“The practices of debate which prevail in its legislative assembly are manifestly of the utmost importance to a self-governing people.” – Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government

It may seem like a strange, even nonsensical question: “What government should Congress have?”   Congress is the government! (well, part of it at any rate)

But every institution needs rules to govern itself. Every institution establishes constitutions or charters or bylaws for the orderly transaction of business. Every institution creates offices and hierarchies and delegates power to leaders and sub-groups. In short, every institution creates a government for itself.

Importantly, these governments can take any form, and run the gamut from autocracies (where only a few members of the organization are empowered to make decisions) to democracies (where all members are involved in the decision-making process). A private business may put all or most power in the hands of a single owner or CEO. A small charity may make all decisions informally, on the basis of general consensus. In between, organizations may have elaborate rules for how its members vote to make decisions collectively. So in this respect, each House of Congress is no different than any other organization.

But do the internal rules by which Congress governs itself really matter? Let’s consider this thought experiment. The new House of Representatives convenes in January 2019, and Members decide to organize the House as an absolutist monarchy. They choose a Speaker, who will reign as King of the House with absolute power. There are no other positions of power, no committees, not even any votes. If the King-Speaker decides that a bill has passed, then the bill has passed (with the tacit unanimous consent of all Members). And that’s the way the 435-Member House chooses to govern itself: by deferring all decision-making to its king.

If the above struck you as ridiculous and fanciful, I’ve got news for you: the House already operates this way. Members obviously don’t agree to make the Speaker a king or tyrant. But they do agree, every Congress, to adopt rules that give the Speaker near-monarchical authority. In doing so, they abandon virtually all of the (small-d) democratic rights that we have entrusted to them (I elaborate on the idea of inalienable parliamentary rights here: http://www.processparty.org/?page_id=161).  Members can’t bring up bills – “leadership” is in charge of scheduling. Members can’t offer amendments – the Rules Committee decides if any amendments will be in order. Members don’t even have any right to debate – party leaders control who speaks and for how long. Certainly Members ratify decisions made by the Speaker or others leaders with their votes. But that is a very different scenario from using votes to craft and shape legislation.

This abdication of responsibility is extremely corrosive to representative democracy. Individual citizens obviously don’t have the time or inclination to weigh in on every decision that government makes. We delegate this responsibility to our representatives. We assume that they will study the issues, engage in debate and deliberation with one another, and (hopefully) make well-informed decisions on our behalf – collectively and democratically. We don’t expect them to throw up their hands and say, “I hate this process, but there’s nothing I can do!” Yet this is what we hear almost daily from our representatives in Congress.

The fact that the government of “the people’s House” is not a democratic one explains the pitiful dynamic that occurs with every Speaker election. Members rightly understand that power in the House is concentrated at the top. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense to focus on the individuals who will assume those top positions. It becomes vitally important who the Speaker is – because everyone knows that that person is going to be entrusted to make virtually all decisions for the body. And so, the only influence Members feel they have is by supporting (or denying support for) candidates for Speaker.

I have a different suggestion for rank-and-file Members: rather than debate who will be the most effective dictator of the House, reclaim your parliamentary rights! If you feel the need to distance yourself from the decisions of your party leaders, why not simply empower yourself to make those decisions directly? It’s what the Founders intended and, more importantly, it’s what your constituents expect.  Don’t forget that to effectively represent them, you’ll need the parliamentary tools to do so.

Furthermore, reclaiming these rights is not difficult to do. On opening day of a new Congress, Members have to agree to a House resolution establishing the standing rules for the next two years. Amendments to that resolution could rein in the Speaker’s power, reinvigorate the committee system, and give rank-and-file Member more say in the legislative process. Alternatively, Members could insist that the same resolution contain authorization for a select committee to study House rules and recommend ways to make them more (small-d) democratic.  Either path would send a strong signal to your constituents: I am not a rubber stamp for someone else’s agenda, and I will not voluntarily cede the rights you’ve given me to make informed decisions on your behalf.