The Democratic Challenge in California

This week, California voters will cast their vote in the June primary election to decide whether to preserve the democratic character of the electoral system that facilitates the inclusion of citizens’ initiatives or yield to the maneuvers of two large corporations who will try to undermine the profile of the citizen electoral system which was introduced almost a century ago.

However, do not think that in California there is an emerging phenomenon similar to that which perverts the democratic system today in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. In California, those election officials responsible for appraising the elections are not subject to the whims of a temporary leader.

Neither is there the political patronage that characterizes the elections in Nicaragua’s presidency, shared by the former commander and his wife; nor is there any “sociopolitical” movement to re-establish the state by amending the Constitution to suit the whims of the incumbent president as in Ecuador and Bolivia.

There is also no danger in California that the political machinery of a party will try to replicate what happened in Mexico in the era of the “perfect dictatorship,” and fill in the ballot box with votes from the dead.

The challenge to democracy today in California is disturbing because it devalues a direct citizen voting process and turns it into a political tool to protect the interests of corporations, but it is infinitely more modest.

So that you may better understand what I mean, I shall provide the background of the scenario and two instances which exemplify it.

The story begins in 1911 when, alarmed by the corrupting power that a railroad company had on the state legislature, Governor Hiram Johnson devised a direct voting system that would allow citizens to legislate by going directly to the polls.

From then on to this date, every sort of proposal has come up on the ballot. There is no doubt that a group of citizens has sometimes organized to draft proposals that, once approved by a majority of voters, will benefit their communities.

Other times, different special interest groups have created monstrosities like the infamous Proposition 187, which if it had been passed as law would have reportedly denied entry to the education system to children of undocumented immigrants.

For this election, disguised as an initiative to defend the common good, a gas and electricity provider has drafted and funded an initiative that, if approved, would greatly hinder any attempt by the municipal authorities to open that market to competition and in fact would consolidate almost monopolistic control of the company that financed the project.

Another proposal conceived, written and financed by an insurance company promises drivers of vehicles continuous coverage and discounted premiums when they change insurance companies. The reality, however, is that if this initiative is approved, it would alter current projections and would allow certain companies, such as the sponsor of the proposal, to raise the cost of premiums for certain types of drivers and achieve higher profit margins.

If these two initiatives put forward by the two corporations are successful, said Dan Schnur, president of the Fair Political Practices Commission, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, it would open Pandora’s box, because corporations and trade unions may well decide that it is easier and cheaper to defend their private interests using the system of citizen initiatives to try and change the laws governing their actions.

The crisis we are living today shows us exactly what happens when corporations are free to let go of the reins: we all end up paying for the consequences.