By Cynthia Guerrero & Anjuli Fielder
Contributing Writers
The recent recall election has been overly debated and discussed to the point where some might ask if the only object in need of being recalled is the recall measure itself.
When the idea of recall was proposed in 1911, the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of this mechanism led to a real concern regarding the competence and integrity of our elected officials. This in turn leads us to ask: is this measure relevant and necessary given the environment of our society today?
The fundamental arguments surrounding this debate can be traced to the founding of our Constitution. The Anti-Federalists, who were largely against ratifying the Constitution due to its emphasis on a strong central government at the detriment to the states, and thereby the people, first voiced the necessity of recall and referendum of elected officials. Their mentality was influenced strongly by the idea that because America was a fairly new nation, it was in danger of succumbing to tyrannical influences.
For this reason, the Anti-Federalists were suspicious of any measures that would allow the government undue control and thereby undermine the democratic principles established during the American Revolution. In order to secure a unified America, it was necessary to compromise on some issues so that the nation could move forward as a whole.
As a result, Anti-Federalist notions, such as limitations upon elected officials (e.g. the ability to impeach the President), were put in place. However, that fear is no longer upon us; the threat of an elected monarch has long ceased to occupy the minds of the United States’ citizens.
Our Constitution is predominantly a victory for the Federalist mode of thought, which stressed the need for a strong central government and elected officials to represent and support public interests. As one Constitutional scholar stated, we have in place the institution of indirect democracy, where our representatives are expected to both shape and enhance the public view via prudent judgment.
Unfortunately, our officials are not afforded the opportunity to meet these expectations and carry out their jobs effectively when they are faced with the constant fear of being recalled, and their actions are under perpetual scrutiny. If they feel that their job is always in jeopardy, they are liable to become mere puppets of the public, subject to changing whims in order to secure their positions.
This in turn brings about a greater disunity within the public, as leaders are prevented from making sound policy decisions and are instead distracted with political minutiae. Such division within local and state governments has wider ramifications in terms of our foreign policy. At a time when the United States needs to foster a strong sense of community and accord both domestically and abroad, divisive measures such as a recall only serve to heighten tensions and lead us further away from our necessary ends.
The very existence of a state recall measure would not pose as great a threat to our societal well being as it currently does if limitations and standards were imposed to lessen the potential for abuse.
As it stands now, California’s law regarding recall only provides for the ability of the people to recall an elected official. According to Article 2, Sec. 14 (a) of the state constitution, however, any proposal for recall is not subject to review, and no qualifications are placed as to what constitutes an appropriate, “recallable” offense.
In contrast, our national Constitution clearly delineates the conditions and protocol for impeachment. This leads one to question — whether state constitutions would be better off mirroring the national constitution, as it has been shown that too much elasticity in regulations can only lead to ambiguity and unintended consequences.
Frequent recall is a short track to the destabilization of our election process. By allowing this progressive policy to persist, we are in effect lending greater weight to capricious judgment than to the prescribed and deliberative process of election.
Furthermore, due to the abbreviated nature of the recall election protocol, the campaigning cycle for candidates is necessarily much quicker and more superficial than that of regular elections, allowing for any individual to go through the back door without the obligation of addressing specific and relevant issues.
In California’s case, the idea of a recall presupposed the inadequacy and incompetence of Gray Davis, creating an environment in which he was held fully accountable for circumstances that may have been beyond his control.
How much responsibility can we truly delegate to our elected officials? If Davis was at fault for the worsening economic conditions within the state, is it then proper to extend the same analysis to officials such as our President? And have we really replaced Davis with a better alternative? The existence of such a provision clearly opens up a Pandora’s Box in terms of political, social and economic ramifications.
One of the largest and most severe consequences of such a policy, however, is the tendency for it to become infectious. The effects of California’s election have already been echoed in the states of Wisconsin and Nevada, and one can only assume further germination of these seeds. The spreading of California’s newly set precedent will discourage strong leadership and further widespread discontent among citizens. Recall breeds recall, with satisfaction never the end result.
Ultimately, California’s recall election marked a shift from issue-based campaigning to image-based campaigning. In moving away from the strong nationalistic sense of our Founding Fathers, we are doing a greater disservice to the people and undermining the principles of democracy upon which this nation was founded.
We must strive to bring our country forward and promote unity instead of allowing for such outdated mechanisms to triumph and further divide us. Just as the Constitution is a living document, so are the ideals from which it arose. Thus it is imperative to ensure that we take an active stance in preserving and securing our established yet fragile traditions, as democracy without constant upkeep yields dissipation.
October 30, 2003
