Why Don’t Other Countries Have Government Shutdowns?

It's a uniquely American form of gridlock.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | APRIL 7, 2011

With the clock ticking down to an April 8 deadline and President Barack Obama and congressional leaders unable to resolve disputes over abortion funding and changes to the Clean Air Act, it appears more and more likely that the U.S. federal government is headed for a shutdown. If the shutdown were to continue through Monday, hundreds of thousands of federal workers deemed nonessential would be furloughed. Essential services, such as national defense, would continue, but soldiers would likely not be paid. Other important services such as benefits for veterans and clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health would also probably be suspended. Do other countries ever have to deal with this?

No. Other countries may have coups, revolutions, and collapses, but a government so deadlocked it simply ceases to function seems to be an exclusively American phenomenon. Several features of the U.S. political system -- a strong executive branch with veto power, the Senate filibuster -- make the sort of deadlock we're seeing now more likely. In a parliamentary system, used by the vast majority of democracies in Europe and Asia, the budget process is similar on paper: The prime minister prepares a "government budget" and submits it to parliament for a vote. But if parliament rejects that budget, that's generally considered a sign that the government no longer has the confidence of parliament and has to resign.

This is exactly what happened in Portugal last month, when Prime Minister Jose Socrates stepped down following the rejection of a new budget featuring harsh austerity measures. The country is currently under the leadership of a caretaker government, until new elections can be held and a new government is formed -- which will presumably try to pass its own pared-down budget. However, just because a country with a parliamentary system is "without a government" doesn't mean that government services stop. Thanks to robust and apolitical civil services, most governments can keep operating no matter who's in power. Belgium hasn't had a government since June 2010, but, for the most part, the trains still run on time, the trash gets picked up, and budgets are even passed.

U.S.-style shutdowns are theoretically possibly in a parliamentary system if a budget is rejected and the government doesn't step down -- but they never actually occur. There were fears not long ago that if Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's government proved unable to pass a budget by the start of the 2011 fiscal year in April, payments to civil servants and some government administrative services could be suspended. But the crisis was eventually averted when the budget passed in the wake of last month's deadly earthquake. Battles over a series of related spending bills are still pending. 

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Joshua E. Keating is an associate editor at Foreign Policy.

TOTHESEPEOPLE

9:45 PM ET

April 7, 2011

Jacksonian

what we need is the common sense Andrew Jackson showed when taking on the Bank of the United States. http://wp.me/1tXoF

 

BLACKADDER60

12:39 AM ET

April 8, 2011

flabbergasting

And this nation proposes to be an EXAMPLE for OTHERS to follow?

 

NICOLAS19

6:43 AM ET

April 8, 2011

call for rally

Reagan definitely used the shutdown as a "rally to me" call, so did Clinton to a lesser extent. Even if there will be a temporary shutdown, Obama will address the nation in one of his big speeches, urging everybody to unite behind him, support his multi-billion dollar re-election campaign and let him start a few more wars.

 

ZINDIQ

11:28 AM ET

April 11, 2011

So Obama can start a few more wars huhu?

Yet another bit of revisionist history here - for those of you with your stuck up your posterior (also known as regular Faux News watchers) - Bush started the wars we are currently in, not Obama.

Bush also presided over the period during which the financial crisis bubble was formed and also when it popped - Bush also started the bailouts.....

I just love how Obama's opponents seem to have very selective memory when it comes to actual facts...

I am personally not a Obama fan - but disagreeing with his ideology doesn't mean I will lie about history to try to make him look bad, or buy into some stupid bullshit about him being Keyan/Muslim/Socialist/or the Anti-Christ - I am after all sane, and facts and truth still trump political cohesion in my book.

 

EQUINOX

7:45 AM ET

April 8, 2011

Why Don’t Other Countries Have Government Shutdowns?

Because other governments don't have Republicans.

 

DIANAMORRIS

2:11 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Cut Off Politician's Pay

The idea that politicians would needlessly create a situation where employees, even soldiers, don't get their pay cheques is horrible.

The politicians should be the ones who don't get their pay cheques if they shut the government down because of political posturing and point scoring.

If some of these politicians think that programs should be cut or reduced or changed, they should debate their proposals for an orderly change, and keep the government running in the meantime.

The shut down will probably cost money because of the rigamarole involved in adjusting and readusting to the situation.

 

COZMIKBLINKS

3:19 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Why other government aren't shutting down.

Ha, ha ha, the answer answer from equinox is funny and interesting,but on a more seriuos note, i think there is something factual in there ,that is, if we define republicans as realists, which is obviously lacking in the governments of other countries as in the case of the african countries,those guys are simply laughable in the way they think so appauling i wonder if the UN ,IMF etc,do not realise the kind of humans they are dealing with.

 

DIANA RELKE

4:12 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Proroguing Parliament

Canada has 'em. It's called prorogue. It's a Harper specialty, as he's a big fan of the GOP.

 

NERIMA DAIKON

8:19 PM ET

April 8, 2011

proroguing parliament

Temporarily shutting down parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote is not anything close to the same thing as allowing government operations to lapse without funding because a budget can:t be passed.

 

JM FROM CANADA

4:19 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Westminster Parliaments and budgets

"U.S.-style shutdowns are theoretically possibly in a parliamentary system if a budget is rejected and the government doesn't step down -- but they never actually occur."

This suggests that a government that loses a budget vote has a choice about stepping down. This is not true in a Westminster style parliament - ie, the UK, Canada, Australia and the rest of the commonwealth. A budget vote is a matter of confidence. If the government loses the vote it has lost the confidence of parliament. Normally the Prime Minister goes to the head of state, ie, the Queen in the UK, or the Governor General in Canada, and requests the dissolution of the government, and an election takes place. But it is the head of state who controls this, NOT the head of government. The government cannot simply choose not to resign.

An election is not the only possible outcome. The alternative outcome is that the head of state asks another party if they can command the confidence of the parliament. Ultimately it is the ability to command the confidence of parliament that is the basis on which one can govern in a parliamentary system.

You also refer to strong executive branches, but in a Westminster style parliament this makes no sense. There is no separate executive branch - the executive is formed out of the legislative branch. The executive, ie, the cabinet, has executive functions, but they have them in virtue of being the legislators who can command the confidence of parliament.

 

PATRON002

4:36 PM ET

April 10, 2011

Ummm

This author is a moron.... Belgium has been working with a shut down gov't for four years. I suspect there have been others. Sorry to say it is not unique to America. Bummer dude do some research.

 

VDEV

5:36 PM ET

April 10, 2011

close but not quite

Australia has a combination of a Westminster and U.S. system, and there was, in essence, a Government shutdown in 1975 that led to the ouster of the Labor government.

Labor had a majority in the House of Representatives, and therefore formed the Government. But the Opposition held the Senate and refused to pass Supply Bills (similar to appropriations in U.S.) Normally this would lead to new elections (when the Senate keeps rejecting Bills passed by the House) but the Senate didn't do that. It did not reject them but just refused to consider them, a scenario that had not been addressed in the Constitution.

This cannot happen in Great Britain as the Lords (equivalent of the Senate) do not vote on Supply Bills (since 1909 or thereabouts). So the Government can always approve funds

 

JANET

9:32 AM ET

April 24, 2011

Every Governments have problems

You know what? All Governments have problems. Why? They are run by humans. If it were run by Gods and we see problems then we could have made it an issue. But people make mistakes and you just have to deal with it. That is my opinion.