Political Norms: Fragile Tools of Democracy

American politics and voters have become increasingly polarized in recent years, with those on the right and left moving away from the center. Even as candidates try to appeal to common ground in the presidential general election, it is clear that there is a widening gap between the platforms of Democrats and Republicans alike. The most recent election illustrates this plainly. Biden campaigned on promises of historic investments into renewable energy, the Affordable Healthcare Act, criminal justice reform, and more. Conversely, Trump’s platform consisted of limits on immigration, curbing climate regulations, breaking up big tech, and a variety of other positions. However, the commonality is that presidential candidates, by and large, are focused on big and bold legislation that would reshape the status quo. It is much harder to get voters excited about monotonous policies, whether they would have a meaningful impact or not. The problem is that many of these small issues are both incredibly important to society and often overlooked. One example of this type of issue is political norms. 

Political norms were a hot topic during the Trump presidency, as he chose to ignore many long-standing traditions and standards of behaviour. While many critics rushed to their keyboards to comment on every minor transgression of the former president, different norms and traditions carry varying levels of importance. There would be little suffering or damage to democracy if the president chose to forego the Thanksgiving Turkey Pardon. However, politicians separating themselves from personal business as they enter office carries objectively more value and serves to shield the public from conflicts of interest in the highest levels of government. Over time, the norm of business divestiture has certainly eroded. Jimmy Carter once published a detailed plan about how his family peanut farm would be handled as he assumed the presidency. By contrast, Trump continued to indirectly profit from his business ventures, and his children held government posts and political clout while serving in private organizations. Private gain from the presidency becomes increasingly muddied if you factor in the exorbitant speaking fees former presidents from both parties collect regularly. Regardless of nuance and political aims, some norms are undeniably valuable and serve to strengthen the fabric of democracy. Unfortunately, Donald Trump proved that regardless of how important these standards are, they are also incredibly fragile.

The current administration seems to be adhering to most norms, although it has years left to prove it. While this seems like a large improvement relative to the former president, devotion to political norms is how they end up being forgotten. So long as they are continually respected, they become taken for granted. Unfortunately, this results in chaos if a rebel, such as President Trump, decides to suddenly ignore them. Rather than simply respecting norms that may have been cast aside, the Biden administration and Democrats could pursue a unique opportunity to codify certain informal rules which serve to strengthen the fabric of democracy. After the Watergate scandal, internal watch dogs were formalized to oversee governmental authority. Now is an optimal time to establish legislation that would formalize the critical norms which remain unprotected. While it may not drive as much attention or praise as some larger proposals that Democrats are eager to pass, solidifying norms will pay dividends in the future via elevated integrity of public officials in the highest positions of government. 

Codification of norms is only tenable in certain instances. Many informal rules are simply too abstract or unimportant to be considered for legislation. The real work will be identifying informal standards or rules which are both clear and vital to society. Many have been critical of Trump for using Twitter to reach out directly to supporters, often avoiding the standard scrutiny and questioning of the press. This is a valid concern, although it would be controversial and difficult to legislate a president’s usage of social media platforms. Conversely, it would be very simple to mandate presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to facilitate transparency and avoid controversy after the fact. Significant work will have to be done to proactively identify codifiable norms, while simultaneously avoiding ones that are not practical or important. As a last resort, if certain valuable norms are not codifiable or simply do not pass as legislation, the new administration should at minimum reaffirm their importance to the general public in order to ensure future (and current) leaders will be held accountable.

While Trump’s term as US president serves as a useful demonstration about the danger of relying on non-binding norms, it is not a uniquely American problem. Canada has not formalized the separation of church and state - a surprising fact given its alignment with democratic values. Although Canadian courts have interpreted components and principles on the grounds of religious freedoms, it seems illogical not to directly solve the problem. Moreover, Britain famously operates without a formal codified constitution and thus heavily relies on norms and traditions. Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament during a crucial period of Brexit gave rise to uncertainties amongst the public regarding his authority to do so. Many countries could benefit from codifying political norms, however, the current political leadership in the US has the opportunity to take proactive steps to maintain the norms that protect public interests and democratic values and to set an example on the world stage.