, trade, energy, diplomacy and the economic well-being of people in different parts of the world.
The American midterm elections and the political developments surrounding Israel's parliamentary elections should therefore not be seen merely as domestic political events. They deserve attention from the international community because the outcome of these political contests can influence the direction of global affairs, particularly the future of the Middle East.
It is important to understand that the two countries operate different electoral systems. America holds midterm elections halfway through a president's four-year tenure, while Israel operates a parliamentary system in which the political composition of the Knesset determines the formation of government. Nevertheless, both electoral processes can influence the policies of governments whose decisions have international consequences.
In the United States, the midterm elections are particularly important because they determine the balance of power in Congress. Even though the president remains in office, the party controlling Congress has considerable influence over government spending, foreign assistance, military funding and the scrutiny of presidential policies. A change in congressional control can therefore create new political challenges for the president, particularly in the area of foreign relations.
One of the major issues that deserves attention is America's relationship with Israel. For many years, the United States has remained Israel's strongest international supporter, providing military assistance, intelligence cooperation and diplomatic backing. Although there are differences among American political parties and individual politicians on particular issues, support for Israel has historically enjoyed considerable support across party lines.
However, the growing debate within American politics over the Palestinian question, civilian casualties, military operations and the future of the Middle East suggests that this relationship will continue to attract public and political attention. A change in the composition of Congress may increase the level of scrutiny of American assistance to Israel and the conditions under which such assistance is provided. It does not necessarily mean that American policy towards Israel will undergo a complete change, but it can influence the extent of support, the nature of diplomatic engagement and the freedom of the administration to pursue certain policies.
On the Israeli side, the composition of the next government is equally important. The political interests of parties that form a governing coalition can influence decisions on Palestine, territorial questions, military operations and relations with neighbouring countries. This means that the political calculations of a relatively small number of parties or parliamentary representatives may have consequences for millions of people across the region.
But perhaps the more important issue is the future of peace in the Middle East. The region has experienced years of conflict, military confrontations, displacement and humanitarian suffering. The Palestinian question remains unresolved, while tensions involving Iran, Lebanon, Syria and other regional actors continue to create uncertainty.
The political direction taken by Washington and Tel Aviv will therefore matter greatly. Will the new political circumstances create more room for dialogue and peaceful settlement, or will domestic political interests continue to make compromise difficult? Will American political leaders be more willing to question policies that contribute to prolonged conflict, or will strategic interests continue to take priority over the human cost of such policies?
These are questions that deserve serious attention. Elections do not automatically produce peace, just as political disagreements do not necessarily lead to war. However, the people who occupy positions of power have a responsibility to consider the human consequences of their decisions.
Beyond the Middle East, these elections also have implications for the wider balance of power in the world. The United States plays a major role in NATO, international financial institutions, global trade and relations with countries such as China and Russia. Any significant disagreement between the American president and Congress can affect the direction and consistency of American foreign policy. Other countries may respond by adjusting their diplomatic and economic relationships, while international institutions may face new challenges in dealing with global conflicts.
But while political leaders discuss military strategy, international alliances and national interests, the ordinary person is often concerned with something much simpler: how to feed the family, pay for transportation, keep a business running and provide for the children.
This is where international politics becomes a matter of everyday survival.
Consider what happens when tensions in the Middle East threaten international oil supplies or important shipping routes. Oil prices may rise, transportation becomes more expensive, and the cost of producing and distributing goods increases. Countries that depend on imported fuel, fertiliser and other essential materials may experience additional economic pressure.
Nigeria provides a good example. As an oil-producing country, an increase in international oil prices may bring additional revenue to government. But does this automatically translate into better living conditions for ordinary Nigerians? Not necessarily. Where domestic production is limited and the economy depends heavily on imported goods and services, higher international prices can also increase the cost of living.
The farmer may have to spend more on fertiliser, diesel and transportation. The trader may pay more to move goods from one market to another. The transport operator may increase fares to meet rising operating costs. The civil servant may discover that his salary no longer buys what it used to buy. Even a small business owner who depends on electricity generators may feel the effect of higher fuel prices.
In this way, a political decision taken thousands of kilometres away can eventually affect the price of food in a Nigerian market. The common man may not know the details of the political disagreements in Washington or Tel Aviv, but he will certainly feel their economic consequences.
This brings us to a fundamental problem in the present international system. Citizens of powerful countries have the right to elect their leaders and influence their domestic policies. But what about people in other countries whose lives may be affected by the decisions of those leaders? What about the Palestinian child who has no vote in Israeli elections? What about the Lebanese family whose home is threatened by military confrontation? What about the ordinary Iranian whose livelihood is affected by war and economic sanctions? And what about the Nigerian family struggling to cope with rising food and transportation costs?
These people have no direct influence over the electoral processes that may shape their circumstances, yet they can become victims of decisions taken by governments thousands of kilometres away.
This raises an important moral question: Should the democratic choice of one nation give its government unlimited freedom to pursue policies that may cause serious suffering to people in other nations?
Democracy may be important, but it should not be separated from responsibility. The right of a country to protect its national interests must be balanced with its responsibility to respect the rights and dignity of other people. No nation should consider its security and prosperity more important than the lives and welfare of innocent people elsewhere.
It is also important to question the role of international institutions, particularly the United Nations. These institutions were established, among other reasons, to promote peace, prevent aggression and ensure that international law applies to all nations. Yet many people have continued to question their ability to hold powerful countries accountable when their actions are challenged. International law should not become strong when it concerns weaker nations and weak when powerful nations are involved. The lives of people should have equal value, irrespective of their nationality, religion or political interests.
For African countries, the lesson is equally important. We cannot continue to depend excessively on decisions taken in foreign capitals while neglecting our own economic and political strength. Nigeria and other African nations must invest more seriously in agriculture, energy, manufacturing and regional trade. We must develop the capacity to produce more of what we consume and reduce our vulnerability to international economic shocks.
Our foreign policy must also be guided by national interest, respect for international law and concern for human dignity. Africa should not merely be a spectator whenever powerful countries engage in political and military struggles. Our leaders must develop a stronger and more independent voice on matters affecting international peace and the welfare of humanity.
Ultimately, what should concern us about the American and Israeli elections is not simply which political party gains more seats or which political leader secures greater influence. The more important question is what the exercise of that power will mean for humanity.
Political victory should not be measured only by the number of seats won, the strength of military alliances or the influence a country exercises over other nations. It should also be measured by the extent to which political decisions protect human lives, promote peace and improve the living conditions of ordinary people.
The common man does not sit at the table where international military decisions are made. He does not participate in the negotiations over sanctions, strategic alliances or foreign policy. Yet, when the consequences of these decisions arrive, he is often among the first to bear the burden.
Perhaps this is the greatest injustice in today's international political system: those who make the decisions are not always those who pay the price.
The American and Israeli elections should therefore remind us that international politics is not as distant from our daily lives as we sometimes imagine. The price of petrol, the cost of food, the security of our communities and the future of our children can all be influenced by decisions taken in countries far beyond our borders.
The ballot box may determine who occupies political office, but it is the responsible use of political power that determines whether ordinary people live in peace, security and dignity.
After all, of what value are electoral victories, political influence and military superiority if the ordinary human being continues to pay the price through poverty, insecurity, displacement and the loss of human dignity?
That is the question the international community must never cease to ask.
No comments:
Post a Comment