Currently 69% of Americans disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing. This poll amounts to a vote of no confidence by the American people over the haphazard policies of his current administration.

But the poll is all for show, in reality the public has no direct way to fire the leader they elected. If a poll came out tomorrow and 99% of Americans said they disapproved of the president, it would still have no bearing on his removal from office. Instead the public is forced to wait through untold amounts of backwards policies until the next election can remedy the mistake.

Congress is the only body that can act to remove a president from office and to do so they must act through the complicated framework of the Articles of Impeachment. These paper-tiger articles have succeeded a grand total of zero times in removing a sitting president from office.

This must be changed. A democratic country with the most powerful military in the world should allow the people and the legislature to have an effective check on the sitting executive. It’s time to develop a more effective system to punish gross political incompetence.

Our country would do well to take a look across the pond at our British friends and their sparsely used yet immensely powerful “Motion of No Confidence” as a way to dismiss leaders that are ineffective.

In the U.K. the House of Commons has the ability to call for a vote that assess’ the political party in power. The vote essentially asks the legislative branch, “Do you have confidence in the current executive.” If the majority of those present vote against the ruling government in power, then the sitting Prime Minister must resign or call for a new general election.

Now that is real congressional oversight. So much for non-binding resolutions and political posturing- if the head of state is doing a bad job they get tossed out of office.

Based on his lack of support, if George W. Bush were the Prime Minister of the UK rather than President of the U.S. he would have been dismissed long ago by a vote of no confidence passed in the legislative branch. This vote would likely have been triggered by a congress compelled to act by outraged constituents; the very same constituents that currently give the president horrendous approval ratings in public opinion polls.

Now some might worry that this privilege would be used as a partisan tool to frequently dismiss leaders, and that this would lead to more ineffective government. This is a reasonable concern but history proves quite the opposite: only three U.K. ministers were dismissed using the process in the last century.

The no confidence vote was last effectively used against Prime Minister James Callaghan in 1979 who lost the vote 311-310 and was forced to call for a new general election. Callaghan was succeeded by opposition party rival Margaret Thatcher, who served with distinction as prime minister for 11 years.

Until the day when Congress steps up to the plate and puts a more effective check on the executive branch, public disapproval will mean little to second term presidents like George W. Bush, who last week made more total appearances on “American Idol” and “Deal or No Deal” than he has made in eight years to the West Bank.

In the mean time Americans turn to countdown clocks and calendars to tick down the moments until Bush leaves office. In doing so the public has resigned itself to tolerating an inefficient system rather than challenging one of its fundamental flaws: creating an effective ability to ouster an incompetent executive whose policies are setting the country backwards for decades to come.

Jim Baird is the managing editor of EconomyInCrisis.org. He will be attending graduate school at The London School of Economics.

Front Page Photo by Hyougushi- Flickr © Some rights reserved

Subject
Comment
	Are you human? Please type the letters in the picture below to make sure you're not spam. Please include your e-mail below if you wish to receive a reply (will be kept anonymous): E-mail editor@economyincrisis.org if this isn't working.

Article Comments From Readers