Crisis, What Crisis?

WHILE OTHERS SETTLE DISPUTED ELECTIONS WITH CLUBS AND TEAR GAS, AMERICANS GO TO COURT

It was the revolution that didn't happen. Mobs did not storm the U.S. Capitol, and tanks did not block traffic. For weeks after Election Day 2000, Americans split sharply over which presidential candidate had won the right to move into the White House. But--aside from a few demonstrators on both sides--they took their disagreements to courtrooms, not to the streets.

Other nations weren't so lucky. Countries on three continents--Yugoslavia in Europe, Ivory Coast in Africa, and Haiti in North America--also had disputed elections last fall. The first brought massive street protests; the other two, bloody violence.

Why did the U.S. keep its cool as others lost theirs? Experts say it's because even though many Americans may be cynical about politics, on some level they still retain a fundamental respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

"We want to be in this for the long term," says Richard Fallon, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, "and we're not going to tear it up because we're so angry about what happens in a particular case."

IT TOOK MORE THAN BALLOTS

In Yugoslavia on September 24, 2000, voters resoundingly chose Vojislav Kostunica (koss-TOO-nee-cha) over the incumbent President, Slobodan Milosevic (mee-LOH-suh-vitch), who had plunged the country into wars and ethnic strife. But Milosevic fudged the returns, claiming that neither candidate had a majority and therefore a runoff election was needed. So thousands of Yugoslavs, including many teenagers, took to the streets--getting tear-gassed in the process--to demand that Milosevic give way to Kostunica. Finally, the President got the message.

In Ivory Coast's October 22 election, officials required each voter to dip a finger in ink, then finger-stamp a paper ballot in a box next to the candidate's name and image. An ink-stained finger would be a tell-tale sign to guard against voting twice. And ballots were dropped into a glass box while representatives of each candidate looked on.

Sounds fair, doesn't it? But when President Robert Guei, who had called the election, lost by 59 percent to 33 percent, his managers suddenly discovered "massive fraud" and declared him the winner. His political foes resorted to bloody street fighting, in which an estimated 200 people died. Finally, the top vote-getter, Laurent Gbagbo (BAH-bo), was installed as President.

Bombings, drive-by shootings and other political violence also led up to Haiti's election on November 26. Officials there say President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's party polled some 92 percent of the vote. But that was because the opposition boycotted the election, citing past vote-counting irregularities.

Of course, you didn't need to book an international flight to see such irregularities last fall. The U.S. is widely considered a model for free elections, sending observers to monitor the fairness of other countries' voting. So last fall's dispute over counting Florida's vote gave Uncle Sam a black eye. Says Jonathan Moyo, a spokesman for President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, "If this had happened in Zimbabwe, we would have been subjected to sanctions."

WHY IT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE

Such foreign critics "should have a little fun at America's expense," concedes Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. But he and other scholars say likening the Florida dispute to the woes of Yugoslavia, Ivory Coast, or Haiti is mistaking a mist for a monsoon. And that difference of degree is one big reason America kept relatively calm.

"When we send out election observers, they're looking for people stuffing ballot boxes or barring people at the polls," Hess explains. In contrast to these blatant abuses, he says, U.S. voting "is fairly inefficient and fairly amateurish--but it's not corrupt."

But it's not just the lack of overt fraud and the existence of the Constitution that allow the U.S. to have a dispute without a crisis, experts say. It's also the beliefs most Americans share.

Says Emory University political science professor Robert Pastor, who has observed several Haitian elections: "Yes, we have a problem in Florida. But we also have the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and respect for the law. You do not have that in Haiti."

Ultimately, adds Fallon, "institutions don't work in a mechanical way, but because people have faith in them and are committed to making them work."

Besides, says Hess, Americans have more on their minds than politics, and that is as it should be. "But," he quickly adds, "that doesn't mean I'm not concerned that only half the people vote."

Crisis, What Crisis?

FOCUS: Why the U.S. Election Dispute Did Not Produce Violence in the Streets

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand the legal, constitutional, and social reasons why Americans didn't turn to violence to resolve their disagreements in the disputed election of 2000.

Discussion Questions:

* How would you explain to someone from another country the generally calm reaction of the American people to the contested presidential election?

* Do you believe the experience of Election 2000 will change the way elections are conducted in the future?

* Do you think the manner in which the election dispute was handled enhances or diminishes the reputation of the U.S. as a model of democracy?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Guided Reading/Critical Thinking: Direct students to key points in the article. What do experts mean when they say that the U.S. retains "a fundamental respect for the Constitution and the rule of law"?

Write the following on the board:

* U.S. Constitution * U.S. Courts * U.S. Congress * State and local courts, legislatures, and law enforcement. Have students rate these institutions on a scale of 1 to 4, from "probably trustworthy" to "certainly trustworthy" (Caution students not to allow individual acts of corruption or malfeasance to influence their overall ratings excessively.)

Discuss the ratings. Then ask students why they believe Americans--as evidenced during the court fight over election ballots--did not join violent protests, as was the case in Ivory Coast and Haiti.

Discuss how Americans--unlike Yugoslavs, Ivorians, and Haitians--were able to voice their discontent without resorting to violence or mounting massive street protests in pursuit of their political goals. What, if anything, could cause a significant number of Americans to abandon their faith in the rule of law?

Note Stephen Hess's observation at the end of the article that despite the fact that it's OK that most Americans think more about other things than about politics, he is concerned that "only half the people vote." What would it mean for political stability in the U.S. if voter turnout continued the decrease it has shown in recent elections? Would the country become more vulnerable to political violence?