Ln June 23 and 24, the Supreme Court of the United States, in two consecutive judgments, sanctuary the right to carry a weapon outside the home and authorized the States which so wish to abolish the right to abortion. This latest blow to women’s rights is the dreaded outcome of a deep ideological conflict that has split America in two for forty years between progressives and conservatives. Moreover, it is the symptom of a serious democratic imbalance within the main institutions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers.
The reversal of case law that buries the famous Roe judgment vs Wade of 1973 signifies the indisputable (and difficult to reverse) victory of the ultra-conservatives, whose choice of society was the most significant battle since Ronald Reagan (1911-2004). However, a poll commissioned by CNN in May 2022 gave 66% of Americans unfavorable to such a questioning.
This paradox validates a theory established in 1965 by the American economist Mancur Olson (1932-1998), the “logic of collective action”, according to which, in a democracy, while the law should reflect the preference of the majority, the decision of an active minority often triumphs. Thus, the small group, which defends a strong and clearly established preference, has a greater impact and a more efficient organization than the large group, which has a diminishing marginal interest in acting and struggles to organize itself to influence the decisions. This simple application of a principle of political economy has largely been verified under the presidency of Donald Trump. We remember in particular the decision to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, aimed at satisfying the American evangelical electorate, which forms a compact and reactionary electoral bloc, adept at lobbying. For an elected Republican, it is enough to offer a few pledges (by opposing the right to abortion, for example) to ensure this powerful conservative support, useful both in the corridors of the institutions of Washington and in the voting booths. many key constituencies.
Blocking by the minority
However, the American imbalance is more deeply rooted in the institutional structure than in any other democracy. The currency of the United States, Out of many, one (“of several, one”), recalls the difficulty of bringing together such a large and diverse country. The American Civil War (1861-1865) showed what a fratricidal heartbreak the country is capable of when it can no longer come to terms with itself. The solution to the evils of discord lies in what Americans call the ” compromis du Connecticut “ of 1787. This grants two elected representatives to each state in the country in the Senate, the upper house, and a representation proportional to the population of their state in the House of Representatives. In addition, minority blocking procedures exist in the Senate, such as the « filibuster », which allows a group of 41 senators (out of 100) to block debate on a text of law. In doing so, even the smallest states benefit from a representation that does not dilute them into too large a whole, and every voice can be heard.
You have 48.3% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
Ln June 23 and 24, the Supreme Court of the United States, in two consecutive judgments, sanctuary the right to carry a weapon outside the home and authorized the States which so wish to abolish the right to abortion. This latest blow to women’s rights is the dreaded outcome of a deep ideological conflict that has split America in two for forty years between progressives and conservatives. Moreover, it is the symptom of a serious democratic imbalance within the main institutions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers.
The reversal of case law that buries the famous Roe judgment vs Wade of 1973 signifies the indisputable (and difficult to reverse) victory of the ultra-conservatives, whose choice of society was the most significant battle since Ronald Reagan (1911-2004). However, a poll commissioned by CNN in May 2022 gave 66% of Americans unfavorable to such a questioning.
This paradox validates a theory established in 1965 by the American economist Mancur Olson (1932-1998), the “logic of collective action”, according to which, in a democracy, while the law should reflect the preference of the majority, the decision of an active minority often triumphs. Thus, the small group, which defends a strong and clearly established preference, has a greater impact and a more efficient organization than the large group, which has a diminishing marginal interest in acting and struggles to organize itself to influence the decisions. This simple application of a principle of political economy has largely been verified under the presidency of Donald Trump. We remember in particular the decision to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, aimed at satisfying the American evangelical electorate, which forms a compact and reactionary electoral bloc, adept at lobbying. For an elected Republican, it is enough to offer a few pledges (by opposing the right to abortion, for example) to ensure this powerful conservative support, useful both in the corridors of the institutions of Washington and in the voting booths. many key constituencies.
Blocking by the minority
However, the American imbalance is more deeply rooted in the institutional structure than in any other democracy. The currency of the United States, Out of many, one (“of several, one”), recalls the difficulty of bringing together such a large and diverse country. The American Civil War (1861-1865) showed what a fratricidal heartbreak the country is capable of when it can no longer come to terms with itself. The solution to the evils of discord lies in what Americans call the ” compromis du Connecticut “ of 1787. This grants two elected representatives to each state in the country in the Senate, the upper house, and a representation proportional to the population of their state in the House of Representatives. In addition, minority blocking procedures exist in the Senate, such as the « filibuster », which allows a group of 41 senators (out of 100) to block debate on a text of law. In doing so, even the smallest states benefit from a representation that does not dilute them into too large a whole, and every voice can be heard.
You have 48.3% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.