The opposite is true, if the ideologies of the parties are closer, or both parties have a significant number of 'moderate' congressmen, which can create a majority. This essentially means that when the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans is wide, far less legislation will get passed. Gridlock tends to occur far more when parties are polarized. This second instance happens far more than the first, but both instances can cause the passage of legislation to be slow. The second instance is when Congress happens to be united under one party, yet the Presidency is controlled by the opposing party. Firstly if the House of Representatives and Senate are controlled by different parties, then the passage of legislation will be difficult. To apply the concept of gridlock to the United States, it can occur in two places. the appeal of the stability or legitimacy in some sense).Gridlock can be defined as the situation that arises when legislation faces difficulties in being passed due to different party control in the legislature or executive. (Consider the last election, where both sides argued that the system was rigged when they thought they were losing or had lost.) But, of course, these mechanisms are always already part of the governance system itself and subject to being governed by it, so pragmatically one will approve of them just in so far as it gives ones own position influence over outcomes (here I’m assuming strict proceduralism are somewhere on the multidimensional political spectrum themselves and is motivated by e.g. On the other hand, the stasis should not in itself be considered cause for alarm, apart from the dissatisfaction resulting from ones particular perspective on the total system.Īnother angle on this is that from every point in the political spectrum, and especially those points at the extremes, the procedural mechanisms of government are going to look broken because they don’t result in satisfying outcomes. If one side stops participating in the (expensive, exhausting) arm wrestle, then the other side gains ground. If we see government as something responding to the activity of many interests, mediating between them and somehow achieving their collective agenda, then the problem with seeing a government in gridlock as having achieved a “happy” equilibrium, or a “correct” view, is that it discourages partisan or interested engagement. The latter view is not a politically exciting view and indeed it is politically self-defeating for whoever holds it. One thing it could mean is that the mechanism through which the government changes is broken.Īnother thing it could mean is that the mechanism through which the government changes is working, and the state of governance reflects the equilibrium of the powers the contest for control of the government.
However, if the governing body is responsive to the many and conflicting interests of the governed, the stasis of the government could mean one of at least two things.
This spurs the dissatisfied party to invest resources or take action to change the situation. What does that mean?įrom an outside position (somebody being governed by such a body), what is means is sustained dissatisfaction and the perception that the governing body is dys- or non- functional. Suppose there’s an organization whose governing body doesn’t accomplish anything, despite being controversial, well-publicized, and apparently not performing satisfactorily. In comparison to that, this blog post is your usual ramble of no consequence.
0 kommentar(er)
