 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Jan. - 3 Feb. 1999 Issue No. 414 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Jan. - 3 Feb. 1999 Issue No. 414
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Focus Economy Opinion Culture Features Living Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Trying times
By Mohamed HakkiEvery time the American people think that President Clinton's ordeal is over, some new twist comes along to breathe fresh life into the saga.
The trial in the Senate has passed through several distinct stages in the last two weeks. First, there were the three days of presentations by the "prosecutors", or "managers", as the thirteen congressmen representing the judicial committee are called. Then, the rebuttal from the defence lawyers. The third and final phase came with the questions addressed to both the prosecution and the defence by Chief Justice William Rehnquist who is presiding over the trial. Now the impeachment trial is, in the words of certain observers, "entering it's most unpredictable phase": the decision as to whether to call witnesses.
This phase is unpredictable, not because it may turn up new and unexpected facts, for the facts have all been available since the release of the six-thousand-page-long Starr report. Even the formidable defence team brought together by the White House is not, in essence, disputing any questions of fact. What their defence boils down to is that, even if all the facts prove true, they still don't reach the level of the kind of major crimes and misdemeanours that would justify removing the president from office.
As a result, both sides are facing difficult choices. Both the prosecution and the defence concede that the US president had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. They both acknowledge that he lied about it. He lied to the American people, the Congress, the special prosecutor and his family. The problem is not that he did all of this, but that he committed perjury, which is considered a felony under US law. And this is where the approaches taken by the two sides diverge. The Republicans agree, almost to a man, that he should either be removed from office, or resign. They argue that the president, like any other citizen, has to abide by the law. The Democrats, on the other hand, say that the case of the president differs, because he has twice been elected by the American people. Removing him from office would be tantamount to political decapitation and that is too severe a punishment for perjury.
For the Republicans, however, Clinton's role as in effect the nation's chief law enforcement officer carries a moral responsibility to set an example to the country which cannot be dismissed.
So far, nothing truly new has emerged from the proceedings. Following the initial euphoria that greeted the Senators' unanimous vote approving the trial procedures, the debates swiftly reverted to routine partisan warfare. In the words of Representative Henry Hyde, the president's counsels confirmed that "we are not delegates who are sent here to weigh our mail everyday and then vote accordingly. Our work here is not an ongoing plebiscite. We are elected to bring our judgment, our experience and our consciences with us here, despite all the polls and all the hostile editorials." He added, "America is hungry for people who believe in something."
The most eloquent defence of the president came from a former senator who only quit his seat three weeks ago. Former Senator for Arkansas Dale Bumpers -- never an admirer of the boyish governor Clinton -- said that the president had suffered a terrible moral lapse. His conduct, Mr Bumpers said, has been "indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, shameless", adding that "the punishment he has already inflicted on himself far exceeded any that the Senate might impose."
The idea that the trial might drag on for a few more months terrifies the White House. This might seem ironic, given that none of the prosecution witnesses are likely to be hostile to the president. Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's private secretary, Betty Curry and his friend Vernon Jordan are all Clinton-friendly. Yet despite this, the president's lawyers are crying bloody murder at the prospect.
Throughout the impeachment procedures, the media has consistently posed two questions: How can Clinton's popularity ratings continue to rise though all this? And how can close to 80 per cent of the American people support him, when 60 per cent do not believe in his honesty?
The obvious answer to the first question can be found in the Economist magazine's recent judgement on the country. The US, it said, is "in its best shape in years, where almost every indicator ticks towards improvement. America is in its eighth year of economic boom. Both federal and state budgets are in surplus, even awash with money. The unemployment rate, at 4.3 per cent, is the lowest in 30 years. In the big cities, murder rates have fallen by a fifth, the crack epidemic has faded, even abortion rates for teenage pregnancy are falling. Petrol is as cheap as it was between the wars, and baseball home runs at their highest ever. Small wonder, then," the writer concluded, "that Mr Clinton's popularity knows no bounds."
Many of Clinton's defenders and many media commentators have talked about another facet of the president's popularity. He is a man of the people. He identifies with the common man and the people empathise with him. He is one of them. When he cheats and lies, they simply forgive him, because he is only human and fallible. People do not dismiss Clinton as an upper-class elitist. The first president born after the Second World War, he is a baby boomer, whose formative years date back to the turbulent 1960s. People of his generation automatically identify with him. With younger people, he uses his charm and powers of communication, while borrowing all the programmes that appeal to the political centre, even as he moves to the right.
What will happen next? It is evident that all motions to put an end to this trial are doomed to fail as a result of Republican intransigence. However, it is also evident that the Republicans will be unable to muster the 67 votes required to impeach Clinton. As a result, all the manoeuvering between the two factions has been reduced to the search for a formula censuring the president which will be acceptable both to those who want something less than impeachment, and those who insist on including a clause on perjury.
Yet regardless of the outcome, the damage has been done. However popular Clinton himself may be, it will take years for the US to restore a measure of public confidence in the office of the presidency, the judicial system, and even the media, while the president himself will likely be condemned to live out the rest of his mandate as little more than a "lame duck".
