The Watergate Scandal (1972–1974)

Temporal Scope: 1972–1974
Geographic Context: United States (Federal Government)

---

0. Case Trigger & Political Problem #

Between 1972 and 1974, a series of illegal activities connected to the Nixon administration—including a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent efforts to obstruct investigations—triggered a major political crisis in the United States.

The analytical relevance of the Watergate case lies not in the criminal acts themselves, but in how executive actors responded to institutional oversight and how constitutional mechanisms constrained presidential decision-making under escalating scrutiny.

1. Case Overview #

The Watergate scandal represents a systemic institutional crisis triggered by executive misconduct and sustained by strategic efforts to avoid accountability. Analytically, the case is not about the burglary itself, but about how formal institutions constrained, challenged, and ultimately overrode executive authority.

The core political problem is decision-making under institutional constraint: how executive actors behaved when facing legal oversight, investigative pressure, and reputational risk, and how other branches responded using constitutionally defined mechanisms. This makes the case central for understanding institutional accountability in presidential systems.

2. Context & Constraints #

Several structural constraints shaped the behavior of all actors involved:

Institutional Constraints #

• The U.S. Constitution establishes separation of powers, limiting unilateral executive action.
• Congressional committees possess investigatory powers independent of the executive.
• The judiciary can compel compliance with legal processes, even against the president.

Legal Constraints #

• Criminal law applied to campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
• The appointment of a Special Prosecutor created an independent enforcement mechanism outside direct presidential control.

Political Constraints #

• Presidential authority depended on continued support from Congress, particularly co-partisan legislators.
• Public opinion functioned as an indirect constraint by altering the incentives of elected officials.
• Media investigations increased the informational costs of continued concealment.

Together, these constraints created a progressively tightening decision environment for the executive branch.

3. Key Actors #

Executive Branch #

• President Richard Nixon
  • Interests: Political survival, control of information, preservation of executive authority.
  • Resources: Executive power, control over appointments, classified information.
  • Limitations: Constitutional checks, legal exposure, dependence on partisan support.
• Senior White House Officials
  • Interests: Loyalty to the president, personal legal protection.
  • Resources: Access to information, administrative control.
  • Limitations: Vulnerability to prosecution, limited autonomy.

Legislative Branch #

• United States Congress
  • Interests: Institutional oversight, electoral accountability.
  • Resources: Hearings, subpoenas, impeachment authority.
  • Limitations: Partisan divisions, procedural requirements.

Judicial Actors #

• Supreme Court of the United States
  • Interests: Upholding rule of law and constitutional authority.
  • Resources: Judicial review, binding rulings.
  • Limitations: Dependence on compliance with rulings.

Media #

• Investigative journalists functioned as informational intermediaries, altering strategic calculations without formal authority.

4. Critical Decision(s) #

Decision 1: Executive Response to Exposure #

• Options Available:
  1. Cooperate with investigations.
  2. Contain and manage information.
  3. Obstruct investigative processes.
• Trade-offs:
  1. Cooperation risked immediate political damage.
  2. Obstruction increased long-term legal and institutional costs.
• Observed Choice: Escalating concealment and obstruction.

Decision 2: Congressional Escalation #

• Options Available:
  1. Limit investigation to committees.
  2. Initiate impeachment proceedings.
• Trade-offs:
  1. Delay reduced political risk but weakened oversight credibility.
  2. Impeachment increased institutional confrontation.
• Observed Choice: Gradual escalation toward impeachment.

Decision 3: Judicial Enforcement #

• Options Available:
  1. Defer to executive privilege.
  2. Compel disclosure of evidence.
• Observed Choice: Judicial enforcement of subpoenas, constraining executive discretion.

5. Theoretical Lens Applied #

Principal–Agent Theory #

• Why appropriate: The president (agent) was delegated authority by voters (principals) but engaged in actions contrary to their interests.
• Key Concepts: Information asymmetry, monitoring, sanctions.
• Application: Congressional and judicial actions functioned as corrective monitoring mechanisms.

Institutionalism #

• Why appropriate: Outcomes depended less on personalities than on institutional rules.
• Key Concepts: Rule-bound behavior, institutional veto points.
• Application: Formal procedures (hearings, court rulings, impeachment) structured actor behavior.

Political Leadership & Decision-Making #

• Why appropriate: Executive choices reflected risk tolerance under constraint.
• Key Concepts: Crisis leadership, strategic miscalculation.
• Application: The president’s decisions underestimated institutional resilience.

6. Outcomes & Consequences #

Immediate Effects #

• Resignation of the president.
• Criminal convictions of senior officials.

Medium-Term Effects #

• Strengthening of congressional oversight mechanisms.
• Reforms in campaign finance and executive accountability.

Unintended Consequences #

• Increased mistrust in executive authority.
• Expansion of investigative norms that altered future executive-legislative relations.

7. Analytical Questions #

Does this case suggest inherent limits to executive dominance in presidential systems?

At what point did institutional constraints become binding rather than negotiable for the executive?

Could earlier cooperation have altered the equilibrium outcome for the presidency?

How did partisan incentives delay or accelerate institutional enforcement?

To what extent did informal actors (media) substitute for formal oversight mechanisms?