In most democratic republics, elections are followed by the rapid transfer of power.
In Great Britain, for instance, the new prime minister takes over the day after the election.
Not so the United States.
Here, the better part of three months pass between election day and inauguration day.
The thrust of his piece is that he is passing out jobs to administration loyalists between Election Day and Inauguration Day. Given the relatively honorific (i.e., no actual power) nature of the appointments (President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, United States Holocaust Memorial Council, etc.), I would think he'd want to focus more on the "burrowing" of political appointees into executive agencies by redesignating them as career civil service staff.
In any event, both issues are part of the so-called "lame duck" period between the election of a new president and his inauguration. Certainly, the outgoing president can do considerable mischief, in fact, Rachel Maddow has created a segment entitled "Lame Duck Watch" to monitor precisely that. There is also historical precedent. The famous case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) stemmed from several appointments made literally in the last hours of the John Adams administration
The problem is that any attempt to compare our transition to the one in the UK overlooks the differences between parliamentary and presidential types of government. In a UK-style parliamentary system, the opposition usually has a government-in-waiting called a shadow cabinet. They serve as the opposition's point persons in responding to the policies of the government. A corollary of that function is that they will generally hold similar posts when the opposition has its turn in government. In a sense, the incoming leader's cabinet has already been selected.
They also invariably sit in the parliament. Since the continuation of a government in a parliamentary system depends on maintaining a majority in parliament, such close bonds are unavoidable. In a strong presidential system, cabinet members don't necessarily have to be members of Congress. In fact, our Constitution explicitly forbids that. Article I, Section 6 states that
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
The purpose of that clause was to avoid the type of royal co-opting of MPs that took place at the time in the form of bestowing various sinecures on them. The US system is based on independent, coordinate branches of government and thus has such a provision in order to keep any branch from subordinating the other.
As I've said, a prime minister in a parliamentary system is just a first-among-equals. His continued presence in office depends on constantly keeping a majority of his own party behind him. The President has an independent electoral mandate and, although he certainly needs to keep his party lined up behind him, he has greater leeway in his choices since he can't just be removed with a no-confidence vote. With a greater leeway in choices there must also be more time in which to make them.
Although it does make for a longer transition, a wider array of choices also means access to a greater talent pool. A president isn't limited to members of Congress for his choices. Often governors (a position which has no equivalent in a unitary state such as the UK) get chosen. Likewise, one could give a cabinet position to someone with professional experience who isn't in the legislature. Obama's Secretary of Education-designate currently runs the public schools in Chicago.
0 comments:
Post a Comment