Do the advantages of the US political system outweigh the disadvantages?

1




Do the disadvantages created by the separation of powers in the US political system outweigh the advantages?



Created by the Founders in 1787, the separation of powers was designed as a principle feature within the Constitution defining how the government should be run. Kesler (2007) describes the function as 'primarily designed to elicit sound and deliberate legislation, a film and energetic executive, and an independent judiciary faithful to the constitution'. In this essay I will analyse the extent to which the separation of powers ensures this, and criticise the structures in place which prohibit the smooth running of the government, as well as highlighting the potential impact the problems with the system could have on the United States' position as a hegemonic power. As Cutler (1980) stressed over three decades ago, due to the 'increasingly interdependent world' we live in, America is now 'an integral part of a closely interconnected world economic and political system' and has 'to respond as quickly and decisively' to situations which arise (p.34). As I will go on to discuss, the political situation created by the separation of powers prevents the government from being able to adequately react to pressing issues, particularly due to the weight put on local issues rather than national. I will articulate my argument primarily by discussing the prominent disadvantages which lie in which are usually considered to be advantages within the US political system.

The Constitution, through the separation of powers, ensures that 'all government power does not fall into the hands of a single person' (Zvesper, 1999, p.6). Analysing the Constitution more recently, it has been commented by Kesler (2007) that 'it is the Congress's and the Supreme Court's power that have grown at the net expense of the President's. But more important than the balance of power between the branches is the maldistribution of powers, the mixing and confusing of governmental functions, which has resulted' which not only means the president does not have the adequate power to act as he wishes, but also questions how well the separate branches work together if the principle of separation is actually transpiring into cross-over. This, of course, can be a benefit in that it prevents an autocratic leader, but the implications of this prohibition go further than just the positives. There is nothing in place to differentiate between leaders acting tyrannical and leaders merely trying to impose positive policy. As Levinson (2006) complains: the effect of 'guarding against the risk of bad legislation ends up being counterproductive insofar as it prevents as well the passage of good legislation' (p.36). With Congressmen's loyalties lying with their constituents, and the judicial branch aligned with the Constitution, the executive must be allowed to act on the national interest. But the implications of the separation of powers, and the subsequent checks and balances, means that this is simply not possible. Congress' role, according to Kesler (2007), has resulted in their 'role as legislator […] being subordinated to its role as overseer of the executive branch.' This not only makes it harder for the President to fulfil his role, but also has serious implications on the legitimacy of the legislative branch. If the role of Congress has shifted, the question must be raised as to who are now the law makers of the country.

The separation of powers is not just frustrating for the executive due to the lack of ability to make necessary decisions, it is also a major flaw that it is Congress that are often putting the president in these predicaments. Concerning the issue over the debt ceiling, Congress have repeatedly put the president in situations where violating the constitution has appeared to be the only option. Referring to Congress frequently refusing to raise the debt ceiling, Buchanan and Dorf (2012) comment that 'Congress legislates in light of existing law, and thus it presumably knows when it is passing new legislation that would make it impossible for the president to meet his obligations under both the older and newly enacted laws' (p.1203). In this situation it is apparent the problems which can arise from three separate institutions forming government. Congress is responding to constituents by passing new legislation, whilst protecting the national interest by attempting to keep borrowing from escalating. However in this situation both conditions cannot be met, and it falls down to the executive branch to deal with the crisis. If the president is in risk of violating his oath of office due to the position Congress have put him in, there are questions raised as to what he should do (Buchanan and Dorf, 2012, p.1198). There are many options the president could take, however each result in an unconstitutional decision. It can be argued that, in this case, violating the Constitution would be justifiable in order to keep the country running. However, many potential issues arise from this. As Buchanan and Dorf (2012) explain, if the president is put into a position where he has to violate the Constitution in 'some way' then it empowers him to violate it in 'any way' – there is 'no logical stopping point' and could give the president 'potentially unlimited power'. If he were to violate the Constitution to solve the debt ceiling problem, he could 'in violation of the constitutional allocation of war-making powers, unilaterally order the armed forces to invade Venezuela or Iran, sell its oil on the world market, and use the proceeds to make up any shortfall between appropriations and revenues from authorized taxing and borrowing' (p.1218).

Further examples of 'the mixing and confusing of government functions' (Kesler, 2007) are apparent in branches other than the legislature. The notion of checks and balances were put in place to increase the level of democracy and accountability within the branches of government, and to ensure no single branch could become autocratic. However, some powers enacted by checks and balances can be assessed as undermining the principles of the separation of powers. Lots of emphasis is put on the somewhat controversial role of judicial review, but 'basically no attention' (Levinson, 2007, p.869) is given to the presidential veto. Levinson (2007) explains that in over 220 years the Supreme Court has invalidated 165 laws (most of little importance), but the president has vetoed over 2500 laws (p.869). Not only is this an indication of the executive displaying the use of powers which should, in theory, be exclusive to the judicial branch, it also has larger implications on the work of the legislature. If members of congress are aware that the current president is prone to exercising his right to veto, this could prohibit them from even proposing a law which does not align with the president's ideology, as they could be convinced that the president will just veto it. Polsby (1997) states that 'a shrewd president would not veto everything', as using the power selectively would have the effect of 'bribing legislators into cooperating' (p.82). Even if the president is not actively vetoing legislation – for example in the first five years of George W. Bush's tenure –it does not mean that it is not playing a role in how the country is being run. Just the threat of the presidential veto has a potentially massive impact on the shaping of legislation, and could be having profound unspoken effects on which laws are being discussed. This then questions the extent to which congressmen are adequately representing their constituents' interests if they are not proposing bills which they may be passionate about, but know will not succeed.

Situations such as this undoubtedly raises the issue of whether the United States can be responsible as a world superpower as, if the government cannot work together to solve the issues in their own country, then their responsibility in other countries must be questioned. The wider implications of the United States' position in the world coming under scrutiny could potentially be detrimental. The value of the dollar is fundamental to both the stability and the development of the United States, especially when considering the current economic situation. Any uncertainties within America's national situation can have serious repercussions on the reliability of the dollar worldwide, which would then implicate back onto America as a nation. This gives weight to the Constitution, emphasising the importance of working within its rules, but also highlights the necessity of the separate powers working together in order to achieve what is best for the national interest. This example shows the potential problems which could arise if the relationship between the legislative and the executive branch carries on the way it is. Thomas Jefferson highlighted the importance of the steady advancements of institutions, and how they must 'keep pace with the times' (Levinson, 2007, p.865). Cutler emphasised in 1980 how responding to events requires 'joint action by the President and the Congress', who must 'respond promptly to a wide range of new challenges. Its responses cannot be limited to those for which there is a large consensus induced by some great crisis' (p.134). Yet centuries since Jefferson and decades since Cutler the situation has not improved, and as America's hegemonic position in the world slowly deteriorates due to the steady rise of other nations such as China, the importance of addressing the imbalance could not be greater.

Zvesper (1999) explains that in a republican democracy, 'the legislative authority necessarily predominates' (p.9). This is due to the fact that this body is the most representative of the people. However, I question whether this assumption is in fact true, and how democratic America's Congress really is. The members of the House of Representatives serve the shortest terms, at just two years, and the incumbent rates for these positions is incredibly high, with only rarely 'less than 90 per cent of members' re-elected (Phillips, 2012), to the point where in 'several election cycles in recent history, more incumbents died in office than lost re-election bids' (Coburn in Phillips, 2012). In theory, short terms in office are meant to encourage political participation among the electorate and ensure politicians are accountable for their actions. But figures show even though the members of the House of Representatives are there to represent the electorate, a large majority of the people are choosing not to exercise their right to vote. In the 2012 state-wide primary elections, through which Congressmen are elected, only 15.9% of eligible citizens actually voted (Phillips, 2012). Phillips (2012), a critic of the current system and an active campaigner in changing the way America votes for its government, puts this down to the 'public's inability to understand an enormously complex, vastly distant government'. So as the American political system has evolved into a direct democracy, rather than the representative democracy put in place by the Framers, it has resulted in disengagement among the electorate – creating a larger gap between the government and its people. Anthony King (1998) describes the current system as if stuck in a cruel cycle, explaining that as Americans have become more dissatisfied with the government, they have called for more democracy. 'The more they call for more democracy, the more of it they get. The more they get, the more dissatisfied they become.' Therefore the high incumbent rates enjoyed by members of the House of Representatives cannot be considered an accurate reflection of satisfaction among the electorate, as incumbents only succeed as they are 'able to raise more money and mount a stronger campaign', and benefit from the fact that 'people are highly unlikely to vote candidates who they know nothing about' (Phillips 2012). If anything, this shows dissatisfaction the people have with its political system through unwillingness to become politically proactive and explore their options.

Article V of the Constitution declares: 'no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.' Although this article appears to be ensuring the equality of states, the article was created in order to get smaller states to agree to the entire Constitution. The implication of this compromise has been profound, resulting in significant unequal representation in the Senate (Gutmann and Thomson, 2012, p.55; Levinson, 2007, p.865; Dahl, 2003, p.47; Schwab, 1991, p.59). This transfers as an individual's vote from Wyoming counting for 70 times more than if they were a citizen in California. Levinson (2007) explains that issues such as these 'impose continuing costs on [The USA] today that [they] should feel no obligation to continue bearing' (p.865). He also questions how 'a country ostensibly committed to the principle of one-person-one-vote justify such a system of political representation at the national level, which would be unconstitutional at the state or local government level, merely because of the exigencies of political compromise in 1787' (p.868). Macedo (2009) even questions whether the US should 'override' Article V for the sake of democracy. Although Levinson clearly has an opinionated, cemented stance regarding the disadvantages of the Constitution, the points made in several pieces of his work reflect a persistent issue in the US system. If the legislative branch is meant to be the dominant branch due to their representation of the people, then surely this representation should be equal to constitute a democracy, but this clearly is not the case. Although it is of great importance, especially in a country so large and diverse as America, to ensure that smaller states do not feel underrepresented, a priority should also be to guarantee a fundamental aspect of democracy – that every citizen's vote is equal. The issue of unequal representation in the Senate could be seen to be having an impact on political participation in the United States. A recent election for the U.S. Senate in Newark, New Jersey was significant due to the turnout of just 24 per cent – the lowest for a general election in state history (Friedman 2013). Although it can be debated as to what the reasoning is for low election turnout, a striking correlation can be made between the recent headline and the fact that New Jersey is the eleventh most populated state in the United States – making them significantly less represented in the Senate than in other states with higher voter turnout (ipl2).

Despite the lack of political participation in terms of voting in the United States, the government is experiencing increased pressure to respond to the public – possibly as a means to bridge the gap. Although this can be seen to be increasing democracy, as members of the government are showing themselves to be more accountable by responding directly to the electorate and attempting to involve them further in the process, the transition to a more direct form of democracy has quite the adverse effect. Congressmen's loyalty to their constituents puts incredible pressure on them to focus almost entirely on local issues, which, as discussed, has implications on the formulation of national policy. Pressure to be attentive to constituents, combined with the dominance of the media, results in congressmen making decisions which have a negative impact on policy making. For example, Sullivan (1998) explains how if the local media focus on dramatic crime stories 'politicians are forced to call for tough-on-crime measures even if the crime rate is dropping and the measures make bad crime policy' because they feel the need to show their commitment to their constituents. This then has an impact on what the government should focus on, which results in the press diverting 'attention from complex and serious policy' (p.151). Pressure to maintain support from constituents has also made politicians more conservative as they are worried that 'any public effort that does not succeed will destroy the reputations and perhaps the careers of those who undertake them' (Brinkley, 1997, p.131). Brinkley (1997) goes on to say that amongst congressmen there is a 'widespread reluctance to experiment, a fear of innovation, a desperate clinging to safe, uncontroversial ways' due to this fear of failure (p.131). The Founders created a system where politicians work on behalf of the people. The separation of powers safeguards against any single branch becoming too powerful, and regular, staggered elections ensured that the politicians are accountable to their electorate. However, the constant transition to a more direct democracy is not what was put in place centuries ago. Of course the system should be able to adapt to the modern day, but these adaptations created by a disjointed government are having a negative effect on how the country is run.

Motivated by creating a system distancing itself from the Monarchies surrounding them at the time, the Founder Fathers created a political structure with the aim of ensuring balanced power and representation of the people. However, by doing so, a system was created which could not be both responsible and representative (Cutler, 1980). Checks and balances have not just skewed the separations between the branches, but have also had negative implications on the relationship between the institutions which form the government. Positive aspects of the Constitution are outweighed by the fundamental negatives which 'slow[…] the pace of political change' (Wilson in Zvesper, 1999, p.6). The current political structure in the U.S., constantly being compared with 'political systems in countries ran by nondemocratic regimes' assures the American people that the country is superior (Dahl, 2003, p.42). Americans 'feel trapped within [the] Constitution' and lack the ability to 'envision the possibility of real changes' (Levinson, 2007, p.871). If the separation of powers is not rejuvenated, I believe the U.S. faces the real threat of declining as a superpower as the world is developing at a pace which America's political system cannot keep up with. Decisions, both at the local and national level, need to be made quickly and decisively with separate – yet equal – contributions being made from each branch. Yet, unfortunately, the current separation of powers cannot provide this. The Constitution has created the foundations for a positive system of government, and has many advantages compared to other states. However, these principles need to be built upon and adapted to modern day society in order to maintain America's hegemonic status, and to combat the negative aspects of the system.


Brinkley, A. 1998. 'Relegitimizing Government'. In: Brinkley, A. et al. (eds). New Federalist Papers. United States of America: Twentieth Century Fund, pp.151-158.

Buchanan, N H. Dorf, M C. 2012. 'How to Choose the Least Unconstitutional Option: Lessons for the President (and others) from the Debt Ceiling Standoff'. Columbia Law Review. [Online]. 112 (6), pp 1175-1243. [Date accessed: 31/10/13]. Available from: http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Buchanan-Dorf.pdf

Cutler, L N. 1980. 'To Form a Government'. Foreign Affairs. [Online]. 59(1), pp.126-143. [25/10/2013]. Available from: Heinonline.org

Dahl, R A. 2003. 'The Constitution as a Model: An American Illusion'. In: Dahl, R A. How democratic is the American Constitution? United States of America: Yale University Press, pp 41-72.

Friedman, M. 2013. 'Voter turnout for U.S. Senate special election was a record low'. NJ.com. [Online]. 17/10/2013. [Date accessed: 01/11/2013]. Available from: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/voter_turnout_for_general_election_was_a_record_low.html

Gutmann, A. Thompson, D. 2012. 'The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It'. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press.


ipl2. 2010. 'States Ranked by Size and Population'. [Online]. [01/11/2013]. Available from: http://www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popchart.html#statesbypop

Kesler, C R. 2007. 'What Separation of Powers Means for Constitutional Government'. [Online]. Political Thought. [Date accessed: 02/11/2013]. Available from: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/what-separation-of-powers-means-for-constitutional-government

King, A. 1997. 'Running Scared'. The Atlantic Monthly. [Online]. 279 (1), pp 41-61. [Date accessed: 01/11/2013]. Available from: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97jan/scared/scared.html

Levinson, S. 2007. 'How the United States Constitution Contributes to the Democratic Deficit in America'. Drake Law Review. [Online] 55 (4), pp 859-886. [Date accessed: 23/10/2013]. Available from: Heinonline.org

Levinson, S. 2006. 'Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We The People Can Correct It)'. New York: Oxford University Press.

Macado, S. 2009. 'Toward a More Democratic Congress? Our Imperfect Democratic Constitution: The Critics Examined'. Boston University Law Review. [Online]. 89 (2), pp 609-628. Available from: http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume89n2/documents/MACEDO.pdf

Phillips, T. 2012. 'How Was 91 Percent of Congress Re-Elected Despite a 10 Percent Approval Rating?' Huffington Post. [Online]. 13/11/2012. [Date accessed: 01/11/2013]. Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-phillips/congress-election-results_b_2114947.html

Polsby, N, W. 1998. 'The Item Veto'. In: Brinkley, A. et al. (eds). New Federalist Papers. United States of America: Twentieth Century Fund, pp.151-158.
Schwab, L M. 1991. The Illusion of a Conservative Reagan Revolution. United States of America: Transaction Publishers.

Sullivan, K, M. 1998. 'The Role of the Media in Representative Government'. In: Brinkley, A. et al. (eds). New Federalist Papers. United States of America: Twentieth Century Fund, pp.151-158.

US Government. 'The Charters of Freedom'. [Online]. [Date accessed: 31/10/2013]. Available from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Wilson, W. 1913. 'Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics'. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company
Zvesper, J. 1999. 'The Separation of Power in American Politics: Why We Fail to Accentuate the Positive'. Government and Opposition. 34(1), pp.3-23. Available from Heinonline.org