The Worst Form of Government

"Democracy is the worst form of government, save all others that have been tried." --Winston Churchill

The problem with democracy is that everyone has a say, even those people whom you think are wrong. When you are convinced that you know what's best for a city, state, or country, it can be frustrating when people don't see things your way. The history of our government has been a battle between those who desire more democracy and those who, quite frankly, don't trust the will of the people. Throughout the ages, there have been groups who pushed for a more "business" approach to governing, one that is efficient and responsive to new problems. Unfortunately, when you must take into account a multitude of competing interests and opposing opinions, acting quickly and responsively is near impossible. In truth, democracy simply is not efficient.

Currently, there is a debate about Tulsa's form of government. Prior to 1989, Tulsa had a commission form of government which dated back to 1908. That form of government was first established in Galveston, Texas following a devastating hurricane. At the time, many leaders feared that emerging from that devastation could not be accomplished if left to a democratically elected government. Thus, the city created several "commissions" modeled after businesses—much like departments with department heads who oversaw various functions. Initially, the plan called for all of the commissioners to be appointed, but was later modified to popularly elect 2 of the 5 commissioners in order to appease citizens. Later still, it was changed to make all commissioners elected, once court challenges questioned the legitimacy of allowing appointments.

Many have credited the "Galveston Plan" as an outgrowth of the progressive movement. It is true that many of the ideas of the progressive movement are consistent with the Commission Government. Many progressives believed in the ability of government, run correctly, to solve any problem. They embraced scientific and other progressive approaches as the solution to life's problems. Thus, a streamlined, efficient government was critical to "progress." Progressive leaders, like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, supported the commission form of government.

But not all progressives accepted it. Also key to progressives was giving all people a voice in government, eliminating party bosses, and creating more directly elected positions. Many saw this new form of government as simply a way to dilute the voice of the working class. In fact, in Galveston, this was pretty close to the truth. Even prior to the hurricane, there was a push to increase the dominance of business interests in Galveston's government. A group of local business men created an organization, called "Good Government Club," to ensure that the business interests of the city were protected. Key to their movement was the adoption of 3 at large councilors, whom they felt would help push through the business interests of the city. Yet, the group found this was not sufficient, and saw the hurricane as an opportunity to further streamline government. Many of the same people involved in the "Good Government Club" helped to create the Commission Government.

Backed by Chambers of Commerce, the commission form of government was hugely popular in the early 1900s. Between 1900 and 1920, as many as 500 cities adopted it. Yet, it soon fell out of favor for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest reason, though, was the belief that the commission government did not adequately represent all voices. Thus, in the 1980s, groups across the nation began legal challenges to that form of government. In some cities, like Springfield, Illinois, these challenges were successful, which is why when the NAACP brought suit in Tulsa, citizens smartly changed the form of government.

As I said in an earlier post, totalitarian governments govern by power and fear—legitimacy is not critical. As many have said, Hitler made the trains run on time. But Democracy derives its just power from the consent of the governed. No matter how efficient, a government that is not perceived as representing its entire citizens, one that lacks validity in the minds of too many people, cannot succeed. The ultimate goal of any good government then is to maximize its efficiency in way that does not compromise its democracy.

Expecting the Best

When I was a child, I heard swear words associated with President Nixon's name so often, I might have assumed that Nixon's first name was directions to the abyss. My parents and family were never shy in criticizing our resigning president. I think that was a turning point in politics. People my age grew up believing that corruption and politics go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly. Obviously, certain politicians, like Mr. Nixon, made that association difficult to avoid. Unfortunately, though, they made the stereotype almost universal.

Recently, I was speaking with a friend about the action of a City Councilor. He said sneeringly that the councilor was "pushing forward his own personal agenda." I thought that was odd. After all, don't we elect politicians to push forward their agendas?

Mostly, though, it was evidence to me that, no matter what politicians do these days, someone will ascribe a sinister motivation. I don't think that times were always like that. There was a time when politicians, like teachers and doctors, were admired. They were viewed as men (almost always) who chose paths that enabled them to serve their community and improve the lives of citizens. Of course, politics has always had a nasty side. From the days of our founding fathers, there have been accusations of corruption, seedy implications of depravity. But the presumption that all actions of a politician are driven only by selfish motives and personal gain is something new.

Because we all expect that politicians are corrupt, no one is surprised when our assumptions are confirmed. And then we start making excuses for the politicians we like, while condemning those we don't. We argue that one politician's actions are excusable because "all politicians do that" or that "the media is just out to get him/her" instead of simply acknowledging that a bad act is a bad act.

There is a theory in Sociology called the "Labeling Theory" that says that people tend to become that which they are continually labeled. I wonder if our assumptions of corruption in politics are becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would a decent, concerned citizen want to take on a job that is full of crooks and liars? Why would a politician choose the right path if he were convinced everyone else was breaking the law?

I believe that for our country to properly function, we must elevate our opinions of politicians. Don't get me wrong—a healthy skepticism of our elected officials is a good thing. But a complete loss of faith in the people who run our country will devastate our democracy. Totalitarian governments don't need trust—they rule by fear and power. But Democracy can only work when people have faith in their government. After all, democracy requires intelligent debate and acceptance of the will of the people. It requires a belief that, even when you disagree with a decision of government, you accept its legitimacy. It is one thing to believe that a government act was poorly conceived; quite another to believe it was criminal.

Of course, our politicians can certainly make it difficult for us to hold them in esteem. They frequently remind me of my young, fighting sons. Yet, with my sons, I would never think of stooping to their level, jumping into the fights, and excusing the name calling or hitting because they all do it. Instead, I let them know that I expect better of them, all of them. Perhaps it's time that we the voters become the parents, by assuming the best in our politicians, that even when they make mistakes, they are only trying to do what they think is right. Perhaps if we all assumed better of our elected officials, we could return to a time when politicians worked together to accomplish things, instead of constantly trying to denigrate opposing sides.