Beginning of the end?

Democracy is fragile. Only in recent times have nations built stable, representative governments with laws that allow for the bloodless transfer of power. Here in the United States, our republican government survived a civil war and prospers today because we have proved that power can be attained not at the point of a sword but at the ballot box.

This process only works when everyone accepts the rules, however; and it' s harder to do that when your side loses.

In recent decades, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled to prevent a presidential election recount that hinged on mere hundreds of votes in a single state; a sitting president was replaced by a candidate who received less than 50 percent of the vote; another president resigned under threat of impeachment (and his successor pardoned him); and a new president won a close election marred by alleged fraud committed in our own state.

In each of these cases, the loser swallowed the bitter pill of defeat, policymakers fixed some problems (and ignored others), and the business of government went on.

Now for the first time in our history we have a major party candidate who openly vows to wield our civil institutions as a weapon against his enemies if he wins, and to question the validity of those same institutions if he loses.

Victory means imprisoned rivals and silenced critics; defeat means bitter disputes and dark conspiracies.

His supporters seem equally willing to sow salt into the earth of democracy. Merely voicing these threats has scratched the veneer of decorum that makes governance manageable and our daily existence peaceful.

Could this year mark the beginning of the end of our democratic institutions?

Let's make the right choice - while it is still up to us.

Maureen Stabile

Streamwood