The Clinton Case

     Thanks to C-SPAN we can watch the Senate impeachment trial of our head of state and government. Commercial television is simply broadcasting brief extracts, since "we the people" prefer to watch our favorite entertainment shows.
     It is a no-win situation. The President, and the whole of Washington are losing credibility. One problem is that Clinton is both head of state and head of government. Remove one, you remove both. Americans take refuge in worship of the constitution as an ark of the covenant, but it is this arrangement which is at the root of the troubles.
     Latin America generally has followed the American pattern. None of the leaders enjoys much popularity, and attempts to substitute the constitution as a national symbol have not had much luck, except for the safety valve of changing the constitution. Bolivia has had over 300, and, even before assuming power, the new President of Venezuela announced he would change the constitution.
     The head of state is the symbol of the lasting state, and symbols must inspire at least respect. A constitutional monarchy can do well, as exemplified by Spain, where the monarchy is functioning far better than the republic did. The monarchy must represent the deep roots of the country. Having got rid of Queen Isabel II, Spain imported King Amadeo of Savoy from Italy, who lacked such roots. That he tried to be a model king did not help; he was soon forced to give up. The monarchy has saved Canada from a U.S. style crisis, something Australia should ponder as it debates the subject.
     In Britain, the monarchy has had a checkered career. On January 30, exactly 350 years ago, the head of state, King Charles, lost his head and so did Britain. Cromwell acted like a dictator, and the monarchy was welcomed back. However, the abuses of James II led to the "Glorious" Revolution of 1688 imposed a parliamentary ( i.e. "constitutional") monarchy. The imported monarchs of the houses of Orange and Hanover were viewed as outsiders until George III, a farmer who seemed to embody the English soil and was generally liked. Today many British view Prince Philip as an outsider.
     People want to respect the monarchy as a symbol of deep history and are eager to forget problems (Clinton, note). The British royal soap opera has given way to a new respect for Prince Charles, as reported in a long article in the New York Times Magazine (22/11/98).
     The Scandinavian and the Benelux rulers seem to be a pretty mediocre lot, but they are liked as symbols of the countries' long history. They avoid the pitfalls of interfering in politics, and their life style is simple. Even doing good is risky. Britain's Edward VII said something must be done to help the Welsh miners during the depression, and he was immediately accused of interfering in politics. Tony Blair is modernizing the pomp and circumstance of the monarchy to avoid its appearing like a Gilbert and Sullivan show.
     Attempts to separate the functions of elected heads of state and government have not been very successful. There are many variants. French cohabitation, introduced by de Gaulle to give the presidency some of the power of the U.S. president, has been at best uneasy. In Germany and Israel the presidents appear more like fifth wheels than as symbols of history.
     The normally clear-headed Economist exemplifies the confusion prevalent in this matter. It wants Britain to become a republic, but will accept the monarchy as long as the people support it. At the same time it has told Clinton loudly that he must go.
     I invite WAISers to think about this problem, although personally I do not see a perfect solution. If you do, let me know. Perhaps our new Australian member, John Bennett, can give us an antipodean view of the topsy-turvy issue. The Swiss seem to have found the least bad solution: the invisible president. Erudite WAISers, name the president of Switzerland! He would not survive in Washington.

Ronald Hilton - 01/15/99