Opinion: ‘Impeachment’ as New Norm for Disposing of Annoying Opponents

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL –  In this troubled and highly partisan world one is forced to wonder if ’impeachment’ is becoming the new norm for getting rid of, or at least trying to unseat opposition political leaders, in a bloodless coup d’etat.

This week’s opening of the trial in the US Senate of impeachment charges against US President Donald Trump somewhat echoes the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, although the outcome is likely to be very different – Dilma was convicted: Trump is most likely to be acquitted.

The motivations for the actions leading to the impeachment of the two presidents share the same origin, the willingness of the leaders to bypass acceptable behavior – even breaching the law in Trump’s case – to gain an electoral advantage for themselves and their parties in the next election. There appears to be an unfortunate common belief that all is fair in love and politics.

Less than four years ago on April 17th, 2016, Rousseff was formally impeached, only months after her re-election by 54.5 million Brazilians. And like the Americans where public support for impeachment currently stands at 50.4 percent in favor, 61.5 percent of Brazilians agreed with the conduct of the impeachment.

In the third presidential impeachment trial in American history, Congress, equivalent to the Lower House in Brazil, has brought two impeachment articles against Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

These arise from Trump’s efforts to use the power of his office and the unlawful withholding of congressionally approved aid, to pressure the president of Ukraine to open and publicly announce an unwarranted corruption investigation by his leading competitor for the 2020 presidential election, former Vice President Joe Biden.

When, based on a document from a ‘whistleblower’, a lawful investigation of such actions was initiated by Congress, the president wholly refused – a first in US history – to allow the legislature access to witnesses and documents.

The 19th-century British politician Lord Acton famously wrote, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Fortunately, neither the Brazilian nor the American presidents have ‘absolute’ power however much they would like to. But the temptation to increase what power they have is always very great and seductively corrupting.

Dilma’s critics said she was trying to plug deficit holes in popular social programs to boost her chances of being re-elected for a second term in October 2014.

As the ‘Guardian’ commented: “The real reasons for impeachment are political. Rousseff is enormously unpopular because she is blamed for the multiple crises facing the country and has proved an inept leader. But Brazil’s constitution does not allow a no-confidence vote to eject her from office so her enemies are using impeachment to do the job.” Whether this could reasonably be called ‘corruption’ has always been debatable.

Dilma’s creative accounting is paled by Trump’s actions which seem much worse. His lust for absolute power appears to be absolutely corrupt. He has no hesitation to blatantly lie.

As the ‘Washington Post’ which has been keeping tabs on this wrote in December: “As of December 10th, his 1,055th day in office, Trump had made 15,413 false or misleading claims, according to the Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement he has uttered.”

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we start to deceive,” wrote Walter Scott in his poem ‘Marmion’.

Deception is inherently corrupt and Trump’s regular deceptions cover an enormously wide range of subjects. The web of Trump’s lies becomes more and more tangled as he uses every possible means to cover up his misdeeds.

Despite a special oath to “render impartial justice” taken by the 100 senators at the start of the Senate impeachment trial, the question facing the Republicans who enjoy a substantial majority in the Senate is whether Trump’s actions meet the bar of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ articulated in the US constitution, or whether the legislators will simply ignore their oaths and vote their party line.

Sadly, if they follow their leader Mitch McConnell as an example, the value of the trial with its unique oath is in question. The ‘NY Times’ has reported that the senator said, in direct conflict with this oath, that he is “taking his cues from the White House in shaping the trial”.

Outraged Democrats, meanwhile, accused Mr. McConnell on Friday of abandoning his duty to render “impartial justice”.

The Senate trial begins in earnest on Tuesday, January 21st. As has been endlessly repeated by the Democrats; “no one is above the law” and accountability must be assigned.

If Trump is acquitted, which is likely because of the Republican majority and the requirement, as in Brazil, of a two-thirds vote to convict, a terrible precedent will be set and a country which prides itself on the rule of law may have lost even more of its credibility.

Worse, the new norm will undoubtedly be that impeachments as political ‘bloodless coups’ will multiply, confidence and the stability of the voter’s choice will be compromised and democracy will become much more fragile.

It is not a happy prospect.