Why Navajo politics needs the two-party system
By Bill Donovan
Special to the Times
May 28, 2010
The two-party system, which is the mainstay of the American party system, would give the presidency some real power, something that the office hasn't had since 1990, when the Navajo Nation Council passed reforms that concentrated all the power in the council and separated the tribe's chosen leader from it.
Some argue that reducing the council to 24 members isn't government reform and they are right. Instead of 88 delegates going off in 88 different directions, the new council will only go in 24 different directions.
With a two-party system, however, that energy would be concentrated into two main directions. And further, if the parties were evenly divided, it would cause something that has been totally lacking within Navajo Nation government in the past two decades - compromise.
As it is now, the council passes laws and occasionally the president vetoes them. Then the council either overrides the veto or it doesn't. There is no talk of compromise - either the council prevails or the president does.
Compromise is good. It's the basis of the Navajo Nation court system's Peacemaker Division, in which mediators help opposing parties reach a middle ground and restore harmony within a family or community. If it's good enough for Peacemaker Court, it should be good enough for the government.
Another big advantage of the two-party system is that it gives the minority view some power, even when the minority party only comprises a third of the council or less.
It works this way.
Let's say that the council is reduced to 24. The president would only need nine council delegates in his or her pocket to make sure no veto could be overridden, because it takes a supermajority to override a veto.
Currently, the president has to get a third of the council - 29 votes - to line up with him in order to make sure his veto stands.
But under a two-party system, the president would likely be able to count on the support of delegates in his or her party. Even if that party were in the minority in the council, it would probably be big enough to thwart a veto override.
That's where the president's power comes from - the veto - and right now the president doesn't have that power and still won't have it if the council is reduced to 24.
What's been lacking within the Navajo Nation government since the removal of Chairman Peter MacDonald Sr. is a concise agenda, one that would address the most serious problems within the government and Navajo society.
The tribe's current president, Joe Shirley Jr., came up with a plan in his first administration - a $500 million bond proposal that would have covered most of the tribe's capital improvement needs - but he never could get enough delegates on his side to get it passed.
If there were a two-party system, Shirley would have had a base to push that proposal through the council. And even if his party were in the minority, it still would have meant boots on the ground to round up votes in the council.
As it is now, no one has the power to come up with a strategic plan that will get the support of a majority of the council.
The Navajo Nation Supreme Court is expected to release its ruling tomorrow, May 28, on the challenge to the council reduction election. If the ruling leads to council reduction, the next president will have an easier job of creating a coalition of delegates to support his or her vision.
And when that happens, the Navajo Nation will have its first political party. And those who aren't part of that party could then join forces and create the nation's second political party.
Viola! The two-party system will be born.
Back to top ^
E-mail this story