THE OPENING of congressional debate about the independent counsel law addresses only the first of three tasks the United States must face to rescue the presidency from the damage done in the past year. All three are important.

Abolishing the independent counsel law is the easiest since it expires in June. This discredited institution had its origin a generation ago in our revulsion against what was perceived as an irresponsible "imperial presidency."

But the Cold War is over, the extraordinary danger from the Soviet Union is gone, and so should be the leftover perception of a dangerous presidency that must be hamstrung. On the contrary, the presidency is now weaker relative to the other two branches than it has been for many years.

Those who oppose abolition of the independent counsel law evidently retain a visceral fear of allowing the presidency to return to the form practiced over the first 180 years of the republic. But that fear is today exaggerated, unreasonable and anachronistic.

Over most of our history, the most important coercive factor against presidential misbehavior has traditionally not been an extra-constitutional overseer but rather the power of public opinion, which today is at least as strong a weapon as it has ever been. The prospect of bad election consequences for a misbehaving president and his party should also be an important deterrent. In truly extreme cases, there remains the remedy provided in the Constitution -- impeachment.

Litigious society

Meanwhile, a second, harder task that cannot be ignored is eliminating the consequences of the 1998 court ruling that a president may be sued while in office. This decision has opened a vista of unending legal harassment of future presidents by political foes ready to bankroll such suits and then endless revenge-seeking in subsequent administrations. In this lawsuit-ridden society, anyone is vulnerable.

Conceivably, this court decision might be overruled by congressional legislation, with appropriate safeguards. For example, a provision extending the statute of limitations on a suit against the president until after he or she had left office.

An important obstacle might be the reluctance of conservative Republicans to acknowledge, even indirectly, that there was something wrong with the sequence of events that cornered Mr. Clinton. Nevertheless, the implications for the future are sufficiently vivid so that a bipartisan consensus behind such legislation could eventually materialize.

The third unfinished business is the question of impeachment. Surely most people would now agree, in view of our recent experience, that the principle of consensus in this matter should never again be violated.

If the Republicans are chastised by the voters in the next election, both parties may be inhibited for some time from acting again with so blatant a disregard for consensus. Yet the potential to do just that will remain, particularly if the cultural war continues in American life.

Of the three tasks, this is the most difficult. If the Democrats win the House in 2000, they might conceivably pass a resolution demanding consensus in any future impeachment proceedings, but that could be readily ignored if passions reignite a decade later.

Amending the Constitution

Only a constitutional amendment can permanently resolve the issue. An amendment enforcing impeachment consensus certainly could not be passed by the Congress and ratified by the states without very substantial Republican support.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that enough such support will emerge immediately. But the effort to win support for such an amendment should begin now. Although this problem may be in abeyance now, it may eventually return.

The danger of presidential excess is now outweighed by the danger of endless partisan revenge-seeking in the use of the devices harassing the presidency that have emerged over the past 30 years.

To avert perpetual vendetta, both parties should consent to join in giving up the devices bedeviling the presidency that have lent themselves to grave political abuse.

Harry Gelman, a former assistant national intelligence officer in the CIA, wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

Pub Date: 3/24/99