The Impotent President

The current shutdown of the US government seems bizarre to me and many other observers, particularly given the ramifications to the global economy.  What makes the whole saga surreal is the fact that the potentially very dangerous consequences are inflicted by mankind on mankind.  Not with guns and tanks, but purely by elected representatives trying to gain political advantage and being allowed to hold the world at ransom.  It is interesting, however, to note how this particular news item, although still unresolved, is sliding down the scale of importance when measured by its position on international news bulletins.  It is almost as if the world is becoming bored with the antics of American politicians and also somewhat embarrassed for President Obama who is demonstrating his political impotence, which is inherent in the American constitution.  For many major issues he is an impotent President.

The US constitution makes it possible for different branches of government to be controlled by different parties and in the current standoff each party can claim to be representing the will of the people.  This is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it to be, so that there would be a system of checks and balances.  They divided the US government in order to keep it limited and to ensure major decisions are the result of negotiation and compromise.

Now let's compare the US form of government with the United Kingdom's parliamentary democracy.  This form of democracy was described by the former Lord Chancellor of the UK, Lord  Hailsham, as an elective dictatorship.  As a hypothetical example, if something like Obamacare was in the election manifesto of a UK political party and that party won the election, then it's parliamentary majority would allow Obamacare to become law.  Now the first-past-the-post electoral system means that a strong majority on the House of Commons does not necessarily mean the majority of the electorate have voted for the ruling party.  At the last election in the UK, the Conservatives gained 36% of the votes and 47% of the seats in parliament, their current overall majority was created by forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.  This was the first coalition government formed outside wartime or a national emergency since 1918.  So in general, the elective dictatorship leads to strong decisive government, particularly if, as is normally the case, there is not a need for a coalition.

So what system of the two mentioned democracies, is better?  Well no system of government, democracy or otherwise, is perfect.  Winston Churchill said:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In my opinion, it's one thing for governments to make decisions that affect solely their national interests, but when national decisions have a global impact, then that's a whole new ball game.  Hypothetically, imagine if the Polish government was procrastinating over a decision that could have a serious impact on the global economy.  Do you think the USA would just be a passive observer and wait for whatever will be?  I don't think so!

Looking at the bigger picture, in my view globalisation is testing to the full the world's current territorial governance.  Just how independent are so called independent states?  I am not questioning the cultural ties within countries and regions of the world but political responsibility needs to take on a much broader perspective than national boundaries.  The guy at the helm of the national ship cannot be allowed to be impotent because if that ship sinks, so do the rest of us.  Wake up America!