Summary: Bob Bauer, a high powered Democatic Party lawyer and former counsel to the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees, has penned a forceful critique of the citizens assembly initiative being proposed in California. British Columbia had many such critiques but this is the first one I've seen in the U.S.
Link: http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/news.html?AID=573
Title: Reform in California and the "Citizens Assembly"
Date: 12/21/05
California state legislators are proposing an "overhaul" of the state's electoral systems. Andy Furillo, "Overhaul of state electoral system sought," Sacramento Bee (Dec. 20, 2005) at A3. The repairs under consideration will be extensive, and the mechanism for making them, borrowed from recent experience in British Columbia (see here ), will be a citizens assembly guided by experts. The assembly would, the sponsors advise, deliberate on the adoption of campaign finance reforms, term-limit "modification," new voting processes such as proportional representation, and independent redistricting.
The assembly would consist of 160 members, two drawn from each assembly district. The selection would be made from a pool of volunteers, with consideration of age, gender, race and geographical representation, and those directing the selection would be "academic experts." Public hearings would be held, and proposals would be formulated for legislative action or decision by the electorate through initiatives placed on the ballot in November of 2008.
The New America Foundation is among the resources this effort would depend on, and the California press accounts refer to commentary from the director of its California Project, David Lesher, who came to his current work in reform from a background in journalism. Mr. Lesher believes that the State government is not "representative" of an electorate that is seeking a more centrist, imaginative and nonpartisan politics. With changes in the electoral process, Mr. Lesher believes, Californians can steer their politics away from paralyzing partisan conflict to a more thoughtful engagement with the large issues confronting the state, such as health care and education.
Perhaps Mr. Lesher's analysis has some merit, in some particulars, but it is not pure analysis, and its espousal is not just the public-interested reflections of the more or less neutral observer who might go by the name of a "public intellectual." See New America Foundation website at http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=Section&SecID=28&T1=intro . For this kind of reform program rests on various assertions, some dubious and others both dubious and colored by a certain politics, that decorate these kinds of arguments without strengthening them.
1. The Government is not representing the people, because the people are not happy with it. But the expression of dissatisfaction with Government (or with the major political parties that control it) is not a sign of illness: it is a relatively fixed feature of political life in a democratic society, and it is not unhealthy. The electorate’s restiveness may be unreasonable and also unreasonably expressed, but it is a measure of expectation and a potential source of pressure for needed change and responsiveness.
2. In looking for a leader, the people "want a reformer, not a politician," to cite Mr. Lesher. David Lesher, "California's Great Disconnect: The governed and the government," California Journal (Jan. 1, 2005). This may be what voters say that they want, but it may not be what they mean: they seem, in fact, to respond well to good politicians who have the capacity to attend to their demands, many of them conflicting, and to forge with high political skills a common sense of direction with some potential for achieving progress on goals shared by many.
Bill Clinton was a politician, and he made no bones about it andwith due regard for the implacable opposition drawn by any sitting Presidenthis political skills were (and continue to be) widely admired. Jimmy Carter presented himself as something other or more than a politicianindeed owed his election to the perception that he was a reformer, resistant to the corrupt ways of conventional politicsand he left office in a hail of (often unfair) derision. Carter, who was fond of saying that Americans needed a government "as good" as they are, would have responded very favorably to Lesher's similar formulation: "the greatest threat to California is the disconnection between its innovative electorate and its outdated political leadership." Id.
3. Politics is better when it is more "competitive." Lesher believes that reformed, improved government can be achieved with a shift to proportional representation, allowing for "more points of view [to be] represented." David Lesher and Steven Hill, "Consider Alternate Systems of Voting," Sacramento Bee (Jan. 9, 2005). It is not obvious how the representation of "more points of view" is the answer to stalemate or conflict in the operation of government.
Moreover, would it matter if competitive elections, supposedly good in themselves, did not produce better government? Of course, it should not matter, but, for reform advocates, it does, since their goal is often less to democratize the electoral process than to turn it into substantive policy directions more to their liking. Justice Breyer has argued for political reform along these lines, through his conception of "active liberty," which justifies reform measures as needed to bring about more rational, better government, distinguished by sensible policies. Breyer, like many other reform advocates, does not seem troubled that that the question of which policies are sensible is precisely the question for democratic resolution. It is not a question to which public intellectuals have the answers, if only the democratic process could be reengineered to assure their wide acceptance.
4. "Partisanship" is bad. Some expression of partisanship is unappealing, possibly even dangerous (id.): in other words, "bad," in the sense that it is unproductive, shrill, irresponsible and thoughtless. By the same token, some good government thinking is bad, also in the sense that it is unproductive, shrill, irresponsible and thoughtless. But partisanship per se is not bad, since partisanship, like reform politics, may represent profound political commitments. And while partisan conflict may seem excessively prolonged and bitter, time is required to build winning coalitions on difficult issues and what is taken to be bitterness is often the flavor of powerful convictions. This may be a source of unease for those who wish it were otherwise; but they cannot plausibly find relief by seeking out a special leadership, blessed with the virtues of special training and disinterestedness, who will help spare the public the pain of political conflict.
Partisans have their faults; so do public intellectuals. But partisans can say this for themselves: their prospects depend on a dialogue with the larger public, and they are justly suspicious of any suggestion that political conflict and political choice can be hidden, softened or escaped by flight into the world of sound "policy."
So there is nothing sinister about a California "citizens assembly"except for any special weight that might be given in the name of "the people," to limit the free exercise of politics by the balance of the voting age citizenry, some 26 million in all.
--Bob Bauer
Recent Comments