PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS I PROBLEMS(?) OF DIVIDED GOVERNMENT.

Date: March 18th, 2014.

GISA220, Sogang University.

American Politics and American Policy by professor Jaechun Kim.

Mathilde Fage Kjeldsen: G20149010

TABLE OF CONTENT

Definition of divided government.

How to evaluate the (alleged) impact of divided government in American politics.

Dual legitimacy.

Discussion

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT

What does divided government means?

• Divided government or divided party control refers to a situ-

ation in which one or both chambers of Congress is being

controlled by another party than the one holding the president.

113th CONGRESS

UNIFIED vs. DIVIDED GOVERNMENT

Does it makes a difference in American politics whether the government is divided or unified?

No, not really, is the conclusion of David R. Mayhew’s seminal work ’Divided We Govern’ (1991)

HOW TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF PARTY CONTROL IN AMERICAN POLITICS

Mayhew tests two hypotheses about how divided government are thought to af-fect two kinds of activity in American politics:

• Divided government less important laws are enacted.

• Divided government more congressional investigations of the executive

He investigates if unified governments are more productive, and if the divergent policy preferences result in more oversight.

Mayhew finds no clear evidence in support of the above hypotheses.

He concludes that the enactments of important laws are correlated with the presidential period cycle and with the public opinion (Mayhew, 1991: 177).

.

OTHER KINDS OF ACTIVITY

When asking the question:

“does it matter for American politics if one or both of the chambers of Congress are controlled by a different party than the one holding the presidency?”

it is necessary to decide upon a standard or an aspect of American politics, by which the impact of different gov-ernment compositions is evaluated.

INTERBRANCH-DYNAMICSThe two kinds of activity studied by Mayhew are outcome-related activity

Another approach could be to look at inter-branch decision making dynam-ics or the consequences of divided government for the political process (Kre-hbiel, 1996:7).

Congress and the presidency are forced to engage in a political process of bargaining and negotiation. This is the only way to make policy.

The increased (forced) bargaining can have more or less desirable con-sequences:

• Deadlock, or the prevail of status quo, where no considerable policy changes are enacted.

• A deliberation-based and compromise-seeking political process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ILjp-FcepI

Negotiation may be more pronounced during divided party control, but that does not necessarily imply a more constructive political process as illustrated by the historically use of the presidential veto power, which is much more pronounced during divided government (Lowi, 2010: 239)

THE ENACTED LEGISLATION

Does divided government not bring about any legislation that is not just an in-significant change from status quo? One could take a look at the content of the legislation that passes.

An advantage of divided government is that those reforms that are enacted are more likely to last instead of being reversed, when a new majority emerge.

As law-making during times of divided government requires bipartisan support, a shift in majorities is less likely to bring on serious changes or alterations (Niskanen, 2003)

This is often seen in the Danish political system, where new parliamentary ma-jorities changes or pulls back reforms enacted by prior coalitions.

The more negotiations a bill has to go through the higher is the likelihood that it is revised in a manner so it is more inclusive, spreading the beneficiar-ies of the law to include a wider group (Lowi, 2010).

THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCES

Which impact does divided government have on the bureaucracy?

There is broad academic consensus about that policy is no more than an empty abstraction before it gets implemented (Moe, 1990). Therefore, oversight is needed.

As the enacted laws are often vague due to the difficulty of reaching agreement, this leave a lot of discretion – and thereby power – in the hands of those who controls the implementation process.

Also, because of this, Congress is less inclined to delegate powers to the president in times of divided party (Lowi, 2010).

In this perspective, Congress spends a lot of resources and time on keeping control with the bureaucracy or deals with tasks itself, which it in times of unified government would have delegated.

WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE? – THE BLAME GAME

Divided government has an impact on the public’s ability to place respons-ibility – both credit and blame.

As the president do not have the majority to pass legislation on his own, he needs to gain bipartisan support.

The problem arises when things go wrong. Who is to blame? The presid-ent? Senate? The House? Both? None?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzV-UXA-cTA

This can be difficult to figure out, and accountability becomes blurred. This can have serious democratic consequences as it becomes impossible for the voters to evaluate the performance of their representatives, and thereby exercise their power.

Why do situations with divided governments occur?

Some causes of divided government

Popular elections at different times.

Different constituencies, different evaluations.

Power-balance-theory.

Decline in partisanship and voter trust.

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT AND DUAL LEGITIMACY

The issue of dual legitimacy arises during divided government as both the president as well as Congress can claim to speak in the name of the people.

• Why do situations with divided governments occur?

• Why are divided government becoming the rule rather than the excep-tion?

• What would the Founding Fathers think about the divided government and dual legitimacy?

• Can the constitutional concern about the misuse of power really really legitimatise a rigid system?

REFERENCES

• Kelly, Q. Sean (1993). Divided we govern? A Reassesment. Vol.25. No 3 (Spring, 1993). Pp. 475-484. Palgrave Macmillan Journals.

• Krehbiel, Keith (1996). Institutional and partisan sources of gridlock. A theory of divided and unified government. Journal of Theoretical Politics 8(1). Sage publications.

• Lowi, Theodore J., et al, American Government: Power and Pur-pose, 10th edition, New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.

• Mayhew, David R. (1991). Divided we govern. Party control, lawmaking, and investigations 1946-1990. Vail-Ballou Press, New York.

• Moe, Terry M. (2012). “Delegation, Control, and the Study of Public Bureaucracy”, The Forum 10, Iss. 2: Article 4

• Niskanen, William A (2003). A Case for Divided Government. A commentary. Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-divided-government

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress