Must we Compromise? Democracy and Polarization

"In debates over mounting political polarization, few concerns are voiced more often than the loss of compromise. The decline of bipartisanship is often treated as both a symptom and a cause of democratic dysfunction-a sign that democracy is becoming more fragile and divided. Despite consistent public support for leaders willing to meet in the middle, meaningful compromises between political opponents are increasingly hard to come by."

"These concerns are familiar enough. What is less often explained is why a decline in political compromise is bad for democracy. In fact, many people simply assume that compromise is essential to democratic politics, so that the growing unwillingness of politicians to work with their political rivals is treated as an obvious case of democratic dysfunction. One explanation for this assumption may be that much of the discussion about polarization focuses on the United States."

"In the U.S., the Senate filibuster and the President's veto make it incredibly challenging to pass major legislation without at least some cross-party agreement. But the fact that a lack of compromise creates problems for the American democratic system doesn't mean that it is a threat to democracy as such. The Westminster model found in places like the United Kingdom and Canada, for instance, traditionally gives the winning party a large majority and leaves the runner-up with little power to block or challenge legislation."

Political polarization has reduced bipartisan compromise, which is often viewed as both a symptom and a cause of democratic dysfunction. Public opinion favors leaders willing to meet in the middle, yet meaningful cross-party agreements are increasingly rare. Institutional features of the United States, such as the Senate filibuster and presidential veto, make legislative compromise especially necessary there. Parliamentary systems following the Westminster model can concentrate power in the winning party and operate without extensive inter-party compromise. Democratic legitimacy can survive with limited compromise, and compelling democratic reasons to compromise while in the majority are not universally evident.

Read at Apaonline