I’M in Washington DC, and here the government shutdown is more noticeable – all the Smithsonian museums are closed, and there is less traffic than I remember from living here in 2006, which is a good thing given the crammed schedule courtesy of Eisenhower Fellowships.
The meetings – with academics, think tankers, lobbyists and politicians – have been fascinating, but as in any city it is the taxi drivers who can provide the most interesting perspectives of current issues. One launched into a tirade against President Obama, while another railed against by Republican leaders in the House of Representatives held hostage by the Tea Party movement.
I have observed a hardening of stances as well as a shift in the debate about the crisis since last week. The dispute over Obamacare may have been the trigger for the shutdown, but in the last few days, the commentary has encompassed arguments relating to rule of law (“the House has a duty to approve funding for policies which have undergone the legislative process”), separation of powers (“the executive branch cannot override the legislative branch: Obama must negotiate with the House”), apart from the size of government and the size of the deficit.
This indicates the extent to which US citizens believe that this shutdown is symptomatic of a more deep-rooted malfunction in their political system, and few are optimistic about how it will be fixed: for it is not merely that the language has been uncompromising, but also that this uncompromising language is being rewarded by the voters, and this cycle will continue. The primary cause of this, according to self-defined moderates, is gerrymandering: district boundaries have been designed to create as many safe seats as possible. As such, it is sufficient for representatives to appeal to their base and they are certain to be re-elected. As a result, the voting power of the middle is squeezed out.
Proof of this phenomenon is provided in the relative moderation of Republicans in the Senate compared to those in the House of Representatives; senators have to appeal to a much broader base (their entire state) to be elected, compared to representatives who have smaller electorates.
All this is quite ironic, of course. Here I am in the great USA to interact with the finest products of its democracy, and everyone I meet laments – no, is heartbroken and ashamed – that their democracy is broken. “Perhaps,” I say reassuringly, “but at least you have the benefit of retrospect. You can look back to a time when it wasn’t broken, and you’re still better than many other democracies.” Unfortunately, dysfunction in the world’s proudest democracy also triggers glee in its opponents. “Look at the failed American state!” they proclaim, reinforcing their conviction that some form of totalitarianism is a better way forward.
But we Malaysians should look at this soberly. We too can recall a better age, when those who ran institutions were more cognisant of their responsibilities under the law. All is not lost, however: we have in the office of the auditor general a gentleman who knows that he is accountable to the people via the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and not any political master. Tan Sri Ambrin Buang is practising what our constitution requires, and it is so gloriously refreshing in a context where politicians justify policies – such as the execution of suspected criminals without trial – without acknowledging the constitution. Even worse, some heads of ostensibly apolitical institutions enthusiastically endorse these political statements.
Conversely, in the US, everything is referenced back to the constitution. Most Americans who advocate policy on anything – from gun rights to abortion to gay marriage to foreign invasions – will cite their country’s supreme law to justify their stance. And so, the document that once bound the country together is also able to cause such implacable divisions. “The US Constitution has become a religious text (and the Founding Fathers our deities),” one state department official told me. “People will die defending their interpretations of it.”
I could hear this theological debate even as I jogged through Rock Creek Park one cold morning, but now it seems that the threat of a debt crisis is bringing US politics back down to earth. If Congress does not raise the nation’s debt ceiling by Oct 17, the US government will not be able to pay its bills, pushing the government to default for the first time in history. Amidst panicky warnings from economists and businesspeople around the world about the potentially disastrous repercussions, and as approval ratings for the entire political class tumble, the words “climb-down”, “negotiation”, “flexibility” and “saving face” are surfacing as I write.
The budget default may be averted, but fixing the democratic debt will take far longer.
Tunku Abidin Muhriz is president of Ideas.