m********g
发帖数: 10469 | 1 We're suffering the consequences of too much democracy
feed_manager_auto_publish_494--autopubtest_WPTUMBLR_485
2 hours ago
Democracy, you could argue, is pretty much like sunshine, cold beer and ice
cream. They’re all great —until you have too much.
Too much Democracy? That’s not possible, is it?
In fact it may be. Some economists and political scientists are suggesting
as much in the wake of the Brexit vote and the subsequent wave of “Leave
the EU” sentiment that’s sweeping across Europe. And you can look to a big
honking use case right here in the US to make that argument.
It’s way too early to tell how Brexit will affect the economy of the UK at
this point — although early days have been rocky enough with the crashing
pound, stumbling stock market, and political chaos. But I would argue the
biggest negative of Brexit will be the messiness and uncertainty that ensues
. The UK will be forced to rewrite tax rules, as well as draft and implement
new legislation. It will have to craft a new relationship with Europe. And
the UK will more than likely haggle over referendums in Scotland and
Northern Ireland. An OECD report says Brexit could cost the UK 3.3% of its
GDP by 2020.
Despite those headaches and risks, “Leavers” across Europe have taken up
the call — including those in France, the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary,
Austria and Finland. A Citibank note says “… political risks in Europe are
high and probably rising, in our view, and ‘referendum risk’ contributes
significantly to these risks …” Those risks include outright withdrawal
from the EU, scuttling of EU policies, and shying away from EU-centric
policies that could bolster local economies. Citi notes that Italy and
Hungary will likely both have referendums on matters pertaining to the EU
this year.
So what does this have to do with the US, besides the collateral damage of a
potentially basket-case Europe — (no small thing that by the way)? Because
while referendums are actually rare in the UK, (the Brexit vote is only the
third to cover the whole UK), they are much more common in the US.
Twenty-six states — mostly Western ones — plus Washington D.C., allow for
initiatives and referendums. And over the years, there have been various
successes and failures, never mind wackiness. (One of my favorites was the
2006 Arizona Voter Reward Act which would give a single Arizona citizen $1
million in every general election. It was defeated.) But other ballot
initiatives of course are more serious and in some states referendums and
such have had real teeth. Nowhere more so than in California, where it has
been elevated to a powerful form of governance, with its high-profile
Propositions.
For those of you old enough to remember, the watershed moment of the
California Proposition movement was 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13,
which capped real estate taxes. (Remember Howard Jarvis — the leader of
the movement — on the cover of Time Magazine: Tax Revolt!)
The success of that vote ushered in a golden age of referendums for the
Golden State, although that may be a mischaracterization. Since then the
state has voted on hundreds of referendums on gun control, abortion,
marijuana and the death penalty. But mostly the initiatives have tended
towards the fiscal, i.e., taxes, budgets and bond issues. To some this has
been a shining era of democracy. Others are not so sanguine, saying Prop 13,
for example, helped lead to the gutting of education budgets.
One thing that is undoubtedly true is that this so-called direct democracy
model has made governing more difficult. The Economist delved into this in
great length in a 2011 special report:
“This citizen legislature has caused chaos. Many initiatives have either
limited taxes or mandated spending, making it even harder to balance the
budget. Some are so ill-thought-out that they achieve the opposite of their
intent: for all its small-government pretensions, Proposition 13 ended up
centralizing California’s finances, shifting them from local to state
government. Rather than being the curb on elites that they were supposed to
be, ballot initiatives have become a tool of special interests, with
lobbyists and extremists bankrolling laws that are often bewildering in
their complexity and obscure in their ramifications. And they have
impoverished the state’s representative government. Who would want to sit
in a legislature where 70-90% of the budget has already been allocated?”
The best evidence of the effects of this dysfunction perhaps is that during
this period, California experienced a precipitous decline in its credit
rating. In 1980, California had a triple AAA rating. By the early 1990s it
had fallen to single A, and it bounced around that level for decades until
as recently as 2014, when it was the second-lowest rated state in the nation
. (This is a state of course with Silicon Valley, Hollywood, oil and gas,
timber, minerals and the richest farmland in the nation.) Say what you will
about Jerry Brown, (twice!) Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson, but it
ain’t all the governors’ fault. In fact it may be Jerry Brown’s multi-
term experience with government by referendum that has allowed him get a
handle on the state’s finances and help boost its credit rating back up to
AA (from S&P), its highest rating since 2001. But that’s hardly consolation.
Direct democracy does have a shining example of efficacy, and that is
Switzerland, though there certainly are reasons particular to that country
— homogeneity being one — that explain why it has worked there.
Otherwise, I would argue that direct democracy is best used sparingly, for
local initiatives perhaps. A big drawback of direct democracy is that those
who want change — no matter its validity — are much more fired up than
those who want to maintain the status quo, and therefore many more of the “
Changers” go to the polls, as was perhaps the case in the Brexit vote.
Think about the consequences of that.
I know it sounds horribly anachronistic, but checks and balances, branches
of government, and slow, messy and deliberate governance actually has its
place. It is true that both in the case of Britain’s relationship with the
EU and with real estate taxes in California in the 1970s, real change was
needed. In cases like this, and probably just in general, politicians need
to step up more briskly than they are typically comfortable doing. But
putting the onus all back on the people may not be the answer. One thing’s
for sure, it certainly has its consequences. |
