- WASHINGTON -- A strange feeling
overtakes the British journalist in Washington these days, as he chronicles
the rebirth of the imperial presidency under George Bush, and then turns
for a second to CNN, to watch Tony Blair defending himself at Prime Ministerâs
Questions. Mere theatrics, I tell myself as I watch the heated exchanges.
Entertaining to be sure, but only a charade that passes for open government,
where questioning by the peopleâs elected representatives elicits
few facts and certainly changes no policies.
-
- Like many others in my trade, I was brought up to believe
in the superiority of the American system, with its vaunted checks and
balances. A Congress with powerful investigative committees and a press
unhampered by restrictive libel laws and a stifling Official Secrets Act
÷ that, not a weekly bun fight in the Commons, was what was needed
to hold the countryâs rulers accountable. Or is it? What is so striking
in America right now is the absence of accountability. The administration
has led the country into an unprovoked war against a sovereign foreign
state for reasons that were certainly overstated and quite possibly deliberately
mendacious. It has mistreated detainees after Sept. 11 with a disregard
for basic civil rights that worries the inspector general of Bushâs
own Justice Department. But look not to Capitol Hill for remedies.
-
- Those committees, with their sweeping subpoena powers?
As they say in polite New York circles, ãfuggeddaboutitä. First
of all, the Republicans who control the White House also have majorities
in both chambers of Congress ÷ and thus in the committees of Congress.
If push comes to shove, Republican senators and congressmen will make sure
that no great embarrassment befalls a popular Republican president and
his senior officials. And these latter know it.
-
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deals with questions
in the manner of an aged bull, idly swatting away flies with his tail on
a warm summer day. Or take John Ashcroft, the attorney general, who on
the very day the inspector generalâs report appeared, breezily informed
the House Judiciary Committee that he wanted even more draconian powers
to fight terrorism. A Justice Department spokesman commented, apropos of
the report, ãWe make no apologies for using every legal measure
to protect the security of the American people.ä There you have it:
National security, in whose name all is permitted, nothing has to be explained,
and no one need provide a serious account of their behavior.
-
- The powerful armed services and intelligence committees
of the Senate are said to be planning joint hearings on the WMD mystery,
but donât hold your breath. The really tricky parts, you may be sure,
will be addressed at closed hearings, or omitted altogether on the grounds
of ÷ what else? ÷ national security.
-
- Admittedly, these are unusual times. But they only underline
the extraordinary latitude enjoyed by a president even in normal times.
George Bush does not have to face an American equivalent of Prime Ministerâs
Questions. But even if he did, his modest debating skills would not seriously
be tested, given the institutional reverence for his office that no British
prime minister dare dream of.
-
- Only briefly, in the final stages of a presidential campaign,
when the party out of power has nominated its candidate, does the US system
provide for an organized opposition with a single leader. Today, the Democrats
are especially ineffectual, divided over Iraq and cowed by an aggressive,
lavishly financed White House machine, and their energies are diluted by
the nine candidates vying to challenge Bush in 2004.
-
- Fine, but what about the press? After all in Britain,
has not the equally enfeebled and divided Tory party been to a large degree
supplanted by the press in providing opposition to the Labour juggernaut?
That has not been the case in the US. Forget the small matter that the
most influential media organisation in the country, The New York Times,
has had other problems of late. Far more important, Bush, who dislikes
the press, does all he can to avoid engagement. From time to time, he tosses
a few crumbs to the famished pack; the odd condescending answer to shouted
questions at a photo-op, or a stilted appearance with a visiting foreign
leader, when half of the little time available is taken up by interpreters.
-
- Sadly, the lack of engagement is reciprocated. Buoyed
by the apparent success of his Middle East trip, Bush talked this week
for three-quarters of an hour with pool reporters on Air Force One. But,
according to the transcript, he was not asked a single question about those
missing Iraqi weapons.
-
- To be sure, this is among the most intimidating and best-run
White Houses in memory, swift to punish those who displease it. But the
journalists do not advance their cause, failing to follow up each otherâs
questions and allowing the subject to be changed. Oh for an American Jeremy
Paxman to ask Ari Fleischer, Bushâs maddeningly bland spokesman,
the same pointed question 14 times in succession. The White House deals
with the press as it deals with Europe: Divide et impera.
-
- The policy, it must be said, is working brilliantly.
But it does not hide the sorry truth that all the vaunted firepower of
Americaâs Congress and Americaâs press right now do not add
up to 30 minutes of weekly pyrotechnics at Westminster.
-
- http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=27107
- &d=7&m=6&y=2003&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
|
