The US Political Crisis
Published in La Nación
(Argentina) on 22 October 2013
by Andrés Oppenheimer (link to original)
The United States government, which tends to lecture other countries on how they should manage their affairs, would do well to learn some lessons from them in order to avoid situations like the embarrassing, partial government shutdown last week.
I know this would be anathema to the extreme, right-wing legislators of the tea party, who brought on the government shutdown and nearly caused a default on government debt, but Washington could learn some valuable lessons from Mexico, one of the countries that tea party extremists abhor with great passion.
Mexico was long suffering political paralysis that prevented it from passing any moderately important law in congress. Because the country has a system of three political parties, the opposition systematically blocked all the initiatives of the ruling party. The actors changed, but the “two-against-one” system was keeping the country paralyzed. This lasted until December 2012, when, under the pressure of public opinion, the three largest political parties in the country signed the Pact for Mexico, a 95-point agreement intended to break the structural paralysis in congress and pass several reforms, among them education, telecommunications, tax and energy reform. The first two reforms have already been approved; last week, the Chamber of Deputies approved a heavily debated tax reform. Therefore, even if the pact does not go into effect, when the most controversial energy reform is voted on, much more will have been achieved than the U.S. has accomplished in recent years: Last week’s agreement only put the problem off for later: The new deadline is Jan. 15.
The U.S. needs a political agreement similar to Mexico’s or major reform. Washington has a structural problem: Its electoral norms have degenerated into a system that rewards extremists and punishes moderates. Under the current presidential primary system, for example, Republicans begin the process of selecting candidates in Iowa, where a relatively small population of ultraconservative voters makes all Republican candidates run extreme, right-wing campaigns. Why not hold the primaries on the same day in every state, so as to have greater geographical representation?
Under the current election process for representatives to Congress, nearly all congressional districts in the country are composed of a single party. As a result, nearly all congressional seats are “safe;” there is little competition between the two parties, allowing the extremists — who are the most politically active — to have a disproportionate influence on the election of congresspersons. Why not redesign the districts, so there is greater political competition?
Former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, one of the most intelligent political analysts I know, told me that the U.S. could benefit from a political reform like the 1977 Spanish Moncloa Pact. “In Spain, it was congress that committed 'harakiri' and said that the next parliament would be constitutional,” said Lagos. In the case of the United States, Congress could do that, or it could designate a high-level, independent commission to redraw electoral districts. “When the beginning of the end of America is written about in 200 years, it could very well be that what happened this past week will be remembered,” said Lagos.
I agree. Contrary to popular belief, the government shutdown was not a problem of clueless individuals; rather, it was caused by electoral rules that give rise to clueless candidates or force them to be clueless.
If there is not political agreement or fundamental reform to put an end to one-party electoral districts and geographically arbitrary primary elections, I fear we will see the same disgraceful — and potentially catastrophic — spectacle on Jan. 15, and many times again.
I know this would be anathema to the extreme, right-wing legislators of the tea party, who brought on the government shutdown and nearly caused a default on government debt, but Washington could learn some valuable lessons from Mexico, one of the countries that tea party extremists abhor with great passion.
Mexico was long suffering political paralysis that prevented it from passing any moderately important law in congress. Because the country has a system of three political parties, the opposition systematically blocked all the initiatives of the ruling party. The actors changed, but the “two-against-one” system was keeping the country paralyzed. This lasted until December 2012, when, under the pressure of public opinion, the three largest political parties in the country signed the Pact for Mexico, a 95-point agreement intended to break the structural paralysis in congress and pass several reforms, among them education, telecommunications, tax and energy reform. The first two reforms have already been approved; last week, the Chamber of Deputies approved a heavily debated tax reform. Therefore, even if the pact does not go into effect, when the most controversial energy reform is voted on, much more will have been achieved than the U.S. has accomplished in recent years: Last week’s agreement only put the problem off for later: The new deadline is Jan. 15.
The U.S. needs a political agreement similar to Mexico’s or major reform. Washington has a structural problem: Its electoral norms have degenerated into a system that rewards extremists and punishes moderates. Under the current presidential primary system, for example, Republicans begin the process of selecting candidates in Iowa, where a relatively small population of ultraconservative voters makes all Republican candidates run extreme, right-wing campaigns. Why not hold the primaries on the same day in every state, so as to have greater geographical representation?
Under the current election process for representatives to Congress, nearly all congressional districts in the country are composed of a single party. As a result, nearly all congressional seats are “safe;” there is little competition between the two parties, allowing the extremists — who are the most politically active — to have a disproportionate influence on the election of congresspersons. Why not redesign the districts, so there is greater political competition?
Former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, one of the most intelligent political analysts I know, told me that the U.S. could benefit from a political reform like the 1977 Spanish Moncloa Pact. “In Spain, it was congress that committed 'harakiri' and said that the next parliament would be constitutional,” said Lagos. In the case of the United States, Congress could do that, or it could designate a high-level, independent commission to redraw electoral districts. “When the beginning of the end of America is written about in 200 years, it could very well be that what happened this past week will be remembered,” said Lagos.
I agree. Contrary to popular belief, the government shutdown was not a problem of clueless individuals; rather, it was caused by electoral rules that give rise to clueless candidates or force them to be clueless.
If there is not political agreement or fundamental reform to put an end to one-party electoral districts and geographically arbitrary primary elections, I fear we will see the same disgraceful — and potentially catastrophic — spectacle on Jan. 15, and many times again.