FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
If the American Party, imagined as a common home for disillusioned Democrats and Republicans, were to succeed this time, the consequences could overturn the system...
Can a third party really emerge in America? Politics is not an exact science. Many meteors have flown across the starry sky. But, on the other hand, every project seems impossible until someone finds the courage to try it.
Anyone who doubts this should remember Berlusconi. In early 1994, he entered the political arena, founding Forza Italia and, within three months, winning the elections. The question that arises is: is it desirable or not that Musk succeeds in his goal?
Two-party politics is a distinctive feature of Anglo-Saxon political systems. In England, as in the United States, two parties have competed for power for generations.
Not by law, but by rules of the game and by practice. History has not always been the same. In 1920s England, for example, the Liberals ceded their role as competitors to the Conservatives to the Labour Party. And it is not certain that the main players in London will change again soon. In the United States, from Theodore Roosevelt to Ross Perot, via George Wallace and Ralph Nader, there has been no shortage of third-party efforts. Some have even shaken up the system, but none have managed to break the duopoly.
It can be safely concluded that Anglo-Saxon models tend to be bipartisan. However, they cannot be considered overlapping. The British system is based on communication between the executive and legislative branches.
The prime minister is also the leader of the majority party, while the leader of the opposition is his natural challenger and candidate for succession. In the United Kingdom, if the majority is lost, the government falls. However, this is not the case in the United States, where the executive and legislative branches are "separate" rather than "separate".
Here, the President remains in office even with the opposition of one (or even both) houses of Congress. In this case, he will have to negotiate: every day, until the end of his term. It is a game of restraint and friction, which assumes a very legitimate system and political actors who know each other.
Herein lies the ultimate reason for the Anglo-Saxon two-party system. The United States and the United Kingdom have different institutional systems, but neither has experienced the "church parties" of continental origin. For this reason, too, in that part of the world, absolute and totalitarian ideologies have failed to take root. Communism and fascism have remained marginalized.
With the appropriate distinctions, parties have been flexible tools for organizing consensus, much more than ideological tribes to identify with based on faith or affiliation. Anyone who wants to assert an idea, therefore, has so far preferred to join one of the two traditional parties rather than create a new one.
But if this time, the American Party, envisioned as a common home for disillusioned Democrats and Republicans, were to succeed, the consequences could overturn the system. The election of the president would cease to be essentially direct, leaving room for possible agreements between the voters of different states. This would create an unprecedented space for agreements, compromises and negotiations. The tweets would turn into the "smoke-filled rooms" where, a century ago, appointments were made behind the scenes. Moreover, the president-elect would have to negotiate systematically with a "tripartite" Congress, and not only when he loses his majority.
The American system would become less stable and more fragmented. Not exactly a good outcome for those who came to power with the intention of distancing themselves from Europe.
For centuries, liberal democratic biodiversity has provided the dialectic between two complementary visions. /Adapted from Pamphlet by Domani/
Lini një Përgjigje