Saturday, July 17, 2004

Postponing general election would be a bad idea

guest column

Don Clewett

Last week this nation turned 228 years old. In that time, we have been through two world wars, a civil war, the Great Depression, the Cold War and numerous periods of civil strife. We have had presidents who were assassinated, impeached, or who resigned. At many times our democracy has been threatened from forces both outside the country, and within, but we have always managed to come through.

Now, for the first time in our history, there is discussion of postponing a presidential election, because of the danger of a terrorist attack. The fear is that al-Qaida or some other group will conduct an attack in hopes of influencing the election, as recently happened in Spain. The suggestion is that Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, be allowed to postpone the election if the threat of a terrorist attack is too high. Presumably, the election would be rescheduled for some future date, when the threat was less imminent. But, what would this mean for our country?

First, it would be a victory for the terrorists. By causing us to postpone the election, the terrorists would have succeeded in their desire to make us change our way of life. By abandoning 200 years of history and tradition, we would show the terrorists that we were afraid of them and that they were really winning the "war on terrorism." They would see that they have more influence over us than any previous threat in history, and this would encourage them to even bolder acts of terrorism.

Second, postponing the election would be a sign of political weakness and instability to the rest of the world. Nations who cancel or postpone elections are often in the midst of crisis and close to revolution or a coup d'etat. Businesses see the postponement of an election as a sign of unsettled times, and countries that have trouble with elections suffer in both trade and credit. How stable would we seem to our allies if suddenly they couldn't trust that we could conduct an election?

And last, postponing or canceling the election of the president sets a dangerous precedent for the future. The suggestion is that we give one man, Tom Ridge, the power to decide whether or not there should be an election, and when it might become safe to have one. All this power would rest with one man, contrary to the Constitution, history and founding principles of this nation.

At the end of the Roman Republic, elections were cancelled and leaders kept in office longer than their terms due to "national emergencies." Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Gaius Marius both postponed elections and set precedents that allowed Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus to kill the republic. Rome became ruled by emperors.

Clearly this is a bad idea. Let's not let history repeat itself.

Don Clewett is a resident of Socorro.

E-mail this story Printer-friendly version