A Vermont House of Commons?
Parliament: Way back when
The News Guy did not go to the Vermont Democratic Party fundraiser in Burlington last night despite suggestions – if not taunts – from some folks that he was obligated to do so, having shamed the Dems into opening the event to reporters.
The shamer/taunter set had a point, but 140 miles of round-trip driving just to show the flag seemed excessive from an energy-efficiency standpoint.
Two of them actually: excessive petroleum use by the automobile, excessive use of already-depleted energy reserves in the body. Word is that at least one other reporter did attend the event to hear what Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts had to say, and that said reporter’s account will appear on the VT Digger web site.
Last Wednesday’s post (What Are They Hiding? Just scroll down) calling attention to the (subsequently reversed) Democratic decision to keep reporters out of the fundraiser noted that even from the party’s selfish perspective, that original decision was “really, really dumb.”
Let it not be thought, however, that in Vermont these days one has to be a Democrat to take actions falling into the “really, really dumb” category. Just take a look at what the movers and shakers of the Northeast Kingdom city of Newport did last week.
(And, no, don’t think that just because you might live far from Newport, this particular really, really dumb move doesn’t affect you; it could cost you a few bucks even if you live in Castleton).
What the Newport City Council did was to decide not to welcome visitors from Quebec, or at least not welcome them in French.
Put Bienvenue on a sign? Sacre bleu, non, replied the City Council, as reported by the Newport Daily Express.
“Why can’t we put Spanish on the sign coming from the South?” asked one Alderman, a question which may or may not have had some rational foundation.
Another complained that French-speaking Quebecois are so anti-English that “the English die up there.”
Assuming loose standards for “rational foundation,” this qualifies. Francophone Quebecois do de temps en temps take this French-only business trop loins.
Still, it is unlikely that the folks in the tourism/marketing/economic development department would recommend a deliberate decision not to welcome people in their own language. Having heard about Newport’s anti-bienvenue policy, some Quebecers might decide to spend their money this summer in New Hampshire or New York, or maybe not to cross the border at all.
And who could blame them?
Now that we’re in the international mode, and before proceeding to matters of far greater substance for the rest of the week, let’s finish the recent contemplations about the possibility of altering some of the basics of Vermont governance.
Again, these are not proposals, just stuff that might be interesting to talk about. Last week and the week before, the interesting stuff was a one-house legislature, such as Nebraska has. Today, inspired by the sentiments of one reader’s comment, a more radical suggestion: Why not think about making Vermont the first state to establish a parliamentary system?
Maybe because it could be unconstitutional. The Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and by some definitions, a parliamentary system does not qualify.
But by others, it does, and every once in a while, a writer or scholar will suggest that the whole country convert. On its face, it seems a sensible suggestion. Almost all of the world’s democracies operate under a parliamentary system, and most of them seem to be governed at least as well as this one.
Those writers and scholars have not inspired a movement. The only organization that comes close to being a pro-parliamentary advocacy group is known as “US Parliament,” which is based (one will not be surprised to learn) in California, and which barely qualifies as an organization. Even Paul C, Manuel is not familiar with it. http://www.usparliament.org/parpar.htm
That’s significant because Manuel, a political scientist, co-wrote (with his wife, political scientist Anne Marie Cammisa) Checks And Balances?: How A Parliamentary System Could Change American Politics (Westview Press, 1999 ) .
Professor Manuel, now at Georgetown University in Washington, said he and his wife were not advocating that the US switch to a parliamentary system, merely examining the pros and cons. In fact, he seems to conclude that the cons outweigh the pros. After all, he said, in more than 200 years, “the US has never had a government collapse.”
Still, there are advantages to the parliamentary system. Government in Britain, he said, has been “more responsive,” if “less stable” than its U.S. counterpart.
Because of the uncertainty, it might be interesting if one small, relatively civilized, state (that would include this one) decided to perform the experiment. If the states are, as Justice Louis Brandeis said, “the laboratories of democracy,” maybe one state would perform a service by switching to a parliamentary system. If it succeeded, other states would emulate it. If not, the first state could switch back.
Under a parliamentary system, Vermonters would not choose a governor. They would simply vote for legislators. The party that controlled the legislature would choose its leader to head the executive branch. In most parliamentary system, this leader is called the prime minister, but Vermont could continue to use the term ‘governor.’
One advantage of a parliamentary system is that the government, as long as it retained the support of a legislative majority, and presumably therefore of the people, could really get things done.
This is, of course, also the system’s biggest disadvantage. The government might do too much. But if any government did too much in the opinion of the electorate, that government might fall, requiring a new election.
Would that be more power to the people? Or too much politics?
The power of the majority might also be constrained because legislative majorities could be harder to come by. Parliamentary systems tend to inspire the growth of minor parties, which often win seats in the legislature. Then the bigger parties have to form coalitions with them in order to get enough support to form a government.
This is precisely why some people think a parliamentary system might be a good idea. They’re the folks dissatisfied with the two parties and the powerful if unofficial two-party system which effectively invalidates minor parties.
Granted, all of this might be idle speculation, cotton candy for the mind, as someone once described theoretical musings about unlikely prospects.
But look at it this way: Thinking about making Vermont the first parliamentary system in America is no sillier, and less objectionable, than thinking about having Vermont secede, an absurdity which seems to have a devoted (if very small) following in these parts.
Tags: Democrats, Newport, Parliamentary system
June 28th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Years ago, when my boss John Anderson was running for President as an independent, I told him that I did not think that the country would accept a three-party system until it was in serious crisis. JBA responded, “Well, I believe it is in a serious crisis.” That was in 1980, and thirty years and several crises later, we still are no closer to a fundamental shift in our political system. If anything, we have a tenuous, Potemkin-like two-party system with little party discipline (other than the GOP’s saying “no”), one that has been subsumed under the prevailing mega-economic and corporate interests.
While procedural reforms often result in less progress than they promise, I agree that, at least in Vermont, we might be able to become a laboratory for a different kind of democracy. (By the way, I also tend to view the so-called secessionist movement as little more than an adolescent tantrum.) In my mind, a parliamentary system has the potential for some ideological/policy discipline that can lead to demonstrable accountability within the caucus and at the polls. Yet, if we get splintered into too many parties, we might end up with coalitions with short shelf lives and a steady stream of new governments. (Viva, Italia!)
We nevertheless should begin a discussion, and it would be fascinating to see how Vermonters might handle a constitutional convention, which would be necessary to move toward a parliamentary system.
Somehow, though, I cannot envision these kinds of changes taking place. The inertia of our body politic is so powerful. Here are some examples that dampen my optimism:
– Years ago, Neal Peirce, when he was with National Journal, wrote a piece speculating that fifty states were too many for America; instead, he recommended a new configuration of states comparable to the locations of the Federal Reserve districts, which number twelve. A look at a map of the present districts illustrates some geographic logic (http://www.federalreserve.gov/otherfrb.htm). It was an interesting idea to consider, but consider this as well: If some states fight so hard to keep the Confederate flag, what would they do in the face of dissolution?;
– John McClaughry and Frank Bryan had a provocative idea in their book, The Vermont Papers, which advocated the devolution of state control to the authority of a number of shires throughout Vermont. While I don’t agree with the extreme decentralization they seemed to embrace, can we imagine intra-state administrative units that might be fewer in number than our existing counties but also might have more delegated responsibility than our counties have now? Still, the fight of school district consolidation does not fill me with optimism; and
– Then again, there is always Essex Town, where I am a selectboard member, and the Village of Essex Junction, a municipality within a municipality. (Good people!) The long-time squabbles over whether to merge are legendary, and we remain stymied by a failure to transcend old ways of thinking that inhibit our ability to optimize our governmental systems and economize municipal services.
Don’t give up, Jon. A few years ago, there was a debate in the State House about whether Vermont should secede. Maybe now is the time to hold a debate down there about your idea or perhaps even a mock Vermont Constitutional Convention. Why the heck not? It would be one hulluva study in the capacity of modern human beings to grapple with fundamental decisions about how they organize as communities in the face of serious contemporary and seemingly intractable problems.
June 28th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
First thing is first: I’m glad you’re at least entertaining my idea, especially since only separatists and radical decentralists like my peers are willing to seriously consider a change in Vermont government to the effect of allowing Vermont to become a true “laboratory of democracy”. But while it is possible that a parliamentary assembly would be “unconstitutional”. Regardless of whether or not the Constitution meant a two-party system where at times the lines blur, or if it meant any form of government with representation. I’ll admit, I’m somewhat young and possibly naive, but if the Vermont government can go from annual elections and a effectively powerless governor to biennial elections and a more centralized government, we can certainly take a step back, increase voter representation, place more power in the counties and regions of the state, and reduce the bureaucracy and redundancy that our current system has to offer. Also, it would be expected that the party who would win a majority of seats in a hypothetical Vermont parliament would elect their leader (then known to the public for some time) to the post of Governor, meaning in a way, albeit indirectly, Vermonters would vote for their Governor. The only time they’d never have a choice in the matter would be when the sitting governor is ousted (either through a vote of no confidence, death, or other unforeseen circumstances) and an interim governor would be in place until elections are held once again.
This could effectively put us OUT of the loop of national and federal election campaign money and politicize less Vermont politics. I haven’t really come to grips as to how we’d elect a parliament, but send Senators and Representatives to Washington. Regardless, the concept is an interesting one.
To the first section of your musing today, I was surprised to see you pick up on what happened in Newport. (For the record, Vermont should be English-French at the state level and in education.) I don’t know if it’s just what I and other have managed to experience out of sheer luck, or if it’s a growing trend, but Vermonters of French-Canadian origin aren’t looked too highly upon. Seeing it with my own eyes and hearing the stories my late Perepere told me, it seems that we’re about to cross into the same kind of Vermont that existed back in the early 1900s. That’s not only worrisome, but almost terrifying to the French people of this state.
August 15th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I know this is an older post (almost two months old), but I was reading my handy pocket Constitution today and I noticed something:
In Article 4, Section 4 it states; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.
Well, why would a Parliamentary Republic be unconstitutional? All the Section states is that there cannot be absolute rule so concentrated as it had been in Britain at the time (or that even Britain today would be federally unconstitutional). Certainly there would be difficulties in switching over from one system to another within a few electoral cycles (perhaps impossible), but if cues are taken from groups like the RSA on government reforms more centered on direct democracy ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql3Jp3ydfE8 ), Henry George’s economic philosophy, Frank Bryan’s “Vermont Papers”, and even possibly the writings of Quebecois Lionel Groulx, we could really alter (for the better, albeit Vermont’s government isn’t the worst out there) the state government for the better.
August 16th, 2010 at 8:28 am
Thanks for this unbiased coverage. As I am running for the Vermont Senate from Addison County as an Independent (with no money), I know well what money can do. Money can get you covered by the media, for one thing! One thing money cannot do is walk the streets and talk to people, listen to people. Money does not have ears.
Shame on the Democrats for flaunting big money in the faces of Vermonters who are struggling. They claim to represent the ‘people’… if you look at the Legislature’s actions, you’ll see that they represent the Nestle, AIG, Trans-Canada and corporate lobby people. Not Vermont business, farm and wage-earning people.
I see that Deb ‘Diebold’ Markowitz is pushing a million dollars in election funds, with Vermont children coming to school hungry. What’s that all about?