Restoring the Faith: Etzioni is a sociology professor at Columbia...
COME INAUGURATION day, as far as one can foresee, the next President will not be preoccupied by a war, a cover-up or a recession, the three major Immediate sources of the nationÛªs self-doubt, loss of direction and crisis of confidence. Dealing with the deeper sources of the waning of ' legitimacy of our political system is much more difficult. Indeed, according to Max Weber, once the stock of legitimacy with' which a political system is endowed by its charismatic founders begins to run out, it cannot be replenished fronj within. Internal breakdown becomes inevitable. Eventually, a new charismatic movement arises which, in turn, evolves and legitimates a new regime.</br></br>Û÷ Other social scientists ÛÓ myself included ÛÓ have argued that a political system can relegitimate itself from within through reform movements. Examples, however, are admittedly few and not completely compelling. When Queen Victoria, successor to two weak kings, was crowned, the British monarchy was widely regarded as nearing its end. Victoria, under the influence of an intra-institutional charismatic, Disraeli, became a powerful leader, setting both a domestic climate and a foreign posture. Similarly, de Gaulle restored part of FranceÛªs lost legitimacy. Churchill revived British democracy,. paralyzed by Baldwin and Chamberlain. Andrew Jackson and FDR have been given similar credits in American history.</br></br>But these "precedentsÛªÛª have a common catch: the great leader, precisely by being charismatic and hence powerful, used means which undermined the government of laws while helping shore up other elements of its legitimacy and power. VictoriaÛªs main service was to the monarchy, not to parlla-mentarlanism; de Gaulle restored FranceÛªs sense of national pride hut helped weaken its parliamentary system; Churchill was viewed as a great wartime leader but too powerful to be kept in office after the war; Jackson was charged with "populism"; Roosevelt, with dictatorial tendencies.</br></br>AND YET the new President could contribute greatly to the government of law and constitutional democracy if he were to invest his charisma In support of the rules of the game rather than charging gung ho toward any specific substantive program goals.</br></br>In a democracy, how a government accomplishes whatever it does is as fundamentally Important as what it accomplishes. Acting within the framework of Constitution and laws, disclosing relevant information on the making of governmental decisions ÛÓ these are rules of procedure, not substantive ends like having the worldÛªs strongest army, abolishing poverty or landing on Mars. Democracy requires a willingness to employ only licit means In pursuit of goals, no matter how great oneÛªs stake In the outcome or how worthy the purpose.