Judicial Activism: Same Sex Marriage And The Aftermath Of Proposition 8
THE MERITS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY
At one time in California’s history, the legislature saw fit and sanctioned the use of direct democracy to achieve certain representative democratic ideals. Despite the initial successes and laudable efforts of this measure, its tactics and objectives are now coming under attack as Proposition 8 opponents seek to restrict this form of representative action. What are the merits of enacting such a progressive democratic experiment, and what does it mean if we allow this to fail?
One of the first, and most notable, characteristics of direct democracy is that it allows the governed to directly represent their collective and individual preferences. This is the purest form of democracy available, as citizens themselves get to directly influence their government: as opposed to having chosen representatives speak supposedly on their behalf. In today’s modern government, this would seek to limit the “rule by politician” effect, and allow the governed’s consensus to be enacted. As such, by diminishing the politician’s influence and catering to special interest groups, the people truly have a voice.
That voice, however, comes at a price. It is one that requires an involved, astute, and aware voter. Concededly, that is hardly the description of the majority of voters, which then further begs the question: are there certain measures that should be left to elected representatives to decide because they are just too important, or too complicated for the general population to fully grasp? This position hints at some elitism and assumes that our elected officials really are that much better at gauging the severity, importance, and impact of certain measures than the average voter (which I’m not fully convinced is even partially true, but may be in some circumstances). Still, in theory, having elected officials makes sense because people are so busy and distracted. Further, some just don’t care enough and end up voting for or against measures purely on illogical grounds (again, which may still describe some of our elected politicians who are supposed to be above this). One possibility, though, is that if the people are allowed to take more of an active hand in their government, they will begin to exercise this desired level of care and attention. However, scarcity of resources (time and information) may make us better off if we promote specialization through having elected officials decide these matters. Still, the question makes sense and deserves more talk; are we really are much better off reserving some particularly important and complex issues like Proposition 8 to just the legislature?
Another merit of direct democracy is that it respects the will of the majority. History, however, is replete with examples of when the majority is wrong, and tyranny by the majority is not necessarily the best thing. It also must be noted, that there needs to be at least some concern and awareness of a tyranny by the minority as well. Whether Proposition 8 is tyranny by the majority or by the minority is far too complex of an issue to weigh in on here because there are so many competing factions and groups that make up this issue. Still, a healthy awareness of who this measure speaks for (the majority of Californians or a minority of special interest groups) is something the Supreme Court must weigh in on.
COMMENTS
Be the first to comment!
You must sign in before you can comment.
