6th January 2022
This is just a short post, prompted by the ongoing inability of the Republicans in the United States House of Representatives to elect a speaker.
11 defeats. Major concessions. Still no speaker after 3 days. The House has adjourned again as Kevin McCarthy continues searching for a deal. https://t.co/Oc2M8lF3NA
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) January 6, 2023
*
There is usually no problem in a speaker being elected: the first day of the new House of Representatives is usually a ceremony, attended by the smiling families of new congressmen and congress women.
But now we are on the third day of voting, because a group of hardline Republicans are contesting what would normally be a coronation.
Two years ago today (as I set out in last week’s Substack essay), the counting and certification of electoral college votes was also converted from being a mere ceremony to something far more politically vital.
Indeed, a plan was in place to use what was normally (again) a coronation into an opportunity for the defeated president Donald Trump to somehow retain office.
And over here, during the last days before the United Kingdom left the European Union, there was an attempt to use a prorogation of parliament so as to force through a no-deal exit.
That (purported) use of the prorogation was contested and then quashed by the Supreme Court.
But usually prorogations are dull and straightforward affairs, of little interest even to political obsessives.
*
Our current volatile politics keeps converting dull and ceremonial elements of our constitutions into things that matter.
Our constitutional arrangements are being forced to work, where they previously only had to decorate.
To an extent this is a good thing: like all the functioning parts of a car occasionally being tested for a MoT test.
But it also may be a bad thing, as too much stress may mean that element of the constitution buckles and breaks.
Either way, it is certainly exciting.
But, as we know, constitutional law should not be exciting, it should be dull.
Day-to-day politics should take place within the parameters of a constitution, not constantly pressing on the edges, straining them as far as they will go.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
“Day-to-day politics should take place within the parameters of a constitution, not constantly pressing on the edges, straining them as far as they will go.”
True enough, but if the constitution doesn’t provide a satisfactory framework for day-to-day politics to operate within, and its guardians show no interest in reforming it, then it’s bound to come under strain. Personally, I don’t think it’s wise to wait until it breaks before addressing its obvious flaws.
What constitution? UK has a set of illusory arrangements interpreted to suit the moment a “whatever your having yourself form of government” coupled with a disabling pseudo democracy of first past the gibbet elections. No wonder you are in big trouble in the 21st century.
In the UK’s case, we are grateful for the bravery of a private individual Ms Gina Miller. In the US it would appear there are now three parties in the House of Representatives though two of them claim to call themselves Republicans. It is hard to see how this impasse will be resolved unless half a dozen of the larger Republican Party decide to support a candidate that will gain the support of the Democrats. Otherwise the House will be at the mercy of the ultramontaines with disastrous consequences.
Where there is no will, there is no way. In many democracies, as whole terraces of voters have become less interested in who runs the place, zealous minorities have gained notice & notoriety. And these zealous minorities are now getting drunk on sips of and whiffs of power. Things will not change until their faces are rubbed into the facts: they are just that- zealous minorities. Only whole electorates can do so, and the terraces are just starting to wake up and look around. There is all to play for in the next general elections.
The House of Representatives is almost evenly split, so the far right wing of the Republican Party can block the rest of the party forming a majority. This is no doubt a horrendously naïve suggestion, but rather than trying to compromise with their extremists, could the Republicans be reaching out to the Democrats (and vice versa) to identify a compromise candidate that would get overwhelming support and freeze out the hold-outs?
More concisely, can the US return to anything like bipartisan government?
(I was hearing on the radio this morning that the proportion of people in the US who now give their support to the January 6 2021 coup attempt is increasing, so that may be impossible. The Trumpist authoritarian nationalistic turn in the US in not over.)
Very provocative. Perhaps the constitutions did “work.”
Two thoughts: perhaps codified constitutions, and unwritten constitutional conventions arose under tacit assumptions that people desired to live together – likely needed collectivity and community, even if that community was incomplete or vastly inequitable, and would choose forbearance over actions that would splinter society. Those assumptions may not have been wrong then, but they are certainly now being challenged by those who manifestly believe they don’t need me, the community or the community’s rules to live a good life.
Second, perhaps those assumptions – and the constitutions they fostered were of and for the baronial class, and simply never imagined the extension of relevance to the masses. So much power in the phrase “he’s one of us!” that it could impose guardrails?
Both the British and American examples seem to me to illustrate how the “good chaps” theory of government has broken down in the face of excessive tribalism and populism. In the absence of proportional representation in both countries coalitions across the centre of politics aren’t feasible, and have always been very difficult except in times of extreme emergency.
Trouble is that the tribalism and populism make the introduction of PR even less likely. Opponents of PR tend to argue that it would give the extremists power they don’t otherwise have. The extremists have found the solution is to take power within a mainstream party.
“Usually”. There have been just 15 occasions where the US Speaker has failed to be elected on the first vote. There is precedent for a long stalemate. In 1855, 133 votes were required, which took 3 months. In the end, the House agreed (that once) to elect the Speaker on a plurality rather than a strict majority, so removing the impasse, and Nathaniel Banks was elected. Today, we can imagine there might be a lot more voting yet before they work out a way through.
This is the problem with letting MPs and House Representatives vote to decide things. Whoever thought that convention would actually stop them using it to make trouble. ;)
Party discipline is actually a good thing. The people who imagine political parties are a bad idea should take a look at what happens when it breaks down. We would have permanent chaos and no decisions would be possible.
What can we learn from e.g. 20thC Russia and Germany?
They were both functioning ‘democracies’ until the bad guys took power and established dictatorships.
I would be interested to learn what arrangements DAG feels could be made to better ensure functioning democracies do not slide into totalitarianism.
Complacency tells me that the US and the UK are OK. But the Lord Protector says otherwise … and he was just a taster for what Europe was capable of.
Russia has never been a functioning democracy. Since the USSR collapsed it has masqueraded as a democracy but corruption has prevented it working as such and allowed Putin to make himself a dictator.