Can democracy survive George W. Bush?

Second, at all times have strong presidencies eventually been followed by weaker ones, indicating that maximalist implementations of executive powers do not stay irreversible forever and can be undone.

Three, maximalism is not the privilege of one party. Strong presidents have arisen on both sides of the political divide throughout history. This is significant, because it points towards the fundamental nature of the unitary executive principle. Across the board, it seems accepted that under the Constitution American presidents commit to executing their full powers (above all in times of emergency!).

And finally, it is worth reiterating that the unitary executive does not operate in a vacuum, for it is balanced by the branches of government that are the legislative and the judicial. One even could argue that a strong executive branch is conducive to a strong Congress, and a strong system of judicial review especially. And as has been the case before, so too President Bush now faces opposition from the other branches of power.

Most recently, the Republicans lost both the house and the senate to the Democrats in the mid-term elections of 2006. Such a "thumping" as Bush himself called the defeat, is important, because congress influences both domestic law-making and the President's foreign policy.

So, with both chambers in the hands of the Democratic party, Bush is likely to see a few levers pulled over his unending “war on terror” and its subsequent unilateralism.

The fact that John Bolton did not win a reappointment to his seat as America's ambassador to the United Nations is indicative in that respect. Equally telling, though perhaps linked more to the politics of symbolism than to the immediate poll-results as such, is the resignation of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from the Pentagon.

Even before the mid-term elections, in September, The Economist noted that "The Senate says no to Mr Bush", as Bush's proposed bill to submit suspected terrorists to “alternative interrogation techniques” (aka torture) and military hearings only, was rebuffed by a group of, notably, Republican senators lead by John McCain.

Also, in June the United States Supreme Court ruled that Bush's special military tribunals for suspected foreign terrorists are illegal under the Geneva Conventions ànd military law. (Hamdan v Rumsfeld). This rule is relevant not just to the president's leeway in international affairs, but possibly also on the domestic level, as the Supreme Court's decision threatens implosion for Bush's legal arguments with regard to domestic warrantless wiretapping. In any case, it is clear that the court is reigning in the commander-in-chief, reaffirming its ultimate authority over constitutional matters.

Democracy?

As Jeffrey Rosen remarks in his discussion of the Hamdan case in his article Bush's Leviathan State:

In this sense, Bush’s extremism may have ultimately weakened executive power in the same way Clinton did when the Supreme Court rejected his sweeping assertions of executive privilege in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. By taking implausibly aggressive positions before the Supreme Court, both presidents precipitated a judicial backlash that left their own authority diminished. And that may be the ultimate irony that both sides failed to anticipate.

It is this practice of constant realignment between all three branches of government that counterbalances abuse. Which indicates that the system of checks and balances as grounded in the Constitution is still up and running. Stepping back somewhat, it becomes clear that “the People” govern to the extent that the system they devised remains operational. Only if the system fails, democracy fails.

If the political history of the United States has shown the role of the people diminished at times, or the role of the president inflated, that same history also reveals quick inversions and landslide changes that topple existing balances of power.

So too today. The system still stands. President Bush's legacy is far from inconsequential, but far from detrimental. His tenure as a “war president” may even help invigorate democracy, for opposite the threat of silence stands the challenge of speaking more convincingly, more clearly.