Executive Aggrandizement - The Decline of Democracy in the U.S.
By: Emily-Jane Luo
The resilience of US democracy is being put to the test as the nation grapples with an increasingly prominent and concerning phenomenon – executive aggrandizement.
Executive aggrandizement refers to expanding a leader's authority beyond the established “checks and balances,” or interfering with the independence of the civil service. Even a democratically elected leader can threaten democracy by consolidating power or utilizing government resources to weaken their political opposition.
Most notably, following the 2020 election, former President Trump sought to undermine the election results and retain his position by pressuring national officials and altering investigations to support his claims. However, the erosion of democracy in the United States extends beyond the actions of Donald Trump. Since 2010, state legislatures have enacted laws restricting voter access and limiting electoral competition through gerrymandering. Idaho’s House Bill 124 proposes modifications to current legislation to update regulations concerning acceptable voter identification at polling stations. The U.S. has also witnessed significant growth in executive power and concerted efforts to subvert the autonomy of the civil service.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide consolidated executive authority by enacting emergency legislation and streamlining public procurement processes. The unprecedented spread of the virus necessitated swift and decisive action by national governments. In various democracies, including the United States, the pandemic increased hostility and tensions between opposing political parties. Partisanship has significantly influenced perceptions of the crisis severity and trust in the government's actions. The pandemic response has further strained relations between local and national authorities, exemplified by the intensified conflicts between President Trump and Democratic state governors critical of his administration's handling of the situation.
The grant of greater powers to governments, although done to respond to the crisis, often undermined the traditional system of checks and balances. Legislative committees and other oversight bodies had limited time to analyze and deliberate emergency legislation and executive orders, diminishing public transparency. In the face of these challenges, the gridlocked and partisan Congress is ill-equipped to provide impartial oversight and hold the executive accountable.
The primary defenses against executive aggrandizement are the legislative and judicial branches. Unfortunately, the functionality of Congress has declined. A recent example is the prolonged standstill in the House of Representatives, where the Republican caucus repeatedly failed to elect a Speaker. This significant chaos within an institution already grappling with gridlock and stagnation highlights the challenges Congress faces in achieving positive change. Simultaneously, partisanship has reduced legislators' enthusiasm for investigating wrongdoing within their own party. With a few notable exceptions, Republicans in Congress have either endured or supported President Trump's attempts to undermine the electoral process. Consequently, the legislature is ill-equipped to counteract expansions of executive authority.
In contrast, the judiciary's authority has witnessed significant expansion in recent years, bringing positive developments. When it comes to issues of executive aggrandizement, the courts, including many conservative judges, consistently delivered setbacks to the Trump Administration. A crucial concern now revolves around the fairness of the judiciary and its dedication to upholding democratic processes. Unfortunately, the current track record of the Supreme Court does not inspire confidence. Though judicial decision-making has never achieved perfect impartiality, the Supreme Court has leaned notably toward conservatism and partisanship in recent times. This trend involves deviating from established procedures, precedents, and norms that traditionally guided the Court. Today, most Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, believe that the Court is driven primarily by political considerations rather than legal principles.
A democracy’s greatest strength lies in that it allows individuals to highlight shortcomings and work towards rectifying them. While the United States holds substantial global influence, its capacity to promote democratic values hinges on addressing domestic issues. Should Americans successfully navigate these challenges, the nation will inspire those worldwide who strive for their own freedom.
Sources:
Corrales, Javier and Michael Penfold-Becerra. Dragon in the Tropics: Hugo Chávez and the Political Economy of Revolution in Venezuela. Brookings Institution Press, 2011.
Haggard, Stephan and Robert Kaufman. Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Lührmann, Anna and Staffan I. Lindberg. "A Third Wave of Autocratization is Here: What is New About it?" Democratization 26, No. 7 (2019), 1095-1113. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029
Slater, Dan. "Democratic Careening". World Politics 65, no. 4(2013): 729-763. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42002228.
