The Peoria City Council had been considering the purchase of the local, privately owned water company. It had been an issue for a period of time. Earlier this year an advisory referendum had about 80% of the people voting vote against the buy-out. This vote occurred during the regularly scheduled local council election.
A letter to the editor was published on 8/23/05 (The day the council was to vote on whether or not to proceed with the possible purchase.) The writer claimed that the council members who supported the purchase of the water company have little or no respect for democracy since they were proceeding with the process even though the advisory referendum was overwhelmingly opposed to the purchase.
My writing about this has nothing to do with that specific issue. I don't live in Peoria. I don't know the details of the purchase; I don't know if it would be wise to purchase the company or not. Either decision will not directly impact my life. However, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the writer. If the referendum was binding, of course it should be followed. (I don't believe Illinois allows binding referendums; the state of Arizona does under certain circumstances.)
First, let's consider the types of democracies. One is the direct (or pure) democracy. The other is the indirect (or republic) democracy. In a direct democracy all the eligible voters gather together and decide an issue (or issues). If the referendum had been binding, that would be an example of a pure democracy. In an indirect democracy all the eligible voters select representatives who then have the responsibility to make the decision on an issue (or issues). The elected Peoria City Council is an example of an indirect democracy. In the U.S. today, most governmental decisions are made using the indirect democracy approach.
The real issue is: "What is the role of an elected government official?" Of course there are variations on this and no elected official follows either one completely. However, in general an elected official can follow two paths in reaching decisions. 1) They can try to gauge what the majority of citizens desire and vote accordingly. In this instance, the nonbinding referendum would probably be a good gauge of the wishes of the voting public. 2) They could study the facts of the issue and try to reach a decision that they consider to be in the best interest of the community. (This, of course, is the ideal. We all know that some officials do not base decisions upon the best interest of the community but use other standards such as what is best for a special interest group(s), what is best for themselves, and other criteria instead of best for the community.)
I personally tried to base my decisions on what was best for the community. I believe that is one reason why we elect the representatives we do or at least it should be. The total community simply does not have the time or inclination to study the whole gamut of issues to know what choice would be best for the community. This practice also calls for leadership ability on the part of the elected officials. And yes, it could well be that he may be voted out of office if he ignores or does not consider the wishes of the people.
Books have been written on the pros and cons of each position. I do not intend to go beyond these few, brief comments. However, consider this. If the elected officials in the South (And I don't mean to pick on the South but this is a relevant example, in other issues it would certainly be other parts of the country.) had declared that segregation was wrong; we may have been able to avoid years of conflict and could have integrated the nation sooner and with less turmoil. (Yes, I know we are not finished.) If elected officials had demanded that the Supreme Court follow the Constitution instead of writing law, we may not have murdered 35,000,000 unborn babies.
Of course, the opposite can be true as well. Elected officials could lead (and have led) use into areas that we should not go. The solution in that case is to vote them out of office. The real answer is that we as a voting public must be ever vigilant. Leadership can do great things for the country. Leadership can do great harm to the country. It is our responsibility to hold elected officials accoutable for the decisions they reach.
However, my position as an elected official was that I would not support a policy that I believed was wrong. If it meant I was not going to be elected or reelected then so be it.
A letter to the editor was published on 8/23/05 (The day the council was to vote on whether or not to proceed with the possible purchase.) The writer claimed that the council members who supported the purchase of the water company have little or no respect for democracy since they were proceeding with the process even though the advisory referendum was overwhelmingly opposed to the purchase.
My writing about this has nothing to do with that specific issue. I don't live in Peoria. I don't know the details of the purchase; I don't know if it would be wise to purchase the company or not. Either decision will not directly impact my life. However, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the writer. If the referendum was binding, of course it should be followed. (I don't believe Illinois allows binding referendums; the state of Arizona does under certain circumstances.)
First, let's consider the types of democracies. One is the direct (or pure) democracy. The other is the indirect (or republic) democracy. In a direct democracy all the eligible voters gather together and decide an issue (or issues). If the referendum had been binding, that would be an example of a pure democracy. In an indirect democracy all the eligible voters select representatives who then have the responsibility to make the decision on an issue (or issues). The elected Peoria City Council is an example of an indirect democracy. In the U.S. today, most governmental decisions are made using the indirect democracy approach.
The real issue is: "What is the role of an elected government official?" Of course there are variations on this and no elected official follows either one completely. However, in general an elected official can follow two paths in reaching decisions. 1) They can try to gauge what the majority of citizens desire and vote accordingly. In this instance, the nonbinding referendum would probably be a good gauge of the wishes of the voting public. 2) They could study the facts of the issue and try to reach a decision that they consider to be in the best interest of the community. (This, of course, is the ideal. We all know that some officials do not base decisions upon the best interest of the community but use other standards such as what is best for a special interest group(s), what is best for themselves, and other criteria instead of best for the community.)
I personally tried to base my decisions on what was best for the community. I believe that is one reason why we elect the representatives we do or at least it should be. The total community simply does not have the time or inclination to study the whole gamut of issues to know what choice would be best for the community. This practice also calls for leadership ability on the part of the elected officials. And yes, it could well be that he may be voted out of office if he ignores or does not consider the wishes of the people.
Books have been written on the pros and cons of each position. I do not intend to go beyond these few, brief comments. However, consider this. If the elected officials in the South (And I don't mean to pick on the South but this is a relevant example, in other issues it would certainly be other parts of the country.) had declared that segregation was wrong; we may have been able to avoid years of conflict and could have integrated the nation sooner and with less turmoil. (Yes, I know we are not finished.) If elected officials had demanded that the Supreme Court follow the Constitution instead of writing law, we may not have murdered 35,000,000 unborn babies.
Of course, the opposite can be true as well. Elected officials could lead (and have led) use into areas that we should not go. The solution in that case is to vote them out of office. The real answer is that we as a voting public must be ever vigilant. Leadership can do great things for the country. Leadership can do great harm to the country. It is our responsibility to hold elected officials accoutable for the decisions they reach.
However, my position as an elected official was that I would not support a policy that I believed was wrong. If it meant I was not going to be elected or reelected then so be it.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 12:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home