September 1, 2003
California’s October recall election has openly revealed the tension that exist between direct and representative democracy. Whoever Californians elect as its next governor is secondary to the collision course these two democratic systems seem headed.
In 1911, California voters approved the process for recalling elected officials. It was part of the reform movement that also included a direct form of democracy known as the referendum. Led by then Gov. Hiram Johnson, the purpose was to wrest power away from the Southern Pacific Railroad and the political bosses of the time. When the recall was established Johnson said, "Political power has been taken from the political bureau of a private corporation and restored to the people."
What the law did not do, however, was establish reasons for recalling elected officials. Petitioners do not have to allege or prove malfeasance, illegal activity, or incompetence. Thus, political frustration becomes a legitimate reason to recall the governor.
The California electorate’s mounting frustration is easily understood. A crumbling infrastructure and prolonged economic problems has transformed the Golden State into iron pyrite. But this whole recall thing reads like a summary page from “Italian Politics for Dummies.” Are we so naïve to believe that once the recall genie is released it will easily and willfully return to the bottle because we so request?
Through the referendum process, the California electorate has said loud and clear over the years they want lower taxes and increased government spending (which also happens to be the economic model used by the current Bush Administration and we see where that has led us). Because of voter initiatives, somewhere between 60-80 percent of California’s state budget has already been allocated. This severely ties the hands of state lawmakers from making needed change.
One of the chief criticisms of the referendum process is that voters do not have the time to analyze complex issues. Unlike representative democracy, the electorate does not debate issues before voting. There is no deliberation process, no caucus where compromises can be reached. For most voters it is a snap judgment with very little analysis.
Who has the time to fully understand infrastructure improvements, environmental considerations, and the financial specifics of bond measures? The problem is that lawmakers are not exempt from this challenge.
The late California Senator, Alan Cranston often complained that members of Congress did not read 75-85 percent of the legislation prior to voting on it. With increased demands on time apart from understanding legislation, many lawmakers use the “Me, Donor, Party, Public” analysis when voting. How will this bill help me? How does it help key donors? Does it benefit the party? And last, and unfortunately least, how does it serve the public?
With recall moving from the theoretical to the concrete, California politicians will gladly opt for the safety of having voters decide tough decisions by referendum rather than take political chances. Part of the electorate’s frustration with Gray Davis is that he appears to be a politician more concerned with fundraising and the issues of those who give, than he is with the day-to-day lives of regular Californians. How else could one explain the Department of Corrections receiving a budget increase when the state is $38 billion in the hole?
But the idea that voters, through direct democracy, can do it better began
long before the Davis administration. In what initially started 92 years ago as
a mechanism to restore democracy to the people has been transformed into a political
boon for special interest.
Most of the successful referendums are well-financed, professional campaigns,
carefully utilizing polling and wordsmiths to develop just the right language
to tantalize the voters “yes” impulses.
It is comical to hear the recall election referred as a “populist movement.” Issues that germinate at the grassroots are populist movements, not ideas funded by rich cell phone magnates, who moonlight as Congressmen, hiring people to gather signatures in shopping mall parking lots.
Unfortunately, the political state of California is anything but comical. Regardless of the recall results, Californians must critically examine its bipolar political condition of pseudo direct democracy versus quasi-representative democracy. At present neither form is working witness the 72 percent who found something more engaging than voting during the last gubernatorial election.
Voter turnout in the last statewide election translates to 15 percent reelecting
Davis and 3 percent recalling him. And in case anyone has forgotten why this trend
is important, as California goes, so goes the nation.