Impeachment issue raises fundamental questions of who controls a democracy
Regional-USA, Analysis, 12/15/1998

Impeachment issue raises fundamental questions of who controls a democracyWith all the controversy surrounding the possible impeachment of US President Bill Clinton, we will take this opportunity to shed some light and questions on the issue of constitutions, parliamentary systems, direct democracy, as it relates to our area of coverage, the Arab states, where some are devising and revising their constitutions with others having done so relatively recently, or preparing to do so soon (as in Sudan, Lebanon, Algeria).The US constitution specifies that under special circumstances, a US president may be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." These "high crimes and misdemeanors" are to be determined by the House of Representatives acting as an accuser, with the Senate holding a trial as the judge.In the House of Representatives the process follows standard procedures whereby any resolution has to pass through the appropriate subcommittees and committees (in this case the judiciary committee). Once past the judiciary committee, the matter goes to the full house for consideration by all members. It is worth mentioning that at that point, considerations for alternative resolutions (and amendments) may be put forward for consideration by either party if the majority deems the substitute resolutions or amendments to be germane (relevant).The US has the longest standing constitutional government, with a long, practiced history in this regard. Therefore, the US is looked upon by others as an inspiration and an example to study of how to implement new constitutions in newly-created governments, many of which are no more than 40 years old (in their parliamentary form of government) with some of them considering new constitutions to liberalize their countries.There is a common belief that the foundation of democracy in the United States is based upon the constitution. But this belief comes into stark contradiction with reality if one looks at the many other countries with constitutions that did not or do not have any form of democracy, such as the ex-Soviet Union.As a matter of fact, these other constitutions tend to have many more rights enumerated in them, while in practice these rights are hardly ever observed. Therefore the question becomes what is it about the US that makes it what it is as a democracy, if it is not the constitution that is the basis of it, the Constitution is one necessary aspect as we will see.The answer to some is that it is the "application" of the constitution, meaning that the "rule of law" according to the constitution, is behind the American system of democracy. It is this aspect that makes possible democracy in the US and many other countries that are not constitutionally based, thus facilitating democratic practices.This leads us to the other forms of democracy, including parliamentary democracy, from which the United States of America was born (Britain). The US founding fathers had sought to avoid the parliamentary system from which they escaped and devised an interlocking system of "checks and balances" in order to avoid the dominance of any one branch over the other, to prevent some of the problems the parliamentary system posed in terms of abuse of power and concentration of this power in a King or the Parliament.While at its inception the new US Congress may have had similarities to the parliamentary system of Britain in form, the distinction was in that the US Congress derived heavily from the input of the populace in its decision-making process.The limitations were that communication between members of congress and the populace at large were primitive and limited, due to the speed of communication (mail took a long time, no telephones, televisions, radios or other means of instant communication available today). As such, the US congress represented a parliamentary system in that the feedback process from the public could not be gauged and be used as guidance for their agenda, legislation in other matters of consideration.While this lack of modern communication still persists in many Arab states where television and telephones are not present in many households with even (one-way) radio not being available to many, it would seem that a parliamentary-type government would be appropriate in those circumstance since such semi-direct involvement of the public at the federal level is not possible. This problem is compounded many times over by the fact that these same populations hold a very low level of education in many countries, making a representative form of democracy seemingly more appropriate.To get back to the "rule of law" as the basis of Western democracies, we assert that even this fact alone is not the basis of the foundation of those democratic institutions as demonstrated by dictatorial governments where the rule of law exists, but with the "wrong rules." Recent world history is full of such examples.This then leads us to the fundamental question of what is at the basis of democracy and specifically what is the basis of support for the US constitution. We assert that this basis is nothing more than a cultural phenomena, born out of tradition that was carried in the West from the days when people lived in what they regarded as "communities." In those communities, and based on their religious practices, a sense of "fairness" or "treat others as you wish them to treat you" was the principle that was sought in defining the laws and ways in which they governed themselves. This was the ideal that was always being sought. Despite the Constitution and the "rule of law" many Americans did not enjoy till a very late stage the fruits of the constitution such as Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and African-Americans.With the advancement of technology and the mechanism set forth by the constitution regarding the three branches of government (Judicial, legislative and executive), and the community "practice" of political leadership seeking guidance from the public, the US has come to be what it is in terms of its high level of development as a democratic country.While it may have been legitimate in the earliest days of the government for the Congress to move forward on issues without much public consent, due to the lack of effective communication and debate with the public and due to the complexities of some of the issues that many individuals in the public would not have had access to their understanding and nuances, such conditions no longer exist with the advent of a very highly educated citizenry, with ample access to all the tools of education and communication provided by telephones, radios, televisions, computers, thus facilitating communication between the populace amongst-itself and with its representatives and with the "experts" who articulate the issues of concern to them.Whether by his act the US president may have threatened, the constitution or committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" or not, this subject is for others to determine and is not the focus of this analysis. What the impeachment issue has done is raise a fundamental question that is not often dealt with, because impeachments by their nature are very few (one in the US against President Andrew Johnson, one "certain consideration" against President Richard Nixon forcing resignation, and one "censure resolution" against President Andrew Jackson, later reversed) and do not get exposed to the testing that others laws have to endure on a constant basis as they are refined or altered. The question that we pose is then that, at the basis of crucial issues that directly impact representative democracy, and when there is a divergence of views on such grave matters between the ruler and the ruled, who has the right to make the decision (even if it is a mistaken decision in the view of the rulers or a well-informed and educated ruled public)? This is the heart of the matter, and we consider this question, in-of-itself a most serious one. Put differently, in a well informed and advanced democracy, who has the right to make the mistakes about important decisions? The rulers or the ruled? The US constitution in its great wisdom and unique features of protection for the press and religious freedom and bill of rights showed its genius by protecting the citizens from the government by clarifying what the government "cannot do." It remains to be seen as to what the government can do and what precedence that will set and the effects will be. The closest analogy available to us that may or may not shed some light into this issue of ultimate-decision-making-power raises itself in the judicial subject of "nullification" which provides for the supreme power of an informed jury in a court of law to decide on grave matters (including matters of life and death), even when their decision "nullifies" (disregards or contradicts) the law, the prosecutor and the judge, putting the trust in the people, to make decisions that are sometimes correct and sometime not. This process seems to put the faith, not in the few, the one learned individual, the judge, but in the many, a jury of citizens that are informed of the facts.Excerpts from the US Constitution regarding impeachment:Article I Section 2.... The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.Section 3.... The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.Article II Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.Article III Section 2. ... The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.By,Jamil Kazoun

Previous Stories:
  Morocco renews commitments to consolidate rule of law   (12/15/1998)
  New Lebanese president pledges strengthening ties with Syria and rule of law   (11/25/1998)
  Sudan for political pluralism   (11/25/1998)
  A constitutional court in Sudan to protect the constitution   (11/6/1998)
  El-Mahdi refuses call to discuss political succession law   (10/28/1998)
  Lebanese parliament amends constitution   (10/14/1998)
  Lebanese Cabinet propose amending constitution for presidential election   (10/9/1998)
  First municipal election campaign in Doha - Qatar   (9/15/1998)
  Important decisions after signing the new Sudanese constitutional   (6/20/1998)
  Trade courts to consolidate rule of law   (6/8/1998)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search