A Fascinating Election... In the Maldives

With all the media focus in the past months on the U.S. presidential election, one might not know that other countries have recently held elections, too. Canada, for example, re-elected Stephen Harper just weeks ago. And as of yesterday, the Maldives has elected a new president, Mohamed Nasheed.

This details of this election are fascinating. The tiny, rich South Asian country had been ruled by Maumoon Abdul Gayoom for thirty years, the longest such tenure in Asia. Only in recent years, following violent protests, has Gayoom slowly allowed democratic reforms, culminating with this year's election. Not only has the country successfully conducted the first national election in its history (it gained independence from Great Britain in 1965), but it has done so by collecting polling data from inhabitants of over 250 tiny islands.

The initial round of voting three weeks ago ended with Gayoom holding a 15 percent lead over Nasheed (40%-25%), his nearest of five competitors. However, as is the case in many countries (but not the U.S.), a winner is only declared when a candidate has over 50 percent of the vote. In the run-off, Nasheed was declared the winner with 54 percent. Clearly, in both rounds of voting, Maldives citizens expressed a desire for change.

In an interesting twist of justice, Gayoom was defeated by one of his former polital prisoners. Despite the history between the two, there has been no election-related violence since the results were released Tuesday. Democracy, as some define it, can only exist through a peaceful transfer of power. Though time will tell for sure, this tiny island nation seems to have met that important criteria.

What's in the Cabinet?

In his new book, "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?" former auto executive Lee Iacocca recommends that presidential candidates reveal their cabinet choices prior to the election. His argument, and I agree, is that this would help voters gain significant insight into the candidates' leadership styles. Consider what we have learned about McCain and Obama since their vice-presidential choices. Americans have paid attention to these decisions, as reflected in the polls. But we need more to go on. We cannot tell how well the football team will perform based solely on the quarterback and his best wide-receiver.

Yes, the president is the ultimate "decider" in the executive branch, as George W. Bush has said, but he does not exist in a vaccuum. His advisers are appointed experts who influence domestic and foreign policies. They include, among others, the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, and Defense, as well as the Attorney General (and the National Security Adviser, who is not technically a "cabinet" member). These are extrememly powerful individuals, especially with a weak president, such as the current President Bush. Also, though less significant, the cabinet determines presidential succession.

When voters elect a president who has chosen his or her cabinet (at least to begin the term), they have a much clearer idea of what they are getting. Will it be merely a team of "yes men"? Or will it be a diverse group of qualified, free-thinking public servants. Sure, it might be awkward for those chosen by the eventual losing candidate, but that's politics. What's easily more important is that the voting public be as informed as possible about who - specifically who - will be leading their country.

A Solution No One Is Talking About

In last night's presidential debate, the candidates were asked the following question: "What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?" The responses from each candidate were ho-hum. McCain said Americans should "understand that there are some programs that we may have to eliminate," and that's about it. Obama, after criticizing Bush for failing to call upon Americans after 9/11, said something about saving energy and civil service. Neither response inspired me. How can a president ask the people to let go of something without stirring them to action? Give us something specific. Communicate the urgency. Convince us.

And by the way - try this one: Ask us to pay more taxes. Seriously.

Typically, advocating higher taxes would approach political suicide in the midst of a campaign. But honestly, how do we expect to pay for this $700b Wall Street bailout or the $600b Iraq War, or even pay off our $10 trillion national debt? Taxes. Sorry, but that's where we are. I'm not suggesting a sharp tax increase. But it's ridiculous for candidates to promise tax breaks at a time like this! Look, few people actually enjoy paying taxes. But isn't it a necessary patriotic duty? How else would we pay for our public welfare: education, defense and research?

Taxation: it's the best solution no one is talking about.

Pointing fingers about who's to blame for the economic hole we are in does little to solve our current problem. We need to collectively dig ourselves out. Let's get to work. To do this, we need our next president, whoever it may be, to inspire Americans to step up - not unlike FDR did in his fireside chats during the Depression. We need our leadership to help us shed our hubris, convince us that our sacrifice is patriotic, and reassure us that our government will honor our sacrifice with fiscal stewardship. What sacrifices is this generation of Americans capable of? Who knows? No one has asked us yet.