A good night for the Democrats: but what’s next?

It was a rewarding night for Democrats and a frustrating one for Republicans. The Democratic party gained control of the House of Representatives, the lower house of the US federal legislature. As the partisan of the two houses (the other being the traditionally more moderate Senate), control of the House is seen by both parties as being a key way to influence events and control law-making.

As the likely next Speaker of the house (and incidentally the first woman in that role) Nancy Pilosi has reached the top tier of American politics. The election to the post won’t happen until January of next year, so for the time being at least Republican congressman Dennis Hastert remains in control of timetabling votes. In a sense, the Speaker is much more akin a prime minister in a parliamentary system than the speakers of such legislatures: by deciding when bills will be discussed and by having the majority of congressman behind him, the Speaker can shepherd through legislation he likes and block those he doesn’t.

For those not familiar with the US system of government, the relationship between the executive (the President) and the two houses of the legislature (the Senate and the House of Representatives) is essentially one of separation of powers, with the one checking and balancing the other. The President cannot create law, and most of his power is derived from his control of the federal government, including the military. The two Houses of Congress, on the other hand, create laws, including the passing of the federal budget. A third branch, the judiciary, oversees them both, and is itself overseen by them.

When control of the House of Representatives resides with the same party as the President, then the relationship between the President and the Speaker of the House is cordial and one of co-operation. But when the Speaker belongs to a different party, then things tend to become more difficult. In recent years, Speakers from both parties have used their role to block presidential ambitions or otherwise further the goals of their own party in direct opposition to those of the White House. Newt Gingrich, a Republican, did this vigorously during the Clinton administration, and Tip O’Neill likewise during the Reagan years.

The problem with setting the two branches of government against each other is that not much ends up getting achieved. The President can veto any legislation passed by Congress, and such vetoes can only be overturned by two-thirds majorities in both houses (something that even the most ambtious and ruthless Speakers cannot rely on).

Ms. Pilosi has made all the right noises in the last few hours — “Democrats are ready to lead. We are prepared to govern and we will do so working together with the administration and the Republicans in Congress in partnership – not in partisanship”. The problem with political systems where power switches between two big parties — whether in the US or the UK — is that the spirit of bipartisanship is a fragile thing. The temptation for many Democrats, frustrated by years in the wilderness, will be to draft as much legislation as they can to shift American society back to where they think it should be.

Critics of George Bush outside the US will, of course, see this as a blow to his variety of right-wing politics that they see as being hostile to the interests of any country other than the US. Doubtless there will be European politicians enjoying the Schadenfreude. Everyone likes to see the proud and powerful knocked back by the hand of fate. More seriously, it is likely the leaders of the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan will see this as a sign that the Americans don’t have the stomach for a long fight in the Middle East. Unfortunately for all concerned, if George Bush is seen as having been weakened, the price may be in the deaths of more innocent Iraqis and Afghans as well as the lives of American and British soldiers.

But here’s my thing. George Bush, whether you love him or hate him, represents and articulates a view of the world, and a belief in their country, held by a large number of Americans, particularly those outside the big cities and not along the Atlantic or Pacific coastlines. The “American heartland” is a socially conservative place, and its people far more religious in their hearts than Western Europeans. It will be important for Nancy Pilosi and the ascendant Democratic Party not to imagine that the electoral shift in their favour equates to a social one as well. America is still a divided country, with the values and concerns of a city-dweller in New York being very different to those of a farmer in Nebraska. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will need to remember this, if their desire for a co-operative and constructive future is going to be real.