On Wednesday, 29 June, the 22 members of the Assemblée Nationale Bureau will be appointed, and on 30 June, the eight permanent commissions will be constituted, including the strategic Finance Commission. Nevertheless, its leaders have expressed the wish to remain in opposition. This is the majority in the Senate and thus currently the only potential ally for Ensemble. Ironically, the Les Republicains-UDI group has been losing momentum since 2017, with 64 of its members elected. The second big surprise was the important scoring of the Rassemblement National (RN), which, with 89 seats, is in a strong position to become a key element of the opposition. It is not clear whether this movement formed for the purpose of these parliamentary elections will become a parliamentary group as such. Although across this heterogeneous group, composed of the extreme left, environmentalists and socialists, some MPs may eventually join the presidential movement, it is unlikely that many will rally to it in the short term. Indeed, this second round, with a record low turnout (46%), gave 131 seats to the leftist NUPES coalition, which campaigned against Emmanuel Macron's liberal policies during his first term and his programme for the next five years. The unprecedented situation in the Fifth Republic paves the way for a complex and uncertain political phase. Ensemble will need 44 additional members to reach the 289 majority threshold. The presidential party won only 245 seats in the National Assembly, losing the absolute majority it had previously held (including the dissidents). And that, not polarization, is most likely the primary source of current gridlock.The results of the second round of parliamentary elections represent a huge setback for Ensemble, the movement that supports Emmanuel Macron. That’s what’s happening now, with the dysfunctional GOP. What does cause gridlock, however, is a party driven by aversion to compromise - both internally and with the other party. In other words, the relationship between polarization and gridlock is complicated. After all, a polarized Congress means that one person can bargain for her whole party a non-polarized Congress can devolve into an ungovernable mess (indeed, one theory of why parties exist at all is that legislatures don’t really work well without them). On the other hand, a non-polarized Congress also can create a lot more gridlock.
A non-polarized Congress can avoid gridlock by having different majorities express themselves on different issues. What about with divided government? Does polarization then mean gridlock? However, with 60 Senators, and given unified government, polarization should mean less, not more, gridock. The Senate, with the filibuster forcing supermajorities, is another story there, polarization might make gridlock more likely assuming that the majority party has fewer than 60 Senators. Very strong polarization, and no gridlock at all. Thus in the historic 111th Congress, in 2009-2010, the House was extremely productive. Since the House runs by majority party, if that party is unified, then they can basically do whatever they want. Indeed, within the House, partisan polarization should ease gridlock. Which is to say that gridlock and polarization are not the same thing, and not necessarily related in any straightforward way. Indeed, really more specific to go back to the traffic analogy, it’s about failure to pass legislation that everyone wants, but is being blocked by collective action failure of some type. Gridlock is about failure to pass legislation. Second: polarization - partisan polarization - just means that Members vote with their party and against theother party. If you’re looking for a quick fact to explain congressional gridlock, it’s this: In the 113th Congress, only 59 members have voted with the majority of their party less than 90 percent of the time (20 Republicans and 39 Democrats).So first of all, a minor point: “Congress” here apparently means the House. National Journal is running a funny-looking chart of partisan polarization in the House with this explanation:
0 kommentar(er)
