 Last time we've been discussing political economy of economic and social policies. We've talked about the US system that it was represented in general by the doctrine of the policy set or the ideology of less affair, but that there were many exceptions to this system in practice, including the agricultural sector, the style of the US state intervening into domestic markets. This morning, I shall be talking about governance and policymaking, and here we'll talk about the main setup, the key institutional features of the US state, okay? And depending on our time, we'll continue with our discussion on representation and participation. So what does the US system look like? Okay, we have the US constitution, and according to the constitution, most power is concentrated at the state level, but we've seen in the introductory bit that the federal government has been increasing its penetrative ability in time. So we've got the expansion of federal competences vis-a-vis or at the expense of the state level in time. But we also see that centralized federal power has always been very important when it came to commerce and foreign policies, okay? So that aside, the federal level or federal government had been expanding in time. The constitution had been amended 27 times. It requires three-fourths of the states to ratify the constitution. The first 10 amendments, as we've talked about, were in the form of what's called the Bill of Rights, and the other amendments from amendment 11, the 11th amendment till the 17th amendment are mostly about election practices and procedural deficiencies of the system. So those 17 ones are really about electoral practices and other deficiencies, expansion of the vote, suffrage, and others. What's important here are the principles of the US constitution. And here we talk about two versions or two ways of separation of powers, okay? So two methods or two mechanisms of separating power. One is the vertical one. We've got the federal level at the top and we've got, because this is a federal system, we've got the state level in the bottom or at the bottom. So we have a separation of powers between the federal government and state governments. So we call this vertical separation of powers. So this is one what's called a check in the balance. This is one mechanism of providing checks and balances or affording checks and balances into the US system. Another is separation of powers but this time horizontally. So we're talking about the federal level and we talk about the separation of powers at the federal government level. The aim here is to limit the federal government's ability to control citizens' lives. So that's the utmost aim here. So we've got all branches of government. These are called co-equal branches of government and the operation of these should not be encroaching upon the lives of citizens. Bearing down upon the lives of citizens, okay? So civil liberties, civil rights, these have to be protected. And this also, the idea here is that the separation of powers especially at the horizontal level would prevent tyranny of majority which we've talked about in the first couple of lectures. Here when we refer to the US system we always keep in mind the term checks and balances which means that the system prevents the constitutional system, prevents one branch from becoming supreme. So no branch is supreme. No branch will say the last word unilaterally, okay? That I want you to remember. And each of these branches will have to cooperate with one another, okay? So it is this quality of the US system, the constitutional system that affords democratic legitimacy, okay? So here we've got once again, co-equal branches. So all of them are equal vis-a-vis one another. This is represented in the horizontal separation of powers. And it becomes a complex policy-making apparatus. Well, I'll explain this in a little bit detail. But this also refers to sometimes, I mean this process because it's so complex because of the fact that there are many veto points and veto players in the system, it becomes rather inefficient in the sense that for a bill to become law, it has to go through a lot of, it has to jump through several hoops, okay? It has to be, it has to gain agreement over many, many, many actors, or by many actors. And all of this is designed to protect civil rights and liberties. What happens is it is the Congress, which is the legislature, which must pass law. So for a bill to become law, the Congress has to pass it. So because it's basically the legislature. The president as the executive arm should sign or veto the legislation, the bill, okay? The Congress, in case of a veto, can override this veto by two-thirds majority in both of the houses. So the Congress can say, hey, Mr. President, we don't buy your veto, we pass the same legislation by a supermajority, by a qualified majority, by two-thirds vote in both of the houses, then you will promulgate it, you will sign it. The courts, the Supreme Court will review legislation or may review legislation or can review legislation on its own initiative. But if the Congress abides by the piece of legislation it passes and the president signs it, but the court says, forbidden, I won't allow it, then the Congress, as well as the states, can join one another and can reverse the Supreme Court decision by a constitutional amendment, okay, by basically two-thirds of the vote in the Congress and three-fourths of the states agreeing to it, okay? As you can see, it's a complex decision-making system in which we have to have cooperation among different branches of government and in case of a veto, for example, or in case of a constitutional amendment, cooperation in terms, I mean, cooperation through vertical lines in the sense that the states, three-fourths of the states must agree to this amendment, this constitutional amendment. So the most important point here is that authority is divided because of the checks and balances because of the vertical separation of powers as well as the horizontal separation of powers. It's called a presidential system, but as you can see, as we shall be talking about, the president has to coexist and should cooperate with, collaborate with other branches of government as well as the federal, representing the federal government as well as cooperate with state-level governments. So the entire system is built on cooperation. Otherwise, the system comes to a halt. That's why it's called inefficient government or inefficient policy-making structure because of many veto points and veto players in the system built into the system. So unless you cooperate among co-equal branches of government, the system will come to a halt. Is that clear? So presidential system does not necessarily mean that the president says the last word all the time, okay? It's a misconception of the U.S. system. So what does the president do? But before that, let me show you how the system works once again. The president representing the executive branch, we've got the president, his executives in the cabinet, members, departments, and independent government agencies. That's basically the bureaucracy, okay? Remember, bureaucracy is part of the executive. It's the implementing and informing part instrument of the executive. What happens is, well, we've got the Congress, as we shall be talking about, which represents the legislative branch. The Congress is a bicameral structure. We've got the House of Representatives, and we've got the Senate, okay? It has responsibilities, but what's important here? It passes legislation. So this is the only, the ultimate legislative organ in the system. The president in this sense, except for the case of decrease, exceptional cases, it is the Congress which passes legislation, okay? The courts, we've got the Supreme Court, representing judiciary, and courts of appeal, district courts, and it is there to interpret the legislation, okay? Once again, the Supreme Court can review a piece of legislation and can nullify it, can declare it null and void, okay? I won't allow this. So the Congress, once the legislation is there, the president can veto bills, but the Congress can override veto with two-thirds with a supermajority of votes in both of the houses, and the Congress also has impeachment power over the executive, the chief executive here, the commander in chief, okay? Please. Impeachment power means that the Congress can find the president in case of treason, for example, can say we find the president guilty of such and such crime, and we remove the president, okay? So that's, it's a specific process called impeachment, yes. There are historical examples. There were votes for impeachment for President Clinton, for example, but that this was never implemented because there was a conflict between the House of Representatives and the state, so it didn't work out that way. Power to appoint judges, the president as the chief executive has the power to appoint judges, and the president has pardoned power, so he can say I forgive those crimes. The court can declare presidential acts unconstitutional, so has the power to do that. The Congress, upon the nomination of the president, may approve federal judges, and the courts, especially the Supreme Court, can declare laws unconstitutional. So you see the horizontal checks and balances in the system, okay? So horizontal separation of powers. What this system requires is utmost collaboration, cooperation, a lot of negotiation, okay? So as long as they all agree, in most cases, at the lowest common denominator, the system will or may come to a halt. The president. Presidency, it's a presidential system, according to constitution. The institution of presidency represents continuity in the sense that elections in every four years, quadrinally, in November, since 1790s. So for more than 200 years, we've got presidential elections every four years, you know, unless there is civil war, unless there is war or unless there is extraordinary circumstances, so for over 200 years, we've been having the system in the United States, we've been having elections for presidency. There are term limits. The president comes to, I mean, enjoys office for four years for only two consecutive terms. So he may run for president next term, but for the third term, he won't be or she won't be able to run for president. The election to the presidency is called an indirect election. This is through what's called the U.S. Electoral College Process, please. Which one? Two term, after Roosevelt. It may be, it may be, it may be. I don't remember this, but I do remember that there was an amendment. When was this? We'll check, okay? It may be the case that it was through 19, before World War II. 19, he wasn't elected for three times. Yes, I think so too. Indirect election, U.S. Electoral College Process. You may have watched or read about this. So it is an indirect process. U.S. voters, citizens, elect, electors who pledged to vote for their party affiliation. Okay, so voters elect electors and each state has a number of electors. And once the election is done, there may be a discrepancy between popular vote and electoral college votes. This was the case most recently, less than two weeks ago, okay? Actually two weeks ago. So we've got popular vote, much higher for Mrs. Clinton than for Mr. Trump. But electoral college votes were much higher for Mr. Trump than for Mrs. Clinton, okay? The Constitution defines the president in a way structurally weak. So constitutionally, we have a weak president because he must receive support of the Congress to push through his agenda. The president does not in this way or in this sense does not enjoy legislative powers. So in this sense, the president is not supreme. Although this is called an archetypical form of presidentialism or presidential system, it doesn't mean that the president can do whatever he or she wants, okay? He must or she must work with Congress for pushing through his legislative agenda, okay? So to pass legislation, it's the Congress. So in that respect, the Constitution establishes the Congress to be the central branch of government. Is this clear? So despite the perception, despite the name that this is the type of system we have, it's a presidential system. We have the Congress or we have the president who needs to work with the Congress because the only way to pass legislation is through Congress. Alternation, what was alternation? Swinging from one ideology to the next or to the other, okay? Alternation had been rather frequent in the US system and it has been rare. We've seen rare cases of the same political party dominating the presidency for three consecutive terms. We had that before 1960s, but from 1960s, we don't have three-term presidents. I mean, not president himself or herself, but we do not have three terms of Democrats or three consecutive terms Republican as a general rule. We do not have that. I mean, there have been some exceptions, but the rule is that maximum two terms, okay? Then alternation. And in time, we've got the strengthening of the executive vis-a-vis other branches of government. So the role of the presidents had been increasing because they've been presenting themselves as the sole national political leader since Lincoln during civil war, 1860s. And the presidents in the 20th century and well into the 21st century, they try to establish a direct power base and increasingly they speak to the nation, okay? They speak to the nation directly and prepare policies relying on their own national constituencies, okay? But still, presidential dominance in policy making is relatively rare. So we do not have the presidents dominating the entire system, okay? Because it is the Congress who shapes bureaucracy. Just imagine, it is the Congress, it is the legislative organ which shapes bureaucracy, which is the instruments of the presidents themselves. So it is the legislative arm or branch which shapes the bureaucracy, top appointments in the system. And it is the Congress which allocates funds. It's not the president which allocates funds because the budget decisions will have to pass through the Congress, okay? So presidents find themselves in a relatively structurally weaker position vis-a-vis the Congress according to the US Constitution. As long as they work with the Congress, can they pass legislation? As long as they work with the Congress, can they push through their agendas? Because those agendas require funds. And it is the Congress which allocates those funds. Is this clear? Do you see how intricate the system is? How intricately related, how much cooperation, collaboration is required in the system for it to function, okay? So that's quite important to remember. And in time, we've got the presidents increasing their core executives. So in time, we do not have, for example, a specific number for departments or members of cabinet ministers. The administration will be composed of the president and his core advisors and his or her secretaries, okay? Secretaries of state, secretary of defense, tourney general and department of homeland security and all others. So it is the cabinet, the administration and we see in time, strengthening of the core executive, the vice president, the president and others that work closely with them such as the secretary of state, okay? So in time, we've got strengthening of the core executive and strengthening of the executive vis-a-vis other branches of government. How does the cabinet and bureaucracy interact? This is what I meant. We've got the cabinet with no legal standing. So numbers of members of the cabinet, we do not have a specific number for that. And they're used mostly symbolically in the sense that we do not talk about U.S. cabinet. There's no cabinet meeting. Yes, the president works with his advisors and his secretaries. But can you think of a cabinet ministers coming together? We do not have that as even in the TV series, West Wing or House of Cards, you do not see presidents in cabinet meetings. Unlike the case of, for example, the British system. In Downing Street number 10, you could imagine, well, Tony Blair, Theresa May now, or David Cameron coming up with his ministers and making a collective decision. We do not have that here. And the number of members fluctuate. Bureaucracy, it's formally part of the executive but responsive to the Congress. Because top appointments has to be approved or have to be approved by the Congress. So it is the Congress which shapes the president's executive arms. In that respect, they need to work with one another. Very carefully. The US system in terms of interest intermediation is known for what's called an iron triangle relationship. And this is a relationship between or among the congressional committees, federal implementing agencies, i.e. bureaucracy, as well as private interest groups. So we have one example here. We've got the bureaucracy tobacco division of the Department of Agriculture. So Department of Agriculture is representing the bureaucracy. Congressional subcommittee or subcommittees of the House and the Senate, the agricultural committees and interest groups, tobacco lobbies, including both farmers as well as manufacturers, okay? So this system is represented in what's called an iron triangle relationship in the sense that as you can see, bureaucracy approves of, I'm sorry, bureaucracy provides information to the committees. The committees approve of requests for budget and bureaucracy may help with constituencies' complaints. Interest groups provide campaign contributions and support to members of the Congress, especially those members who are members of the subcommittees on agriculture. They provide information about the industry to the Congress, members of the Congress, and in return, legislation affecting tobacco farmers and manufacturers are passed in the parliament. And from interest groups also affecting bureaucracy, information about the industry, support for agencies' budget requests. So basically these guys lobby the Congress for expanding bureaucratic budgets, or budgets of the ministries or the administrative executive agencies. And rulings on tobacco production and prices will be shaped by bureaucracy. So we've got different departments or different agencies representing the bureaucracy with different powers over the system. We've got interest groups seeking special treatment from the bureaucracy and they try to lobby the Congress so that their proposals become, or take effect in terms of legislation or in terms of administrative decisions. So legal decisions or administrative decisions. Okay, so the reason why I wanted to talk about iron-trigal relationship here is to show you how the bureaucracy works with the Congress and that it is exposed to, excuse me, interest groups, pressure groups which seek special treatment from the bureaucracy and which help the bureaucracy get what they need in terms of funds, in terms of staff, through the Congress. So as you can see, it is an intricately related relationship among all these segments of the policy-making apparatus. It is in this way a symbiotic relationship. Okay, so they coexist, they live together which, in some respects, seen through a critical eye in the sense that this may lead to what's called regulatory capture in time, in the sense that the bureaucracy, in addition to or as opposed to serving public interests, they may end up serving private interests, okay? So the relationship becomes so intertwined that the bureaucracy may, you know, they're utmost, you know, they're utmost rationale, they're utmost aim should be serving the public interests but they may find themselves serving special interests who are seeking to influence the policy through the iron triangle here, okay? So these are, this is one example of how the iron triangle works. Sorry, we've got in terms of governance and policy-making, we've got the judiciary, the courts, the court system, they're dependent on the president for appointments and Congress for nomination and there is judicial review of laws in the sense that the US Supreme Court may or can and does review constitutionality of pieces of legislation. And they step in, the court may step in to protect civil rights vis-a-vis governments. Subnational governments, of course, it's a federal system, very important, they provide services much more directly than the federal government, especially with when it comes to, for example, education. Okay, so that's one area which is jealously guarded by, you know, state level. In fact, even city-level governments. Local governments, they provide more direct services such as fire protection, such as water and taxes are paid to both levels, to your state, as well as to the federal government. And policy-making, when you look at the system, as we've seen examples here, it's a very complex, intricately detailed system. It may come to a halt easily because of cross vetoes, but since we have a political culture which enables collaboration, cooperation, this, you know, the instances of complications may be much less in practice than in theory. And there are many venues for pursuing or seeking your interests as interest groups, as social movements, for proposing new policies or changing policies. You've got congressional committees. You've got congressmen, congresswomen. You've got regulatory agencies, as was the case for iron triangles, you know, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Environmental Agency, National Aeronautics Board, you know. So all of these agencies may be venues for shopping in the sense that may be venues for interest articulation, so that they would be exposed to interests. And you may have state-level governments who may be exposed to lobbying. So all of these for proposing new policies or changing policies, they provide different venues in this multi-tier, multi-level system of governance so that, you know, all of these venues are exposed to lobbying practices. Yes, it complicates the process, but at the same time, the fact that there are multiple venues in different branches of government, across different branches of government, and across different levels of government, provides all kinds of input legitimacy to the system. I think we can stop here and then we'll talk about the legislature next class.