U.S. Politics: Quasi-Dysfunctional
Published in El Mundo
(Spain) on 28 July 2011
by Ricard Gonzalez (link to original)
The founding fathers of the United States designed its political system in such a way that “checks and balances” were included in the country’s government, which means that there were mechanisms put in place to prevent a majority from enjoying absolute power that would permit it to rule without keeping in mind the needs and desires of the minority.
This means that any important legislative change should have a broad consensus in order to be approved. In some cases, this is a positive requirement because it allows for further deliberation, which can give way to better legislation. In other cases, especially urgent ones, this requirement is rather negative because it lengthens the legislative process.
In general terms, this system has functioned reasonably well for more than two centuries, and this explains the veneration of the Constitution that exists in the United States. But several trends experienced in the past few years threaten to turn this praised system into a dysfunctional one.
There is probably no better example of this than the current debate over the raising of the debt ceiling. While both Republican and Democratic leaders recognize the serious consequences a default would present, they seem unable to reach a compromise. This means that Congress cannot fulfill the duties and responsibilities assigned to it by the Constitution — such as paying the bills.
Perhaps the clearest symptom of the dysfunctional nature of the current system is the fact that neither Speaker of the House John Boehner nor the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is capable of passing his plan within his respective chamber, in which his party is in the majority. So having the other chamber, controlled by the adversary, pass such a plan is pure fantasy.
There are two trends that have been especially responsible for bringing about this hyper-partisan political climate in the United States: The first is the rise of 24-hour news channels and other media with a clearly biased viewpoint; and the second is the “kidnapping” of the primary process by the most radical groups within the two major parties, which leads many congressmen to lean further to the left or right.
Faced with such a situation, many experts have recommended two changes that could help grease the political machinery of the United States:
1) Open primaries where independents — or even all voters — can participate. Currently, in many primaries, only registered voters affiliated with that party can participate. Opening the process would mean that candidates would have to appeal to centrist voters rather than being the leftmost or rightmost candidate in the field.
2) Increase the number of senators needed for a minority block of legislation. Currently the number stands at 40, which means that a supermajority of 60 senators is needed for any legislative change. This number could be raised to 45. And since this number is stipulated in the rules of the Senate — and not in the Constitution — such a change is much easier. Provided there is the political will, of course.
This means that any important legislative change should have a broad consensus in order to be approved. In some cases, this is a positive requirement because it allows for further deliberation, which can give way to better legislation. In other cases, especially urgent ones, this requirement is rather negative because it lengthens the legislative process.
In general terms, this system has functioned reasonably well for more than two centuries, and this explains the veneration of the Constitution that exists in the United States. But several trends experienced in the past few years threaten to turn this praised system into a dysfunctional one.
There is probably no better example of this than the current debate over the raising of the debt ceiling. While both Republican and Democratic leaders recognize the serious consequences a default would present, they seem unable to reach a compromise. This means that Congress cannot fulfill the duties and responsibilities assigned to it by the Constitution — such as paying the bills.
Perhaps the clearest symptom of the dysfunctional nature of the current system is the fact that neither Speaker of the House John Boehner nor the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is capable of passing his plan within his respective chamber, in which his party is in the majority. So having the other chamber, controlled by the adversary, pass such a plan is pure fantasy.
There are two trends that have been especially responsible for bringing about this hyper-partisan political climate in the United States: The first is the rise of 24-hour news channels and other media with a clearly biased viewpoint; and the second is the “kidnapping” of the primary process by the most radical groups within the two major parties, which leads many congressmen to lean further to the left or right.
Faced with such a situation, many experts have recommended two changes that could help grease the political machinery of the United States:
1) Open primaries where independents — or even all voters — can participate. Currently, in many primaries, only registered voters affiliated with that party can participate. Opening the process would mean that candidates would have to appeal to centrist voters rather than being the leftmost or rightmost candidate in the field.
2) Increase the number of senators needed for a minority block of legislation. Currently the number stands at 40, which means that a supermajority of 60 senators is needed for any legislative change. This number could be raised to 45. And since this number is stipulated in the rules of the Senate — and not in the Constitution — such a change is much easier. Provided there is the political will, of course.