The Dangers Of Impeachment In Office

The right of the people
The accountability of a leader is felt during the most challenging times of his governance. In a normal setting, the many reprobate violations perpetrated by leaders are enough to remove a person from office. In a political environment however, the situation is not so simple. The arduous process of impeaching a public official accused of crimes has not avoided the upper echelons of power as even presidents are culpable to impeachment. Presidents Clinton and Johnson withstood the worst of legislative action by being successfully inculpated only to be acquitted by the Senate. It is also worth noting that President Nixon also faced the wrath of the legislature, choosing to resign in the wake of the Watergate scandal subtly.
To date, it is astonishing that none of the accused heads of state have left office through impeachment, which speaks volumes about the inefficiency of the Senate-led process. As such, American citizens should be ascribed the direct power to impeach a failing president deemed wholly unsatisfactory by a majority of the public without seeking the Senate’s approval.
In the current era, the American political environment is more divided than ever, with some voicing their frustrations through endless demonstrations and online petitions to impeach the head of state. President Trump has faced backing and opposition in equal measure, especially with the increased scrutiny of his actions and presidential decrees. His contentious health programs, as well as immigration policies, are adding numbers to naysayers, who have stepped up their efforts to remove the belligerent leader from the White House. For instance, the deadly consequences of increased military incursions have led to the deaths, injury, and mental disorders of many Americans, who risk being exposed to further problems in the wake of President Trump’s decision to return the country to war (Lanham 2). Such scenes are echoed through his military efforts in Syria, which is facing minimal public support.
If the general public is incensed about the disastrous exploits of the head of state, their wish to denounce the president may fail to attract the concernment of Senate officials, especially if the Senate is compromised by a partisan majority, who are in favor of the President. In other words, removing a political leader could prove difficult in the current setup, especially after noting the complexity of underhand dealings, which rationally dictates the actuality of present day politics in Washington. Such problems could be quickly obliterated through a certified public vote, held to remove any reprehensible leader from power. It is coherent that since the public vote is crucial in putting a president in office, then the same power of the masses could swiftly orchestrate the removal of a head of state following substantiated reports of egregious abuse of power.
The Constitution holds that the removal of a presiding head of state follows treasonous acts, corruption, and other gross violations, which raise the debate about the definition of impeachable acts while in office (Sunstein 1).
It is understandable that impeachment is not a simple process since it has detrimental consequences if misused. The systematic dangers associated with the process can highly destabilize a government, especially in the wake of a powerful and liberated media freedom. The role of an American president in the international scene symbolizes national unity, both domestically and in the eyes of international partners. It is through the will of the people that impeachment will effectively influence leaders to abide by their
testimony.
The reality of partisan politics can easily dictate the course of action in the event of an impeachment process. It means in the current political environment; a republican-controlled Congress is wholly incapable of denunciating Donald Trump. A political party stands to lose ground in the event of an impeachment, which is the reason party leaders will do all they can do ensure the stay of an unsatisfactory head of state. It is these reasons that will make public impeachment credible, allowing the head of state and defunct parties through the door. Such claims are cemented by the view that the current Constitution is ambiguous on matters concerning impeachment (Pious 2). The complexity of the impeachment process holds that even if every Democrat unanimously voted to remove him, then they would still need a further 24 votes from government officials. Similarly, the Senate is also set for the same conundrum as the majority would need at least 19 more Senators crossing the floor. Such occasions are highly damaging to party politics, increasing the risks of party splintering.
An impeachment process dictated by the general public would avoid these damaging pitfalls to the political establishments, ensuring the will of the people prevails in the course of seeking an actionable leader. Such occasions would increase the accountability of many presidents who might feel untouchable due to long-standing alliances with party establishments. The nature of democracy is the protection of civil rights, which are part of the public vote. It is also notable that the grassroots are the significant changes in the quest to remove a sitting head of state. If the majority of Americans feel disenfranchised by the administration, then it is within their right to execute the impeachment process, provided the necessary protocols have been followed to the letter.
The credibility of mass appeal is unparalleled, especially in the wake of the technological revolution.
It means the impeachment process could easily go digital, allowing registered voters to submit their votes electronically. The proliferation of the internet has led many Americans, young and old alike to possess internet enabled devices, which could go a long way in changing the scope of the civilian population, especially in the wake of substantiated reports of voter suppression in major swing states (Zaller 1). The political environment filled with a techno-savvy population is well-placed to conduct online petitions and online campaigns through popular social media platforms. Such a process would markedly cheapen the impeachment process while at the same time allowing for maximized participation through internet portals only accessible during the voting days. Such systems could easily take advantage of electronic tallying systems, allowing for accurate and reliable results that initiate the removal of a defunct head of
state.
The need for a people-centered democratic process will go a long way in safeguarding the people’s interest as opposed to the current system in American society. It is through a popular vote that the people will be imposed on the political class and lead to effective governance and handling of national issues. The consequences of bad leadership are felt even by successive regimes underlining the need to have ethical leaders without blemishes. It is also notable that the political participation will increase following the realization that the single vote is potent enough to send a dwindling political establishment or proxy to obscurity. The presence of wealthy individuals in the political establishment risks developing cronyism, which is damaging to the credibility of national leadership.
The possibility of a publicly-driven impeachment process will increase the possibility of impeccable leadership being differentiated from mass support. Such scenes have been demonstrated by the success of referendums held in the wider international scene. The European Union is facing change in the political environment, owing to the unanimous decision by the British public to move away from the trading bloc. The resounding win of the leave faction and the political maturity demonstrated by the defeated faction cements the need for a people-driven impeachment process. If a serious move such as exiting the European Union was left at the hands of the general public, then it is fair to say that a people-drive impeachment process will also have the similar consequences, favorable to the nation at large. The government is funded by taxpayers, who should have a larger say in ensuring the accountability of its leaders. Such scenes set the stage for a rewarding political leadership that is well-versed with the risks of flagrant behavior.
On the other hand, the delegation of such powers to the general public risks diluting the gravity of the impeachment process. This is because the general public has not demonstrated the maturity to handle such tough political decisions, especially concerning the social change witnessed since independence. It is unfortunate that there are still acknowledged reports of civil rights violations, even in this modern age. The irresponsibility of the general public to openly voice racist or prejudiced sentiments against each other speaks volumes about the depravity of social and ethical justice. It is through this behavior that it would be ironical for an imperfect populace to impeach a leader simply because of a single violation. The same goes for the current political environment. Which is littered with racial undertones even in the online platforms. The numerous blogs and groups speaking vile about other demographics illustrate the decadence of the social environment, hinting that all is not well with the rising cases of even alleged shootings by public law enforcement officers.
It is also worth noting that that racist views openly disseminated by White Supremacist groups and their inclusion in the political arena speaks volumes about the electorate’s mindset, which is far below the level required by an astutely developed country with superlative resources like America. These reasons coupled with the fact that the grounds for impeachment are indefinite will make leading the nation a hard task, further reducing the nation’s already fading position in the geopolitical arena.
The right to freely dictate the accountability of the head of state should be ascribed to the general population, since they are the same stakeholders who put them in these positions of power. It is high time that the nation evolved its political systems, leading to an effervescent political environment that ensures all leaders are put to task instead of witnessing them riding out their terms in style. It is only through public participation that parties will be motivated to push for development as opposed to the current scenario where they are only looking after their interests. From the grassroots, it is crucial for individuals to actively participate in the removal of unscrupulous political leaders, which will go a long way in ensuring the stability of sober, mature, and conscientious political activities in mainstream political environments.

Works Cited

Lanham, T. “Trump: Syria Chemical Attack 'Crossed Many, Many Lives'; Trump On Taking New Action In Syria: 'You'll See'; Trump Says Syria 'Crossed.” International Wire, 2017.
Pious, Richard M. "The Constitutional and popular law of presidential impeachment." Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 4, 1998, pp. 806-815.
Sunstein, Cass R. "Impeaching the President." University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 147, no. 2, 1998, pp. 279-315.
Zaller, Robert. “To Impeach or not to Impeach.” Univerity Wire, Carlsbad, 2017.