Everyone has to know his or her place, including President Obama, who is in his second term as the leader of the most powerful country of the world.

The US government was shut down because the American Congress, using its budget right, did not approve the government budget. Here in Turkey, the executor of the budget right, the Grand National Assembly, has been unable to see the audit reports on public institutions prepared by the Court of Accounts because the reports have not been submitted to the Assembly for some time now. Which one do you think is more democratic? I vote for the former. Let me tell you why.

The US House of Representatives, controlled by the Republican Party, rejected the budget of president Obama’s government. Not having an approved budget and hence no legal authority to spend money, the shutters of the US government fell, inevitably. Some part of the government employees were furloughed from their jobs. Not to mention that the world was stirred up. Everyone seems to be anxious that the principal and interest payments on US bonds might be delayed or the global crisis might intensify. At first glance, the entire story seems to point at a weakness on the side of the US. I beg to differ. I believe that the entire story is a lesson for democracy.

First, this is not the first shutdown in US history. It is the eighteenth. The shutters of the US government had fallen seventeen times before, for different timeframes and sometimes on smaller scales. During the Ford and Carter administrations of the 1970s, the government shut down as many as six times in a decade. During Reagan’s time, the government called it off eight times for a couple of days to a couple of weeks due to the disapproval of the budget, completely or partially. And finally, during the Clinton administration, the government was shut down twice.

So, why did the Congress execute this authority? Because it is a constitutional right vested to it; because the execution and the legislation have to be in agreement about how to spend the money. Because negotiation and consensus cannot be one sided. This is what I think, at least. If the execution did not make the effort to reach to a common ground with the legislation concerning an issue, that is critical for the latter, and it was necessary to play this card.

What is the deal here? Obama’s historic health reform, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, will take effect next year while the Republican majority of the House of Representatives remain against it. The government believes that having been elected for the second time, president Obama won overall approval for the plan, and hence doesn’t want the Act to be on the agenda. The Republicans, on the other hand, argue that “If you were reelected with this Act among others, we preserved our majority in the Congress by arguing against it.” They hence approved the budget after defunding Obamacare. Therefore, Obamacare will not take effect this year due to the lack of funding, despite having been approved and passed into law. President Obama does not want this. So, what will happen? The execution and the legislation will sit and reach common ground. They will meet halfway.

Such is life

Please don’t forget that we are talking about the US. We are talking about a country that amended its constitution to prevent the third candidacy of presidents who have served two terms. There was no such limit before 1951. And no presidents had served for more than two terms, until Roosevelt, who was elected president four times. Roosevelt passed away soon after his fourth term began. During Truman’s term, the Congress put a limit to the number of times that a president could be reelected. They decided that no man could shoulder such responsibility for as long as 16 years without turning to ash. They knew from history that power should have limits.

The principle of separation of powers works in the US with such mechanisms of checks and balances. Some decisions of the president are changed by the execution and legislation as such under the presidential system. We’d better read this as a purposefully designed system that pushes for consensus rather than the weakness of the president. This mechanism is useful as it helps a more comprehensive and healthier discussion and communication of decisions. Everyone has to know his or her place, including President Obama, who is in his second term as the leader of the most powerful country of the world.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 08.10.2013