Political Stability in the History of Policy Making

Ideological and political stability

Ideological stability refers to the belief that general public opinion has remained fairly constant and change of public opinion happens gradually

  • For example, belief in individual liberty, equality, and free market economics have remained constant throughout American history

The two dominant American parties – the Democrats and Republicans – embrace fairly broad ideological positions

Many people often embrace seemingly contradictory ideological positions e.g. being pro-capitalism may work against their particular class interest

A more ideological stable country will usually mean a more stable nation

The checks and balances of the three branches of Government on each other ensure policy is adopted gradually e.g. as seen earlier, the Supreme Court often blocked the legislature’s attempt to interfere and regulate industry

It is often said that the federalised nature of the USA means States can be more innovative in their approach to policy and adapt to shifting ideological position faster than the much larger central Government

  • Although there are some contentious issues. For example, when there is a natural disaster in a particular State, should the central Government handle it or give money to that State to handle it?
  • Some people think that the State will fail to implement a program that the federal Government wants, but others think the federal Government will fail to account for local interests

The Founding Father saw political stability’s main benefit as maintaining the status quo i.e. keeping wealthy (male) property owners powerful

  • The Constitution was quite counterrevolutionary in that it kept the elite in power at the expense of the lower economic classes

Nevertheless the Constitution is a brilliant document that ensured all affected groups are listened to when creating policy. Embracing a bicameral legislature (a House of Representatives and a Senate), the legislature could listen to the voice of the people (in the House) and then review the popular opinion less emotionally (in the House).

Basic Norms

There are certain processes outside the Constitution that control the policy making process

  • For example, in the Senate it is possible to filibuster – this is a tactic used by a Senator to bloc or delay action on a bill or other measure (usually by debating an issue for a ridiculous amount of time)

Norms of seniority meant that for a long time committee chairmanships were held by old southern Conservatives, which restricted more-liberal discussions in the policy-making progress

  • This is less of an issue now, with seniority being more evenly distributed across the country and ideologically

Fragmentation

There have been two types of fragmentation: the separation of powers (between the legislature, judiciary, and executive) and federalism (the division between the central Government and the States)

With regard to the separation of powers, the three Governmental branches (legislature, judiciary, executive) all control and check the powers that each of them exercise – it ensures no one branch exerts too much influence or power

Separation of powers in political systems

Where States disagree with the central Government it can take a lot of time and effort to implement policy e.g. following Brown v Board of Education 1954 it was declared unconstitutional for segregate schools on the basis of race, but it took a lot of time (and financial incentives) to actually get the Southern States to implement the policy

Rationale for stability

When making policy, informed discussion and participation is probably more important than embracing policy rapidly

In fact, the general public opinion is that policy should be implemented gradually – although people believe change is good, radical change is often bad