1 2 3 4
As a normally aware individual of world events, almost every adult has spend, during this past week, at least one hour engaged in the discourse that has occurred. The process is not so much focused on mere information, but assisting the public in developing a consensus of opinion that will determine if the President is fit to continue in office. The legal process of the report being turned over to Congress for them to determine if impeachment proceedings should proceed, is the front story, while the real story is being developed with polling companies attempting to gauge the views of the public, who ultimately will determine the outcome. In some ways, we are witnessing the legitimising of a new form of democracy.

The word “democracy” is a Greek term meaning quite simply “government” by the “people” and in the practice of ancient Greeks that meant direct involvement. No elected officials acting on the citizen’s behalf, but the citizen himself engaging in debate and with his vote, determining what shall happen. The British version of “democracy” is known as “representative democracy,” as the voter participates by selecting, with a ballot, those people who will act on his behalf. The Americans modified the process slightly, by removing the monarch from the process and having the public vote on the president as well as the representatives. But this issue brings to a head a practice that has been going on both in Europe and North America for several decades, government by “poll”. In this form of democracy the voter is sampled and the opinion scientifically measured and duly reported, then the elected representative legislators enact the results. We have known that this informal process has been going on, but the “Starr Report” formalised the process with the release of the report and the media getting into the process so effectively to help the public develop a consencous, a shared agreed upon decision.

The crux of the case Mr. Starr makes against the President is a legal one, that the President committed perjury, (lied under oath) about his personal conduct. But the media reports and the focus for the public is the sexual behaviour of the man, William Clinton. There is little doubt that new ground is being broken in the case, the envelope of public and private life of elected officials has been expanded and the reflection of societal values of this era are being tested. Two important changes have occurred in the past two decades that change radically the view society has of itself. Women have moved effectively and assertively into the male preserve of journalism and their influence is being felt as their perspective is being reported and weighed with equal gravity. The second factor is that during the last decade, North American society has come to a conclusion that marriage is “good” and nuclear family life is to be highly valued. These two factors combine together in this story and no matter what the lawyers say, the evaluation is being based on issues of sex and sexuality.