![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
so, it could be worse...
Apr. 8th, 2011 06:25 pmI'm listening these days to Barbara Tuchman's The First Salute, a book that uses the recognition (or was it?) of the revolutionary Continental confederation of American colonies by the Dutch governor of St Eustatius (who later claimed he hadn't) as a hook to explore both the effect of the American revolution on European international politics and also the history of the Netherlands themselves.
One of the points that Tuchman makes is that the constitutional arrangements, the complexity of the legislative process of the Dutch Republic would make our Congress look like a model of fascist efficiency. To pass major legislation, the national legislature, the Estates General, had to obtain the agreement of the estates (legislatures) of each of the seven provinces, which in turn had to obtain the consent of the cities of the province. Each province also had a pensionary, like a prime minister, and a stadtholder, like a president or governor. These two often contended for influence and authority, and though the stadtholders were supposed to be appointed or elected by their provinces, they gradually came to be hereditary offices (though, the Dutch quickly pointed out, not *royalty*! ;-)
The tensions between the different factions in the country (landlocked provinces versus seaboard ones, those who favoured more role for the nobility versus those who of a more oligarchic bent, those who favoured one Protestant faction against another or as opposed to Catholicism), combined with this chaotic political system, meant that for large swathes of time nothing got done, no appropriations were made, and the army and navy (the latter especially vital to the preservation of the Netherlands' all important trade!) fell into decay and neglect.
Only the liberum veto of the later Sejm, the Parliament of Poland, during the 17th century, when any member could veto a legislative proposal, seems more destructive of basic, functional government.
So, as we stumble towards a possible government shutdown, know that it could be worse.
And, please, don't blame the legislators who aren't compromising. Blame your fellow citizens, who elected them and are pressuring them not to bend or find common ground. We get the government we choose, and until people stop supporting candidates who proudly proclaim that they will "not back down" and until voters accept that they can't have everything that they, personally want, we will continue to have these "dog in the manger" showdowns. We need moderation in this country. We need it very badly if we are to function effectively--both the government and the larger society.
One of the points that Tuchman makes is that the constitutional arrangements, the complexity of the legislative process of the Dutch Republic would make our Congress look like a model of fascist efficiency. To pass major legislation, the national legislature, the Estates General, had to obtain the agreement of the estates (legislatures) of each of the seven provinces, which in turn had to obtain the consent of the cities of the province. Each province also had a pensionary, like a prime minister, and a stadtholder, like a president or governor. These two often contended for influence and authority, and though the stadtholders were supposed to be appointed or elected by their provinces, they gradually came to be hereditary offices (though, the Dutch quickly pointed out, not *royalty*! ;-)
The tensions between the different factions in the country (landlocked provinces versus seaboard ones, those who favoured more role for the nobility versus those who of a more oligarchic bent, those who favoured one Protestant faction against another or as opposed to Catholicism), combined with this chaotic political system, meant that for large swathes of time nothing got done, no appropriations were made, and the army and navy (the latter especially vital to the preservation of the Netherlands' all important trade!) fell into decay and neglect.
Only the liberum veto of the later Sejm, the Parliament of Poland, during the 17th century, when any member could veto a legislative proposal, seems more destructive of basic, functional government.
So, as we stumble towards a possible government shutdown, know that it could be worse.
And, please, don't blame the legislators who aren't compromising. Blame your fellow citizens, who elected them and are pressuring them not to bend or find common ground. We get the government we choose, and until people stop supporting candidates who proudly proclaim that they will "not back down" and until voters accept that they can't have everything that they, personally want, we will continue to have these "dog in the manger" showdowns. We need moderation in this country. We need it very badly if we are to function effectively--both the government and the larger society.
