HONG KONG — Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama and to the people of the United States of America, some of whom lined up for five hours to vote, for their stunning victory. Bill Bennett, a former Republican Cabinet secretary under Ronald Reagan, commented that "the country has grown up."

It is a true triumph of the American dream, and what other country can offer such a dream!? Not China, not Europe, not Japan, not India, not anywhere in Africa.

It is breathtaking to consider that the son of a white mother and a black foreigner father, brought up by his mother as a single parent and then by her white parents, has been elected to the most powerful office in the world.

Nevertheless, when the partygoers have succumbed to exhaustion and their champagne has fizzled out, some significant questions have to be asked, both about American democracy and about where the country goes now.

One question is whether America can afford such a grueling campaign. Commentators have grumbled about money politics, noting the huge sums that Obama collected and the massive $5.3 billion that the presidential and congressional elections have cost. But, as conservative columnist George Will pointed out, that is still a billion dollars fewer than Americans spend each year on potato chips.

The campaign produced a lot of sound and fury without getting to grips with the real issues. To this outsider, both contenders were like children shouting boastful slogans at each other. John McCain was the worse offender, accusing Obama of being a socialist — total nonsense to anyone who has seen real socialism.

Equally important, McCain boasted that he would be ready as commander in chief and battle tested to take the 3 a.m. phone call, whereas Obama would have to go through a learning experience.

Typical of the smoke and mirrors, no one thought to challenge McCain on his claims. Does sitting in a fighter jet waiting for orders to go and drop bombs on an opponent necessarily entitle one to give those orders?

Merely by his election, Obama has given the U.S. a more favorable image, a genuine African-American leader who has risen from the ranks of ordinary people puts the U.S. in a better light. U.S. voters have challenged the rest of the world who dare to claim that America is a bastion of white capitalist privilege. They have also given black people back some of their dignity.

But critical questions remain — what kind of president will Obama be? What will happen when there is a clash between his best global interests and domestic interests? Will he be a healer in relations with the world? Will he be a unifier at home? Remember, George W. Bush presented himself as a unifier.

In spite of his smashing victory in the electoral college, Obama's majority in the popular vote was thin. He won over large numbers of white voter, but he did not win a majority of the white vote. When McCain made his gracious concession speech, his supporters booed Obama.

When he takes office on Jan. 20, 2009, Obama will carry the onerous baggage of the U.S.: two costly wars that are bleeding manpower and money, a huge budget deficit, debts crippling the country, a weak economy faltering between recession and slump aided by a financial system driven to the rocks by the greed of the world's brightest brains.

The answer to the critical questions is that we do not know what kind of president Obama will be. Throughout the two long years of the election campaign, every action, every speech, every word, every companion was examined under a powerful microscope by press, media and Internet bloggers in which he was totally accountable and his rating — and potential votes — went up or down with the popular mood. Soon he will be president and the views of all outsiders put together will hardly be able touch him if he does not want to listen.

The whole election campaign was conducted through the prism of sometimes very narrow American domestic interests, in which no candidate dared to offend anyone for fear of losing their votes. But Obama soon becomes "the Leader of the Free World." It is a boast, but not an idle one — and it carries responsibilities that American leaders have often been quick to ignore.

Unlike in parliamentary systems, we do not know who will be Obama's main Cabinet officials.

There is no manifesto to tick and check whether he fulfills his promises. Congress can ask questions and can shape the president's legislation but cannot call him to account in the way that a parliament can a prime minister. It and the Washington elites can however play a blocking and a spoiling role to offer a rude awakening from a visionary dream.

Against this, Obama's victory speech was statesmanlike beyond his years or his experience. He offered a mixture of realism and ambition, both for America and the world. From behind an immense bulletproof glass screen — another reminder of the perils of the job — Obama reeled off the challenges facing him and the U.S.: After listing two wars and before mentioning economic issues, he talked of "a planet in peril."

His speech echoed the voice of Martin Luther King Jr. on the eve of his assassination. He talked of "you" and not of "me." He talked of things to be done and warned it would be hard.

"I need your help," was the way he put it. This was the voice from the bazaar coming from ordinary people, not instruction from the lofty cathedral pulpit by politicians used to preaching. This was the man whose — early — autobiography was titled "The Audacity of Hope." Dare he? Dare we?

Kevin Rafferty is a former managing editor of publications for the World Bank.