If there were a single defining moment of the leadership crisis that engulfed Malcolm Turnbull this week it was his backdown over his Government's core energy and climate legislation, the National Energy Guarantee.

The Prime Minister was forced to capitulate because he did not have the votes inside his own Coalition to pass the bill on the floor.

Paradoxically, had he forged a compromise with Labor, which was open to a deal that would settle a decade of bitter conflict on the climate wars, Mr Turnbull could have had the votes to pass the bill — easily.

But hyper-partisanship won out — again.

"We propose bills in the House when we believe we can carry them, and so at the moment we don't have, because it is a one-seat majority, and that's a fact of life — we don't have enough support to do that."

Mr Turnbull adjudged it too painful to have Labor vote for a government bill at the expense of losing some votes in his party and Coalition in the process — even if that meant a continuation of the ugly, bitter wars over energy and climate that have plagued political debate here for over a decade, a war that most voters, and certainly industry — a backbone of the conservative government — want solved with bipartisan legislation.

So the pro-coal, anti-global warming rump inside the Government could trump the majority sensibility to bring the climate wars to a close and advance the national interest.

As a result, Mr Turnbull looks likely to becoming the fourth prime minister in 11 years to lose his job.

All eyes have been on Peter Dutton, now a Liberal backbencher, in Parliament this week. ( ABC: Matt Roberts )

The Washington mantra

This hyper-partisanship is also ascendant in Washington.

For over 20 years, since Newt Gingrich, a conservative from Georgia, became Speaker of the House after leading a Republican assault on the power structure, a relentless political culture of us-versus-them has prevailed in Washington.

In their forensic study of the politics that led to the ascendance of Mr Trump, titled One Nation After Trump, scholars Norm Ornstein, EJ Dionne and Thomas Mann cite the Gingrich rule that still applies today:

"It is a war for power … Don't try to educate. That is not your job. What is the primary purpose of a political leader? To build a majority."

This became the Washington mantra.

Under the Westminster system governing Australia, the hyper-partisan power of the elected majority can work its will in Parliament, to great effect — even taking into account a recalcitrant Senate.

So a government that controls the House of Representatives controls the agenda and can apply maximum pressure to get their bills through, with little concern for the opposition and with some attention to independents in the Senate.

The governing party decides the agenda, their votes hold, the Opposition opposes — and loses. Laws are enacted. Hyper-partisanship rules.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is not giving up his leadership without a fight. ( ABC News: Matt Roberts )

Rise of endless gridlock

In Washington, what has happened is that culture of Westminster hyper-partisanship has been imposed on the American constitutional system of checks and balances between three co-equal branches of government: Congress, the presidency and the judiciary.

The American system puts a premium on compromise to get things done. Indeed, to pass legislation, a supermajority — 60 votes — is required in the Senate.

The Republicans today only have 51, so only if enough Democrats agree can bills get passed.

Hyper-partisanship paralyses Congress, leading to bitter, endless gridlock. Whatever Barack Obama wanted, the Republicans in Congress were determined to stop. Whatever Mr Trump wants, the Democrats in Congress are determined to kill.

Issues that require a bipartisan solution — gun control, health care, immigration — are roadkill.

What that means is that on some of the major issues of our times, issues that beg for bipartisan work — gun control and health care in America, immigration and global warming in both countries — hyper-partisanship, by its definition and political nature, means no compromise, no consensus. No working together in the national interest.

Two great democracies dysfunctional, and in danger.

On some of the major issues of our times, issues that beg for bipartisan work, hyper-partisanship means no compromise, no consensus ( Reuters: Leah Millis )

People want their leaders to work together

The answer lies in enlightened leadership — in both major parties — so some semblance of a working relationship that can tackle such vexed issues.

A recognition that, in fact, the people want their leaders to work together, and can find a way to agree on common-sense, middle-of-the-road policies, that will serve the national interest, the common interest, the public good.

Or we can continue the politics of mutual assured destruction.

Bruce Wolpe worked with the Democrats in Congress in Barack Obama's first term as president