There’s No “I” in Democracy

When there’s nothing left to do but impeach, how does it affect our nation’s democracy?

By Isabel Teitelbaum

With the last impeachment 20 years in the past, a large number of people are unfamiliar with the process and how it can affect a nation’s sense of democracy, leading to many questions: are the president's actions severe enough for impeachment? Is impeachment democratic? Is it politically motivated? Will the American people support a push for impeachment?

During Clinton’s and Johnson’s terms, the Senate chose not to remove an impeached president from office to prevent further damage to the country, arguing that impeachment should only be used in egregious circumstances. Dan Myers, an assistant political science professor who specializes in political communication and deliberative democratic theory, explained that Congress has a variety of other ways to constrain the president’s behaviors that fall short of impeachment, including its ability to reject federal appointments, deny the funds a president desires, and override a presidential veto.

Impeachable offenses are not limited to illegal activity, nor does illegal activity always constitute an impeachable offense. According to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Because a president operates within a different set of rules than the public, there is room for interpretation of what defines a high crime or misdemeanor, which can cause conflict within Congress.

The argument has been made that impeachment itself is illegitimate and therefore undemocratic. The idea is that officials are elected by the people and Congress shouldn’t have the power to remove them. Some believe the current impeachment inquiry is an attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election. 

Chad Hermes, president of the Law School Dems student group, responded to this argument, saying the impeachment process is democratic because it’s decided by an elected Congress. People voted to put those government officials in their positions, as opposed to judges and appointed officials. If constituents don’t agree with how their representative voted during the impeachment process, they have the power to put someone new in office in the next election.

John Coleman, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and political science professor, said that leaving impeachment requirements open to Congress’s interpretation is necessary. He worries that specific requirements would be met too easily and would lead to more impeachment attempts. 

To Myers, it’s clear that members of Congress are in a position where they’re more informed and active in impeachment cases than the average person. A lot of their job is using that knowledge to decide how someone should act in their position.

“To me, that’s where the question of democracy particularly comes in—when we know there is an electoral option possible,” Coleman said. “Under what conditions should that be short-circuited with the impeachment process?” 

But, “while impeachment is kind of a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ procedure, there's still several elements of the democratic process within it,” Hermes said. It is necessary, he added, to have some means of removing a federal official before the end of their term. Hermes offers a solution to the argument that impeachment is undemocratic by pointing out the possibility of removing or changing the impeachment clause through the amendment process if people are unhappy with it. 

Congress’ views have little to do with impeachment, Timothy Johnson, a political science and law professor, said. Members of Congress are vessels through which the Constitution acts to hold officials accountable. It’s their duty, he said, to investigate if officials display signs of abuse of power. To the question of whether impeachment is democratic or undemocratic, Johnson answered, “It’s neither. It’s actually just part of the Constitution.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, supports the impeachment inquiry. “We have a constitutional duty to follow the facts,” she said, “and I cannot think of anything more important right now that we have to do.” She calls attention to James Madison’s words from the Constitutional Convention. Madison was fearful that the president might one day betray our country to a foreign power for their own gain.

This takes us back to when the Constitution was created and how it was intended to be applied. Democracy means “rule by the people,” according to political science professor Lisa Hilbink, whose research and teaching focus on democratization and judicial role in democracy. Hilbink pointed out it’s important to know who “the people” are and how they “rule” before we can define what makes a democracy.

Myers said that people often interpret “democracy” as whatever the majority of people voted for, and added that it is a very simplistic understanding of what it means to be a constitutional democracy. 

Our democracy, Hilbink explained, was designed with the recognition that what the people of one state want may differ from what the people of another state want, “and that any majority constituted at the national level should not be allowed to trample on or eliminate the rights of the minority.”

This provokes the question—“Is the duty of a representative to go up there and literally represent what their constituents would do,” Myers said, “or is the duty of the representative to exercise independent judgement and do what they think is best, or in this case what they think best fulfills the constitutional duty they’re supposed to carry out?”

“As has become very clear over the past several years, what keeps our democracy running smoothly are not detailed rules,” Hilbink said, “but rather, informal norms—of honesty, respect for political rivals and opponents, and forbearance.”

While the impeachment process has not changed, the society during which we apply it has. The political climate has become more polarized in recent years. Myers and Johnson both believe we can’t separate political environment from impeachment attempts, which are sometimes linked to policy disagreement. During Clinton’s impeachment inquiry, there were 31 Democrats who voted in favor. During Trump’s impeachment inquiry, one Republican spoke in favor. Today the line between Democrats and Republicans is more palpable than ever. It’s rare for a politician to stray from their party, regardless of the issue. In some situations, the divide can go as far as people choosing party loyalty over listening to the facts. 

Political scientists have a term that can describe the current political climate: “regime cleavage”. It is a divide in the population caused by disagreement over the governing system—the constitutional democracy. What used to be arguments over partisan issues has morphed into the question of democracy itself. 

The way news outlets cover the impeachment process has changed as well. For the most recent impeachment hearings, most news stations are providing updates every couple of hours, some all day, with limited commercial breaks. It’s the most involved citizens have ever been during an impeachment. A rough transcript of the president’s phone call with the Ukranian president and testimonies from the impeachment inquiry were made available to the public. Johnson believes this may cause constituents to pressure their representatives to vote a certain way.

Impeachment remains one of many checks and balances that is rarely used and often threatened. Many members of Congress who have done interviews on the current impeachment hearings emphasize how important the support of the people is.

The more constituents care, the more pressure will be placed on the House and the Senate to move forward. The impeachment process signals a loss of belief in our leader and creates a divide among the people. While few relish impeaching an official, it’s a necessary part of keeping a balanced government. Impeachment is recognizing that our president made a decision that has harmed the people he leads.