Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/
When rioters descend upon the corridors of the US Senate, the Sanctum Sanctorum of the US democracy, it is nothing short of a clear clarion call of fascism renewed, fuelled by conspiracy theories and disenchantment with reality and their government at large. Everyone grasped a message that transcends boundaries and restrictions when nations around the world witnessed the pandemonium: “Democracy is at risk”. While I teach the “Constitution of India” course to my students, I often quoted the lofty goals and salient features of the US constitution. The biggest danger to the US constitution, and thus, to the US democracy, was always its unwillingness to change as time changes. Any significant adjustments must be made through Supreme Court decisions or Presidential directives, both of which may only be short-term solutions to long-term issues. Two fundamental problems can be seen if the causes of the insurrection on January 6 are closely examined: (1) diminished national unity and (2) creeping malpractices and indecency in US politics. It can be achieved with simple legislative measures without any drastic constitutional amendments.
Bringing an End to constant election cycles
One of the most peculiar aspects of the US constitution is the modest two-year term limit for members of the US House of Representatives. As a result, elected officials constantly prioritise fundraising, caucusing, and networking over actual political activity. Since the US president serves a four-year term, the presidential election cycle is ongoing. In addition to these federal elections, there are separate election cycles for the governor and legislature in each state. Besides these elections, the US have local body elections there. These election cycles’ campaign tenures are not regulated by any federal law. The final result is that the USA is always stuck on endless election cycles.
Any attempt to regulate this incessant elections cycle will either be defeated in Senate or be vetoed by a president. To avoid the looming civil war, one should not focus on what can’t be achieved but focus on what can be agreed upon by even the extreme sides of both parties. Instead of regulating ambitious election reforms, one can try to extend the tenure of the terms of different offices. A bill that seeks to increase the US House of Representatives’ term from 2 years to 6 years will result in overwhelming support on that House floor. To get support in Senate Chamber, the plan could create a single synchronized election cycle for all Senate members rather than having elections for 1/3 of the members every two years.
Strengthening the Presidency
Technocracies like China and Russia have stable, long-lasting central governments, similar to monarchs in the Middle East. Because of their lengthier stay at the federal level, they are better able to accomplish difficult tasks like building civic infrastructure and delivering wealth to the country. The US president’s brief 4-year tenure and the 2-term ban on running for office significantly restrict his or her ability to make any significant changes to foreign or budgetary policy. The US presidency will be more successful if the term limit is increased from 4 to 6 years. A president from either party won’t have a chance of overriding the law with his or her veto thanks to this bill and the extension of the legislative term. Fewer federal election cycles will emerge from this, and the lengthy period between them will quickly lessen animosity between the two parties, preventing a civil war.
Bringing a quadrilateral party system
The major drawback of the bi-party system in contemporary democracies is that it accentuates the tribalism of the populace. Ordinary voters, who lack civic education and regulation, are not juries that must have an open mind to hear both sides and reach a fair and reasonable conclusion. Many people succumb to erroneous, unworthy feelings of allegiance towards a party because they lack training in impartiality. For example, a typical Democrat lacks a way to differentiate themselves from the rest if they favour gay marriage but dislike non-binary pronouns. The same is true for a conservative voter who, although not a conspiracy theorist or sceptic of elections, must be counted among those who are.
By establishing a four-party system, the general public will have access to such subtle pathways for distancing themselves from radical politics. Many European nations already had a four-party system that led to coalition administrations, where all parties were required to give up their more extreme positions to advance legislation in a more moderate direction. The Democratic Party’s progressive wing and the Republican Party’s America First wing will not object to this action. The moderates in both parties will be singled out and may have the opportunity to uphold the traditional principles of their respective side.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.
COMMENTS