Hindustan Times (Patiala)

An exit strategy

Impeachmen­t doesn’t usually imply confirmed guilt or loss of office. It’s a first step towards a kind of trial

- SHASHI THAROOR

The word ‘impeach’ is very much in the news, thanks to the decision of the US House of Representa­tives to formally impeach the President of the United States and bring him to trial before the Senate.This has only happened twice before in US history, with the unsuccessf­ul impeachmen­ts of Presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 (not counting the abortive attempt against President Richard Nixon, which he pre-empted by resigning first), and the impeachmen­t of Donald Trump seems likely to meet the same fate, given his party’s resounding majority in the Senate. But where does the word, with its rather fruity sound, come from?

French, it turns out. In that lovely language, ‘empecher’ means ‘to hinder, stop, impede; capture, trap, ensnare ’, and that’ s precisely what the English‘ impeachmen­t’ seeks to do. In law, from the late 14th century, it meant broadly “to accuse, bring charges against”, but soon enough it was used to refer specifical­ly to the king or the House of Commons, to bring a formal accusation­of treason, misconduct or other high crime against a holder of a high public office.

Still, the word can also be used to refer to any person; if you are accused of mis representi­ng facts, for instance, you may draw yourself to your full est height, pierce your accuser with a furious st are, and ask ,“How dare you impeach my credibilit­y?”

But a formal impeachmen­t is the first step to dismissing an official from his office. There’s some confusion in most minds about which part of that process the word ‘imp each’ relates to. To make it clear, when a public official is impeached, this only means he has been charged, not convicted and removed from office. The US President may be impeached by the House of Representa­tives, but then must be convicted by the Senate.

The House of Representa­tives draws up articles of impeachmen­t that itemise the charges and their factual basis. The articles of impeachmen­t, if approved by a simple majority of members of the House, are then submitted to the Senate, thereby impeaching the President. The Senate then holds a trial, at the conclusion of which each member votes for or against conviction on each article of impeachmen­t.

Two-thirds of the Senate members present must vote in favour of conviction. Once convicted, the President is automatica­lly removed from office. This has never happened in the US, but has in a few Latin American countries, when maverick Presidents­ran a foul of legislatur­e s which were in the hands of establishe­d political parties.

Impeaching someone sets in motion a legal process that mayor may not conclude wrongdoing has taken place. Since that decision is made, in the US as in India, by legislator­s rather than judges, it is always a political rather than a judicial verdict. That is why it may not make much sense to resort to it unless you’ re sure before hand that you have the numbers to prevail.

President Andrew Johnson was acquitted by one vote of violating the previous year’s Tenure of Office Act. President Bill Clinton was acquitted by a much larger margin, of charges of perjury and obstructin­g justice in relation to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. President Richard Nixon, however, re signed to avoid inevitable impeachmen­t for the Water gate scandal, and was granted an unconditio­nal pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford. The chances of President Trump finding a two-thirds majority against him ina Republican-dominated Senate are widely seen as close to zero.

The British have not impeached anybody since the famous impeachmen­t of Warren Hastings for his misconduct in India as the East India Company’s Governor-General. At the time, impeachmen­t was the trial of an individual by the House of Lords at the request of the House of Commons and was often used as a way to fight out battles between Crown and Parliament.

The British Parliament gave up the practice officially in 1806, partly because high profile trials like that of Hastings( which dragged on for seven years but ended in acquittal), were considered to have brought it into disrepute. The Indian Parliament can also impeach high officials, including the President and judges; it has never done so, its attempts to impeach a judge having prompted that individual’s premature resignatio­n. Because impeachmen­t and conviction of officials involve the over turning of the normal constituti­onal procedures by which individual­s achieve high office( election, ratificati­on, or appointmen­t) and because it generally requires a two-thirds or similar majority, impeachmen­t is usually reserved for those considered to have committed serious abuses of their public position. Impeachmen­t exists under constituti­onal law in many countries, including, aside from the US and India, Brazil, France, Ireland, the Philippine­s, Russia and South Korea (which recently successful­ly impeached and jailed a President for corruption).

 ?? SHUTTERSTO­CK ??
SHUTTERSTO­CK
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India