When I was growing up I remember my Dad saying that while our form of government is not perfect, it is the best thus far developed by man. For a long time I believed firmly in that concept, but now I am not so sure.  I don’t believe that the founding fathers ever envisioned a political environment quite like the one we have today.

The framers of the Constitution set up a winner take all situations for both the executive branch and both house of the legislature and what they probably believed would be a neutral Supreme Court. They also set up a great number of checks and balances between our branches of government such that no one branch could gain dominion over the others. It is essential to recognize that when the Constitution was approved, political parties did not exist, and therefore our current political environment was not taken into consideration. Inevitably the governmental design of our founding fathers lead to two major developments.

The first of these developments is our two party system which has been prevalent throughout our history since 1790. Third parties have never fared well in our system because of their inability to obtain a plurality of electoral votes necessary to capture the Presidency and to elect significant numbers of Congressional members. There have been over 25 third parties throughout the history of our country, left wing, centralist and right wing, but few have ever gained any real traction. However, they have known to cause problems for the major parties running in the same ideological lanes. Historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in 1955 “Third parties are like bees, once they have stung, they die.” All of this might account for the great reluctance on the part of most Americans to vote for third party candidates.

The second major development resulting from our system of government is the need for compromise between the two major political parties if anything is to get done in Washington. Of course, the approval of both houses of Congress and the signature of the President are needed for any bill to become law Therefore, getting any legislation approved is difficult enough even when one party controls both the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, which has been the case only half of the time in the last 100 years. Even then political differences within the parties and legislative rules which favor the minority party can easily kill legislation. For instance, due to the closure rules in the Senate, to bring up a bill for a final vote, the party in power must have the approval of 60 of the 100 Senators. In the last 35 years no party has controlled the Senate with a 60% majority. Because of all of these factors, compromise between political parties is essential in our form of government.

So our system of government has provided us with a two party system where cooperation between those two parties is required to provide effective governess. This was already difficult enough because the existence of the two parties has always been based on their different opinions on how to best govern. Getting compromised agreements between the two major parties, which was always difficult, has become exceedingly so as the Democrats and the Republicans have become increasingly more separated along ideological lines. The Pew Research Center has reported that according to its polls Republicans and Democrats are further apart ideologically than at any point in recent history.

In my lifetime there were moderates and even liberals in the Republican Party and the Democrats certainly had large numbers very conservative members, especially in the South. However, eventually as the two parties separated themselves along ideological lines, the far right faction in the Republican Party and the far left in the Democratic Party grew politically stronger. Now in both parties, but especially in the Republican Party, more moderate politicians ignore the demands their more radical party elements at their own peril. The further left or right people are on the political spectrum, the more passionate they are and the more likely they are to object to the compromise of ideological principles. Today, both fringe factions of their respective parties attempt to exert enormous pressure on their party’s politicians to never compromise with the “enemy”. The result is often deadlock in our national government.

So unless one party or the other can achieve total domination in Presidential and Congressional elections, which seems to be unlikely, our form of government will continue to have a great deal of difficulty dealing with ideologically opposed political parties. On the other hand, the parliamentary democracy system seems to be better designed to cope with such situations and may thus be more logical form of government for us considering our current situation.

In a parliamentary system, there is no strong presidential position. In such systems where there is a President, it is usually a mostly ceremonial position. The political party which is able to elect enough members of parliament to constitute a majority elects one of its parliamentary leaders as Prime Minister.  He or she servers as head of government as long as his/her party maintains control of Parliament. The parliamentary system allows and even encourages multiple political parties. Therefore, far left and far right factions might form separate parties from their more moderate ideological counterparts. In such cases there is no need for moderate politicians to alter their positions to conform to the more radical elements of their ideologically in order to be elected to Parliament. However, when no one party constitutes a parliamentary majority, similarly aligned parties must compromise their positions in order to form a ruling coalition.

The advantage of a parliamentary system is that there fewer possibilities for deadlock. The ruling party or coalition is always capable of moving its legislation forward as long as it is able to maintain solidarity in its ranks. Prime Minister as head of government is always the leader of that party or coalition in power; legislation cannot be vetoed. If the solitary of the ruling party or coalition breaks down when addressing a major issue, the parliament can and often does call for a non-scheduled election to consult the will of the people. After the election, a party or coalition will arise which is again capable of governing. It should be noted that many countries which have recently evolved into democracies have chosen the parliamentary model.

The disadvantages of the parliamentary system are that it is it less stable than our presidential system and lacks the strong political leadership of a President who is elected directly by the vote of the people. There no opportunity for nationally popular figures to be elected head of state in a parliamentary democracy; no one can actually run for the position of Prime Minister.

Realistically there is virtually no chance that we will change our system of government into a parliamentary democracy. However, there is another possibility, the formation a new political party consisting of moderate liberals, moderate conservatives and independents that have already shown their disdain for both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Least you think that formation of a new political party with instant viability is impossible; you need only to consult history. When the new Republican Party was formed in the late 1850’s as people coalesced about the abolitionist cause, it rose to political power almost immediately. It elected its first candidate, Abraham Lincoln, to the Presidency in 1860 and completely supplanted the Wig Party as nation’s second party very quickly. It is entirely possible, though perhaps unlikely, for moderates of all political stripes to coalesce around the principle of an effective moderate government in order to form a new political party. The leaders of such a party would no longer be held hostages by the far left and the far right factions of our political system. And since the far left and the far right would never unite to form an effective opposition; such a party would dominate the political landscape.

Yes, I know that this idea seems extremely far fetched. There still substantial differences between moderate liberals and moderate conservatives, but there is growing evidence that both factions are growing increasingly aggravated with the rebellious nature of their fringe elements. Already there is considerable pressure within the Republican Party which threatens to split it irreparably into its establishment and socially conservative wings. While somewhat more restrained, the far left elements of the Democratic Party are also rebelling against the Democratic establishment. If these political pressures increase over time, there is a possibility that moderates in both parties may realize that they have more in common with each other than they do with the former radical allies. Then a coalition of moderate liberals, moderate conservatives, and independents may not seem so far fetched after all.

Cajun     12/22/15