Font size:

The executive and legislative branches have been at loggerheads most of the time since World War II, when the United States took on the mantle of world leader. This is largely because of the two-party system – there is no room for a third opinion. At times one party sabotages the efforts of the other with legislative tactics.

The executive branch is subservient to the writ of the legislative branch, although its prestige and powers are unmatched. If the two parties in the legislature cannot agree a compromise is struck. In spite of impasses at times, both the legislative and executive branches are business and people friendly.

Yet to the outside world they appear united. Foreign policy is the responsibility of the executive branch, which takes the initiative and seeks backing from the legislative, sometimes by manipulating public opinion as did former U.S. President George H.W. Bush to get congressional backing for Gulf War I in 1991.

The hotly contested job of president has been alternating between the two political parties for the last 200 years. With media as a mouthpiece, the person with better propaganda usually gets voted in. At other times the incumbent gets voted out because the economy has turned sour or people are weary of war.

Money also talks during elections. In addition to their parties’ fundraising campaigns, for the last 30 years U.S. presidential candidates have received public funds. Moves are afoot to make legislative elections also publicly funded.

This leads to an imperfect democracy. Private groups that provide funds to friendly candidates expect a return on their investments. Rightwing church groups contribute to rightwing candidates while labor groups contribute heavily to left-leaning candidates. Parties also raise funds through individual contributions, although these are restricted.

The 2008 U.S. presidential campaign cost about US$5 billion. The two main candidates spent about one-third of this amount, while others who were not nominated by their parties spent another one-third. The balance was for administrative costs.

Congressional elections scheduled for 2010 will be no cheaper. Each winning representative will have spent about US$1.3 million campaigning. Also each winning senator will have spent up to US$9 million. Those who lose also spend similar amounts. This is private money to the tune of US$3 billion.

Each winning candidate for state governor spends as much as a senator, so it costs as much as US$1 billion to get 50 governors elected. A similar amount is spent on electing the state legislatures.

All in all, electioneering is a US$10 billion exercise every four to six years. This does not include the cost of maintaining permanent election machinery, which is state funded. This money is private money supplemented by state funds for presidential electioneering.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972, amended in 1974, required candidates to disclose all their funding sources and restricted contributions from wealthy individuals. A 2002 revision further restricted soft money, or unregulated contributions.

Those who contribute to all these campaigns have undue influence within the government. All major issues of the day have their backers and supporters. These issues also have opponents. Political favoritism begins as soon as the backers and opponents are evenly matched. A thin thread can hold the fate of a particular piece of legislation. Trouble begins when other tactics bog the legislation down.

The worst-case scenario is now unfolding on the healthcare debate. The executive branch wishes to fulfill a campaign promise to provide healthcare to 45 million uninsured American citizens. The healthcare industry is dead set against it and is doing everything to undo this initiative, with backers in the legislature in both political parties.

This story has been playing out in public for the past year. There is no way to tell whether this measure will succeed or not. This story has been repeated umpteen times in the past 100 years and each time the executive branch has lost.

Why is the legislature afraid to vote yes for this initiative? Insurance companies and other healthcare businesses have led a very noisy public campaign against it. Their point is that this measure will add to an already bloated national deficit. They may be right, but they forget that healthcare expenses have been rising at the rate of 10 percent every year for the past ten years and will continue to rise.

Soon insurance premiums will be unaffordable to the common people, due to monopolies and inefficiencies. The executive branch is ready to institute a public option to force competition, but opposition in the legislature may defeat the measure.

All of this reveals a dysfunctional democracy where divided power is more of a curse than a blessing. The alternative to democratic power sharing is equally bad, however. If power is concentrated in a few hands it corrupts even more.

The sure way to cure this abnormality is to restrict the flow of money in political life. The noisy campaign mounted by the opposition party in the U.S. Congress is well funded by the healthcare industry. This is soft money outside the election laws and should be restricted.

Some legislators are afraid of taking a stand one way or the other, with the 2010 elections looming. To win reelection they want to be on the winning side, and presently it is not clear which one is the winning side.

U.S. democracy has to learn to deal with these logjams. Of the world’s democracies, the one in the United States has succeeded very well in the past 200 years. It has overcome many hiccups in the past, and will find a way out on healthcare soon. But until then the United States is giving the appearance of a dysfunctional democracy.

--

(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)