The danger of a US government facing gridlock

The election has not yet been won or lost but George Bush, perhaps the more likely victor, stepped up work on the transition to the White House yesterday. Yet whoever wins will have to work more closely than any of his predecessors with his rival's party if America's government is to function.

The election has not yet been won or lost but George Bush, perhaps the more likely victor, stepped up work on the transition to the White House yesterday. Yet whoever wins will have to work more closely than any of his predecessors with his rival's party if America's government is to function.

It would not be coalition in the formal sense; the US system has no provision for such European-style powersharing, where parties pool their strength to create a majority in parliament. Nor is it structured to permit a semi-formal arrangement like the Lib-Lab pact that sustained James Callaghan's Labour Government in the late 1970s.

But in this fraught endgame of the tightest Presidential election, the notion of coalition is everywhere, albeit subtly, to be felt, in a country where the separation of executive and legislature permits a President to reach out across the party divide to form his Cabinet.

It happens frequently; John Connally was a Democratic Treasury Secretary in the Republican administration of Richard Nixon. Today, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary, William Cohen, is a Republican.

The parties being disparate coalitions makes the job easier. In the early 1950s, General Eisenhower flirted with both before opting for Republicans. Both had hopes of enlisting General Colin Powell, until he announced in 1995 that he was a Republican, but would not run for President the next year.

The delicacy of the moment does not permit Mr Bush to brandish any such plans too publicly. But through his campaign he depicted himself as the candidate who would better reach across the party divide in Washington. It would be astonishing if he were not contemplating, if he does enter the White House, naming Democrats to senior cabinet posts. Ditto Al Gore, for whom General Powell would be an obvious bridge-building choice.

Until lately, US foreign policy was largely conducted across party lines. "Partisanship stops at the ocean's edge," the old maxim ran, and despite Vietnam it was largely true.

Divided government meant a President had to consult opposition leaders on Capitol Hill. In return, the President was not criticised while representing America abroad.

Now the task is more difficult. Jesse Helms has conducted a parallel foreign policy from the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr Cohen may be at the Pentagon, but the personal loathing of Bill Clinton among so many Republicans means relations between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have never been worse. Within Congress, Democrats and Republicans have never found it harder to work together.

But this animosity also argues for de facto "coalition." Every cabinet officer and every Supreme Court justice has to be confirmed by a Senate that could split 50-50 if the Democrats win Washington state.

The 43rd President will be obliged to send Congress nominees acceptable to both sides, probably after informal soundings. In this sense, a type of Government of national unity could emerge. Otherwise, some political analysts warn, the confirmation process could last months into 2001. Total gridlock could descend on Washington.