The Uber-Issue This Raises For Me (0.00 / 0)

is whether anyone has managed to be markedly more successful in avoiding traps that repeat themselves over and over and over again.  It's one thing to have flaws, but quite another to have flaws that cannot be gotten around by learning from past mistakes.

Is such learning possible by systems as a whole?  That is the question that comes to the fore for me.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:07:29 AM CDT

The flaws described are flaws not of the system but of the leaders of the parties. (0.00 / 0)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:43:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But the system enables them to do such (4.00 / 2)

That's the whole point.  Parliamentary systems empower party leadership in a way that Presidential systems do not.

That's not to say that Presidential systems are a perfect reflection of democracy, they are not.  They merely improperly reflect popular will in different ways.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:55:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The power of Pelosi and Reid (0.00 / 0)

Parliamentary systems empower party leadership in a way that Presidential systems do not.

Now then again what is your point?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:23:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The power of Pelosi and Reid (4.00 / 1)

is dwarfed by the power of a Berlusconi or a Tony Blair.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:39:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But not by the power of the president. (0.00 / 0)

The leader of a political party that ran not as a person but as large group of people who agree on a set of programs, and that group is then given a majority of seats in an election has the right to the power you say they have. Reid is not the leader of a party who ran on a set of programs and proposed legislation, but a single person who ran on issue that often had nothing at all to do with the programs of the party they affiliate with.

Leaders of minority parties, ones that are either in or out of government, parties such as The Liberal Party in Britain, the Liberal party in Canada dont have the power you cite, because unlike "Berlusconi or a Tony Blair" did not win a massive victory at the polls as the leader of a coalition formal or otherwise of disparate political groups who agree on a particular program.

This is as it should be.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:48:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's totally not how things can turn out in coalition government (0.00 / 0)

In Canada and the UK, majority governments are, by far, the norm.  

Willy Brandt ran a contraversial coalition government for years, despite not holding a majority position in the government, and despite the liberal (read libertarian) FDP being their coalition partner.  

And once again, I can cite the minority government of the Christian Democrats in Sweden, which, despite rarely holding a majority of seats in the Riksdag, were able to construct the most extensive socialist system in all of the West.  

The power structure in Parliaments is intimately tied up with the relative positions of strength amongst the parties, which can often be a blunt measure of the preferences of the populace.

This is not to say that our current situation in the American bicamerial legislature is better, it is just different.  In fact, the American system is more, not less, proper for mulitparty democracy.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:00:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NOT true. (0.00 / 0)

And a wildly wrong one.
Please. We have to go back to Chretien to find a Majority Single Party Govenemnt in Canada, Trudeau befor him many times had to deal with NDP, either in actual minority or preventing one as ther NDP rose in power and votes.

In the election of 1972, Trudeau's Liberal Party won with a minority government, with the New Democratic Party holding the balance of power. This government would move to the left, including the creation of Petro-Canada

Petro Canada was BTW, a government owned Oil company to drive prices down and buy cheap oil, and explore for oil.

And again you cite this -- it is an error

The power structure in Parliaments is intimately tied up with the relative positions of strength amongst the parties, which can often be a blunt measure of the preferences of the populace.

How can a majority of members of parliament blunt the wishes of the voters? If you do not have the seats to act alone, you must compromise. If you compromise with enough parties representing enough seats to pass the measure, this represents the will of the voters.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:22:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could you be more daft? (0.00 / 0)

The whole point is what 'a majority' means, absent a single party having 51% of the seats (historically rare outside of Canada and the UK), is entirely dependent upon negotiations between party leaders.  A plurality party has many choices as to coalition partners, or whether or not to risk going it alone.  Once voters have put the parties in government, they have little influence over these negotiations.  They are all back-room deals.  

In the above example, there are four different 'majorities' that can be assembled: Cd-C, CD-SD, SD-C, and SC-FD.  Voters have no ability to influence which one will govern over them.  Each of them would have radically different outcomes as far as government and policy, as would the Social Democrats trying to run a minority government, or a FD-C minority government, which would hold 49 seats.  

The whole thing is up to the party leaders.  That is the point.  It's much, much more fundamental to the functioning of the government than the role played by Harry Reid or Nanci Pelosi.  Those two don't get to pick the President and the secretary of the interior (also, they don't get to remove them, and yes, I do understand that minority governments are more fragile, and that coalitions can break.  But all of those things are also largely decisions of party leaders).  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:46:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But the voters do not put parties in government (0.00 / 0)

That is the point.

Parliament puts parties in government. The people elect Parliament. That is all. That is what a parliamentary system is. No leader is a leader in Parliament until Par,iament says they are.

This actually formed the calumny that was put forth by the CBC, and the like, during the pretend crisis of the Dion / Layton Coalition. CBC's anchor pretended that (and I am not saying that's what you were postulating, merely that this wording is the mask used by those opposed to the coalition) Mansbridge contended that there was a crisis, "because the Canadians had elected a government" and now they were getting another different government.

But in reality, voters in any Parliamentary system, do not elect government. They elect parliament.

Parliament chooses government. A vote of confidence is placed in a potion of the Parliament itself to run government. The reasojn there is "question period" is because the government is "day to day" resp9onsible to the elected repressentatives of the people. In regular period you must attend Parliament, as the person responsible for your portfolio, Energy, Immigration--etc. and you must answer to the House to the questions of the House.

There is no other power in the system but the House itself. A vote of confidence is ceding that power to group that exercises the powers granted. And at any time it may be revoked and granted to another. As power was awarded to PM Brown.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 20:20:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But voters are voting in order to establish policy (0.00 / 0)

They want their vote to translate to actual governmental policy.  That is the whole point of representative democracy.  

I understand that in a Parliamentary system, the voting is channeled into voting for MPs that then vote for the actual government.  The whole damn point is that adding this extra layer adds opportunity for party leadership to finagle the system.  That is, in fact, my whole point.  You are conflating the matter of fact of the system with whether or not the system should be the way it is.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 21:43:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not really. and thanks for the continued effort for us to resolve some of these views (0.00 / 0)

You are postualting that the actuality of the system has problems in reflecting the desires of a people for democracy.

I am not conflating the difference between the desire for a democratic system and its "on the ground" actuality. I am merely disagreeing with the examples you point to as problems, and which are not problems, and which actually do both, fill the need for democracy as an abstract, and fill the need for the actuality to be done.

Justice must not be done, it must be seen to be done. The guilty must not only be subject to a system of laws that finds and exposes the guilty, but it must do it nin a way that can be seen to have been fair, tested to have been fair, shown to have been fair.

Having all the people involved at every moment in the discussion and execution of every policy and outcome is not just unwieldy, it is impossible. That is the logic of Representative democracy. The check on that is that those representatives have supreme power, but cannot sit with power longer than 5 years, or at the discretion of a majority of other equally empowered repsrentatives.

The government may fall. At any time. Bush would have been subject to an early and repeated testss of his powers by Parliament. Impeachment would never have been a crisis of cowardice, never a crisis of checks and balances and never a crisis of political expediency.

Well, unless Ignatieff was leader, then all suppositions are off.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 22:01:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Justice must not be done (is wrong, a typo) (0.00 / 0)

should be, damn my sloppy keyboard poking,  "Justice must not only be done"

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 22:04:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is my point: (0.00 / 0)

Having all the people involved at every moment in the discussion and execution of every policy and outcome is not just unwieldy, it is impossible. That is the logic of Representative democracy. The check on that is that those representatives have supreme power, but cannot sit with power longer than 5 years, or at the discretion of a majority of other equally empowered repsrentatives.

all representative democracies will have means by which the populace doesn't get it's desires all of the time.  The way in which this takes place varies.

A presidential system has the populace directly elect the executive according to some majoritarian principle (whether it is more along a french or american model or not), and has a legislature that is based along a broader model.  There is a much more direct choice of who actually governs.  The price paid for this is gridlock in some cases, or a narrow spectrum of choices in others.

A parliamentary system fixes the gridlock problems and it often fixes the problem of the political spectrum, but does this in making the choice of who governs more indirect.  

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 14:07:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not indirect, because the house is the people until the next election. (0.00 / 0)

but does this in making the choice of who governs more indirect.  

It is not indirect. A body is elected to decide the things of the people of a land. Call it congress, call it parliament, now imagine that as the America founders hoped for and worked for, there were no political parties. What happens next?

I would assume that the appointment of an executive body comes soon. I dont think that's indirect. I think that is making "government" (the executive body) "responsible to" the people assembled in Parliament (congress) which directs questions that must be answered regularly, which can dismiss the government with a simple vote, 51%, create a new government, or call an new election. That is direct. One house, that all are responsible too, elected by population, not geography.

all representative democracies will have means by which the populace doesn't get it's desires all of the time.

This is again the thing that you dont understand. The house of Parliament is the people. In Germany you wanted an increase in the number of seats, by itself, to make their power in votes in the house of the people to be worth more than the other votes, because the total number declined. Not merely decrease to the new level of votes they had recieved, but even further than that because of a postulated reason, in this case that "the voters" have decided theuy like the CD's or SD's less, as if "the voters" was single thing, like a man, who suddenly likes beef less, so stop having beef. And not as a group of peolle who all have different reasons, and different decsisons and voted each differently.

If the people elected 56% of the seats in two parties that want to join in coalition, that is what they decided, and no one, not you, not even me, can say that it is undemeocratic of them. They ARE doing what the people want.

This is not a situation where " the populace doesn't get it's desires all of the time " this the population getting what they voted for.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 16:35:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also, Cretien is hardly ancient history (0.00 / 0)

Would you agree that, over the vast scope of Canadian history, majority governments have been the norm?

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:48:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Majorities are much more difficult now than 40 years ago, and forty eyars they were fequent, (0.00 / 0)

But not unexpected. I object only to "the norm, by far, "

I cannot predict, I am surprised and overturned by events too often to offer the future, but the situation in Canada is more than fluid. In the last federal election, voter support in Quebec, went from a majority of seats being won by the conservatives, to the majority being won by separatists, to the majority being taken by the liberals. Not a problem of polling, as it was accurate, the intentions of voters in Quebec rushing back and forth.

Not fickle, but incredibly responsive to behaviour and policy.

So I cannot tell you, with any accuracy at all, what will happen next in the creation of a Parliament, majority, minority, left, oatmeal or right wing.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 22:13:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And in fact, I would argue that a prime minister in a majoirty government (0.00 / 0)

is often much more powerful than the US president, since this prime minister is virtually assured a majority in the Legislature on a major bill.  It would be the situation if Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama were the same person.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:02:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is accurate. I agree. (0.00 / 0)

 But it is not a problem

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:23:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but it makes your Pelosi/Reid objection irrelevant (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 14:26:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not if the point is whether that power is not allocated, but carries the power that comes form an election that endorces that power. (0.00 / 0)

The actuality of the vote alters the power of the elected. Thats democracy. It works. Pelosi has the power of the number of elected Houses reps. It is less than a party leader that asked the people for power, and won it in a vote.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 22:17:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And if my point is that (0.00 / 0)

party leaders will always have some power, but in a Parliamentary system, they are absolute kingmakers, but in another system, they are checked by various other factors and influences.  

My whole point is that the reason Pelosi and Reid are weaker than Berlusconi or Merkel derives from the fact that a quasi-directly elected President wields significant power to counter them.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 14:14:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They are only "absolute kingmakers" if by that you mean (0.00 / 0)

They can determines by vote who has the confidence of the house to form government.
If you mean king, which is the head of state, then no. The government in several systems appoints the "crown" as in Canada, where the present crown is Michaëlle Jean, a Haitian refugee, married to an ex-separatist, who was appointed by the Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Yes, the presidential system is the same as the parliamentary system before the monarch was told to be quiet and sit down and her powers were reduced to ceremonies. In the presidential system the monarch is elected, and keeps her powers essentially intact for the execution of laws, and law are made by parliament (congress), in the US case with two houses, one very democtratic in nature, and one based on geography for no philospphical reason, but acting in fact as a conservative bastion to increase the power of rural unpopulated states.

But now we just describing and no longer criticising the system.

And of course Pelosi and Reid are less powerful than the head of government and the state combined, the president, and less powerful than a head of government (Canada, UK), they are only the leaders of a legislative faction.

These are again not criticisms, just descriptions.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 15:45:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And this is a bad (0.00 / 0)

thing, because?  Mind you, I'm Canadian, but our system seems a lot less broken to me than yours.  It's also dangerous to conflate first past the post parliamentary riding systems like ours with other types of parliamentary systems.

Now granted, sometimes our system has flaws.  In terms of misrepresenting the will of the people, the 88 election over the free trade agreement was much worse than the current conservative one.  But overall, our system produces much less corruption, much less gridlock and superior outcomes in terms of happiness and concrete programs (like single payer healthcare, for example).

Why?  Because when you have a majority government it can get things done, and because MPs are subject to party discipline and don't get nearly as corrupt as your Senators and Representatives (yes, there is corruption, but our corruption scandals are literally orders of magnitude smaller than wthe corruption you allow legally).

---

by: Ian Welsh @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 14:44:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I agree that it is dangerous to conflate SMD systems with (0.00 / 0)

PR systems, and I was trying to talk mainly about European-style governmental systems than i was trying to talk about the UK and Canada.  

But I would argue that problems with corruption and gridlock have more to do with party structure and civic engagement than anything.  I hate to harp on Italy, but the corruption in their system dwarfs either the US or Canada.  Rumors are that the government has paid the actual cost of the nonexistent bridge to Sicily several times over, though that is probably exaggerated.  Frankly, I think the difference in corruption and outcomes involves the Canadians having less of a tolerance for corruption than their American counterparts.

And you have other abuses of power in Parliamentary governments that exceed what you see in the US or Canada.  One could easily cite Indira Gandhi's behaviour during the emergency as another example.  Though I guess you could argue that that is more an argumetn that emergency clauses are bad things to put into constitutions.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 14:58:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't buy that argument at all (0.00 / 0)

Canada has actually been in a 25 year continuing constitutional crisis because its second largest province sends a majority delegation that wants top secede from the rest of the country.  Amazingly no one really sees this crisis abating - and so it has become an accepted fact.

There is a lot to like about Canada.  It's party structure and constitution is not one of them.  

---

by: fladem @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 17:24:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

While it can described as a crisis, and it often is, it does prevent the system from operating. (0.00 / 0)

It is only a described crisis. The last Coalition, the one we are all discussing is a case in point.

The separatists are nominally a social democratic party, on the Swedish model, they introduced a nationwide (province wide, but Quebec is also a nation in Canada) to provide daycare to all comers at a rate that is equivalent to 5 dollars a day. $100 a month for non profit qualified, inspected trained care from professionals.

Those separatists, in the time of the coalition said formally, this coalition will not hurt the nation of Quebec, their policies will aid in the development of policies in Canada that will help with our objectives for Quebec, so will not defeat the government, they have our confidence, they may form governemnt together. But not with us as participants.

Amazingly no one really sees this crisis abating - and so it has become an accepted fact.

This is a little out of date, separatists are more than fading, their electoral strength is at a historic low, and they have lost many elections in a row for the provincial assembly (State legislature in American terms)

No it has more than abated. It is in sharp decline. And it is delightfully, if frighteningly, powerful democracy.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 22:28:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How many seats (0.00 / 0)

do the PQ hold?  A majorty, non?

I should note that as a native Vermonter who has seen two waves of seperatism rise and fall, and who watched in complete horror as the last referendum failed by a hair, I am skeptical this problem will ever go away unless and until someone says enough.  

But the system makes it impossible for anyone to say that.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 00:12:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The PQ are not in government at all! (0.00 / 0)

So NO not a majority.

The Liberal Party has won the last three elections for the Government of the Province of Quebec. And are at present the majority Government, and will be for the next four years.

The federal version of the sovereigntist (separatists) party is called The Bloc Quebecois, and yes it has the majority of the seats available in Quebec, but is only another opposition Party in the Canadian Parliament. And they lost seats to Parties opposed to seperation.

But really the idea of separation has become a little old fashioned for the young in Quebec, and even the old supporters are tiring of the story and want a new vision. Polling shows the issue to be a net negative. If the PQ talks about a referendum or that project at all, they go down quickly in the polls.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 13:18:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks for this comparison (4.00 / 2)

I have one objection- this is a very rarified look at how politics work.  For example, that elections here are taken as given.  What I mean by this is that there is an assumption that if X party wins X seats, that is a reflection of social preference (in either system).  

A second question, which stems from Paul's question and other places - is the extent to which liberal capitalist democracy - whether parliamentary or presidential - can effectively represent or serve people or the extent to which it is always beholden to other interests (geopolitics, class/power structure in the country, etc.)  In this vein, I think responsiveness to social pressures and changes and blocking of what would keep those social pressures and changes from manifesting (i.e. hegmony) are useful things to look at as key measures of the capacity to deliver.

Just food for thought.  Again, thanks.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:08:41 AM CDT

The answer to the first question is that (4.00 / 1)

a post analyzing election laws and electoral systems would have easily been as long as or longer than this already long post, and I thought the focus here was more appropriate on the patterns of government formation.

The answer to the second question has a lot to do with our need to get away from the Structural-Functionalist ideas inherent in much American thinking in politics, dating back to the Federalist Papers--many americans believe that if we just build our institutions cleverly enough, then politics will just be solved.  

You see this whenever anyone tries to justify 'checks and balances', but you also see it a lot whenever we try to solve problems by creating new departments (DHS, for example), or appointing a "czar".  

We need to start working toward a model more focused on civic engagement than upon institutions if we are ever going to get a sane politics.  Changing the political system is not going to cut it.  At best, it will be a marginal gain.  The purpose of this post was to begin to show how power works its way through the cracks under another institutional framework.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:33:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't think the problem is strucuralism/functionalism (4.00 / 2)

to the degree that i understand it.  I think the problem is an excessive reliance on elite and liberal conceptions of government.  But (I think) these are differences in the way that we describe the same underlying issue - which is an excessive focus on surface level phenomena without looking at underlying phenomena which are present in discourse, basic ideas about how government works.

Even the idea that we define our government as a 'democracy' flies in the face of myriad definitions of 'democracy' like Aristotle's, social democratic, Marxist, and others, which to an extent reveals exactly how much the word and concept are an expression of aspirations at best and a tool for controlling the population at first.

Some other points related to your post as it stands though-
1. Separating the head of government from the head of state could be useful in minimising such things as the Clinton impeachment.  In britain the sex scandals get shifted to the royal family while the expenses scandals are reserved for parliament.
2. The bureaucratic nature of all states is notably missing from this analysis.  I would argue a better way of breaking down the functions of government would be - political/ bureaucratic / foundational (i.e. the government interpreting itself as an institution) / external (military, c.i.a. etc.).  just a first stab at it, but i do think looking at the administrative state as a category is useful.  

It is evident if you look at how much is done without passing a single law through executive orders, federal register notices, etc, that categories like executive and legislative are less useful than concepts like bureaucracy (or administrative if you want) and that these operate in both the nominally legislative and nominally executive branches.

3. Another important concept in comparing american politics to say INdia or british politics is federalism.  both the u.s. and india have stronger systems of division of powers on a formal level and in terms of your basic analysis, this has an impact.  This is particularly true when the 'meaning' of elections is read and interpreted by the media and other opinionmakers for public consumption.  

4. Finally (for now) I would add that the extent to which the government can actually as opposed to theoretically extend its authority is important.  There is no government that is completely c0extensive with the societyy that it pretends to govern (i.e. the size of the informal ecoibnomy may vary but it always exists).  However, this varies dramatically depending on state capacity and the wealth of the society and other things.  In the U.S., there are also particular mechanisms that have evolved to attempt to supplement traditional mechanisms of control like economic buyoffs, force, and elections.

Okay, I didn't stick to your original post, but I suppose that could be read as evidence of my interest and that the post was thought provoking :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:13:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, these are all extremely useful ways of looking at things (0.00 / 0)

And I've been coming to think that we do need a separate ceremonial head of state.  Even the stupid sex scandal stuff aside, I can only think of how much of the President's time is wasted doing ceremonial stuff like christening ships and greeting mid-level foreign dignitaries, etc., which would be duties of the Queen in the UK.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:56:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And to be clear, (0.00 / 0)

I brought up structural functionalism more to point out that, provided there is a means to organize and get the bums out of office, I don't think it's singularly important how we go about doing so.  

What is much more important that we have a culture that encourages critical engagement of government and general civic knowledge.  Understanding who did what, and how to engage and replace them is the most important thing.  

And this isn't really to say that institutions are unimportant--to see a counterargument, one need only look at the condition of the post-soviet states or the pre-and post-colonial governments around the world.  I'm merely saying that they're not the primary determinant of political outcomes.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 14:15:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i agree fully (0.00 / 0)

what i understand structuralism to mean is that social structures or linguistic structures or [insert field] are dominant while agency, fluidity, and other concepts are downgraded in importance.  but I know its a technical term in the social sciences and other fields and I don't understand it well enough to really comment as you can see here.  I suppose I should go to wikipedia, the most uncited resource in acdademia :)

Okay here it is -

According to Alison Assiter, there are four common ideas regarding structuralism that form an 'intellectual trend'. Firstly, the structure is what determines the position of each element of a whole. Secondly, structuralists believe that every system has a structure. Thirdly, structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than changes. And finally structures are the 'real things' that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning.

That's basically my understanding of it, more or less, too.

Functionalism I understand and its basically the idea that one can look at the function - i.e. effects - of a particular social phenomenon and base the mechanisms of causation on that.  So it would be something like - well the American government tends to produce a huge military industrial complex and therefore we should look for the factors that produce this function.  I know this has been rightly rejected as teleological in some ways,

but I think that looking at the effective functions of particular things (e.g. the culture of the Senate produces roadblocks), the institutional fragmentation of government in the u.s. produces an inability to enact major social reform swiftly (regardless of what the politics are behind that), etc.

anyway, it's best not to get too hung up ont hese words but it's worth establishing whether we're agreeing or disagreeintg :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 17:14:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

also (4.00 / 1)

I had an excellent professor at SOAS named Mushtaq Khan who combined a look at social structure and how they affected institutions (and in turn how that affected what types of industrial policy were or were not possible, regardless of what might be ideal).  So institutions are indeed important - but we need to describe how those institutions exist in the real world - rather than looking at things as they are written in historical documents like the constitution or as they are taught in public schools.  the limiting factors - geopolitics, social structure, institutional 'tradition' or 'culture' or 'historical accidents' for lack of more precise terms, etc.

For example, explaining why the Senate retains the 60 vote rule for filibusters and why there is a trend in the opposite direction is a very complex historical thing to analyse which involves, i would think, looking at the making of the constitution, the ways in which the united states has changed socially and economically over 200 years, british history, the history of the culture of the senate, how the senate has operated with respect to other isntitutions in the american government, etc.  All to explain one simple thing :)  

But even prior to doing this formally I think you could make an argument that there is a certain presumptuousness on the part of senators as to how important their body is and that there is simultaneously a pressure on the senate to continuously reduce the supermajority until it becomes a 50 vote option (but not lower) for cloture.

Probably the same with explaining why a particular attitude to the constitution plays such a strong role in contemporary american politics, why the civil war is underplayed in the sense of how much a fundamental change it was in considerations of how the american system of govern, and the manner in which 'the people' has been variously interpted, who it includes, excludes, why or why not, etc.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 17:26:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Be Careful, Dr. A! (0.00 / 0)

You might get a followup diary on the politics of electoral laws & electoral mechanics!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:52:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

bring it (4.00 / 4)

i make spreadsheets on politics for fun.

:D

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:57:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some thoughts (4.00 / 1)

No form of government can prevent social degeneration from taking its toll. We've had the same form of government for 200 years, but the society finds work-a-rounds or blatantly ignores the Constitutional government (e.g.: the last 46 years).

Madison and Hamilton said as much in the Federalist that the acorn of government cannot long fall far from the tree of the people.

Weimar could have happened under any form of government because the decisive dynamic was that the antebellum power structure was merely stunned, not destroyed out right. Hitler's main governmental platform was simply to restore Germany to where it was in 1914, then have a second attempt at the same battle plan. If at first you don't succeed...

Likewise, Obama's Wiemar-style government must face opposition from similar "rewind" ideologies.

1. PNAC, who would like to go back to 2001, but with someone a little more skillful than Bush.

2. The Confederacy, who would like to rewind to 1860, to get another shot at secession.

So the fate of a nation cannot decisively be determined by its form of government, in other words, gimmicks don't prevent civil wars.

So what can a Parliament do for those Americans wanting a society more in the mainline of Western Civilization?

For one thing Parliaments solve the problem of legitimacy: you don't have to complain that you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you can actually have a representative government for a change. Much of the libido powering lunatic politics in our times comes from the conclusion that no matter how one votes, the government just does it's own thing. Radicalization replaces civilized norms of a republic.

Provided most people want a government adhering to civilized norms, we would be much better off under a parliament. If most people don't want a government adhering to civilized norms, the question is moot: no government can forestall doom.

In America we might have some pretty novel combinations: a hispanic party, a black party, a white party, John Birchers, Green, Pirate, Paulites, Chomskyists, New Left folks, remnants of the Democrats and Republicans. Coalitions could be made issue by issue, and we might actually get some change re: climate, energy, education, health care, regulation etc.

As wacky as that sounds, at least all the cards would be on the table, and the current aristocracy would be severely weakened.

The alternative is to sway elite opinion, and hope to govern that way. But you can forget about social justice under the status quo. The periods of reform are those where the populace wars down elites as in 1789, or when they are preparing to, as with the threat from global communism. Threat seems to focus the elites, and they actually allow a modicum of progress like democracy and labor unions in those periods.

When the threat is gone, progress reverses.

It's that binary and mechanical.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:16:09 AM CDT

The form I always wanted (4.00 / 2)

1. eliminate the electoral college, and have a Presidential election with a runoff system should neither candidate get a bare majority on the first ballot.

2. Elect the house on a straight list system.

3. Elect a 200 member Senate with the Single Transferable Vote using multimember districts in the states that will support them, and a simple IRV in the single-district states.  Also, weight the senate seats to population rather than our current stupid two per state rule.  

But yes, you are correct in saying that no system is going to be able to prevent corruption or a power grab.  Hell, even the Soviet system in Poland was able to be overcome by a sufficient amount of civic engagement.  In the end, all institutions can do is make it easier or harder for the people to engage.  

As I say above, the Problem with Parliaments isn't a 'choice of the lesser of two evils', it is the fact that the choice of the government isn't the peoples' at all, it's the choice of Parliament, which can often have quite undemocratic dynamics to it, much as our system has quite undemocratic elements to it too.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:40:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why have two houses? (0.00 / 0)

Also, weight the senate seats to population rather than our current stupid two per state rule

Why have two houses?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:45:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because I think there is some value (4.00 / 1)

in having an individual representative that answers to individual voters.  For an extreme example, note the involvement of Congressman Ryan in the Jim Jones fiasco.  

But the value of the list system is pretty clear to me too.  So an extremely representative house, with a more personal Senate is logical to me.  Others may disagree.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:58:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My favorite form: (0.00 / 0)

1. Like you, eliminate the Electoral College and have a runoff election to ensure a majority.

2. Keep the House the way it is -- representing individual local geographic units so that people have a direct representative in the government. But of course we need to double or triple the number of House seats so that there is more representation.

3. Have the Senate be filled by a straight Party list system so that we can each vote for our political ideology. But the Senate also needs to be much larger, perhaps with 500 members so that the death/illness of a single member does not have such influence.

4. Elect an "Appointer" (someone other than the President) whose only job would be to appoint federal judges. This would take some of the power away from the President and give it to another person, making the President a little less powerful and further separating the Judicial and Executive branches of government.

I like the idea of lots of checks and balances so I like the three branches of government and having the legislature broken into two wings with a Presidential veto. This ensures that any legislation must represent a rough consensus of a large number of people/factions/interests in order to pass. I especially like having both geographical representation and ideological representation in Congress.

Eliminating the Electoral College and the 2-Senators-per-State rules would, of course, end two of the worst and least democratic aspects of our current system.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 14:59:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Having more representatives (0.00 / 0)

is not necessarily more representative.  If there were actually effective civic power organizations, it can actually be easier to put pressure on fewer people than more people (unless your representative is unresponsive to pressure--e.g., an ideologue).  

This has played out to a limited extent in the debate over mayors vs. school boards as controllers of school districts.  With school boards you often have a bunch of mostly invisible elected officials that are theoretically more representative because they represent fewer people.  But with a mayor you have a single person who can become a lightning rod for problems.  

Again, the effects are highly context-dependent.  If you have a mayor who is difficult to pressure, or has a basically invincible power base, then they can do what they want.  The school board members, in contrast, are generally vulnerable.  But there may be many of them, and it may be difficult to put pressure on and keep track of all of them.  Further, if you need to pressure a number of them, it dilutes your ability to make them the "enemy" of the moment.  

I could imagine a house with 500 representatives being even more unwieldy, with so many people to keep track of that many could do more of what they wanted with no one noticing.  And it could make it more difficult to act collectively to change their minds.  

Not taking a stance one way or another--I'm no political scientist.  But let's be careful (as the diary author is) with simple equations of one structure with better representation.  (Even if, in the end, you can show that one structure will work better--I'm not saying that everything is equal, only that it's complicated,)

--Aaron Schutz (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)

---

by: educationaction @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 20:55:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I guess so, but still... (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I can see that. Still, I'm sure that 100 Senators is not enough -- it took 8 months to get Franken seated and now we have two out sick (Kennedy and Byrd) and that has totally skewed the Senate. And it seems like having a local Representative who actually lives in your area -- that is, with districts perhaps half they size they are now -- would be better. But I'm not a political scientist either, so what do I know.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 21:27:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problems cited are not problems with a Parliamentary system, and some are not problems. (0.00 / 0)

If all of the parties holding positions in the government form a majority in Parliament, then you have a majority coalition forming the government.  Otherwise, it is a minority government.

I assume you mean not "if all of the parties" but "if a majority of the parties" If one party has 51% of the seats, it is a majority government. If two parties, join together, in any level of formality coalition, weak acceptance, shared government with each party getting members of cabinet, it is a majority.

The same is true for three parties.

Finally, one might ask how the head of state fits into all of this, and it would be realistic to say that the head of state's role is largely ceremonial. But they do serve one important role - the selection of the prime minister.  This is one place where a somewhat undemocratic slant fits into the administration of a Parliamentary government.   Usually, this is a trivial task, as party leaders have worked out what they think the coalition should be, and the 'wrong' Prime Minister won't net a majority vote.  But it will sometimes come to a head.

The head of State 'picks' the Prime Minister who has the confidence of Parliament. If there are systems that do not make this clear with actual law, it is a crisis, it is not a Parliamentary system. Because, just as you have said the House of Parliament, has all the power period. A vote fo confidence in the house is THE specific thing that makes a system Parliamentary.

A much less egregious example shows up in the events that took place in Canada last year, where the Governor General (the Queen's representative and the Canadian Head of State) temporarily dissolved Parliament rather than allow a vote of no confidence to take place, an act that ultimately saved the Conservative minority government.  This move was eventually supported by polling, but this is a lot of power to be intermittently wielded by someone that is either unelected or typically functioning in the background.

This is, though a popular view, false on its face and in its analysis. One) the government was not dissolved by the Governor General Michaëlle Jean, it was prorogued by the Prime Minister, and his decision was not overturned by the Governor General. The delay of Parliament, much like the August recess did not 'save' the government. The unceremonious ousting of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and his replacement without ceremony or leadership contest, by the Iraq War promoter Michael Ignatieff, who decided after the "august recess" (which you cite as responsible) "decided" to not join the NDP in coalition. That, the decision by the ignoble Ignatieff, to not serve as Prime Minister, was what kept the unpopular Bushite Harper in power.
And last polling showed support for the coalition, and not a lack of it. Though many in the Press said many times otherwise. The Press in Canada worked as hard as the Versailles press in the United states to stop the action. The vaunted CBC, often admired, worked tirelessly against the coalition, with the top anchor frowning and scowling his way through describing the crisis, while his normally "technological" background was replaced with Coming of Satan Katrina storm clouds, including and I am not making this up, lightening flashes.

     CD: 30
     SD: 51
     FD: 9
     C: 10

A major campaign finance scandal erupts, and the populace becomes disillusioned by the center, in particular, the apparently corrupt Social Democrats, who have been running the majority government for years.  The upcoming election results in the following new balance of seats:

     CD: 20
     SD: 36
     FD: 15
     C: 34

You made this same error in the first post which I pointed there too.

in the first example 51% of the seats have formed government. Voted confidence in the government. In your second set of seats after the election. the CD and SD decide together to form a coalition majority government with even more of a democratic majority at 56% of the seats.

You then say the vote seat returns "clearly represents" which is not politics, not democracy, merely a description, which does not represent truth, but a feeling. This is a common error is describing elections. If there are 10 people asked to vote to build a dock on a lake, and it was 6 votes for, and four against. Then one "voter" sells his boat, and one "voter" doesn't have the money anymore. "the Voters" have not shifted, those two voters have shifted.

Your clearly demonstrated desire for a particular outcome, the defeat  of a right leaning government, colors your anticipation of what "the voters" wanted. When the actual votes as represented by the seats in Parliament, show other wise. A majority government was formed. Despite your (and my) disappointment.

You reiterate this error here:

The obvious choice would be to form a coalition with the Communists, who were the big winners of the election, and the populace clearly wanted a leftward shift.

The voters voted for the people they voted for. The result is not what you describe, but what it is. You may want a different outcome, or like to describe a different outcome, or want a system that creates the outcome you think should have happened, but one cannot that a "more democratic system."

Ehud Barack's acceptance of the defense Ministry in Israel and the forming of the Labour-Likud "unity" government, something that was quite distasteful both to Labour voters and to many members of the Labour party.

Is not a fault of the Parliamentary system. It is direct and complete detailed photograph of the destruction of the labour party in Israel, the complete triumph of the right in ideological hegemony in Israeli society.

Another undemocratic element of this type of arrangement shows up in the current Canadian government.

Again as cited above, this has nothing at all to do with a "problem of parliamentary systems" as you even (accidentally?) say at the end of the paragraph

the result of the electoral process was a center-right government, due to the calculations of the various party leaders involved.  

See that is the problem "various party leaders involved" is the problem. A coalition, supported but attacked by the Press, was still extant and offered to the Liberal leader, the press were "waiting expectantly for Ignatieff's decision" and posted his decision as the Liberal Party coming to their senses. The problem is not Parliament, the Problem is the leadership of a progressive party of liberal voters, by a man who decided against coalition, and the people who put him him in the leaders position.

The idea that somehow relying on

In a Presidential system with first past the post voting (like ours), you shift this problem at the first step: you narrow the choices to an essentially small number, and then force people to narrow their preferences.

is MOREdemocratic is bizarre.

Making a few, almost always a group of people who "don't know the difference really" between Republicans and Democrats who can be swayed by haircuts and dress the ones responsible for deciding the most powerful position in a country is, I am sorry to say it, laughable.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:38:02 AM CDT

To be clear. (0.00 / 0)

was not dissolved by

not even temporarily.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:47:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I never claim that a Presidential system is more democratic (4.00 / 2)

Just that it is undemocratic in different ways.  Any mechanism, other than overt direct democracy without any professional executive, for converting a fractious populace's desires into policy is going to have undemocratic features.  And, really, check out Italian politics, for example, before you say that only people in Presidential systems can be swayed by trivialities.  In fact, in extremely strong party systems, rallies tend to take on festival atmospheres, and party loyalty becomes almost as much of a social phenomenon as it is a political one (though, of course, you have this in the States, too, but I"m talking degree, not kind).

As to my hypothetical, you have two different majority coalitions (as well as a potential socialist minority coalition) that could take place.  That both the Socialists and the Christian Democrats lost major numbers of seats and yet decide to remain in power is contrary to voter intent as expressed at the ballot box.  You are correct in saying that they have the right to stay in power under the system, and that the seats they hold in Parliament represent (in an ideal electoral system) a majority of the country.  That coalition, however, does not necessarily represent the populace's desires, and it likely would not.

I will defer to you on the Candian example.  But I will still state that it was morally shaky for the GG to accept Harper's demand to dissolve the Parliament when she held a signed letter from the leaders of three party leaders representing a majority in Parliament saying that they had the votes for a no confidence motion.  

And yes, functionally, the head of state does select the Prime minister.  Usually, this is a completely trivial mechanism, and the vote of confidence proceeds normally.  In extreme circumstances, where the plurality party isn't the obvious coalition leader, for example, you get shenanigans related to this.  The Weimar Germany example above is one obvious case, where the President did everything possible to avoid offering the Chancellorship to the leader of the Plurality party.  You also have examples of such behaviour in Italy, where for most of the postwar period, you had a very large Communist party and a significant post-Fascist party.  

And yes, you can commonly have minority governments, not representing a majority vote in Parliament.  The current conservative government in Canada, for example.  Or most postwar Social Democratic governments in Sweden (which held roughly 40% of the seats, usually).

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 11:54:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is your stipulations of what was desired by a group of others. (0.00 / 0)

That does not affect any outcome that is my objection

contrary to voter intent

is the problem you cite.

WE have to accept that you are correct as to what voter intent is. Merely postulating that describing it as that is the fallacy. We have no idea what the voter intended. We have only what the voter decided. The voters, in their varied aggregate, decided to elect a majority of CDs and SDs who in their wisdom, or lack of it, decided to form a majority government.

The problem is NOT parliament. There amy be a problem with voters and coalitions of voters and bad decisions by voters and it may be, for example the leaders of the SDs and CDs were both ice cream lovers and thats the kind of people the voters wanted top form government. The people did not vote for a communist majority government, their will was not stopped. Maybe the voters for example successfully did what you suggest the Chancellor could not achieve, and wanted a 'middle of the road government, and in that case, they were phenomenally successful. But I dont know. I dont know.

A shift of some votes, is not a 'shift of the voters'

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:14:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the Governor General's actions and moral failure. (0.00 / 0)

I will defer to you on the Candian example.  But I will still state that it was morally shaky for the GG to accept Harper's demand to dissolve the Parliament when she held a signed letter from the leaders of three party leaders representing a majority in Parliament saying that they had the votes for a no confidence motion.  

She did not rule on a confidence of the house. That is not corect either. She was asked if it was okay for Parliament to stop sitting for a while. That is all. She was asked if there was any reason to disallow the Prime Ministers right to prorogue Parliament. As that by itself, it did not affect the right of Parliament to decide its business, a usurpation of the power of Parliament, she did not act in a morally ambiguous way. She did not act. That, when judging whether it was moral in her effect on democracy, must be the moral judgement.

That the Liberal Party in Parliament, decided during that time , a few weeks, to oust their leader and appoint a new leader, to prevent the coalition is where the moral judgement must lie.

These are very important points.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:21:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a leagalistic argument (0.00 / 0)

that ignores that the essential reason for allowing the recess was to allow time for the coalition to dissolve, which is what happened.  There were a number of mechanisms which would allow this to happen, and Dion losing the leadership of the Liberals was merely one of several avenues.  

Are you really arguing that the GG didn't have significant influence over the outcome of events last year?

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:42:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"This is a leagalistic argument" (0.00 / 0)

No it isnt. Of course it is a "legalistic" argument, we talking about the rule of law. If you want to discuss debating then fine.

And no its not, because the problem about the situation you cite is not a problem of Parliament. It is a failure of the leadrship of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, (as opposed even to the Liberal Party members, who rejected Ignatieff as leader) and of Ignatieff himself who suffered either cowardice, or more likely from a fundamental desire to move Canada to the right politicaly and prevent the policies of progressive Liberals and NDPers from becoming government policy. But I dont know.

that ignores that the essential reason for allowing the recess was to allow time for the coalition to dissolve, which is what happened.  There were a number of mechanisms which would allow this to happen, and Dion losing the leadership of the Liberals was merely one of several avenues.  

Are you really arguing that the GG didn't have significant influence over the outcome of events last year?

"allow time for the coalition to dissolve, "
avoids the actual events, the failure fo the Liberal Party, and ignores that was merely a recess, like the august recess. While republicans may mount a loud ugly lie filled campaign, the august recess is not the defeat or protection of the government.

"There were a number of mechanisms which would allow this to happen," a number of ways that a recess would protect the government? In your analysis of parliamentary systems you may need more information about them.

"Are you really arguing that the GG didn't have significant influence over the outcome of events last year?" She was asked if she would or could prevent the recess of Parliament. She said no. That is all. The machinations of the Liberal Party is not a problem with democracy, Parliament, nor a Governor General.

That is what I am trying to say.

There are many people who were disappointed by the events that prevented a coalition, they have many people to be angry at. Being at people, angry at systems and angry at Parties is everyone's right. But anger or disappointment is not accuracy, and accuracy is necessary to building political activity to create actual change.

That is a point I have made many times.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:10:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The proroguing (4.00 / 1)

and more important the GG's decision to allow a prorogue of that duration was unexpected by the informed political types I know including the constitutional experts. It makes a future constitutional crisis almost certain if a PM can just prorogue for as long as he wants to avoid a vote of no confidence.

If I ever meet the GG, I will turn my back on her and refuse to shake her hand.  She failed to do her job.  I don't know why (though I've heard some informed speculation that is less than flattering).

She is scum.

But this is not a failure of the system, as with many American problems it is a failure by individuals to follow clearly understood precedents.

---

by: Ian Welsh @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 14:50:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the system allows individuals to ignore clearly understood precedents (0.00 / 0)

without consequence, then how is that not a failure of the system?  Either the GG acted outside her power, in which case, it is shocking that the system failed to punish her, which is a failure of the system to enforce its laws, which is a fundamental tenet of democracy; or she acted within her power and her actions exposed an undemocratic kink in the Canadian system.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 15:02:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Still (0.00 / 0)

It is the sort of failure that catches everyone by surprise, much like Bush v. Gore, which is really not what's commonly understood as an inherent design flaw.

Given evil enough people, all sorts of flaws appear that could never be protected against by technical/legal means.  At some point, moral norms are indispensable to the working of any systems.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 15:18:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would argue that both these cases (0.00 / 0)

are cases where the system offers people tremendous amounts of informal power, and then precedent expects them to never really wield it.  To me, it is systemic, though I don't quite know what the solution is, particularly regarding the judiciary.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 15:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Can't Define It Formally (0.00 / 0)

but there seem to be two qualitatively different sorts of thing going on.

There are "normal" structural flaws, such as you are writing about here, and then their are structural flaws that have the appearance of having been invented on the spot.

Like I said, I can't formalize the definitional difference--at least not now off the top of my head.  But I damn sure know it when I see it!  And the latter sort certainly do qualify as pornographic.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 18:20:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There no structural flaws described here. (0.00 / 0)

There are outcomes that were or are desired, and attempts to match those disappointments with artificial, inaccurate descriptions of events, inaccurate descriptions of voter intentions and inaccurate descriptions of structure.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 13:24:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No system (0.00 / 0)

can survive people who deliberately subvert it.  I would think you, as an American (I assume) who lived through Bush, would understand this.

---

by: Ian Welsh @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 15:54:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is almost exactly my point (0.00 / 0)

Systems fail, and people out there seeking to subvert it will always exist.  Various systems will fail in different ways, and the only check on this failure is an engaged populace that holds leaders accountable.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 16:04:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Liberals failed in policy, in desire, in drescription of events and in suporting their members goals and plans. (0.00 / 0)

That is all. Blaming the system of Parliament is akin to a break and enter thief blaming a house for the robbery. "It was easy to get in, the widow broke, I reached an turned the lock, how can I be blamed?"

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 13:28:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Crap. Totally not true. (0.00 / 0)

There was no use of power by the GG.

Period.

There was no moral action, there was no flaw in the system. The flaw lay elsewhere, and ignoring that is a political mistake, a legal mistake and a mistake of democratic systems.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 20:32:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problem (0.00 / 0)

I have with what happened in Canada is that the deals happened after the election.

For all of its warts, our system requires deals be made before the election.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 17:20:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NO thats wrong. Parliament is THE source of all power. (0.00 / 0)

Period. The people entrust to representatives their power to deciee in a house of a people. Those people are then granted power, that house is granted power. That house can then temporarily cede executive power to a group of the House, but who responsiible to the house at alol times.

The thing you call deals made after the election is the discussion of the Representatives about the course of the demopcracy.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 20:29:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That are not (0.00 / 0)

made until after the votes are counted.

In fact the parties lie like hell about their intentions post election if no one party can form a minority government.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 00:07:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deals are being made now in congress. (0.00 / 0)

Deals between the Blue dogs, the Populists, the wacko wacko Republicans with the moderate Republicans, all changing legislation, all altering bills, all the deals making changes to every bill.

There is far more deal making in Congress, than ever happens in the Canadian Parliament, so I dont get what you mean.

Thanks for the post.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 13:31:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deals about who forms a coalition and who is prime minister (0.00 / 0)

are waaaaaaay more fundamental to the way that government functions than deals about specific pieces of legislation.  

The only real time I can think of such a deal here was the Ford appointment, and that was fodder for mass outrage.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 14:10:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

?? I am sorry, what is the point? Parliament is the house of the people. (0.00 / 0)

Of course the house is going to talk, Thats why its called Parliament, it means talking. it is the house of talking. If talking is not about substantive issues then it is the house of whispers, or the house of gossip.

What, honestly because I am completely lost as to your intent or assumption.

A deal? Congress is the house of deals. Up front, and back room.

A deal is two people, and one says I will feed you if you chop my wood, the other says, I will chop the wood if you feed me and let me drink water when i want. They spit on their hands and sahake to make a deal.

People representing voters, go to the "house of serious talking" in order to argue and decide the people's business.

Please what the heck are we talking about now?

The Congress, which drew up the Declaration of Independence was a what? When it drew up the constitution it was a....., listen OK, I disagreed with your diary on Presdeintial and Parliamentary systems, but we dont have to have a back and forth on every point now, even it it doesnt mean anything.

The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a discussion. The term came to mean a meeting at which such a discussion took place. It acquired its modern meaning as it came to be used for the body of people (in an institutional sense) who would meet to discuss matters of state.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 15:17:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your wish for an out come is hardly a point about the power of (0.00 / 0)

a GG.

Or the lack of an outcome a point about the morality of an action.

Saying that she could have acted, is that she should have acted.

There is good reason to want the GG to ensure that Parliament is respected, no other purpose is called for her.

Any other right to a GG is a right to int4fere in Democracy. Hardly an immoral act. I contend she acted neither morally nor immorally because it was not prerogative to overturn the PMs request. On what precedent? It was disappointing, but not unexpected. Despite the Press releases you read asking her to act in favour of the Coalition.

No your wrong to blame the GG for the Liberals Parties conniving.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 20:26:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I mean "you're" of course and not "your" (0.00 / 0)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 20:35:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great Post - Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I've been looking for this kind of information for a long time - even thought about enrolling in a basic PoliSci class at the local college.

Are there any books/articles you recommend that explain these ideas further, or that expound upon points of your favorite arrangment (you gave a thumbnail of this a few comments back)?  Your mention and critique of structuralism - that we can perfect government by creating perfect structure - was completely new to me, and it's an intriguing argument/counter-argument.

I'm one of those mentioned near the beginning of your article who's often lamented our own Presidential system, and who's often promoted Parliamentary systems, without really understanding them to any great detail.

---

by: alyosha @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:53:19 PM CDT

Thank you. (4.00 / 1)

Let me think on a worthwhile source--most of what I know is from college, and since I went to college in the '90s, most of my textbooks are out of date, and would need to be supplemented with a bunch of updates, rather than reading current information in the first place.  

The parliamentary/republican government argument is very old.  Woodrow Wilson, before he was President, originally became famous as an academic favoring a move toward Parliamentary government, as it would remove many of the checks and balances, and enable more fluid, responsive government.  

And I'd be remiss to point out the other major critique of the structural-functional model of government: the Marxist one, which would argue that debate about the underlying structure and laws of government are largely irrelevant, and that they merely reflect the underline economic power structure of the society in question.  

The critique of structural-functionalism that I give is closer to that of Robert Dahl, a sociologist and political scientist who sought to describe government in terms of pressures and inputs and outputs, rather than focusing deeply on legal frameworks.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 14:09:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here in the U.S... (0.00 / 0)

Article V:

Constitution: how amended; proviso.

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which , in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.  

---

by: nasrudin @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 15:04:05 PM CDT

Some points in an interesting discussion (0.00 / 0)

1.  I think it is critical to distinguish systems that elect by proportional representation and those that elect by majority in a district.  These systems are actually very different.

2.  I do think the founding fathers were right to fear the tyranny of the majority.  Not mentioned here is the notion of seperation of powers, nor the role of the Supreme Court.  

3.  I do not like giving parties as much power as they have in other countries.  I much prefer open primaries like we have here to elect party nominees.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 17:18:18 PM CDT

The members of a Parties area, the riding, elect the person to be a represntative. (0.00 / 0)

Each riding must selct its member of the house. It is a primary for every election. Some Parties have different rule for allowing different selections. The liberal Party resetrves the right select (appoint) candidates to represent the Party locally or because she is some person the party would like to have in Parliament. The Liberal Party selected a respected astronaut to run in a riding in Montreal. Not the riding association. This can outrage the locals, it can pleae the locals, it can outrage the nation, it can please the nation. But is mnore rare than it could be, and it is among the things people judeg when voting for their local candidate.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 20:50:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

While it can described as a crisis, and it often is, it does NOT prevent the system from operating (0.00 / 0)

damn my typos are an embarrassment.
The election of separatists to federal parliament do not, not, prevent it from operating. The Canadian federal government has never been made unworkable.

California as an example is unworkable.

The separatists have not acted too far outside the norms expected of an opposition party, and are in hard decline.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 23:35:24 PM CDT

Valatan for all the disagreements on the systems we discuss (0.00 / 0)

I do not consider you anything but an ally.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 17:08:00 PM CDT