Three up, one to come!
Back in March, after Islamists had murdered some 200 commuters in 
Madrid, the Spanish electorate responded by firing their uncompromising Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and hiring the pliant Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who quickly pulled the country's troops out of Iraq. The defeat of Aznar prompted The Economist to title its 20 March issue "One down, three to go?" The three were British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and US President George W. Bush. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi didn't make the cover, but he got an honourable mention in the feature. After all, he had had the temerity to go against the will of the "European street" and send Italian troops to Iraq. He'd be sorry before the year was out.
THE QUESTION MARK in The Economist's title is one of those classic insurance policies journalists use when circumstances require circumspection. For example: "Charles in love-nest triangle with corgis?" One can steer clear of the libel laws and sell lots of copies that way. For The Economist, though, the question mark was a hedge, just in case the unexpected happened. The Spaniards had shown the way and it was worth speculating that the Aussies, Yanks and Brits would follow. Still, there was the risk that it mightn't turn out that way.
The first test came in two months ago with the Australian general election. Following the Islamist massacre of young Australians in Bali in October 2002, John Howard had adopted a tough approach to terror and then declared his hand by sending soldiers to Iraq. Like Tony Blair, he was demonized by the country's media as being a Bush lapdog and the electorate could be counted on to give him the boot for being either "aggressive" or "submissive", depending on who was spinning at the Sydney Morning Herald. Except it didn't pan out that way. Howard was re-elected with an unexpectedly large majority. One up.
AH, WELL, with the world's media on John Kerry's side and George Soros and Michael Moore and Bruce Springsteen on the campaign trail, pumping in money and pumping out platitudes, the biggest trophy of the year would be bagged in November. That would make up for the Down Under disappointment in spades and restore the gleam in Chirac's eye. Except it didn't pan out that way. Bush was re-elected with an unexpectedly large majority. Two up.
The next target was Berlusconi. Eight years in the slammer would take the grin off his face, reckoned the, by now, very upset punters who had placed their downfall bets back in March. Blair would be isolated, and Europe would finally sing with one anti-Bush voice. But wait. What's this? Aaaaarrghhh! The headline yesterday read "Berlusconi cleared of corruption". The grimness of the situation can be sensed in this sentence: "The BBC's David Willey in Rome says that although acquittal through the statute of limitations is not the same as a not guilty verdict, Mr Berlusconi's unbounded political confidence is unlikely to be shaken by the ruling." Yes. Quite. Three up.
THOSE WHO PREFER their leaders to lead and not follow the mob or the mass media can expect to go four up next year when Tony Blair is re-elected. In anticipation of that happy moment, I think it's time Rainy Day lit that cigar and poured that glass of single malt. Eh?
Meanwhile, here's a suggestion for The Economist: How about a cover with the title "One down, three to go?" featuring a photo of Arafat? As regards the three who'd share the cover with him, well, I'll let you pick those yourselves.
