Is Government of USA in governance crisis? This is
liberal democracy’s game of life, the US Presidential system in particular,
since it was purposively designed to adopt policies and implement them in this
precise way. Many democracy’s founders and American still have strong view that
tougher the policy or act is made the finest it could achieve. And the game is
like this: You cannot expect something best by just simply spending little or
less efforts. To get a premium outcome, say policy in this case, controversies,
debate and re-polish again and again is very likely. Very sharp contrast to
realist’s assumption that state is the only rational actor, the U.S. liberal
democracy is inherently written to seek discussions, competition and
compromises so that relevant factors such as voters, the public or private
entities are integrated and counted.
The problem is not mainly
about who control the Senate or the House the most, after all. So far in
history, Democrats randomly control the House or the Senate. Since 1947, there
have been six Congresses with divided party control. From 1981 to 1987 (the
104th to 106th Congresses), Republicans controlled the Senate and
Democrats controlled the House of Representatives; the 107th Senate was
mostly controlled by Democrats while Republicans controlled the House. And
finally, the 112th and 113th Congresses are divided in the same way.
The rest congresses since then controlled by the same party either Democrats or
Republicans. Division seems not the real obstacles to policy development and
adoption. As found out by Almond A., [political] culture of compromise seems
deeply inject in American society from top to the bottom. Being one American
was considerably high. Americans come from different camps, ideologies, status
and races found themselves more united than separation especially in time of
crisis, such as oil crisis in 1970s or terrorism later in September 11, 2001.
However, as discussed
earlier there is less and less policy enacted comparing to overloaded demands. It
becomes a staggering concern for some commentators. America needs responsive
and productive policies in this particular situation. And America should suppress
polarization. To do that, she has to be responsive and tries not to fall in a
type of government that some economists always making fun of – government of
the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. They warned that America is
declining and that China is rising. The U.S. cannot expect something different,
if she keeps doing the same thing. Maybe at the old day, we need old
constitution. It’s more than two hundred years already, things have countlessly
changed but the constitution was amended only 27 times which, for some scholars
like Steven argued, does not imply the reality.
Yes, it is a crisis but
not that governance crisis because they design that way. The U.S. governance
crisis is not that simply a crisis that many poor and weak states are sharing.
Unlike those states that are in crisis because of no policy adoption and no
implementation, the U.S. governance crisis, if there is (and if I would call),
is a high-class crisis. There is always room available for negotiation after
all, except some non-negotiable issues. In Cambodia, for instance, governance
is weak and very complicated to get it worked smoothly because of poor policy,
incompetent authority, spoiled bureaucrats and under participation. Very sharp
contrast, the U.S. is full of best educated, best skilled and best trained
people. They are more or less knowing where will go next. Despite some
controversies and debates, the U.S is still moving forwards.
America is not declining
nor is in crisis. The thing is because of relative explanation while China is
re-emerging many Western states, including the U.S., are comparably declining.
It is not truly declining but just the fact that they did not reach what they
project to see, say GDP accumulation at the end of the year. Perhaps Francis
Fukuyama is right to certain levels about political decay. The cycle of error
just happens in any system in any state no matter the developed or
underdeveloped world. The U.S shares the same story. With exception of only act
of god, it is predicted within more or less ten years of peaceful, stability, and
growth, there would be two or three years of backwardness. This rhetoric does
not need to be true.