The developments witnessed last week should be taken as an evidence for how the removal of basis for consensus in a country tangles the situation. The removal of the basis for consensus directs people towards looking askance at anyone else. This is bad; this climate is toxic. In such a climate, the responsibility does not decrease but increases for those who claim to provide resources and know the importance of not getting rid of the means and who are obsessed with making progress. Responsible agents should bring together all institutions make sure that the system functions. The public knows how to distinguish between those securing the progress and those hindering progress. For Turkey, the responsibility is undertaken by the Prime Minister under the current system of government. And for the USA, under the existing system of government, the responsibility is undertaken by President Obama. Have you ever thought why Obama initiates a series of efforts to establish social consensus? The source of the problem is the structure of American Congress, but the President did not try 'I do not have any means to handle this' tricks or say 'Let us amend the constitution do that the head of the Congress works differently.' Instead, he started to establish social consensus. If you fail to do something, the reason for this should be that you failed to secure a wide basis of legitimacy among the public. I believe this is exactly why the President thinks considering his health reform draft. Let us take a closer look and try to understand the issue.

The President first came together with opposition party officials at the Congress. Then, he met people with different views on a TV show and searched for a common ground. Why? It is evident that he did these upon the awareness that being in power requires making progress rather than whining and complaining. He could have argued 'the opposition does not let me work', but he did not. He did not because he knew that it is nonsense to say 'the responsibility of the progress I failed to make should be undertaken by the opposition party.' You are in power; you are willing to launch a health reform. This is why you have won the votes. So, there is no point in saying 'the opposition party prevents me from implementing the health reform.'  This rule applies everywhere. Therefore, President Obama seeks social legitimacy for the health reform draft and consensus at the Congress.

Let us first underline the administrative issue for the USA. This issue is directly related with the organizational structure of the US political system. According to this, the legislative body is composed of two parts.  There is the House of Representatives formed taking population differentiation into account on the one hand, and a senate constituted of two representatives from each state regardless of population on the other. Any law code or appointment should be ratified by both of the councils. In that case, states that constitute 11 percent of total voters can come together to prevent the legislation and actions. And at the heart of the recent problems of President Obama lies this two-council structure. President Obama got 53 percent of total votes. However, public support for Obama is currently below 30 percent like some certain others. However, Obama did not say "We cannot govern the country with this constitution" even once. Politics is the art of creating solutions. When creating immediate solutions, it is easier to search for consensus basis instead of modifying institutions and rules. And this is exactly what Obama does nowadays. This is the first point to keep in mind.

But, why did the search for consensus become a prior issue in the USA? The reason is quite simple. In the elections, Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy lost and Republicans won. So, Democrats in power did not only lose a stronghold; they also lost the two-thirds supermajority in the Senate with just one vote. As per today, there are 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans in the Senate. Therefore, a way to avoid one senator from filibustering to prevent the ratification of a law was eliminated and the Republicans had a significant acquisition. The loss of the supermajority has accelerated the search for social consensus and a "we have to amend the constitution" discussion did not break out. And this is the second point to take into account. And the third one: what is this supermajority? Supermajority rule (Rule XXII) a house regulation introduced almost a decade ago in order to avoid that a few number of senators extend and prevent negotiations. Do you remember the film "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" starred by James Stewart? There, the mentioned change in the house regulations limited the authority to filibuster which gave the opportunity to drop the proposed draft. According to this, only two thirds of the senators can decide the draft is discussed sufficiently. Otherwise, the draft proposal is dropped. Woodrow Wilson introduced this amendment so that the USA would enter World War I. Now, the new 59/41 balance in the Senate makes it impossible to make decision through negotiation sufficiency votes.

So, what did they do? Instead of seeking to change the rule, they searched for establishing a consensus. This is democracy. Rules are set for this; to establish a basis for consensus. This is exactly what the USA example tells us.

A word is enough to the wise.

This commentary was published in Referans daily on 27.02.2010