Dysfunctional Government

Is the Constitution of the United States beyond its sell by date? Americans are educated to believe that ours is the best document of its kind ever written. It has been adaptable to change and at the same time sustained our stability so that the United States of America was able to become the most powerful country in the world.

The document was written within a great context of compromise. A belief that there needed to be a foundation upon which 13 very different and sometimes disparate states could agree to be 'one among many': E pluribus unum. The document is a testament to the complexity of simplicity. It is also an example of the over-riding desire of the Founding Fathers to correct the inequities of English parliamentary government. It's success at this is the Constitution's strength and its weakness. So intent were its authors to limit the power of government that it has encouraged the ability of opposition parties to overcome the wishes of the majority as a policy for regaining power.

Within the framework of the Constitution there are mechanisms present to correct its inadequacies. I believe it is time to seriously consider extending the period members of the House of Representatives are elected to serve. I believe it is also time to consider extending the length of a Presidential term to at least 5 years. Another consideration should be whether it is advisable to relect the entire House in one election. I don't have an opinion on that, but think it should be questioned and debated. And fillibustering is not democratic no matter which party is doing it. It enables the will of the majority to be circumvented and stymied; it can make and has made a government by the people and for the people impossible to achieve.

It is not healthy for the country to be thrust into political maneuvering and posturing so soon and so often that the business of governning becomes impossible. In the 21st Century it is a fact that constant media speculation about future elections does not encourage positive government. It is a great inhibitor, a negative influence that harms the nation and discourages its people.

There have always been charlatans in the halls of power. Whatever amendments may made to our Constitution these charlatans will still be found trying to bend the powers that be to their will. But I believe that by giving our legislators more room to breath we will enable government to be more reflective as well as effective.

Enter Gordon Brown Who Reminds me of …

I have mixed feelings about the Prime Minister to be. I was put off the first time I ever saw him by how much he reminded me physically of Richard Nixon – the jowly face, the body language, even the way he had of speaking. That was a long time ago, but makeovers later and the Nixonian aura still persists for me

Gordon Brown is a hard fellow to warm to, as was the disgraced President. But one must try to give the man a chance. But I do think he’s a bit of a “strange” one, though that does not mean he won’t be a great leader. I wish him well and I hope we find him to be a leader of wisdom and depth who can rise to the challenge of a country suspicious of its leadership and worried about the future and the direction we seem to be heading.

It is a strange system that can simply change Prime Ministers at the whim, or not, of one man. Doesn’t seem very democratic. I really do wonder if Gordon Brown is ‘electable’ without becoming Prime Minister first. The United Kingdom, like the United States does not elect it’s political leader directly. The United Kingdom is, however, electing a government. Americans really don’t think that way. First of all, it’s complicated because the Head of State in the UK is a sovereign born to the role for life. The closest we have to a Prime Minister is the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate.

It is very valuable for Americans to study how politics in the UK works. It explains why our own government is the way it is. Our government was created to correct what were deemed to be the faults of Parliamentary Sovereign Britain. The most evident method of doing this was the system we have of ‘checks and balances’. This is an important concept to have developed, but there is a price to pay – government stagnation.

For example, in Britain, the government of the day can raise taxes within hours! (Un-American!!) In Britain the government of the day is elected for 5 years – in the U.S. the government can change dramatically every two years. The Queen has an interesting way of putting things to a new Prime Minister when she asks him if he or she can ‘form a government’. In Britain ‘government’ means do you have enough of a consensus to do the job? A Government is 'of the day'.

I love the concept here of the ‘loyal opposition’. For every ‘government’ there is a ‘shadow government’ and every minister in the government must stand up and defend the policies of the day and is answerable directly to his ‘shadow minister’ in particular and must also be able to respond to questions from other honourable parliamentarians. The most striking thing to me about Parliament is its intimacy and almost informality amidst all the tradition and politeness of the ‘honourable friends’.

Most Americans believe that ours is the greatest democracy in the world and our Constitution is the best in the world. I don’t believe this – other countries do have democracies that can rival ours. Somehow all the safeguards that the founding fathers came up with didn’t stop big government. It is a fact that when the Constitution was written , it was assumed there would be Constitutional Conventions held that would bring forth Constitutional reform – when the amendments to the Constitution are longer than the original document, it seems to me perhaps it is about time to start over again.

But I cannot in my wildest imagination come up with who we find to perform such a task and how we would ever be able to get 50 states to agree to its adoption. And so comes some more wisdom from the British! They have an ‘Unwritten Constitution’. I used to joke about this as an instance of British arrogance. Now I think it a mark of genius!