US faces constitutional dilemmas on Iraq

Battle of wills: "Do not test my will." This warning goes out from US President George Bush to Congress. In other words, the battle of wills between the Executive and legislative arms of government in the "world's mightiest democracy" is beginning to hot-up, yielding disturbing consequences for the rest of the world.

Reports said that the US President had invited Republican and Democratic Party leaders to a discussion on finding a way out of a legislative impasse which could arise as a result of his vetoing a bill approved by Congress which links 124 billion dollars in war funds to a troop withdrawal from Iraq, beginning October 1. Bush also said that he would be vetoing any subsequent attempts by Congress to set a deadline for a US troop withdrawal.

"If the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one," Bush was quoted telling the press. As has been pointed out before in this column, we are seeing the working out of a most absorbing constitutional tangle in this battle of wills between the most vital arms of government in the US, which are both popularly elected and, therefore, directly accountable to the people.

Given the considerable popular opposition to the war in the US and the passing of the bill, even narrowly, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the question would be to decide whose will should prevail: the President's or that of the Congress?

Another way of broaching the same issue would be to question how legitimate the President's veto would be, considering that Congress too reflects a substantial segment of public opinion; in this case popular opposition to the war.

These, then, are the constitutional dilemmas posed by the Presidential system of government, even when it operates within a democratic framework and is theoretically highly participatory in nature.

The defenders of the system may argue that the constitution has to prevail above all else and that in terms of the US constitution, a Presidential decree or veto carries overriding authority. On the other hand, it could be argued that the system of government derives its validity from the people's will and it ceases to enjoy a democratic identity if the political Executive is no longer sensitive to the popular will.

On the face of it, the US political Executive could be said to be no longer fully representative of public opinion, particularly on the issue of the war, in view of the fact that Congress is dominated by the Democrats and the latter swept to power on a strong anti-war sentiment.

Further complicating these constitutional dilemmas are revelations by former CIA Director George Tenet that there was no "serious debate" within the Republican administration on the advisability of the US invading Iraq in 2003.

If this pronouncement is true, it too reflects on the highly undemocratic nature of the decision making process within the US Executive. If it is true, it only lends credence to the view that the decision to invade Iraq was only the overwhelming wish of a handful of "hawks" in the Bush administration.

US House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi's decision to visit Syria recently in defiance of the Executive, is proof that a crisis of governance has steadily taken hold of the US. Ironically, the best way forward was suggested by the US President himself.

That is, consensual decision-making among party leaders.