The debt crisis has exposed the defects rather than the advantages of America's tit for tat democratic system

The US debt crisis has drawn much criticism both at home and aboard. It is inconceivable to many people that as the only superpower in the world the US was locked in a struggle that threatened to bring the wheels of state to a halt had the politicians not arrived at a last-minute compromise to raise the nation's debt limit in order to avoid a debt default.

As a country that always boasts it has the most "perfect" democratic system in the world, the US is not doing well in its domestic affairs and the debt crisis has exposed the defects rather than the advantages of its system. Even many US citizens have appealed for introspection and reform of the country's political system.

The core of the US democratic system is the representative system of government and the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers. People have the right to elect representatives they support, and these representatives are mandated to protect voters' interests. The separation of the three powers is supposed to guarantee a system of check and balances.

Such a political system has been regarded by some as the most advanced form of governance in human history, but it has been inefficient and powerless in the face of the problems the US is facing now.

First, from the perspective of the representative system, the public has the right to elect their agents, but it's hard to deprive the agents of their rights immediately if they are incompetent or crooked. Theoretically, when representative government does not work effectively and there is a deadlock between the rival parties, the government can resort to a referendum to get legitimacy and break the deadlock.

But the power of decision resides in the politicians, who will not easily hand it over. Moreover, it's hard to practice because of practical difficulties. The US has never resorted to a referendum to settle disputes when the government has reached a deadlock over public policy.

Moreover, the public has the right to depose elected officials in office, but it is restricted to lower-ranking officials, not the federal senators. So although many citizens have demonstrated in front of Capitol Hill and protested through the media, they don't have any decision-making power.

Second, although the separation of powers can prevent the spread of malpractice, it cannot guarantee that the right things are done. Separation of powers and federalism are the foundation of US constitutionalism. But as James Madison said they have been set up on the base of the inherent defects of humanity. The regime, designed without a center of authority, tries to prevent the expansion of greed and selfishness, but in fact it can only prevents the spread of greed and selfishness in the form of a dictatorship.

In the US debt crisis, congress and the administrative departments refused to give in to each other's demands on the pretext of national interests, even though it is clear to everyone that the crisis is the largest threat to national interests. Because some groups' interests do not coincide with the public's, the politicians used the right of division vested by the constitution to prevent the result that would most benefit citizens. Some of them even used their acquiescence to compromise on the debt issue as a bargaining chip for irrelevant political deals. But the constitution can do nothing about this.

Moreover, one of the three powers, the judicial organ, hasn't played any role in the debt crisis. Although some people argue that such institutional arrangements focus more on equity rather than efficiency, it's at the cost of the people's welfare.

Third, the antagonism between the two parties impedes responses to vital issues. In the interests of the political parties, senators always confuse right and wrong and deceive the voters. They always oppose the other side purely for the sake of opposition at the cost of truth and national interests. Ironically, the two parties have common grounds in cooperating with influential interest groups, wooing voters and making trouble for the other party.

In handling the debt crisis, the House of Representatives dominated by the Republicans waged a tit for tat struggle against the Senate dominated by the Democrats. Each party vetoed bills advanced by the opposite side even before they were completely formed, regardless of the possible damage it might cause. A better economic situation is not in accord with the Republicans' interests this time, because they want to take advantage of the deterioration of the economy to win the election next year.

Both sides finally arrived at a compromise on the debt issue only because they are both afraid of going too far and provoking public anger. The supposedly reasonable check-and-balance of the two parties actually undermines public interests.

Although the incompetence of the US political system in meeting the present challenges has raised widespread concern both among the US public and abroad, the democratic system represented by the US is still regarded as the "least bad" political system for the West.

But democracy cannot solve every problem. It is not the be all and end all of political structures, and it should learn from the experiences and advantages of other political systems.

The author is a researcher of institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Science.

(China Daily 08/24/2011 page8)