Government of the People, by the People and for the People
The juxtaposition of the Israeli election and the President’s State of the Union Address is a timely reminder of the civic rituals of free people, and the wide divide between governments that require the consent of the people and those that rule by force and fiat.
The juxtaposition of the Israeli election and the President’s State of the Union Address is a timely reminder of the civic rituals of free people, and the wide divide between governments that require the consent of the people and those that rule by force and fiat.
An election that is free, fair, secret, multi-party and offers a real choice between politicians, ideologies and programs is rare. That makes sense because it requires the confluence of so many factors that can easily be stifled. Such an election is only one aspect of a national culture that includes a free press, rule of law, and multiple centers of legitimate power, including local governments, unions, and religious institutions.
It happened yesterday in Israel, and the most extraordinary part may be that no one seriously expected otherwise. Who thought that because Israel is at war the elections might be canceled? Who imagined that the Prime Minister might use “emergency” security laws to avoid subjecting himself to the judgment of the voters?
Precisely the opposite. Precisely BECAUSE of the security situation, the Israeli government went to the voters to ask whether it was doing an acceptable job. The Labor Party was an alternative. Large and small secular, nationalist and religious parties were alternatives to the historic governing parties. The Arab bloc was an alternative. The two “Russian parties” were alternatives to the government and to each other.
In the meantime, hardly anyone noticed that the PA canceled the election it scheduled for January, because no one took it seriously. No one believed Arafat had any intention of putting his dictatorship on the line by asking the Palestinian people for approval. And implicit in a genuine election is the promise that if the people respond, “no,” the government will step aside. No one believed Arafat had any intention of relinquishing power under any unforced circumstance.
Our President will not go before the voters for nearly two years. But the State of the Union Address is part of our civic culture and the Constitutional requirement that the President tell Congress – the representative of the people – what he is doing, what he expects of it, and why. In the age of television, the President is more than aware that he speaks over the head of Congress to the people as well. He addressed both audiences because he requires the acquiescence of both to govern effectively.
He made the case that Iraq had failed to meet the world’s demand that he account for his weapons of mass destruction and destroy them. He made the case for the dangers that await the world if Saddam acquires both the weapons and the delivery systems. And in so doing, he made the case that governments unaccountable to their own people are also unaccountable to the world community.
The world can tolerate just about any government democratically elected – Labor or Likud; Republican or Democrat. But accountability must come to Saddam as well – if not by the will of his people, then by the will of the rest of us.