A Parliament vs a Congress

Unfortunately for Americans, their revolution took place too early, and afterwards they were stuck with in inadequate form of government. It’s always given them trouble, the worst a Civil War which led to the death of well over half a million young men. Now it has led to the possibility of the death of their democracy also. Canadians, in a more northerly part of North America, escaped the American fate by delaying their independence from Britain by more than half a century.

 Except for various forms of democracy in ancient Greece or Rome, early government was simple: a king (rarely a queen), a group of barons, and subjects. Occasionally a king had to call together the barons and ask for resources to put down a revolt or finance a foreign war. Over time, the barons began to ask for rights in exchange. Over time the barons formed a proto-parliament, insisting that the king meet them regularly. With the rise of a middle class, the parliament became not just made up of barons but of others, too. While power had been slowly devolving from king to parliament over the years, in 1776 George III in 1776 had considerable influence on Britain’s colonial policies.

 The men who led the American Revolution, the so-called “Founding Fathers, weren’t all that fatherly. They included many relatively young men. In 1776, John Adams was 39; Thomas Jefferson 33; James Madison a very young 25. George Washington was only 44. Young men are idealistic, and they were very much influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment – by John Lock’s argument all men having a right to life and liberty, by Jean Jacques Rousseau’s ideas about popular consent of the subjects, by Baron de Montesquieu insistence that a king’s power must be checked by an elected body.. Out of these largely untested ideas came the Declaration of Independence and a few years later, a constitution.

 Worried about the power of a king – or that a president who might turn into a king the constitution set up a division of powers so that supposedly the legislature and the judiciary could hold the president in check. That it crippled a government that could seldom act quickly and decisively was not seen a problem. It couldn’t resolve the slavery question except by Civil War. These young fathers thought all involved in governing the new nation would act independently, with dispassionate reason. They made no provision for political parties. However very soon political parties formed, and an electoral college, supposedly of wise men chosen by state legislatures, fairly quickly became political, also.

 The problem is that, when it comes to power, the decision as to who is to govern comes not so much from reason as from self-interest. One wants what is best for number one, for oneself, one’s family, one’s own community. That may coincide with what the majority think is in the so-called “public interest.” But it probably won’t. Rationally, Thomas Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he died holding well over 100 people in servitude.

 Meanwhile, the parliamentary system evolved. King George’s III’s increasing mental illness reduced his power till he did in 1818. A son, George IV, became regent in 1811, and succeeded his father upon his death in 1818. George IV had no direct heirs, so a second son, William IV gained the throne in 1830. Neither were good at governing, and both were dissolute in their royal life style. Then in 1837 Queen Victoria, who had lots of strong opinions -- but they were about manners and morals, not about how to run the country. On matters of state, she became almost a figurehead, especially when the prime minister was William Gladstone, whom she hated. She much preferred Benjamin Disraeli, who flattered her as a “fairy queen” and arranged that she be given the title Empress of India, but who kept power for himself and parliament. By the 20th Century, the English monarch was a true figurehead, acting only upon the advice of his or her prime minister.

 The result in Britain – and in Canada, which adopted the British system in 1867, and even its figurehead queen – has been a government with the power to govern decisively unhampered by the whims of a monarch. Meanwhile, the United States government bumbled along for decades, hamstrung by a system of government that didn’t work very well. It relied far too much on politicians being rational, which they aren’t. Today, its limitations are very evident, and it appears unable to solve its problems. Health care is too expensive and spotty; roads and bridges and other infrastructure is decaying; the education system is uneven; the national debt is growing at an alarming rate.

 Interestingly, without Americans realizing it, its congress is taking on many of the attributes of a parliament. This is most evident in how the Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are acting like members of parliament, unquestionably supporting the government. So-called “bipartisan” legislation on any important issue – that is, legislation worked out after relatively rational discussion and compromise – is impossible. The economic, cultural, and hence political divisions in the country are sharp. However, the safeguards within a parliamentary system of government are lacking: the ability of a caucus to dismiss the executive mid-term by vote (or the threat of a vote) of non-confidence; that senior government officials, including the president, to be democratically elected, as the US cabinet is not; a public service led by highly professional executives; the regular, required question period; the presence of a unified opposition with a single leader; the ultimate authority of a head of state who can refuse undemocratic rule. In the US, the president is the head of; state.  

 Once the abusive person who currently holds the presidency of the United States is gone, I hope the country can begin to deal with its problems. Given its system of government, though, I fear it may not be able to.