Should we hold them Accountable?

Today in Washington the US buries a former President, Gerald Ford, whom history is likely to remember most for two things. First, he ascended to the White House following the resignation of the most disgraced President in the nation's history, Richard Nixon. Second, he then gave Nixon a blanket executive pardon that shielded him from any and all legal attempts to prosecute him for the abuses of power that forced his resignation.

Last Saturday the US-installed government in Iraq took a very different course for dealing with its deposed leader. Following his conviction for genocide and other crimes committed under his government, Saddam Hussein was sent to his death at the end of a noose in a Baghdad gallows.

Last month, here in Latin America, the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, went to his grave of natural causes at age 91, having escaped full prosecution for massive human rights violations he committed during his reign.

All of this raises a basic political question. If our political leaders break laws or commit abuses of power during their time in office, should they be held accountable and how? This is not an issue of historical or abstract interest. In fact, it is direct and current issue in both the US and Bolivia.

Should US President George W. Bush be impeached for misleading the nation into war and for carrying out illegal spying on US citizens?

Should former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada be forcibly returned to Bolivia from the US to stand trial for human rights abuses committed under his orders?

Is It Just A Matter Of Extremities?

It would be easy to say that Saddam Hussein is simply in a different category of inhumanity. Even many people from the US who despised Nixon will be quick to say that their offenses were different (torture and mass murder vs. illegal wiretaps, for example). But the "it has to be a really big crime" argument isn't really much of a defense against impeaching President Bush. Many of those who would be the first to make the case against a Bush impeachment over falsified intelligence that led the US to war were the same people who argued that President Bill Clinton be impeached for lying under oath about sex. Is there really anyone left who would argue with a straight face that the offenses that led to the Clinton impeachment are even comparable to the potential charges against Bush?

Is Leaving Office in Disgrace Enough?

That was the argument that President Ford gave that October Saturday in 1974 when he pardoned Richard Nixon. He told the nation that it was time for the people to put Watergate behind them and move on, and that pardoning Nixon was aimed to avoid putting the US through a polarizing prosecution. Nixon was free to stroll San Clemente beach legally unthreatened. Disgrace, we were informed, was punishment enough. What message did that send to those who followed him to office?

"Well, He Did A Lot Of Good Things Too."

This is one of the arguments we hear a lot of from backers of former President Sanchez de Lozada. This anonymous comment on our Blog is typical, "Sanchez de Lozada saved more lives with his health programs (SUMI) and the Bonosol than any other President. He has done more reforms than any President including Evo."

Aside from the fact that a good many Bolivians would challenge the "Goni was a great president" view, even if it were true does that give an executive licence to then do anything else he or she wants? Would success with Bonosol mean that we should excuse Sanchez de Lozada from prosecution for his government opening fire on the people of Warisata in October 2003 (in efforts to repress protests against an unpopular gas export plan) killing innocent citizens including a seven year old girl?

It's Not Good Politics.

This is the essential argument that Democratic leaders gave when they pledged, before the November election, that they would have no part in any effort to investigate President Bush for impeachment. The accountability door for Bush was closed shut because Democrats fear that opening it would make them look too partisan. I am sure they are right. They don't spend millions on focus groups and polling for nothing. But it still raises the same question. Shouldn't the decsion of whether to impeach the President be based on the law instead of politics?

If there is subtantial evidence that George Bush committed impeachable offenses, why should that not be investigated, legally and reasonably? If the Bolivian government (before Evo Morales) made a legal decsion that Sanchez de Lozada should return to Bolivia for questioning in connection with charges against him, why should the US refuse to honor that request for return?

Accountability should reside somewhere in that wide political space in between grainy pictures of an execution shot with a hidden cell phone and a pardon that let crimes go unpunished. Accountability means that political leaders, in any country, should know that the mere fact of their office is not a defense against abuses.