California "Direct" Democracy Is a Failure

2008/12/01 10:24

TheIronChef In your old post you have said: 政治上健康的生態環境, 對憲法的功能運作及繁衍成長而言, 比起常常移動, 修剪, 更為重要. 事實也證明, 修憲頻率越高的國家, 對憲法越不尊重, 也越欠缺依憲法治國的精神. Taking your words to the context of a single state in America, and given that political environment is unlikely to change in the short run, is it better to have a super-majoritarian rule (e.g. Florida proposition banning same-sex marriage) than a majoritarian one (e.g. California proposition 8 banning same sex marriage) when it comes to direct democracy? Is it better to leave rights of the people, in particular the unprivileged minorities, to the judiciary?

**** **** ****

Dear Ironchef:

Very good question? Probably no one can give you an answer, except the God. Because there is no right or wrong answer to a human wisdom or limited knowledge. To me, it may depend on the situation faced and the knowledge of "Nature Law."

If we want to answer the question, there are at least some precedent questions have to be defined and clarified. First question shall be what "democracy" means. Then, the next, what are the purposes for a democracy? What make it better than a dictatorship or other systems? The third, how can we better set up a system to reach the purposes we expect? Then, the last but not the least important, is a "direct" democracy such as an American "referendum" fits in the standards of democracy? Or can it be a better means than a "delegated" democracy to truly dig out or better serve the general interests of the public?

Our ancestors have experiment to all kinds of democracy. From Greek Republic, Roman Republic down, we have too many democracy. Some are a democracy in name, but a mob rule in essence. Is the form of a system can be more democratic? American Presidential and federal system a good one, or British Cabinet and unity better?

There are so many different standards or formations set by different political entities at the different points of history. Say, if we believe a democracy is expected to explore people's will or screen out the best or intelligent leaders for the organization, the rule is clearly set on "academic ability." But, even a scholar as smart as Adam Smith is NOT qualified to be a electorate at his times, can we say the British was not a democracy? Can anyone votes if he reaches his 18 of age? Is it fair or better to treat a Ph.D., as an illiterate if we stand up for the notion of "one person, one vote; one vote, one value?" It is safe for me to say it is judged by the ideas, concepts, feelings, perspective or value system the people has.

For now, I have observed enough the drawbacks of California "referendum" system. It is safe for me to say it is a big failure, if not a disaster, to meet almost all and every standards as a democracy. It made California step down from the top leading "golden state" into an inferior "debt-broken state" in 30 years, all the politicians are unable to collectively make an in-time budget, let alone to balance it and its efficiency of economy or an elite teamwork as a political economy. The heads of the California state, the Governors, are just like a political powerless dwarf who has no sufficient executive power to touch or use 80% of the state tax revenue (already decided by so many so-called propositions) to implement his platforms, a promise to his constituency. It is NOT a good experiment to fulfill the Democracy Dream, if we have one in California.

So many questions need to be answered. To me, I will say all the constitutional individual rights shall be better decided by a judge, not by a vote. However, the boundary limits sometimes can be very blurred if we look at the interaction of theory and practice of civilization.