Is It Time To Reform The American Government?
"Progress is impossible without change; and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything."- George Bernard Shaw
We hear a constant refrain of the virtues of democracy in the United States, a concept which was born in Athens in 508 B.C.E. In 1787, United States created the constitutional government to enshrine democracy. The founders created a presidential system of government, unlike other democracies which follow the parliamentary system. In the United States, the head of state is the chief executive who is independent and completely separate from the legislature and the judiciary. The president, as the chief executive, is elected by the people directly or indirectly, to whom he is accountable. By contrast, in the parliamentary system, the executive and legislature is combined. The member of the parliament who receives the most votes is elected as the Prime Minister of the government. The Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of the public until his party loses majority support in the legislature.
The advantages and disadvantages of these two systems have been the subject of countless debates. In the end, the system which provides a better quality of life for its citizens is what matters. That is its mandate for governance.
What is the measure of good governance? How do you define a democratic government? The government must reflect the will of the people. It should provide a mechanism to freely choose how the society should be governed. The people should be able to elect the leader freely and fairly, who is accountable to the people. A democratic government delivers services and implements policies and programs designed to enhance peoples’ quality of life. This means the rule of law, equal justice and government accountability. It must guarantee fundamental freedoms for all, irrespective of race or gender, and freedom from oppression. It also means the right to free expression, with an impartial news media which provides unbiased information to the public, not aligned to special interest groups.
What is the causal impact of the American presidential system on the operation of the bureaucracy, elections, policy making of the executive on the general quality of life for its citizens? How does the structure of the presidential form of government perform in practice?
The presidential form of government is touted for the checks and balances it benefits from separation of powers of its three branches, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. By distributing its power and responsibilities, the founders hoped to prevent the monopoly of power. It was therefore expected to promote stability, and enhance accountability. Instead, in practice, it has created an adversarial system, each branch opposing the other. The American system is mired in conflict since members join political parties simply to get a party label; once elected, they represent their own special or extremist agendas. This results in lack of party cohesion, fragmented interests, lack of accountability and gridlock. Parties separately engage in policy making which is advantageous to their own side, and corruption is rampant.. Conflict is continual, legislation comes to a standstill and the voters are often ignored.
Then there is the question of flexibility; presidential systems are rigid, they make it impossible to remove the executive before the fixed four year term, even if the president is guilty of corruption or crime; as with the judiciary, which has a lifelong tenure. This is in contrast to the Parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister and his cabinet serve at the will of the people and can be dissolved once they lose their majority in parliament.
No one as yet has questioned the suitability of candidates in a presidential form of government as laid out in the constitution. Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, which is considered sacrosanct, lays out only 3 criteria necessary for a presidential candidate: He should be a natural born citizen, 35 years age, and have 14 years residency. 50% of the citizens are women but there is no mention of women as candidates. Do these three requirements satisfy the duties and role of the President? In a parliamentary system, the candidates are citizens who have qualifications and past experience in the legislature. When applying for a job in any role or sector there are job qualifications you must satisfy. The AI definition of qualifications for any job are “skills, education and experience required to be successful in the job role.” Experience has shown disastrous consequences when these basic requirements are not met. There is also the question of mental and physical fitness. What about past criminal record?
Democracy has viability when the legitimacy of the president is derived from the consent of the governed. While the president is accountable to the people who elected him, the electoral process demonstrates flaws in the system. A presidential candidate can be installed even if rejected by the majority of the voters. Or that the voters can be excluded altogether if electors are appointed by states individually.
The electoral college which is the system used to elect the president severs the relationship between the people and the president. The president is not elected directly by citizens but initially chosen through state electors. Of the total 538 electoral votes which are unevenly distributed in 50 states, 270 electoral votes cast for the candidate are required for the presidential candidate to win. Therefore, the system is neither representative of the people’s voice, nor equal. It allows a candidate who may lose the popular vote, yet become the president not elected by the people. There is also the possibility of “faithless electors,” who may vote for the president of their own choice instead of the popular vote. At the Ash Centre recently, Congressman Jaime Raskin, Constitutional scholar, described the electoral college, as dangerous and unstable, and “as an accident waiting to happen.” “How about we start electing the President of the United States,” he said. “whoever gets the most votes wins.”
It is clear that the structure of the presidential form of government, in practice, may not satisfy the measures of good governance nor sustain the core values of democracy. In recent years, its flaws have become increasingly evident. The government fails to achieve justice for equal economic, political and social rights of its citizens, particularly the rights of women. The continual gridlock in Congress of opposing interests create a political climate of intolerance in the country where the needs of the people are forgotten. Embroiled in corruption and greed, they are no longer accountable to the people. The need for political reform therefore becomes ever more imperative.