1
2 3 4
As a normally aware individual of world events, almost every adult has spend, during
this past week, at least one hour engaged in the discourse that has occurred. The
process is not so much focused on mere information, but assisting the public in developing
a consensus of opinion that will determine if the President is fit to continue in
office. The legal process of the report being turned over to Congress for them to
determine if impeachment proceedings should proceed, is the front story, while the
real story is being developed with polling companies attempting to gauge the views
of the public, who ultimately will determine the outcome. In some ways, we are witnessing
the legitimising of a new form of democracy.
The word “democracy” is a Greek term meaning quite simply “government” by the “people”
and in the practice of ancient Greeks that meant direct involvement. No elected
officials acting on the citizen’s behalf, but the citizen himself engaging in debate
and with his vote, determining what shall happen. The British version of “democracy”
is known as “representative democracy,” as the voter participates by selecting, with
a ballot, those people who will act on his behalf. The Americans modified the process
slightly, by removing the monarch from the process and having the public vote on
the president as well as the representatives. But this issue brings to a head a
practice that has been going on both in Europe and North America for several decades,
government by “poll”. In this form of democracy the voter is sampled and the opinion
scientifically measured and duly reported, then the elected representative legislators
enact the results. We have known that this informal process has been going on, but
the “Starr Report” formalised the process with the release of the report and the
media getting into the process so effectively to help the public develop a consencous,
a shared agreed upon decision.
The crux of the case Mr. Starr makes against the President is a legal
one, that the President committed perjury, (lied under oath) about his personal conduct.
But the media reports and the focus for the public is the sexual behaviour of the
man, William Clinton. There is little doubt that new ground is being broken in the
case, the envelope of public and private life of elected officials has been expanded
and the reflection of societal values of this era are being tested. Two important
changes have occurred in the past two decades that change radically the view society
has of itself. Women have moved effectively and assertively into the male preserve
of journalism and their influence is being felt as their perspective is being reported
and weighed with equal gravity. The second factor is that during the last decade,
North American society has come to a conclusion that marriage is “good” and nuclear
family life is to be highly valued. These two factors combine together in this story
and no matter what the lawyers say, the evaluation is being based on issues of sex
and sexuality.