Civil order
is upheld by citizen rule, and democracy is citizen rule. Undermining democracy
is a threat to civil order and the capacity of government to contain violence
and, right now, democracy in the U.S. is under attack. This attack on democracy
is systematic and pervasive, has been going on for many years and, in spite of
the safeguards and guardrails built into the Constitution, democracy is
faltering.
Democracy
is an in-progress experiment that continuously needs defense, corrections and
amendments, because it is inherently fragile. It is important to defend
democracy and all of its foundational principles, one of which is renewal:
renewal of elites, renewal of ideas, renewal of leaders and of institutions; but
people in power do not want to get renewed. The natural tendency of people in
power is to try and stay in power, whether political or economic, so they will
use and manipulate weaknesses of democracy and its tools itself to undermine
it. And the biggest institutions with influence and power in our system are
political parties and their entrenched interest networks.
THE REELECTION DILEMMA FOR DEMOCRACY
In the book
Pathways to Freedom[1],
Shannon K. O’Neil, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, dedicates
a section to Mexico. In Mexico, by a century old law, no elected
representatives, from the president down to local city council members can
remain in office beyond one term. Dr. O’Neil argues that reelection makes
public office holders more democratic because this mechanism is an incentive to
make these elected officials more willing to listen to constituents than would
otherwise be the case; thus prohibiting reelection runs contrary to democracy. Her
argument opposing the reelection ban is:
“Perhaps designed to limit control of caudillos… this
legislation makes politicians dependent on party bosses… and less accountable
to voters, who will not get an opportunity to vote for them again…
…The country remains weighed down by the legacy
of no reelection, which gives politicians incentives to be responsive to their
parties first and their constituencies second.”
Two hundred
and twenty five years before Dr. O’Neil’s words, Alexander Hamilton weighed in
on the matter, forcefully advocating unlimited reelection in his arguments in favor of the Constitution being discussed for adoption. He argued that reelection was not only a mechanism for a more responsive democracy, but a way of keeping experience and wisdom in office. Having
dismissed already the notion of a quickly removable executive (a Prime
Minister) by the “whims” of society or a fraction of the legislature[2]
to argue a fixed term of office, proposed as four years, he addresses the issue
of “re-eligibility.” On this he says it is “necessary
to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his conduct, to
continue [the president] in the station, in order to prolong the utility of his
talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the advantage of
permanency in a wise system of administration.”[3]
He goes on to point out three major “ill effects” to bolster his argument:
- “One ill effect of this [temporary
or perpetual] exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good
behaviour.”
- “Another ill effect… would be the
temptation to sordid views, to peculation and… usurpation. An avaricious man…
looking to a time when he must yield the advantages he enjoyed, would feel the
propensity… to make the best use of the opportunities, while they lasted… to
make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory… An ambitious man too… would
be much more violently tempted to [attempt by every means] the prolongation of
his power.”
- “A third ill effect… would be, the depriving the community of the advantage of the experience gained by the chief magistrate in the exercise of his office.”
Much is
said about the wisdom of the framers, and on this issue Hamilton favored
unlimited reelection and Jefferson opposed it. In the ratified constitution Hamilton
prevailed but Jefferson, despite having favorable odds for reelection to a
third term, argued: “General Washington
set the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it. And a
few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while
who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to
establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”[4]
THE MAKING OF PARTY RULE
In 1951, only
146 years after first proposed by Jefferson the 22nd Amendment, the
one limiting presidential terms to two periods, was ratified. The debate on
term limits has raged since the founding of the republic, and here we are. An
amendment that limits the term of the presidency to ensure that power does not
excessively accumulate in one person to weaken the other branches of
government, as feared by some; and a notion that term limits are a useful way
of curtailing such power.
THE MAKING OF PARTY RULE
The thing
about power is that it exists. It can be distributed or accumulated but, like
dough, squeezed on one side, it will surface on another. That is why checks and
balances that identify, stabilize and control power are important. As Dr.
O’Neill said, reelection has its place in democracy but experience has shown
that a strong presidency, if allowed to have unlimited terms, will eventually
destroy separate powers, a key component to a republic, as we have seen in other
democratic experiments around the world and Jefferson forewarned. On the other
hand, Hamilton’s warning about an avaricious and ambitions man, seeing a
defined end to his term, using all the powerful tools of the presidency to
benefit his future self –or even to seek to circumvent his limited term and
stay in power by violence— is foreboding. Character matters, whether term
limited or not.
Term
limited legislative representatives do not have the power of the presidency.
That is why in their case, as Hamilton pointed out, they will be tempted to use
their limited term “… to make the best
use of the opportunities, while they lasted…” and prepare themselves for a
future life, first favoring and then joining, special interests represented,
typically, in lobbyists or party bosses. If the US Congress were to have
limited terms, the power of the presidency, party and lobbyists would overwhelm
that branch of government more so that it has now.
In states
where representatives have limited terms, government rotates into the hands of
easily swayed greenhorns, making power shift to special interest factions; it
also hems in the state executives. This is not to say that self-interest of
elected officers is the only driver of political life, but it is a human trait
that influences behavior, and in many cases prevails. An example of power
shifted away from elected representatives is the case of Marion Heller. Her
influence as a long term lobbyist for the NRA in Florida can be traced to the
term limits of the state’s legislature, making her one of the most powerful persons
in the capital, Tallahassee, repeatedly bashing newbies to impose her own
committee assignments and legislative agenda. She has more tenure in the halls
of Tallahassee than any elected individual.
The apex of
political power in the US is the presidency, and the president is the leader of
his or her party. Over the years, the accumulated power of party has increased
substantially partly because of a deadly poison to democracy: gerrymandering. Gerrymandering
is a combination of the worst of secured tenure and term limits. Establishing
“safe districts” for either party has created a system that allows parties to
accumulate power. That power accumulates in their interest (or of a dominant
fringe of the party), as opposed to the district’s constituencies. The
biggest electoral threat to an incumbent is to be “primaried” by a new party
favorite designee. The actual person holding office is not what matters, it is
the party that keeps the seat that does. And the leader of the party, the
biggest party boss, is the president who can thus manipulate the legislative
and, in consequence, the judiciary. Party Rule.
A few years
ago I had a friendly argument with an old high school buddy who has since
passed away. He insisted that democracy in the US was a sham while I argued
that, despite its problems, the US has a system that favors democracy. I still
believe that to be the case, but he was right also. Democracy is in trouble,
and that is because democracy is fragile. The accumulation of party power
through gerrymandering and its consequential concentration in the presidency is
a threat to democracy, liberty, peace and prosperity.
The
ascendancy of party over country was forewarned by Washington:
“The alternate domination of one faction over
another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which
in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and
permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline
the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able
or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes
of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this
kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and
continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the
interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”[5]
Hamilton
also talked about human nature and its tendency to overrule legacy and
continuity: “To undo what has been done
by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor, as the best proof of
his own capacity and desert …warranted in supposing that the dismission of his
predecessor has proceeded from a dislike of his measures and that the less he
resembles him, the more he will recommend himself to the favour of his constituents”[6].
By the same token if a president were to be reelected, he or she would
reasonably believe it is an approval of “his measures.” Hamilton, of course, was presupposing unlimited reelections under this premise, but in our modern times this applies to party more than person.
The
political and constitutional crisis underlying the governing of the US has come
to a head with the galvanizing figure of Donald Trump as president. It is not,
however, Trump that created the crisis, it is the elevating of party over
nation that has brought us upon this crisis. When Republicans are seen to be or
accused of protecting the President, in reality what they are protecting is
Party Rule. The crisis is a consequence of the increasing power of parties
deciding who gets elected to what office, regardless of the reality that each
state, each district and each precinct, is not made up red or blue base members
but made up of citizens—who seem not to matter to party. Conversely such
indifference makes those citizens skeptical at best and violent at worst against
the political system that governs over them. This situation is deeply rooted
and goes beyond figureheads or political boogeymen.
The clear
and present reality that any candidate, Democratic or Republican, can be
equally polarizing to the nation is with us and the consequences to civil order may be dire. When any party rules without controls, democracy flounders. There
will be interests favored or disfavored by a party rule system and they will
try to curtail democracy and its renovation at every turn. Gerrymandering has
made parties and factions increasingly adopt more extreme positions, eventually
becoming enemies rather than adversaries. A similar unfettered antagonism in
the past eventually led to the Civil War and such danger is not to be ruled out
in our time.
There may still be time to avert such an outcome, but time is running short, and prescient leadership even more so. Corrosive sectarian brinkmanship can be dialed back; challenges to gerrymandering in the Supreme Court may prevail eventually when submitted with a less partisan standard; the National Popular Vote Compact may eliminate the telegenic, divisive and mentally numbing notion of Blue and Red states. These and other measures to strengthen the role of citizens in a democracy, including protection of voting, elections and voting rights, may be too little too late but true believers in democracy and the republic must champion these as long as they can and are able to uphold citizen rule. Party Rule is not citizen rule, and Party Rule makes the country a weak union, a weak democracy and a weak nation.
There may still be time to avert such an outcome, but time is running short, and prescient leadership even more so. Corrosive sectarian brinkmanship can be dialed back; challenges to gerrymandering in the Supreme Court may prevail eventually when submitted with a less partisan standard; the National Popular Vote Compact may eliminate the telegenic, divisive and mentally numbing notion of Blue and Red states. These and other measures to strengthen the role of citizens in a democracy, including protection of voting, elections and voting rights, may be too little too late but true believers in democracy and the republic must champion these as long as they can and are able to uphold citizen rule. Party Rule is not citizen rule, and Party Rule makes the country a weak union, a weak democracy and a weak nation.
Carlos J. Rangel books include "La Venezuela imposible", on the long term structural political and economic issues that led to the Venezuela crisis, and "Campaign Journal 2008" on Barack Obama's successful run for the presidency that year.
More on representative democracy and voting: THE BIG NULLIFICATION
More on reasons and consequences of impeachment: WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS....
Other essays on ELECTIONS AND OTHER COMPLICATIONS OF DEMOCRACY
Photo and illustration, copyright their respective owners.
[1] Pathways to Freedom, Coleman,
I. and T. Lawson-Remer eds. CFR, 2013
[2] “It is a just observation
that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to
their very errors.” Federalist No. 71
[3] The Federalist No. 72
[4] Letter to John Taylor, Jan.
6, 1805
[5] George Washington’s Farewell
Address, 1796
[6] The Federalist No. 72
