It is difficult to explain the difference between the state and the government of a country. Governments are, by their own design, temporary and replaceable aspects of political life — administrations come and go throughout election cycles.
However, states are much more complex, as they represent the bureaucracy, institutions, laws and principles that transcend administrations and political climates. Because recent presidents have served single four-year terms, the lines between state and government have blurred, which is a grave concern for the integrity of the rule of law.
A country is like a tree — its state is the roots and trunk, while its government is the leaves and flowers. The flowers may bloom and wither, the leaves may grow and fall from year to year but the roots that feed the tree, by nature, remain strong and intact. In the current political environment, the tree is having its roots exposed to rot, making it vulnerable to drying up and collapsing.
I suspect that in 2028 and beyond, the White House will continue to switch between the Democrats and Republicans under single-term presidencies. Unless efforts are made to reach consensus between parties, each new administration will use its respective time in office to undo and overwrite the efforts of the previous government, making real progress impossible.
In other words, a country where governments change frequently and each successive one seeks to undo the actions of the preceding one creates an atmosphere of volatility and politicization for otherwise apolitical aspects of the state.
This has become especially obvious through the extensive use of presidential pardons and executive orders — acts that, so far, attempt to bypass congressional procedures to gain political advantage. Especially in relation to the recent executive orders regarding immigration, Congress has exposed its weakness. It cannot reach the two-thirds majority needed to overrule the actions nor seriously challenge any of the orders out of fear of a government shutdown.
Efforts to exploit gerrymandering to ensure party control over state legislatures are a similar concern, which by now has become another step in escalating partisan divisions. More specifically, solid blue or red states, like California and Texas, and swing states alike are the targets of redistricting efforts seeking guaranteed electoral gains. This is jeopardizing the legitimacy of future elections.
University, police and military or paramilitary institutions will become the primary targets of power struggles between conflicting presidential administrations. For instance, budget cut threats against Harvard and other schools over accusations of student repression have proved that universities are vulnerable to government interference. Meanwhile, the use of the army and the national guard for law enforcement is a concern for local officials not aligned with leadership in Washington, D.C.
In the case of the latter, the deployment of troops in the capital and Los Angeles symbolizes the federal government’s attempt to subdue local legislatures. The use of military force to control cities is a step toward a “self-coup” to maintain party control over local governments dominated by the opposing party.
Countries that fall into chaos tend to follow patterns that repeat across history. One such pattern is the subjugation of state apparatus and institutions by parties and their supporting groups. The concept of blue states and red states is likely to transcend political jargon and instead come to define geographic zones and demographic groups divided by invisible and impenetrable borders. Behind these borders, people ostensibly living in the same country will be subjected to preferential treatment based on which party controls local institutions of law, media, education and law enforcement.
Similarly, constitutional clauses and court rulings may become less dependable in such an environment. Parties may enact, overrule or disregard legislation — the roots of the proverbial tree — allowing their respective side to have the advantage in deciding which laws are passed, who receives a share from federal funding or which policies are pursued on national and state levels without going through the process of parliamentary debate.
The responsibility to maintain the balance of power is shared. Congress must create legislation limiting excess presidential powers, preventing the executive from circumventing the legislative or pressuring local governments. Similarly, local governments must prioritize defending their authority by resisting the transfer of local law enforcement and military to federal control.
Most importantly, funding for government services and education institutions must be protected from the reach of rapid government intervention. In other words, constitutional reform enshrining the neutrality of the state apparatus from partisan politics is necessary to guarantee continuity across administrations.
The stability of the law is what gives a state its power and legitimacy. The current political climate makes it increasingly likely that the executive branch will change hands frequently between parties keen on undoing their predecessors’ actions, risking the stability of state institutions and other neutral institutions. To ensure a stable federal system, the powers of the executive branch must be checked and controlled by a responsible Congress and reformed to limit its abuse of authority.
Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.