Tweet
In the last two countries the United States invaded, Afghanistan and Iraq, officials subsequently set up parliamentary and not republican forms of government, with a unicameral Parliament rather than a bicameral legislature. Afghanistan does have a Presidential system and is thus somewhat closer to the US form of government, but the President in Iraq is an appointed figurehead.
So why does the United States opt for non-US forms of government in these countries we occupy? It’s a symbol of a larger trend. As Adam Liptak remarks, the US Constitution has become less of a model around the world.
In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”
A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia [...]
“Among the world’s democracies,” Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, “constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.”
“The turn of the twenty-first century, however, saw the beginning of a steep plunge that continues through the most recent years for which we have data, to the point that the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II.”
Maybe the reason that the US Constitution has waned as a model for the world is that politicians in this country spend so much time trying to end-run it. And when they don’t or can’t, they point to Constitutional provisions as the reason for the legislative paralysis in the country. The biggest one of these, the filibuster, doesn’t appear in the Constitution at all. But it has become a symbol for a system that has simply too many veto points to allow for quick decision-making in a fast-changing world. It’s also nearly impossible to change.
You can also read this as a symbol of weakening American influence generally. Even now, we’re seeing in Iraq, one of those aforementioned occupied countries, that the removal of US troops is leading to a sharp scale-back of the diplomatic effort (which I actually think is welcome news; we don’t need 16,000 US personnel in an embassy). We have a more limited set of tools to control events, and countries increasingly do not want to be saddled with a narrowly-cast governing document built for an agrarian society and tilted toward its landed gentry.
I take solace in knowing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its guarantees of equal rights for women and the disabled, and allowances for affirmative action, is admired much more greatly around the world. But I actually agree with Antonin Scalia at the end of Liptak’s piece, when he says that every country has a Bill of Rights and the key is how the country enforces it. Sadly, I don’t think the US comes out looking so good in that scenario.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Even the countries we invade get a parliamentary system. Our Constitution was a kludge that should have been substantially rewritten after the civil war.
I do agree that scaling down the U.S. presence in Iraq is welcome news, as is the accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would really like to know what’s going on behind the scenes that’s driving this sudden outbreak of decency.
Money, of course. I also wonder if they’ve noticed all the pots noisily boiling, with TPTB struggling to keep the lids clamped down, around the globe–including signs of the same here.
Oh, come on, DDay, the Constitution is “just a piece of paper”, that’s what Preznit George said … and Yoo should half known better.
However, we never have to worry about it being overthrownullated from without, as it has been thoroughly underdeminellated from within.
Bill of Rights?
Sure, if you’re, in gentry, rich … or had the wise foresight to be born a corporation (that’s “good” for becoming “immortal”, or existing forever or until the chickens all come home to roast … whichever comes first, the eggs-actly or the omelette, as well incidinkly, BTW.)
And, I must say Antonin Scalia is a real hootin-nanny, stare decisis-whys.
What’s left?
Oh yes, the Rule of Law … last seen … somewhere … back in 2000, pushin’ up daisies, as is said in dead-earnest.
The great shrinking cons-astute-shun. Ya can bank on it if’n yer too-big-ta- … wudever …
(Who put that thing into the dryer? Won’t fit anything but mice, now … what do you mean, by “Squeak for yourself”? We are a nation of law, not of mice and especially NOT agrarian mice …)
Say wot ya will, oh profoundly prolific scribe, butt ‘Murka remains ezzceptional and the envy of … oh, rats!! … cheese and crackers, got all muddy!!
Iz we done, yet?
Oh, I note that it is time for my evening constitutional.
I need to go for a little walk, before everything shrinks into something too small to see and too damned small to matter.
DW
Maybe it’s more about the synergy between a broadly written constitution and a lifetime tenure for SCOTUS justices, and only nine of them. That particular combo matters.
So, who’s going to do anything about that, and how? A constitutional convention to tidy things up to date? More justices, say, fifteen instead of nine? An amendment to eliminate lifetime tenure and replace with a term of, say, ten years?
Any of these would upset the balance of power, for good or bad, and simply won’t happen regardless. It’s fun to think of them briefly, then move on to more likely issues of the day.