The trial of former President Trump as a coup-proofing strategy to save American democracy.
There are two ways to save American democracy: one is voting, and the other one is in the courts.
Former President Donald Trump needs to be held accountable. If past experiences from other countries can be seen as a cautionary tale, the demise of democracy in Venezuela started with the failed coup led by Hugo Chavez in 1992. The political system was shaken, and democratic institutions were caught off guard. With the hope of bringing the country together, Chavez was spared by President Rafael Caldera from facing justice with the dismissal of his trial for military rebellion. Chavez was left with his political rights intact, leaving him on the path to winning the 1998 presidential election. This consequential decision continues to be considered among the causes of the breakdown of Venezuelan democracy. Chavez's political project successfully began dismantling the democratic institutional framework, replacing it with a formal and informal power arrangement that makes it impossible to overcome the current authoritarian drift the country is experiencing.
In the 2020 Presidential Election, the United States experienced a civilian attempt to overturn the result of a free and fair election, according to not only the Trump Administration Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency overseeing the election infrastructure but even the Fox News chair recognized the results in court, despite their dissemination of baseless fraud allegations. The former president not only questioned the results of the presidential election but, as we have learned from the January 6th House Select Committee findings and the most recent indictment by the Special Counsel, there were concerted efforts to disregard President Biden's legitimate votes. The calls for avoiding a trial of a former president will not save American democracy. On the contrary, if there is a path to prevent further institutional deterioration, having the former president face justice is part of the remedy. Otherwise, it could increase democratic erosion and the possibility of a successful repetition soon.
However, the view that American democracy does not benefit from trying the former president since it would be seen as a judgment on the presidency itself and not the former office occupant has been a central part of the current debate. This is the same argument that prevented Richard Nixon from facing justice after the Watergate scandal, paving the way for more egregious behavior from a sitting president.
On the other hand, it is undoubtedly an unprecedented event to have a former president sitting as an indicted individual facing accusations of the intent to subvert the political order by ignoring the result of an election. The unchartered territory expression seems insufficient to reflect this shift in the post-presidency treatment Americans are used to knowing. Nevertheless, it should be seen as a consequence of the disdain for democratic values and principles exhibited by the former president, which has trickled down through the political system.
The argument against holding a former president accountable for anti-democratic behavior fails to justify the gains from such measure as an effort to preserve democracy by upholding the power of the Office. On the contrary, this only weakens the system, leaving it more vulnerable to the next attempt to subvert the democratic order by taking advantage of the lack of justice. The only way to prevent another authoritarian power grab is to punish the attempted overturn of a democratic election.
In this case, the coup-proofing measures are not designed for the military but for the civilian world. The institutional mechanism to prevent the next attempt to overturn an election result by a discontent electorate is to hold those responsible for orchestrating, abetting, and carrying on the false accusations of electoral fraud, assault on the Capitol, and interfering with a constitutional procedure before a jury of their peers. Even the shortest sentences are lessons for those who participated and a warning for those who continue to underestimate democratic institutions.
There are two ways to save American democracy: one is voting, and the other one is in the courts.
Photo by Sora Shimazaki