Israel has often looked to the United States for new models and ideas, particularly in the realm of politics. In the past ten years, America's presidential system, with fixed terms of office and a balance of power between different branches of government, seemed more efficient than the parliamentary system based on party lists and a government of constantly shifting coalitions. Looking to the U.S., the Knesset adopted a semi-presidential system, and in the 1996 elections, the Prime Minister was chosen by direct popular vote. In addition, the new law made it more difficult for the Knesset to bring down the government. The result was supposed to create a more stable and efficient government.

Now, the flaws in the American system have become apparent. When, as in the cases of Clinton or Nixon, a president's behavior disqualifies him (or her) from occupying the most important and powerful office in the world, the U.S. is paralyzed. The impeachment of the President is a long drawn-out process, during which much of the business of government is suspended. In a parliamentary system, such as exists in most Western European states, a simple majority vote can force a Prime Minister to resign, either to be replaced by a new leader from the majority party or coalition, or triggering new elections. If the U.S. used such as system, Clinton would have been evicted from the White House months ago, and Al Gore, or perhaps some other figure from the Democratic Party would have become President, at least until elections were held.

As it is, the sordid details of Clinton's personal life and his legal entanglements have overwhelmed the substance of American policy, leading to a steep decline in leadership. Without a functioning president, concentrating efforts and focusing government policy on critical issues, the U.S. is unable to act effectively in preventing crises, or in response to threats, including terrorist attacks against its embassies. (Indeed, the lack of American resolve in apprehending the terrorists responsible for the 1996 bombing of the U.S. military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia may be a factor in the recent bombings in Africa.) Clinton's scandals have led to equivocation in dealing with Saddam Hussein, and reports indicate that the Administration urged the inspectors to avoid confrontation with Iraq while the president was "preoccupied". Similarly, even if he goes to Russia, as scheduled, next month, Clinton is unlikely to convince Boris Yeltsin to tighten control on Russian military exports to Iran.

According to the textbooks, the office of the Presidency and the powerful mechanism of government, is far more important than the personality or peccadilloes of the individual who occupies that office at any time. As a result, the government should continue to function, regardless of the personal scandals and problems in the White House itself. For example, the Departments of State and Defense should be making and executing policy, promoting America's vital interests around the world, even though Clinton himself is distracted. Preparations for attacking Iraq, or against those countries that provided assistance to the terrorists in the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam should be continuing, without interruption.

However, it is clear that the theory is not reflected in the political realities. The officials in the Clinton Administration are clearly demoralized, embarrassed by Washington's soap operas. In the decision to launch a military attack, and to gain both domestic and international support, the U.S. needs a visible leader. Reagan may have been a passive president, allowing the officials and advisors to make most of the decisions, but he was a master at bringing those decisions to the public. A president must be able to talk to other leaders without embarrassing silences on the other end, and to convince the U.S. public that military action and the possible consequences, in terms of potential casualties, is justified. For all of his difficulties, in 1991, George Bush fulfilled this obligation and did his job successfully, and even Clinton seemed to thrive in this public role, and was widely admired in Israel, until the scandals became too deep to ignore.

It is difficult to imagine Clinton regaining this ability during the two years and a half years that are left of his term. This means that unless he resigns or is impeached, for all intents and purposes, the U.S. will appear paralyzed and unable to lead the world or respond with force until at least January 2001.

According to opinion polls, the American public, which is generally satisfied with Clinton's domestic and economic policies, is not demanding impeachment or the President's resignation. If this does not change, the implication is that America's allies, and Israel, in particular, must not assume that the U.S. will respond to threats, even to protect vital interests.

From this perspective, both the president and the presidential system have lost their halos. Leaders, whether kings, prime ministers, party secretaries, or presidents, are all human beings, and many that reach the top also have fundamental character flaws that impede their ability to lead once they get there. Perhaps the Israeli system, which attempts provide stable and efficient leadership but also reminds officials of their vulnerability, is a better form of government.