 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 18 - 24 February 1999 Issue No. 417 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 18 - 24 February 1999 Issue No. 417
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Special Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters American democracy
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
American foreign policy is the object of much criticism, especially that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth, the sole remaining superpower in a unipolar world, and, as such, is often at odds with many international players.
Still, credit must be given where credit is due, and there is no denying that the national political discourse in America is informed by a genuine democracy, at least on the domestic front. This came across very clearly in the recent impeachment trial of President Clinton. Though he was eventually acquitted of the two charges levelled against him, perjury and obstruction of justice, the very fact that a sitting president could be tried at all lends credence to the claim that no one is above the law in America.
Sceptics could argue that the trial was determined less by the constitution than by a partisan political conflict between Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans enjoy a majority in both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Under the American Constitution, the decision to impeach a president is the prerogative of the latter chamber, to be exercised by a simple majority, while the trial itself is conducted by the Senate and the verdict delivered by a two-thirds majority, that is, by 67 of its 100 members -- a majority exceeding the 55 seats held by the Republicans. In other words, the acquittal was based less on considerations of justice and right than on arbitrary percentages set by the framers of the constitution.
The argument that the impeachment trial proceeded according to blind allegiance to party lines is belied by the defection of ten Republicans who, voting according to their conscience, joined the Democrats in acquitting Clinton of the perjury charge, and of five who voted with the Democrats to acquit him of the obstruction of justice charge. In requiring a two thirds majority, the framers of the constitution sought to ensure that no elected president could be impeached for anything less than "high crimes and misdemeanours".
If America's polarisation was not exclusively along party lines, can it be said that it was along generational lines, between the sexually liberated post-World War II generation and the defenders of traditional values? It is a theory that has been the subject of much debate recently. An interesting story in this regard is the removal of the editor of a serious medical journal who published the results of a poll conducted among American teenagers. Asked whether oral sex was a sexual act, an overwhelming majority replied in the negative. The owners of the journal, who had strong ties to the Republican Party, were angered by the editor's timing of the poll, which they considered as serving Clinton's defence.
The point made by the poll was that Clinton had not lied when he denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The first American president to be born after World War II, Clinton spoke the language of the permissive society which came into its own after the student revolt of 1968. This was a very different language from the one held by older generations of Americans, for whom Clinton's denial of a sexual liaison with the White House intern was a blatant lie that could not be allowed to go unpunished.
Certainly the unprecedented economic boom played an important role in mustering public sympathy for Clinton. His popularity rating soared to new heights, hitting 70 per cent at the most critical moments of his trial, although most Americans deplored his moral laxity. Moreover, Clinton has proved himself a highly focused and accomplished president who draws his support largely from a majority made up of various minority constituencies in America standing in opposition to the traditional WASP power base from which most previous presidents drew their support.
With twenty-three months left before his second term ends, it is interesting to speculate what line Clinton is likely to follow after his acquittal. Will he avenge himself against his opponents, particularly independent counsel Kenneth Starr -- a question of more than academic interest given that hard-core Republicans do not consider the file closed and may well push for indicting Clinton after his second term is over. Or will the president live up to his call for reconciliation?
Though dismayed at Clinton's acquittal, a number of prominent Republicans have themselves called for reconciliation, on the grounds that neglecting America's pressing problems (education, social security, medicare, better pensions for the old, etc., over and above foreign policy) can only harm their own party's chances in the coming presidential and legislative elections. In the short address he delivered immediately after the verdict, Clinton appeared humble and contrite rather than triumphant. Far from gloating over what many see as a Pyrrhic victory, he said he was "profoundly sorry" for what he said and did "to trigger these events" and called for "a time of reconciliation and renewal for America".
What is of particular importance for us in the Arab world is how Clinton's acquittal will affect future US policy in the Middle East. While the threat of impeachment loomed over him, Clinton's political room for manoeuvre on the domestic front was sharply reduced. In a bid to reestablish his leadership credentials at home, the beleaguered president focused on foreign policy and tried to demonstrate his ability to achieve dramatic successes in even the most intractable crises abroad. The link between his ordeal and his active pursuit of foreign policy goals was not lost on his critics. Indeed, some US legislators went as far as to accuse Clinton of ordering military strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in August and against Iraq in December to divert attention from his political plight.
In the case of the Middle East crisis, he pushed for results even when this led to confrontations with Netanyahu, who missed no opportunity to exploit Clinton's weaknesses to Israel's advantage. Following his acquittal on both counts, the incentive to push ahead for a final settlement of the Middle East crisis is no longer there. The question now is whether seeking reconciliation with the Republicans will entail seeking reconciliation with Israel's ultra right-wing government, or whether, on the contrary, Clinton will find himself unable to avoid clashing with the extremists in both America and Israel and hence adopt a more even-handed policy towards the issue. For the Arab parties, the question is of paramount importance, and the answer will depend to a very great extent on how well they play their cards in the critical period to come.
