GRIDLOCK VS DEMOCRACY

The President is held captive by a hostile Congress. Congress, held for ransom by the right-wing Tea Party people, is held captive by the possibility of a Presidential veto. The entire country is holding its breath while government tries to maneuver its way through the complexities of power.

America laboured hard over its Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights. The former seems graven in stone. The latter is always moving forward and exploring new ground. The system, under its current dilemma is paralyzed. And that’s the way the founding fathers wanted it. There were to be a series of “checks and balances” to contain the power of any one branch of government. The absurdity of some of it is that the hard Right in America uses their view of the Constitution as a cudgel to beat the daylights out of anyone who dares to think progressively. And as if that weren't enough, the hard Right accuses the Supreme Court of violating the Constitution by making legal judgments that can set aside legislation. (I lost all faith in the “fairness” of that body when they awarded the presidency to George Bush when Al Gore won the election.)

If you believe that you live in “the greatest democracy on earth” then you don’t question the system. Well, I happen to live in an almost perfect country where even a right-wing government must adjust to our sense of social justice in order to win an election.

Great Britain is in crisis right now. The Commons has the power to force Prime Minister Cameron to step down. There is a growing feeling that it will have to happen for the Conservative government to survive. They are in power only with the consent of the Liberal Democrats. Should they decide to vote “no confidence” in the current government, it could fall. Together the Liberal Democrats and Labour hold more seats than the Conservatives. This is all politics One-A for most people. I am returning to basics only to describe the difference between political gridlock in the U.S. and the ability to overturn a government in our Parliamentary system. Of course, if, as in Canada, one party has an overall majority. The Opposition can complain all it wants without making the government fall. The only effect of Opposition is to pry votes away from the governing party in the next election.

In America, the “next election” seems to be the focus of most of the lawmakers. They take the pulse of the voters all the time. If certain political moves are not favourable, they will lose in 2012.

Just imagine what would happen if America has a government like we have where the legislative body is supreme. (Excepting the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality and violation under the Charter of Rights.) The President would stand before the assembly of Congress and be confronted with his alleged failures. There would be real debate. The misbegotten notion of bi-partisanship would simply fail under the weight of competition for votes. It is true that the same circumstance occurs in our system if there is a minority government. Harper stayed in power by being clever about working with the opposition. That was enforced bipartisanship.

The only degree of protection Americans have is the right to “recall.” An elected representative can be recalled if enough of the public petition that he or she has erred. It happens. It happened in California and led to the administration of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As America hurtles toward financial chaos, the debate roars on. Now they say that they may use “executive power” to raise the debt ceiling. They can. But will they?

This diatribe has exhausted me!