Several times over the past three months– that is, ever since our state’s election of Jim Webb to the Senate!– I’ve had some real regrets that the US doesn’t have a parliamentary system.
If we had a parliamentary system, the groundswell of political change that made itself shown on November 7th would have resulted in a change of government and a significant change in national policy.
Instead of which, we got– what?!?!? A surge in exactly the same kinds of ‘dead-ender’ policies the administration has been pursuing in Iraq since 2003????
Where in all this is the idea of responsiveness to the will of the people? For the absolutely crucial job of president, in the absence of the kind of gross personal misconduct that would activate the clunky machinery of impeachment, we only ever have one chance to change the person there every four years– whatever else might be happening in the world outside the White House… In what sense can we say that preservation of these totally inflexible election schedules is “democratic”?
Back in 1988 or so, when I became a citizen, I do recall learning all kinds of little factoids about the US political system. But I don’t recall ever learning the justification for the inflexible nature of these election schedules. Was it something to do with the problems of trans-continental communication back in the 1780s, or something about the need to keep these three branches of government all marching along according to their own rigid schedules so they could continue to play the much-hallowed “checks and balances” role against each other?
If anyone (briefly) could enlighten me on that, I’d be grateful.
I’d also love to know if there’s ever been any movement in US history that sought to to shift the country towards a more responsive, perhaps more parliamentary kind of system. The rigidity of this one we have now just seems terribly dysfunctional….
13 thoughts on “Questions about US democracy”
Comments are closed.
It’s swings and roundabouts, I’m afraid. The mandatory midterm election last November gave the president and the Republican Party little room for manoeuvre, and they duly went down to certain defeat. No sane prime minister in a parliamentary system would call an election in the face of such disastrous opinion polls unless he/she had lost a confidence vote in parliament. Neither the pre-November 2006 Republicans, nor the present UK Labour government could be forced out in this way.
Although Tony Blair has (uniquely) made himself into a “lame duck” by declaring his intention to leave the job sometime soon, the only way he can be forced out – short of being seriously implicated in a current financial scandal – would be to lose the confidence of his cabinet of senior ministers. There’s little sign of this happening.
On the other hand, GW Bush could never have risen to become leader of a major political party in the UK – he might have risen to a junior ministerial post, screwed up, lost interest in politics and gone to make money/have a good time elsewhere.
we need to impeach bush & cheney very,very soon….. or it may be forever too late.
Yes, the US government was made unwieldy ON PURPOSE.
The founders wanted to avoid tyranny, and what tyranny desires most is efficient government.
If something is REALLY important, there will be sufficient unanimity to get things done rapidly.
These times are usually regretted later. For all
cases that do not reach that level of importance to the survival of the nation, such as the affairs in the middle east, then all deliberate speed is the government order of the day.
(If we lost the entire US contingent in Iraq in a day, we would still have the biggest airforce, army and navy, plus the biggest economy, in the world. The nation would survive. During WW2 approximately 1/3 of the US economy was devoted to the war effort. Today 200 Billion is less than 2% of the economy.)
When many commentators were upset that the Government repsonse to Katrina was too slow,
I was not one of them. A government that can solve all your problems, and knows where all its citiens are, and what their needs are, is far too efficient. Let it remain slow and indecisive, and
uninformed about the location and activities of its citizens.
I’ll never understand a country where there were almost enough voices to impeach Clinton on the pretext that he took some extra-conjugal pleasure (Aka because of a purely private situation), but where a type like Bush can lie to bring a country to war without even a single tentative to impeach him.
In our country, the executive government is chosen at the same time as the legislative in the states and by the legislative itself at the federal level.
Given that synchronism, the executive usually reflects the composition of the legislative (save for a few exceptions which never lasted more than a legislature). Also, each time there are elections, the both chambers and whole of them are changed.
I find that in this way the people is better represented, because when there is a change in the public opinion, it is reflected at the two main power levels (legislative and executive). There is stability nevertheless, because of the bi-cameral system.
All of the House and 1/3 of the Senate is elected the same time as the President. The “midterm” election in fact provides the check that people think is so necessary.
I’ve always had concerns with the U.S. system not due to separation powers, but due to the structure that has hardened a two party system. But in recent years I’ve come to appreciate it a bit more.
I’ll also say that after seeing government after government go down in parliamentary systems like Italy and Israel, one also appreciates the U.S. system of checks and balances more.
Originally the president was not elected by popular vote, but by (if I am not mistaken) the vote of the various state legislatures. As was the senate. The original system was restrictive. The masses got to elect some of the government, and various parts of the government then elected the rest. It was a unique system, but was quickly changed. Might be worth a second look, although I doubt anything will ever change.
I will also say that I am glad we had some “rigidity” after 1994, when the Republicans swept Congress. And the people appreciated President Clinton’s work enough that he won by a comfortable margin in 1996, notwithstanding the midterm elections.
Another thing to consider is that the United States is still, to some extent, a federalist system based on representation coming from specific regions. We believe place matters. An election of a candidate from a particular party does not necessarily mean an adoption of that party’s national platform. To some extent, Congressional elections can become “nationalized.” In 1994, the Republicans ran on a pretty clear national platform with their “Contract With America.” The Democrats in 2006 rode a wave of national discontent, in part (and only in part) on dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. But they never quite adopted a national or unifying manifesto. The voters who elected Heath Schuler in NC-11 were not necessarily expressing the same opinion as those who elected Jerry McNerney in CA-11.
All in all, I don’t think that keeping George W. Bush as the nation’s President is overly “rigid.” A four year term is a reasonable period of time to elect someone, allow them to try to implement their policy, and hold them or their successor accountable. A two term limit for the President prevents one person from becoming a dictator. And in the meantime, we allow the opportunity for turnover of the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate in between as an additional check.
In two years, we do it again. And if the Democrats can demonstrate leadership and responsibility, then their Presidential candidate will have the edge. Of course, s/he’s elected separate from the Congress, so it’s no guarantee. That checks and balances thing again.
On balance, I think it’s a good thing that the national mood at a particular snapshot in time (to the extent there is one) does not lead to a complete overhaul of every branch of government at once. Americans have regular elections at every level on a regular basis. If we really feel strongly about certain things, they can be reflected at the voting booth.
If you really want be enlightened about it, read the Federalist Papers. They reflect slightly different thinking, because as Dave pointed out, the system originally did not allow for direct election of any body except the House. Still, they are great reading for the understanding of the federal system. Also some great stuff on the dangers of factions (Federalist No. 10). As it happens, I think the founders would have felt we have become too rigidly factionalized, although it’s still not as severe as in a parliamentary system.
In short, Helena it is the two party system, where elections are “first past the post”, or “winner takes all” that deprives Americans of any genuine democratic say in your government through elections.
Long answer-in part yes democracy can be encouraged through how and when a country gets its executive leader, President or PM, and the balance of power between the President /Cabinet /House of reps, but it is also determined by how government ‘in toto’ is voted in.
In my country we have always had elections every three years. The winning party, as in the UK was the one with the most seats, and the winning party formed the cabinet and PM. Only 2 parties usually had a chance in any election, as in the UK and US. But our parliamentary system was turned from a UK style “first past the post” system (winner takes all) to a mixed member proportional (MMP) system just over 10 years ago. This happened due to a public referendum, which happened after a decade of economic reforms had just about wiped out our economy. Those reforms had been put forward by both our “Red” and “Blue” style parties-the only ones that could ever win in a “first past the post” system. They were just “tweedledum and tweedledee” parties like you guys get to choose between. Factions on paper, a singular policy in effect.
People here demanded a system with real choice and they got it. Now any party that gets more than 5% of the vote gets an MP, a “list MP”. Any party that wins in an area-an electorate-also gets at least one MP. After a few elections our MMP PMs so far have come from the major party in the post election coalition. But our current Minister of Finance for example, is not in the PMs party or even cabinet. We now have far more parties in government, and it is far more representative of us in demographicly and I believe in policy. We have stable government, record low unemployment, a budget surplus and no more radical IMF style reforms. We are also not in Iraq, although our new government could perhaps be censured for still reacting to regional humanitarian disasters with what some might consider undue efficiency or effectiveness.
So my advice is same as last year, get a real opposition, presumably with electoral reform, and for pities sake prove we are all just paranoid peaceniks by NOT invading Iran. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. If the machinery of government is broken citizens have to fix it.
Democracy is not an institution, it is a relationship, just as capital is not a thing, but a relationship (an undemocratic one).
It follows that you must build the relationships and not stop when you get to some perceived level of institutionalised representation. You do not hand your mass movement over to your official representatives. You continue to build your structure until it overtops the constitutional structures, and they are compelled to yield. This is what happens in revolutionary situations. There is no other way.
If you hand over your work to the conventional structures, whoever they may be, then your work will be put to use keeping the status quo and not changing it. You may not then say that the Democratic Party or whatever it is has betrayed you. It was your mistake to feed your own people to the lions.
This means the peace movemement will do better to ignore the electoral cycle and just go on building itself. If it does its work properly, the politicians will have to come to you and negotiate. If not, not.
Build your own democratic structures. In South Africa that is what we had to do and we still are doing it now. We have a parliamentary system (the ceremonial opening of the SA parliament in Cape Town is today and my wife is a guest, for your information). But it is a pathetic thing compared to the mass democracy of the trade union movement and other democratic structures that have real internal contest and vitality.
In short, the politics of change has very little in common with the institutional arrangements of the status quo, no matter what those arangements may be.
An interesting question, Helena. I think the parliamentary system would indeed offer a more democratic representation than the current two-party system in the US where it is nearly impossible for minor parties to earn a seat, a thus a voice, in the legislative bodies. And, I would dearly love to see Bush have to go before the Congress once a week and take questions from the representatives from both sides of the aisle, as is the case in Great Britain.
On the other hand, I think you’re really whistling in the wind to think that such a drastic change could ever take place in the US. It would require a major constitutional restructuring, with perhaps even a new constitution with the necessary constitutional convention. And given the fact that so many Americans feel that their constitution was somehow “divinely inspired” and are proud of its longevity, I think it would be a really hard sell.
Why is it that the view that I expound above is so impossible for US people in particular to take on board or respond to?
I have often brought it up. The discussion that Helena started here is only one among many I have taken part in on comment threads frequented by US people. It was the same in the long run-up to the re-election of GW Bush.
Is not what I am saying the clear logical counter to the basic presumptions of the US institutions? Why then is there no explicit way by which these institutions can be defended against the contradictory view?
I ask because in this matter, far more conspicuously than in other matters, the US people are extraordinarily silent. At first it used to vex me, only because I do sincerely wish for a peace movement in the USA that would have the pride and the organisational strength to transcend the mundane institutions of the state. Peeace is of that nature. Not only is it a material necessity, it is a political and spiritual absolute.
But then I began to wonder why this US reticence was so recurrent. It appears that not only Republicans and Democrats but also Trotskyists and all sorts of people within the US polity share the presumption that their constitution and the arbitrary calendar that it imposes, plus the custom and practice superimposed upon all that, are inescapable.
Why is that, people? Don’t you see that the way to stop doing something is just to stop doing it? How can you justify being voluntarily hidebound? As a modern state, how did you become hostage to all these mummeries? Please tell me. I really would like to know.
The grass is always greener…
I live in Canada, where we do have a parliamentary system. One of the things we don’t like about it is the absence of “rigid” schedules. The governing party can cherry-pick its moment to call an election, some time when it’s high in the polls or the opposition is in disarray. This gives the incumbents a huge tactical advantage.
The biggest province (Ontario) has just converted to fixed schedules for its provincial elections and one of the Conservatives’ election promises was to do the same for national elections.
I don’t know about the canadian oppsition, I’ll just hope for the best.
“If we had a parliamentary system, the groundswell of political change that made itself shown on November 7th would have resulted in a change of government and a significant change in national policy.”
No, not if you had a first-past-the-post parliamentary system with anything like your current Democratic party, or the “other lots” in the UK, (Tories,-Lib Dems notwithstanding) or Australia,(Labor). You would have just got “the other lot” in; (leader included), -which would only shown the will of the people against the incumbents, and represent neither real change nor the will of the majority in any other substantial way, especially in foreign policy. You’d still be in Iraq and presuming a Hillary Clinton still preparing to attack Iran. So how is an unrepresentative democracy like America or the UK still a democracy? Does this matter or is this just a minor technicality for pedants to ponder? Perhaps it makes the constant erosion of personal freedoms in such “democracies” less tragic. Apparently the role of US President is so mythologised that you really believe that is the problem, and that when Bush goes all will be well. It won’t be.
So thats enough questioning of sacred “democracy”. Now what about the other side of the coin, “evil empires”? Tell me, do you think any country, and socio-economic system, that actually manages to anihilate humanity is ipso facto the most evil and destructive one the world has ever known? Pardon my curiosity, but it’s an increasingly obvious question.