DUGGAN: True democracy proves impossible during crisis

Democracy is among the most vociferous and equalizing governments produced by men, but it is sometimes trumped by a dictatorial style of governing. Obtaining complete and unalterable balance of power among our nation's three branches of government may only be worsening our chances to solve future problems.  

With news involving the debt crisis, the United States has exposed the major weaknesses of a democratic society — when important decisions need to be made quickly, a democratic method is inefficient.

Keep in mind, though, that the United States is not a pure democracy, but a republic — at least on a federal level. But popular usage of the word "democracy" has come to encompass even the role of a republic.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines democracy as: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

There are instances of pure democracy within the United States, but these are only seen on a more local, state level with the usage of ballot initiatives or referendums.

But, as a whole, I hope we can agree with the modern usage of the word that the United States practices a democratic style of government, as well as symbolizes one.

With this established, it can be said that a democracy fails to serve its purpose in moments of crisis. In the span of four months, the United States has twice been moments away from economic disaster.

On April 8, quarrelling politicians brought the country within an hour of a government shutdown. This shutdown would have harmed many Americans financially, but done nothing to the politicians making the decisions. On August 1, the government was again uncomfortably close to economic ruin with debates on raising the debt ceiling.

So if our government officials cannot appropriately deal with key issues that they were aware of far before a decision needed to be made, how could they possibly solve an unseen crisis that requires immediate action?

In the past, presidents have declared national states of emergency which have given them power to make national decisions that bypass the usual congressional procedures.

In 1861, when Jefferson Davis was elected as the Confederate president, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed it a national emergency and took action. Lincoln sent blockades to southern ports and increased the size of the military — actions that were strictly forbidden without the consent of Congress and an official declaration of war. Lincoln later wrote, "These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular and a public necessity."

Forty-eight hours after assuming office, Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed a national emergency. Soon after this, he used this power to declare a "bank holiday" in attempts to revive the economy during the Great Depression.

Both of these actions go against the usual democratic style of decision making and can be disputed as unconstitutional in their unbalancing of power in favor of the executive branch.

What's more important is the brief style in governing that they represent. In moments of crisis, a democratic system is not efficient and a temporary dictatorship-like authority is required.

But this imbalance of power has naturally alarmed many politicians. A similar circumstance that shows its misuse was seen in Germany with Adolf Hitler. Article 48 of the Weimer Constitution is a law that grants power to the president to curtail certain rights and take action without consent of the parliament. With the use of fearful propaganda, Hitler legally obtained power by making the president of Germany sign a decree that initiated a state of emergency, marking a substantial step in his rise to power.

To prevent occurrences like this, as well as prevent presidents from declaring states of emergency as a political tactic, the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976. Though there were already certain procedures established over the years to declare a national emergency, this act made it into law and began to tame the power that presidents were given in emergency situations.

Shortly after this act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was passed in 1977, which once again limited the president's power. It ended undefined grants of power to the executive branch, as well as made congress more involved with states of emergency.

So, it's safe to say that if any crisis were to arise and the president tried to take action like those in the past, politicians would cry foul and solutions would get jumbled up in a mess of legal actions.

The idea of equalizing power is great for domestic issues like health care, which need to be thought over, digested, regurgitated and worked on again. All of which ensures a fair law is passed. But for cases like our debt crisis, the time is not always there to take such methodical action.

Restricting the ability of the president to obtain complete control in moments of crisis is a step that only hurts our nation.

Had Cincinnatus not obtained temporary dictatorship of the Roman Republic, Rome might have fallen victim to neighboring tribes in its moment of crisis. If our future leaders are not able to obtain the necessary power to deal with a crisis, our nation may fall as a result of the very democracy that it was built on.