The US government shutdown highlights
the democratic shortcomings in America’s political system. Blame has been cast on many from fringe
members of the Republican Party to America’s presidential system itself. While things likely won’t get any better
soon, some small changes can save American democracy in the long run.
Much more important than the economic
impact from the shutdown is what it means for American democracy. There are two principles that deserve
mention. In a recent opinion piece inthe Washington Post, Anne Applebaum argued that the Republican party is
endangering American democracy by refusing to fund the government because they
do not like Obamacare. Abblebaum
mentions that Obamacare was passed by both bodies of Congress, signed into law
by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Republicans are not only willing to shut
down the government in an attempt to defund Obamacare, but are placing their opposition
to Obamacare above the legitimacy of America’s democratic institutions and
processes. A related principle was
highlighted by Matthew Yglesias in a recent article in Slate, where he
highlights the work of the late political scientist Juan Linz. Linz argues that the presidential system
itself is flawed, that there is no democratic mechanism to resolve disputes
between the legislative and presidential branches. In this light, it is not the Republicans who
are the problem but the system itself. It
is designed to breed conflict that is difficult to resolve. Linz focusses on
the problems that Latin American countries have had with presidential systems
and the good fortunes of parliamentary systems in Europe where the executive
and legislative branches are unified in a coalition.
Does the current crisis really mean a
democracy deficit in America? The answer
is yes, but it won’t always have to be this way. The current crisis could only be the tip of
the iceberg. While cooler heads prevailed and the default crisis was averted, it was only a temporary fix. Bad precedent is being set
on many levels.
Aside from tearing up the constitution and switching to a
parliamentary system (which has its own shortcomings) what changes can be made
to prevent this type of suicidal conflict between executive and legislative
branches again?
Three small but significant reforms need to
be implemented. Limiting gerrymandering,
eliminating caucuses, and having term limits will be enough to prevent suicidal
conflicts between the executive and legislative branches in the future. While many are dismayed at the Tea party
Republicans, they should be reminded that their actions are rational. They are doing what their constituents want
them to do. Many Republicans are forced
into extreme measures because if they make pragmatic decisions they will lose a
primary election to someone who is willing to take extreme measures. Bob Bennett’s 2010 senate primary loss in Utah
is an example of that. This has happened
in part, due to gerrymandering where congressional districts are drawn to
maintain party power. While the majority
of America is very much purple, gerrymandering has turned congressional
districts into bright red and bright blue districts where extreme candidates
are able to come to power. This is a
problem that will never be completely solved, but if gerrymandering can be
reduced the impact would be significant.
While gerrymandering is a problem, it is not as big a problem as some
have claimed. The USA is naturally
divided into politically different districts.
Urban and rural districts are very different and gerrymandering will not
change the effects of urban sprawl and urban decay. This is why the next two items also need to
be addressed.
Second, caucuses need to be
eliminated. A caucus is different from
an open primary vote, in that members need to be physically present at the
entire caucus to cast their vote. This
is in essence democracy by meeting. This
increases the amount of commitment for those wishing to participate. In a caucus they have to plan on attending a
multi hour meeting with a public vote where as a typical primary vote is just
that, a vote which can take 5 min and be done in secret. This means that party activists and
extremists are more likely to participate than moderates. In Utah where Bob Bennett was ousted for Mike
Lee, it was a caucus system that enabled it.
Third, term limits should be passed into
law both at the senate and house levels.
Having some of the members not up for reelection would be healthy for
the political climate. Politicians who
do not have to worry about reelection would then worry about what is best for the
country and about being on the right side of history. They would be more willing to take moderate
stances as they would be buffered from interest groups, party leaders, and the
sways of public opinion.
These changes are small, but will be
difficult to implement. Few politicians
will be willing to support term limits, as it would mean their own exit from
politics. The caucus and primary system,
along with the drawing of congressional districts is done at the state level
and would have to have 50 states pass reforms, a rather unlikely feat. A better solution would be to have the
federal government take over these responsibilities, this would be hard to
accomplish given the current political climate.
America is in the midst of a serious
crisis. The democratic institutions have
failed to ensure a functioning government for the second time in 20 years. A default crisis is at hand. The legitimacy of the legislative process has
now been rejected by the Republican Party, a very worrisome precedent. This has caused some to blame the Republican
Party while others to blame the presidential system the US has. In reality, the truth lies in the
middle. Fortunately, small but important
changes can produce significant improvements in American democracy. If America can reduce the impact of
gerrymandering, eliminate caucuses, and pass term limits this will hopefully be
the last time democracy fails in America.
No comments:
Post a Comment