In the world of politics, it is a typical case that there are numerous political parties and party-list groups that are vying for the position in the three branches of government. Every administration has to have a majority party and a minority party. Both parties disagree about everything the government finds itself in to because this would prove their capacity to lead. Then again, there is a possibility that having a divided government may establish backlashes that can affect anyone. Many questions can be raised with regards to the issue of a divided government. Can a divided government rebuild a country’s environment either for the better or for worst? Would it open change or create uncertainty and disbelief? The answers to these questions can be influenced by factors in the country. But, on a personal extent, having a divided government not only causes confusion but also deceit as many corrupt officials are taking the time to exploit this political divide and deceive whatever they can from the government.
In a nutshell, a divided government is a kind of government wherein many actors or parties dominate a specific part of the government. This can usually be in the executive and legislative branch of government. There are many possible causes in which a divided government comes into shape. But, the most logical explanation on why a divided government exists is because of the presence of a minority party. One current example of a country with a divided government is the United States, a country that has a rich and comprehensive background in terms of its political stance. The country has experienced numerous administration changes, but most of them have been concentrated with an administration aligned to the Republicans. However, on the dawn of the 1990s, this pattern has changed due to the increasing influence of the Democratic Party and the election of its members to both the legislative and executive branches of government. At first, this was seen as a first in US history that a non-Republican had managed to influence the voting public, but as time went on, many have seen how much conflict-ridden a divided government could be. In one perspective, many see the electoral system as the cause of a divided government in the country. From 1969 up to present, the US has continuously been divided with an exception to the 2000 elections wherein the Republican George Bush controlled the executive and legislative branches under his party.
Although a divided government may present advantages in terms of understanding both sides of the argument in the country, there is still a problem that it causes chaos and confusion. A divided government, coupled with the confusion and chaos that is attached to it, may inhibit limited actions by the government regarding some issues. A divided government may cause the government to fund more expenses and spending which may develop into budget deficits and debt. The result of these deficits can reduce the budget allotted for significant sectors that require a strong budget to perform its duties. It is essential that these sectors are given much thought as there is a possibility that it may also affect other sectors that would need strength to reign in the area. Examples of sectors that require a careful and consistent support from the government are the sectors of social welfare, environment and security.
One expert has supported the argument that a divided government affects the financial capacity of the federal government especially in the concept of budgeting for the whole year. Budget delays are one of the possible results of economic disagreements in the divided government system. Normally, it takes about forty-one or more days before a budget can be drafted by a divided government. Opposing parties would eventually debate about the allocation of funds for the sector and point out why it should not be passed. Debates in the legislative branch would then turn into months before they could make a compromise. The expert has also pointed out that for opposing parties to submit into a compromise, they would resort into using inter agency summits and commissions. These are quite common in a divided government, but it also cost a lot of money to maintain. If the settlement is accepted by both parties, the budget package is then limited. Considering the length of time which was used to create a budget that would satisfy both camps, the country should be enjoying the privileges of a fool proof and sound budget. However, this is not the case with a divided government as the package has been reduced significantly from its original amount.
With a divided government, a split control may cause a deadlock in decision making. It can also indirectly affect executive powers as the legislative sector may assume the power to make decisions and prevent take-overs from the administration. It also complicates how it is done, how long must it take and the foundations into which each order is based. Without a majority supporter in the legislative sector, a president may cause a problem in establishing his coalition. This coalition would serve as the key for the president's chosen policies and decisions to move. Without a coalition backing up his every move, the president must be able to pursue the members of the opposition or the minority party and convince them to vote for legislation that has the endorsement of the president. Some critics believe that with an opposition party ruling either side of the legislative or the executive branch, differences in beliefs make it difficult to establish in an agreement with regards to policy-making. However, this problem of a coalition can also be seen in the unified government system. In this case, members from the minority block do not have the restraint to adhere to a position that their party is dictating .
Some experts, in support of their belief that a divided government causes a split control on policy making, have argued against the theory raised by David Mayhew with regards to the consequences of a divided government. In his book “Divided We Govern” published in 1991, he identifies that there is no difference between the legislative capacity of both unified and divided governments. His findings pointed out that the production of policies enacted, abolished and created are not that different. This theory arguable because more policies have been ratified in a unified government setting as compared to a divided government setting. There is also an increased likelihood that legislation required for development will not be ratified and put into law. These experts have collectively noted that Mayhew has failed to identify which Congress proves his theory.
Some critics have noted that a divided government also affects the Constitution or the rule of law of each country which experiences it. Since a divided government occurs frequently, they have cited that the constitution’s capacity in sustaining the rule of law implemented in the country is affected. Adding the effect the 21st century into the picture, the Constitution is losing its fangs especially in how the government must be led. In the case of the United States, it has to both endure a divided government and a fragmented system which has resulted from this division. The effect is also two-fold as it would also affect the government’s effectiveness and policy-making. Critics believe that these effects caused by a divided government has created a rift that cannot easily be address with just a return to a united government front.
A divided government influences the reliability and development capacity of a government which is essential in promoting transparency. A divided government gradually reduces the capacity of the government to develop reliable and transparent policies. Voters are torn in which position they want to support due to the parties vying for a government position. Some voters even think that they lose the strength in understanding the symptoms of the government’s rapid decline for them to interfere. With this difficulty, they could just use their power to punish a ruling party in the incoming elections by voting for the minority. Included in this voter confusion caused by the divided government is the irresponsibility of the elected leaders. Knowing that they cannot be easily blamed because of the divide, they could keep quiet once controversies arise. Voters would find it hard to pin the responsibility to the politicians for political decisions such as the budget impasse and government shutdown in 1995. Both sides would also use the split as a way to throw dirt to one another and hope that the other party will take the blame for their actions. It’s a different story when it comes to pointing out who is to be thanked for when it comes to the country’s success. Since both parties are not linked to any dispute that may warrant voters from voting them, it is a possibility that a divided government would continue to remain.
Considering all of these consequences a divided government could accumulate, it may seem that there is no hope in changing how it could affect the country. The evidences are also highly visible despite the government’s relentless attempts in resolving the issues that came along with the problem. However, from a civilian’s perspective, a divided government can be easily remedied primarily on its negative consequences to the nation. There must be a referendum between all the members of the parties and develop an interpretation of the differences and similarities both parties have. It is often forgotten and missed that no matter how many differences there is, there would always be a chance that it is similar to the other. Most of the political parties have the same notion as to how the government must be run, the only thing that makes them different is how they want to pass them. A referendum would allow all political parties to form an agreement to promote efficiency. This would also serve as a gateway for civilians to talk to the parties and convey to them how much attention they want to feel the “improvements” of the country. In terms of recovering the effects of a divided government, there is a need to change, re-examine and recreate the Constitution and position of the public. In the 21st Century, it is essential that the constitution must be able to keep up with any change in the political process especially in instances of a power division in each branch of government. The public must also be re-educated in the importance of their votes and the need to be aware of the factors that would indicate the need to interfere.
Works Cited
Blau, Joel and Abramovitz. The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
Burden, Barry and David Kimball. Why Americans split their tickets: campaigns, competition, and divided government. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2004. Print.
LeLoup, Lance and Foley Institute. Parties, rules, and the evolution of congressional budgeting. Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2005. Print.
Rieselbach, Leroy. "It's the Constitution, Stupid! Congress, the President, Divided Government and Policymaking." Galderisi, Peter. Divided government: change, uncertainty, and the constitutional order. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996. 109-125. Print.
