The new United States Congress convenes this week with one major question on its agenda: whether to proceed with the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton arising from the Lewinsky affair or attempt to find a means of censuring him that falls short of putting him on trial. Given that no Democrats in the Senate have indicated they will vote against the President, it looks as if the censure option is much more likely. It is certainly, on the evidence available, the most appropriate one.
Mr Clinton is nothing if not aware, of how important public opinion has been in his survival through this political crisis. The American public has consistently expressed the view that however culpable he is, whether in terms of political misjudgments, dishonesty or recklessness as a result of this affair, he does not deserve to be impeached for it.
This view has held up despite the House of Representatives vote to refer impeachment proceedings to the Senate. It is a key factor in the intense bargaining under way between its leading officers and the White House, as senators weigh up the political consequences of the decisions facing them over the next week.
If they decide to go ahead with the trial despite indications that a two-thirds majority against Mr Clinton is not available, they would put US politics on a very uncertain course and prolong the affair in a way that would be damaging for the political system and its international credibility. To have it drag on over many months might well achieve the objectives of Mr Clinton's opponents on the right wing of the Republican Party by creating a mood of public disenchantment with the president leading to calls for his resignation. But, considering the balance of evidence available, this would be an irresponsibly partisan approach.
It is to be hoped the Senate will opt instead for the course of censuring Mr Clinton. It has several difficult procedural and legal hurdles to overcome if this is what it decides to do. These include the precise terms of the censure motion and concrete punishments, bearing in mind that there are few if any precedents in US constitutional history to guide it. But such a procedure could allow both sides to have their say with due regard for political realism and arithmetic. It would also be a mercifully short process which, although it would indelibly blemish Mr Clinton's record, would allow him to maintain effective leadership for the rest of his term in office.
Both domestically and internationally, this would be a far preferable course of action. Mr Clinton's reputation among US voters has been sustained by the buoyant economy which his administration has managed effectively. He is expected to reveal further plans for domestic reform in his forthcoming State of the Union address. Internationally, he has signalled continuing activism with proposed increases in defence expenditure. Whatever one makes of his foreign policy, there can be no denying that continuity and credibility of US policy in the international arena is a force for stability in world affairs. Were the impeachment proceedings to go ahead, that would be jeopardised.