|
|
|
|
In addition to the introductory text on this page, this section also includes the following articles on the party system in America:
Europeans in particular have difficulty in understanding political parties and elections in the USA. In Germany, for example, a basic outline of the way in which parties have to be structured and how elections have to be held are written down in the constitution. Political parties are well-organized and have a dedicated membership spread across the country. They have finished party-political programs that are often ideological in nature. Parties in Europe have a hierarchical chain of command with the party leader at its head. In government, the party leader is the prime minister and in opposition is the leader of the opposition. This is not the case in America. Parties are not mentioned in any part of America's constitution. Parties grew up around the fight for the constitution and have changed their names several times during the past 200 years. The party apparatus is by no means well-organized. Instead, parties are made up out of a myriad of local party committees. These local party committees lead a fairly independence existence at a single-state level and cooperate in loose coalitions of interests at election time only. So its perhaps not surprising that there is no fixed hierarchy of party officials and party leaders. Neither is there a binding political line, agreed upon at a party conference with an ideological perspective on the future. Current political problems and how they might be best solved in a pragmatic way form the subject of discussion at elections. Parties fragment into their local organizations once the election is over. For over 200 years elections have been held according to the principle of majority vote, that is, the candidate receiving the most votes in a given electoral district is elected. This means that only candidates from the largest parties have a chance. And this, in turn, has meant the dominance of just two political parties from the very beginning. This also explains the nation's remarkable political stability. Both parties support fully the existing constitution and regard positively the values of America's liberal democracy. Both parties are rather conservative, making it very unlikely for revolutionary change to occur. Set against a generally low turnout of around 50%, candidates have to break out of their local party organizations and persuade interest groups, unions, all associations (including ethnic) and uninformed individual voters to vote for them. Bribes and manipulation are often involved. The result of all this, however, is that candidates feel a stronger sense of duty to their local electorate than they do to the interests of their party. Indeed, this is made all the more easier by the fact that party discipline in the European sense of the word does not exist. Set against this background it is no wonder that the president has to continually call for support from all members of Congress, both from his/her own party and from the opposition, to ensure a majority for proposed legislation. Indeed, when push comes to shove over unpopular but necessary legislation, the president is unable to rely on support from members of his/her own party. It is not easy for Europeans to identify differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. With a certain amount of reservation it can be said that the Democratic Party is more sympathetic to the needs of minorities and the poor and is more likely to support social policies. Poor people living in the southern states and large cities, the working class and blacks are more likely to vote for the Democratic Party. The Republican Party represents the interests of business, encourages a free market economy and is less likely to expand the welfare state. Your typical Republican voter tends to be white, middle class, Protestant with a house in the suburbs. From a European perspective the weaknesses of the political parties are unmistakable: A combination of decentralized organization with few party members, predominantly localized interests, a dependency on interest groups and a failure to bear responsibility for necessary but unpopular proposed legislation all conspire to strengthen the belief of Americans that politics is bad and politicians are not to be trusted. The fact that swings in turnout range from between 40 and 60% confirms this belief. Given that party-political programs are loosely worded and parties have no major impact on policy, "who is actually governing America? This question is always asked with a certain sense of worry that powerful interest groups control politicians including the president. Members of Congress rely on the firm support of interest groups in getting elected, and it goes without saying that this relationship does not breakdown after the election. This job done by the lobbyists (gets its name from the lobby in parliament where visitors were able to speak to MPs). In Washington alone over 3000 interest groups have official liaison people, who are constantly trying to speak and influence politicians in their favor. This might be legitimate, provided these interest groups provide politicians and state officials with sound advice drawing on their specialist knowledge. But their actions become questionable when they bribe or otherwise influence politicians, or exert influence as pressure groups and try to force through their interests at the expense of the general public. Such groups include "big business" (powerful business groups such as the defence industry) and "big labor" (the trade unions), but also veteran-, doctors- and teaching associations, the farming lobby and many, many more. The number of people representing these groups far exceeds the number of representatives in Congress. [Taken from: Ernst Rudolf Voigts: Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, Informationen zur politischen Bildung 156, Bonn BpB 1979]
|
|
Subjects: Human
Rights I Democracy I Parties
I Examples I
Europe
I
Globalisation
I United Nations
I Sustainability
|
