Is the Constitution a Barrier to Effective Government? (45 Marks)

947 Words4 Pages
Many people would define an effective government by its abilities to be representative of the whole electing body, as compared to corporate or lobbying firms, along with the ability to make sure it functions effectively with all three of the branches fulfilling their roles in terms of checks and balances, without the occurrence of gridlocks. The origins of the constitution had at first been brought about during the Philadelphia convention, in the fear of the tyranny of the majority. However the reliability of the government being effective in current times, with the original constitution can be questioned, and compared with governments who use an un-codified constitution, such as UK, as there are both sides to the question of the constitution acting as a barrier to effective government. One of the negative features of the constitution which prevents from an effective government would be the checks and balances which are often too strong and can lead to the occurrence of gridlock. Gridlock occurs when the branches of government scrutinise each other’s action to such a point where neither can pass any form of legislation, and the government therefore becomes less able to perform its duties, therefore leading to a less effective government. For example during Obamas presidency he had struggled with the majority of republican opposition in congress, and therefore had trouble to pass any major legislation such as immigration reform, jobs bill, gun control initiatives and etc. On the other hand, others may argue that the government is not ineffective because of the constitution as the checks and balances system do in fact work, as a way to prevent an overly centralised and powerful form of government, which may not stay accountable to the people as much as it does to large corporations who fund them for re-elections and etc.
Open Document