There Are Serious Problems with American Democracy

Published in The People's Daily
(China) on 24 May 2015
by Zhang Weiwei (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Yuzhi Yang. Edited by Alison Lacey.
Most Americans today would not deny that there are problems with the American democratic system. The June 2012 Gallup polls about Congress showed that 6 percent of the American public is “very confident” about Congress, and 7 percent is “relatively confident,” together a total of 13 percent; while polls taken two years later, in June 2014, showed that the low confidence level has continued, with only 4 percent being “very confident,” and 3 percent being “relatively confident,” a total of 7 percent. Despite the small change in polling numbers, there are indeed problems with American democracy, which are primarily shown in the following ways:

Money

In 2010, the highest court in America decided that lobbyist money is a kind of “freedom of speech” protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment, and there’s no upper limit to donation amounts from companies and organizations. In 2014, it was decided that there’s no upper limit to individual donations to campaigns either. It is no longer appropriate to describe American democracy as “one person, one vote”; it is better described as “one dollar, one vote.” Democracy has become dollar-driven and a game for the wealthy. This is the biggest flaw in American politics.

Lobbyists

As an extension of money-dominated politics, special interest groups have become highly organized and use lobbyists to affect American political life. The American democratic system has become almost entirely controlled by lobby groups. If an organization were not wealthy and organized, then it would be very difficult for this group to be represented. The Economist has lamented that money has attained unprecedented political influence in American history. Tens of thousands of lobbyists have made the legislative process lengthy and complicated, and given special interest groups more opportunity to affect the outcome.

Bipartisan Conflict   

Today, the depth and scope of bipartisan conflict in American politics has reached a never-before-seen level. Confrontations between Democrats and Republicans have never been this intense, resulting in neither side being able to reach an agreement on issues of national interest. After the global financial crisis, this conflict did not stop either. The infighting has permeated all areas and become commonplace in American politics, leading to many “veto points” in policy-making, and resulting in many unrealized promises from the government. President Obama’s slogan of “Change” when he ran for the White House in 2008 included reducing the national debt, but the debt has actually ballooned from more than $10 trillion to almost $20 trillion.

Populism

In American politics today, democracy is virtually the same as elections. The most distinguishing characteristic for all candidates is their fight for votes, creating a prevalent atmosphere of populism. The Californian state government’s bankruptcy demonstrated this so-called politics of populism. In order to get more votes, politicians asked for tax reductions — first for property taxes, and then for car taxes — leading to the state government going bankrupt. When the state government wanted to reinstate the car tax, the state legislature intervened, worsening the financial situation.

Seen in a historical fashion, the people who established America were much more cautious than contemporary politicians about democracy. They tended to lean toward “republic” and “rule of law” to prevent populism brought by democracy. However, in today’s world, can America really overcome these serious problems in their own system? If a financial crisis that made most Americans lose their assets cannot bring the necessary reform for the political system, then it must mean that the self-correcting ability of the American political system is weakening. This is not only sad for American democracy; there are also deeper reasons for the change.


Alienation in the Power Structure

The three powers in the “separation of powers” are all in the political domain. A modern country needs to have a healthy balance in the political, social, and economic areas in order to operate normally; the powers have to demonstrate a balance that benefits most people. However, in today’s America, capital power is dominating political and social power; it is fully organized and mostly controls political power, as well as being embedded in social power, such as control of the mainstream media, the creation of social discussions, etc. In this way, America’s wealthy members will continue to dominate democracy and the conflict between the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and the “one percent” will continue.

The “rule of law” is now in a quandary. Americans have always been proud of their law-governed society. Nowadays, the American style of rule of law has almost become a pseudonym for protecting vested interests and a refusal to change. Professor Stein Ringen of Oxford University has pointed out that lobbying from various special interest groups enables their causes to be protected, and any changes to the status quo require changes to the Constitution, but changing the Constitution requires a stringent process that is almost impossible. A law-governed society is in fact locked in by its own rule of law, and the legal process and procedure have in fact become tools to deny reform. This may act as a revelation to many other countries’ rule of law development.

Changes to the Internal Environment

Since the 1980s, America has put in place a series of financial deregulation policies, creating an under-regulated financial market where fraud was rampant and led to the finance bubble, as well as income disparity and wealth distribution favoring the wealthy and financial organizations. The “financialization” of the American economy has meant that most profit comes from the finance sector and its greedy asset acquisition from all over the world. Unlike in the past, American capital power has a lot less interest in reforming America’s political structure since the current system greatly benefits Wall Street. There is no motivation for change.


今天,多数的美国人恐怕都不否认美国的民主制度出了问题。以对美国国会的评价为例,盖洛普公司2012年6月的民调显示,美国公众对国会“非常有信 心者”是6%,“较有信心者”是7%,两者相加为13%。两年后的民调(2014年6月)发现,如此低的信任度还在继续,对国会“非常有信心者”是4%, “较有信心者”是3%,两者相加为7%。数据会有波动,但至少说明美国民主确实出了问题,主要表现为以下几个方面:

金钱政治。美国联邦 最高法院把竞选献金裁决为受美国宪法第一修正案保护的一种“言论自由”,于2010年裁定对公司和团体的捐款不设上限;2014年又裁定对个人竞选捐款也 不设上限。至此,用“一人一票”来描绘美国民主已不合适,更恰当的应是“一美元一票”,“民主”成了“钱主”,成了富人的游戏。这是美国民主最大的硬伤。

游说政治。这是“金钱政治”的延伸。既得利益集团已经高度组织起来,通过游说团体,影响美国的政治生活。美国民主制度,几乎成了游说团体的天下。如果一 个群体并不富裕,也不能有效地组织起来,那么,这一群体的利益就很难在美国民主制度中被代表。《经济学人》杂志惊叹,“金钱获得了美国历史上前所未有的政 治影响力。数以千计的说客让立法过程变得更为冗长和复杂,让特殊利益集团更有机会参与其中”。

内斗政治。今天,美国政治内斗的深度和广 度都达到了前所未有的规模。从深度看,民主和共和两党之间的对抗从未像今天这样“苦大仇深”、互不相让,结果双方越来越难以达成为国家共同利益做事的共 识。国际金融危机爆发后,这种内斗也几乎从未中断。从广度看,这种内斗几乎遍及各个领域,成了美国政治常态,导致决策的“否决点”非常多,政府的许多承诺 也无法兑现。美国总统奥巴马2008年喊着“变革”的口号入主白宫,他曾承诺要削减国债,但国债从原来的10多万亿美元增加到现在的近20万亿美元。

民粹(populism) 政治。在今天美国的政治制度下,民主几乎等同于竞选。所以,候选人的最大特点是一切为了赢得选票,结果使“民粹政治”泛滥。美国加州政府破产的例子 颇能说明这种“民粹政治”。为了赢得更多选票,政客纷纷提出减税,先是减少财产税,后是取消汽车税,最后加州政府因此陷入破产。当加州政府想恢复汽车税 时,州议会从中作梗,结果使加州的财政陷入更加糟糕境地。

从历史视角看,在民主问题上,美国当初的缔造者们比今天的政客要谨慎得多。他 们大都倾向于采用“共和”与“法治”来防止“民主”可能带来的“民粹”。但如今,美国究竟能否克服自己体制中的这些严重问题?连一场导致美国多数民众资产 锐减的金融危机都不能带来美国政治制度的必要改革,说明美国政治制度的纠错能力正在衰弱。这是美国民主制度的悲哀,其背后有着更为深层的原因。

治理结构出现异化。“三权分立”中的三权,本质上都是属于政治领域的权力,而一个现代国家的良性运转需要在政治领域、社会领域和经济领域之间形成一种良 性平衡,也就是这三个领域的力量实现一种有利于大多数人的平衡。但目前的美国,相比政治力量和社会力量,资本力量占据了优势。资本力量已充分组织起来,在 较大程度上左右着政治力量,也在相当程度上完成了对社会力量的渗透,如对主流媒体的控制、对社会议题的设置等。这样看来,美国的“钱主”将继续主导“民 主”,“占领华尔街”背后的 99%与 1%之间的矛盾可能因此而长期化。

美式法治面临困境。美国人长期以来为自己的法治自豪,但如今 美式法治在某种意义上几乎成了保护既得利益、拒绝改革的代名词。牛津大学斯泰恩·林根教授(Oxford,) 以美国“立法失控”问题为例指出,各种利益集团的游说,使他们所 代表的各种既得利益得到特殊照顾,想改变这种现状就需要修宪;而修宪首先要通过一定严格程序,但这几乎是不可能的。一个法治社会被自己的法治所困,法治和 程序正义成了拒绝改革的工具。这对于世界其他国家的法治发展都有一定的启示意义。

内外环境发生改变。自上世纪80年代以来,美国实施了 一系列金融自由化政策,其结果是美国的金融市场缺乏监管,欺诈成风并带来金融泡沫,收入分配和财富分配不断向金融资本和金融部门倾斜。美国经济的金融化, 使得美国资本力量的利润主要来自金融业,来自世界范围的贪婪吸金。与过去相比,美国的资本力量对美国内部政治体制改革的兴趣大幅降低,现在美国的制度安排 对华尔街十分有利,因此就缺少了改革的动力。
(作者为复旦大学特聘教授、上海社科院中国学所所长)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Topics

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?