Is Divided or Unified Government Better for Good Governance?
When considering whether divided or unified government is better for good governance, the answer may not be as straightforward as it seems. While many people tend to view this issue through partisan lenses, there is a more nuanced approach to consider.
In the past, I used to believe that divided government was favorable when the party I opposed held the presidency, and unified government was preferable when my preferred party was in power. However, I have since come to realize that the key factor is not which party holds the presidency, but rather whether we are in an era of relatively good governance or bad governance.
If governments are focused on beneficial reforms such as deregulation, privatization, freer trade, fiscal responsibility, and tax reform, then a more powerful central government may be advantageous. On the other hand, if governments are leaning towards socialism and nationalism, increased government power is usually detrimental.
Looking at recent British history, we can see patterns emerge during periods of one-party rule. Governments often start strong, implementing reforms to address previous failures, but their effectiveness tends to wane over time. Policy-making quality is also influenced by whether the global zeitgeist is moving towards neoliberal or illiberal policies.
When considering how to vote, it’s essential to assess whether we are in an era of good governance or bad governance. Is the political landscape shifting towards balanced budgets and supply-side reforms, or is it moving in the opposite direction? Trust in the current policymaking process also plays a significant role in this decision.
While divided government may be favorable for those who prefer limited government activism, unified government could be seen as more beneficial for those who support government intervention. Ultimately, the importance of the zeitgeist, whether we are in a period of good or bad governance, should not be underestimated.
