Congeries of cross connected concepts
As we watch the slow motion train wreck that is modern Europe, the EU and its proposed constitution, my admiration for the founding fathers of the USA continues to grow. A question that frequently arises among those with a clue is “why doesn’t anyone imitate the founding of the USA, given its remarkable success?”. Instead, the founders of new governments seem to prefer to follow the lead of failed and failing states, such as the USSR or Old Europe. Why? The American Founding Fathers, to their immense credit, managed to do a very good job without an example or prior validation of their view on government. Now, centuries later, when their vision has been proven right so dramatically, why is the style and structure of the USA Constitution still almost unique?
I think that that answer is simple. The USA Constitution, while it has been very good for the USA, wasn’t particularly good for the Founding Fathers. Except for Washington, they had to fight for public office afterwards. They fought vigorously over important policy issues (see the history of the First National Bank for an example). In contrast, the non-American style constitutions tend to be very good for the authors, either directly, politically or ideologically. The EU Constitution is an archetype, 500+ pages of detailed policy prescription to satisfy the political and ideological desires of its authors. Perhaps this is a reflection of the uniqueness of American society, that undergirds its respect for law and fairness. Is it that the USA Constitution is about providing rules for everyone to have an opportunity to shape the nation’s policies, while the EU Constitution is about deciding the “best” set of policies and forcing their implementation? Both are considered by their authors to promote “fairness” but in America “fair” means “equal opporunity” rather than “equal result”.
If the avoidance of a structural (i.e. American style) constitution contiues, it may be a very long end of history. On the other hand, perhaps it was the diversity of thought reflected in the post-Constitutional political battles that enabled the Founders to think beyond quotidian political concerns. The EUlite, for instance, has a remarkably consistent set of views and opions, making possible the convergence on a single, massive policy document. Perhaps newer nations with a greated amount of intellectual diversity, may do better.
| pj Wednesday, 18 May 2005 at 15:42 |  |
A key is that the US Constitution doesn’t seem very popular with many US liberals today, that’s why they always want to replace it with their “living” constitution. The reality is that the US Constitution prescribes an essentially conservative and limited government, and most people abroad don’t want such a government.
But I think as the 21st century progresses people around the world will more and more take the US as their model.
| David Cohen Monday, 23 May 2005 at 10:07 | |
Even the Founders screwed it up the first time ‘round and had to go back and redo it. Also, they restricted themselves to a brief outline of structure and ignored substantive policy. The EU constitution maunders on and on about this policy and that policy, trying to restrict the future.
But the most important difference, and the one that stops other countries from replicating our government, is that the United States became a nation (or, if you prefer, one people) before it got its government. This is a little counterintuitive, given the state’s rights bent of the original constitution but even as early as the Declaration Americans understood that they had to act as one people when dealing with the world and soon enough they became one people.
The Europeans are not one people and thus, ironically, won’t sit still for our form of government — even though, and perhaps because, it would allow each nation a good amount of leeway in directing its own affairs. But then again, they’ve done everything backwards, insisting on monetary and regulatory unity before achieving political unity. Haven’t these people studied evolution: Ontogeny must recapitulate phylogency.
| Chris Harper Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 17:48 | |
As an FYI, the Australian Constitution, was heavily influenced by the US one. The aussie system is sort of a cross between Westminster and US.
| Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 29 May 2005 at 18:30 | |
Interesting. As Natalie Solent noted, there were also some Central/South American countries that tried it as well. I wasn’t claiming that no country followed the USA path, but that it was at best rare. Australia also got its Constitution back at the turn of the 20th Century, which probably was a help in doing a good job.
