We are certainly neither friends nor fans
of US President Donald Trump. Yet it is impossible to pore over accounts of his
now daily afflictions – mounting to possible impeachment when he is just over
100 days (!) into a four-year term – without reflecting on the role of the Deep
State in the operation and governance of the American res publica (Latin for republic, literally “public thing”). It just
so happens that Trump’s travails provide a unique illustration of the way in
which the Deep State operates and governs what is supposedly a “republic” from
behind the screen of the Constitution. Imagine – just imagine for a mad moment –
that instead of a nutcase like Trump we actually had in the Oval Office a
President who matched in zeal and purpose a reformist agenda as Trump is
pursuing his own clearly reckless self-serving and deluded one. If you just
bear with us for a few moments to entertain this “thought exercise” – then you
will see quite clearly how constrained such a reformist President would be in
his reformist path by the very Constitution that grants him such enormous
powers in his (or her) office. (For further research on this, see the insuperable
works by ES Corwin and R. Hofstadter on the American presidency.)
As we argued in an earlier intervention
quite recently, the Constitution sets out the formal relation of certain institutions (the Executive, the Judiciary
and the Legislature) to one another. But no constitution can prescribe who the
exact person that occupies a particular office actually is or will be and what
the precise actions that they take are or will be! And because no written
document is ever exempt from “interpretation”, it is clear that “constitutional
practice” or “tradition” or “protocol” is inseparable from the written text of
the constitution. (Great Britain, for instance, never had a written
constitution.)
What we are witnessing with Trump is
exactly this process whereby the interpretation of a variety of actions by the
current President depends clearly not on his stated intentions, but rather on
the common assumptions of an entire network of office-bearers who occupy the
myriad institutional positions that form both the Administration (the
Executive) and the other two branches of government (Congress and the
Judiciary). There is no cut-and-dried definition of “constitutional practice”;
nor are there clear boundaries between all these institutions. The functioning
of the Constitution depends on implicit
behavioural assumptions that take a myriad divers forms until they converge
into a given “consensus” (literally, “common direction”).
So here is the rub; here is the kernel of
the question; here is the crux: who
exactly decides on what this “consensus” is? How is a consensus reached when it
comes to interpreting the practical operation of constitutional rules? For
it is at this point that the clear evidence emerges that this consensus is
arrived at by means of various institutional “checks and balances” that are
always and inescapably the province
of the various elites – the power elites – that rule America. As we are
witnessing quite clearly right now with Trump, the elites – not just the
leaders of the political parties, but also and above all the vast army of
personalities and leaders who occupy the most powerful positions in the American
“republic” (from the military to the industrial, even to the cultural, if one
looks at the culture industry, for instance, which is most powerful and
influential in the US) – these “power elites” all come utterly exclusively from
the “one per cent” that we all know and that we can identify just by looking at
their income tax returns!
The Constitution sets out the “formal”
boundaries and powers of each office-holder. But the content of what these office-holders do, and the interpretation of their actions, are all
subject to a very complex socio-political “informal” process of interaction
within and between the “power elites”. (On the concept of “power elite”, we can
go no further then C Wright Mills’s great homonymous work dating back to the
1960s. Indeed, the dearth of more recent scholarship simply reveals the extent
to which the American power elites have been able to stifle and suppress all
forms of countervailing socio-political and economic analyses since the 1960s
and early 1970s.)
The innumerable obstacles that Trump is
encountering in his maldextrous (insolently incompetent) running of the
Presidential office are indeed the same obstacles that even the ablest
President would encounter if his or her actions deviated from what the power
elites see consensually as their overriding interests. Doubtless, this informal
Constitution is what hampered Barack Obama right from the outset of his
presidential mandate. The power elites always seek to personify democratic
powers by concentrating them in the hands of very few “individuals”. On one
hand, this makes the exercise of these heavily concentrated powers very
dangerous for the bourgeoisie. Yet, on the other hand, the very fact that
constitutional powers are concentrated in the hands of very few “personalities”
or “leaders” means also that the bourgeoisie is better able to influence and
dictate decision-making and the operation of constitutional powers in its own “consensual”
interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment