I am not sure that all of this is correct. A nation does not change its political culture overnight.

One thing was however true.

The polls clarified a basic point. The mid term vote was possibly the best indicator of that nation's prevailing anti-incumbent, anti-Washington sentiment. It was also an assertion that after 12 years of a Republican Congress, the people felt there was need for reform. It was, in a manner of speaking, also an expression of widespread aversion for the perceived corruption of Bush's Washington. It was also a statement of concern, where people pointed their anxiety about the need for some thing to be done about public spending -- that has risen faster under Bush than under any President since Johnson.

The polls also indicated the centrality of Iraq as a domestic issue. Some analysts have also suggested that the voting trend rejected the portrayal of Iraq as a threat to America.

It would however probably be an over-simplification to suggest that this electoral humbling of the Republicans was also a vote against the manner in which the US Administration has been running its war on terror in general. I believe that the focus was more on growing anxiety about the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people in general, by a majority indicated that they want the Iraqi expedition to end under a clearly supervised time-table.

It is now generally agreed that the arrival of Robert Gates at the Pentagon has been a victory for the 'realist' anti-war posture associated with certain officials from the Administration of Bush Senior -- Brent Snowcoft and James Baker. It is also being speculated that he has been brought in to salvage some dignity for the United States from the jaws of 'defeat.'

The future ahead for Gates will not be very easy. It will be complex. The prospective scenario will demand clear direction.

Unfortunately, the Democrats do not appear to have a disengagement plan in this regard. Till today, the Democrats have not agreed on a common stance on the Iraq war except to uniformly oppose Bush's strategy. Some of their leaders have wanted a quick withdrawal, some have wanted a timetable for this purpose and others have advocated splitting Iraq into autonomous units.

The Republicans have also been hesitant to clarify what basic changes in policy can be undertaken. Bipartisan sound bites have not emerged as yet. The Democrats under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi might not cut off cash for the war as Democrats did over Vietnam, but they are still not sure about possible alternatives on how to change the current course of US foreign policy.

Gates will have to handle many hard questions. It will also include the value of talking to Iran and Syria. Till now, the US Administration has regarded such contact as a reward, not a tool of diplomacy. The question is whether this approach will continue after the latest elections.

The Democrats have always taken interest about the Middle East road-map and Palestine. They have usually been bi-partisan in protecting the interests of Israel, but have also sometimes acknowledged that Palestine deserves a better deal. They do not however appear to have transparent views regarding Iran and Syria. Will they now support or recognise the need to open communications with Syria and Iran to get out of the imbroglio of Iraq? Hard choices have to be made by both sides.

It would be important to observe here that another question has emerged after the electoral results. Many are asking if the US's changing vision of its own government will affect not only its foreign policy but also its domestic emphasis. This has assumed significance because one of the contradictions of the Bush presidency has been its promotion of democracy abroad and the introduction of severe constitutional curbs at home. The election has demonstrated that the US is deeply divided about how it believes it should be governed.

The electoral shift has dramatically altered the government's balance of power, leaving Bush without Republican congressional control to drive his legislative agenda. As watershed elections go, this one rivalled the Republicans' takeover in 1994, which made Newt Gingrich speaker of the House, the first Republican to run the House since the 1950s Eisenhower administration. This time the shift has come in the midst of an unpopular war, a Congress scarred by scandal and just two years from a wide-open presidential contest.

Democrats being in control of Congress mean that for the first time in many years they will have the authority to hold hearings and investigations (e.g. surveillance of terrorist suspects without court warrants) and be able to issue subpoenas compelling witnesses to testify, potentially embarrassing to the White House. Democrats will also take over the powerful Committees charged with reviewing and endorsing legislation, from foreign relations to budget panels. This will empower them to set the legislative agenda. They can still be confronted with the Presidential veto but their enhanced power could ensure legislative stalemates.

Democrats will now have nine new Senators on their side of the aisle as a result of the balloting. Six of them defeated sitting Republican Senators from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Rohode Island, Montana and Virginia. The other three replaced retiring Senators from Maryland, Minnesota and Vermont. Their ideologies are as varied as their home States. Aside from gains in Congress, Democrats also took 20 of 36 Governor's races to given them a majority of top State jobs-28 -- for the first time in a dozen yeas. New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maryland and Arkansas went into the Democratic column. In other ballot races, Democrats also gained a decisive edge in State Legislatures, taking control of a number of bodies and solidifying their hold on others.

With the wins, Democrats will now be in a better position to shape state policy agendas and will be able to play a key role in drawing Congressional Districts.

There was another significant statistic. Almost 79 million people voted in this latest election, with Democrats drawing more support than Republicans for the first time in a mid-term election since 1990. The overall turnout rate, reflecting a percentage of voting age population, was 40.4 percent, compared with 39.7 percent in 2002.

Another interesting aspect to have emerged from the election was the fact that Asian Americans can run for Office and win. Bobby Jindal became the first Indian American in 2004 to enter the House of Representatives. Despite being a Republican, he has withstood the Democratic tide, retained his seat, and will now have many legislators of Asian origin to keep him company -- several of them having Japanese and Chinese roots.

One cannot conclude about the post-election after-effects without also referring to free trade becoming an election casualty. It now seems unlikely that the new Congress will extend President Bush's fast track trade negotiating authority, which expires soon. This will mean bad news for the Doha Round.

The wind of change that has blown through the USA in the form of this mid-term election has opened many windows. Around Nancy Pelosi has emerged an array of plausible Democrats with their eye on 2008. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, a reborn Al Gore and many other Democrats in the Senate are now hinting that they are considering the option of Presidential nomination. All of them are taking special interest after a CNN poll not only identified certain issues as having 'swing' potential for voters -- Iraq, terrorism, the economy and corruption -- but also that the Republicans were scoring badly in all of them.

The political process over the next two years will be that much more interesting as the Democrats continue to purge American politics of the accumulated sludge of power that has grown in the last six years of Republic dominance.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net