|
A New Perspective on Representative Democracy:
What Legislatures Have To Do
By:
Alan Rosenthal
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Rutgers University
Volume 6, Number 2 Fall 2000
© Journal of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries
ASLCS Home Page
Confidence in institutions of representation is on the decline, not only for Congress and state legislatures, but for parliaments in Canada, Western Europe, and Japan as well. In Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United States, the drop in confidence in national legislatures is pronounced. That is a principal finding of a number of scholars whose studies appear in DISAFFECTED DEMOCRACIES, a volume edited by Susan Pharr and Robert Putnam. Public satisfaction with these institutions, according to the contributing scholars, is a function of either the information to which citizens are exposed, the criteria by which the public evaluates government and politics, the actual performance of the institutions, or a combination of several factors.
The Problem
State legislatures, like the U.S. Congress, are distrusted by the public today. Some legislatures like North Dakota’s and Vermont’s fare better than others. But none of these engines of representative democracy commands substantial respect.
While skepticism is a normal and healthy characteristic in a democracy, distrust and cynicism are a danger. In the quarter of a century since Watergate, distrust and cynicism have grown rather steadily and they have become the dominant orientation that Americans have toward their political institutions, and particularly toward their legislative bodies. People no longer trust government to do the right thing; they are critical about elected public officials who are supposed to represent their interests, and they feel that the legislative system as it operates is wide open to special interests, but not to the public.
Legislatures do not deserve the marks they get from the public. State legislatures are not perfect, nor will they ever be. But it is not their performance that is failing, not according to the relevant research findings of state legislative scholars. Indeed, as cynicism has increased, the performance of most legislatures has improved.
A legislature’s performance is difficult, if not impossible, to assess in terms of outputs. But the products of legislatures appear to be generally in line with what people want. A legislature’s performance, in our judgment, relates mainly to how it does its job, i.e. how it performs its core functions of representation, lawmaking, and balancing the executive. Since the legislative modernization movement of the 1960s and 1970s, there has been substantial improvement. Today’s legislatures are more representative; they are more responsive to their constituencies; they have more capacity; they have taken on expanded responsibilities; they are more transparent; they are more politically competitive; and their ethical standards and conduct are higher. They are also more burdened, more pressured, more partisan, and more political than they used to be. The realities are by no means completely positive, but they belie the perceptions that prevail today.
Negativism on the part of the public has serious consequences for the political system. We may have a self-fulfilling prophecy on our hands; and we may actually get what we think we already have, if the growth in public cynicism and the decline in public support are not reversed. As a result of the current climate, talented and concerned people are discouraged from running for public office. Anecdotal evidence exists to suggest that many people, who we might like to encourage to run for public office, are no longer potential candidates. While they may be willing to sacrifice income and even family life for politics, they are not willing to risk their reputations in an environment that is so accusatory.
Term limits were enacted by referendum or popular demand in 21 states and are now in effect in 18. Such a change, which derives directly from public dissatisfaction, is beginning to have harmful effects on legislatures and lawmaking, weakening the fabric of the institution. Finally, consensus is becoming more difficult to achieve, in part because trust is in short supply. The system of representative democracy also is in jeopardy, and the traditional Madisonian framework is being seriously challenged. Given the technology available and the public’s diminished support for representative institutions, direct democracy is in a position to replace representative democracy.
Why the Problem?
The legislature’s performance does not bear blame for the cynicism. Rather, the information and cultural environment since Watergate are largely responsible. Given what people hear and who they now are, it would be astonishing if many of them had positive views of the political system and political institutions. Here are ten main reasons why people today are as cynical as they are.
1. The media, as principal storyteller about politicians and political institutions, bear considerable responsibility. News, by its traditional nature, is what’s bad and wrong, and not what’s good and right. In recent years, competition within and among the print and electronic media has grown intense. This has put a premium on the sordid, sensational and scandalous, whether real or inferred. Even the entertainment media have contributed to the unflattering picture of politics and politicians. Since 1975, according to a study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs and commissioned by the Council for Excellence in Government, three out of every four television episodes involving the American political system have portrayed it as corrupt. The recent NBC-TV series, "The West Wing," is an anomaly that goes in the face of most television entertainment and offers a positive picture of the President and the White House staff.
2. Politicians themselves must bear blame for the cynicism of citizens. The widespread use of government as a target in political campaigns undermines public trust. All too often, candidates — incumbents and challengers alike — run not only against one another, but also against the political system and everybody in it. "I’m all right," they announce during the course of an election campaign, "but the system is broken," and they follow up with, "Elect me and I’ll fix it." If both candidates trash the system, why shouldn’t voters conclude that it deserves what it gets?
3. Interest groups also contribute to the problem. Today’s groups — whether single issue or multi-issue — are insistent on achieving all, or practically all, of their agenda items. Because of the growing importance of grass roots activity (or its appearance) they try to keep their members mobilizable. This often requires militant language, exaggeration, and scapegoating. Groups are convinced of the righteousness of their cause, so something must be wrong within the system (i.e. the legislature) if they do not prevail in the process or get everything they feel they deserve.
4. Then, there are the so-called "public interest" groups like Common Cause and the Center for Public Integrity. Their business is that of critic, watchdog, and attack dog. While they focus on real issues, in order to appeal to the media, to members, and to funders, they range well beyond their data and evidence. The recent study by the Center for Public Integrity of legislative conflicts of interest is an example of negative inference and innuendo.
5. Legislative reform efforts also cast the system in a negative light. Take the hyperbolical discussion of campaign finance reform, which is going on nationally and in many states. The argument favoring reform describes the system, if not all the players, as "corrupt." People can infer from the discussion (as well as from the media) that only one thing counts in politics — money.
6. Add to all of this the significant societal changes that have taken place and the culture wars that have broken out in America. While expectations of what government can do have risen, notions about why and how government should perform have become more heterogeneous and conflicting. Ethnicity, race, gender, sexual preference, and attitudes toward the family, abortion, drugs, and immigration polarize opinions nowadays more than in the past. Political institutions are caught in the crossfire.
7. Legislators frequently have the same reactions to the process as interest groups. New legislators, in particular, come to the capitol with agendas to which they are committed. The more ambitious their agendas, the more difficult they are to achieve. If legislators do not get a substantial part of what they want, they become frustrated with the process and critical of the system. Only when members achieve leadership roles on committees or within the legislative parties and have responsibility for building consensus, do they become supportive of the system.
8. In a nation with 7,424 state legislators and 535 members of Congress, thousands of issues, and hundreds of thousands of transactions, something is bound to go wrong — to be illegal, unethical, unseemly. One can find rotten apples in every barrel. The rotten apples get virtually all the attention and people generalize from the rotten apples to all the apples in the barrel. They do not generalize from their own legislator, whom they tend to like and reelect, to all legislators; rather, they generalize from the legislator who gets into trouble to all of those who don’t.
9. The system and the legislature are distant from the citizen. To most people, these entities are abstractions, not flesh and blood like their own representatives. It is easier to displace negative feelings on things remote than on those things nearby and concrete. Still, those who get to see the legislature up close may just be as appalled as those who never get to see it at all. The legislative process is unruly, disorderly, even chaotic. It cannot make sense to the casual observer, and almost has to be accepted as an article of faith, or at least with some degree of trust.
10. If Americans had the right kinds of civic experiences, distrust and cynicism might be less problematic. But as Robert Putnam demonstrates (in Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 2000, pp. 45-46), not only has political participation decreased, but the more that one’s activities depend on the actions of others, the greater the drop-off in participation. Thus, "cooperative" forms of behavior, like serving on committees, have declined more rapidly than "expressive" forms of behavior, like writing letters. Emphasis now is not on consensus building, but on the articulation of grievances.
Who Should Do It?
If the environment for politics were to change, politicians and political institutions might be regarded with somewhat greater affection. But we cannot count on the environment changing, although it is worth trying to take on some of the more pernicious elements. It might be possible to get candidates — incumbents particularly — to pledge not to trash their institutions in order to enhance prospects of victory. But persuading the media to portray politics in a more favorable light would appear to be almost out of the question. The incentives for the media’s concentration on the negative, sensational, and scandalous are just too strong.
So, if the tide is to be reversed, a new initiative is necessary. Legislatures are the political institutions that suffer damage from an erosive climate; thus legislatures have to play a major role in providing civic education on representative democracy to the public they serve. Moreover, responsibility for civic education is an important part of the legislature’s representational function, and not an entirely new task. If the public is to get an alternative perspective and a more balanced view, the legislature has to take the lead.
While legislators have not regarded civic education as a central role, their institutions have been involved in the enterprise for quite a number of years. They have welcomed groups and individuals who visited the capitol, orienting them to lawmaking. And recently, legislatures have reached out to people throughout the state, offering gavel-to-gavel coverage, videos on the process, information on bill status, and the like. Massachusetts, one of the pioneers in civic education, is an example. It has been conducting Citizens’ Legislative Seminars for almost 25 years for people from all walks of life. These seminars on the legislative process are held twice a year, meet for six weeks and total 18 hours, and involve about 65 citizens and 30 to 40 legislators.
Legislatures cannot succeed in this enterprise without help. First, they require assistance from the community of professional political scientists, who teach and conduct research in universities and colleges across the nation. Second, legislatures also require assistance from social studies teachers, who teach civics in the middle and high schools and play an important role in how youngsters view the political system.
Legislatures, through three national organizations, have resolved to take on greater responsibility for civic education. Resolutions were adopted by the State Legislative Leaders Foundation (SLLF), regional associations of the Council of State Governments (CSG), and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). In addition, NCSL established "The Trust for Representative Democracy," an entity designed mainly to raise funds for efforts promoting civic education on representative democracy. NCSL and two other groups — the American Political Science Association (APSA) and the Center for Civic Education (CCE) — embarked in 1999 on a multi-year project to offer civic education on representative democracy to students and citizens of all ages.
What Ought to be Done?
Civic education may be approached in various ways. One approach is to increase civic knowledge; a second approach is to promote civic engagement; and a third approach is to shape a civic orientation. Emphasis in the United States tends to be on the first or second approach, with relatively little attention paid to the third.
Civic knowledge. The state of civic knowledge depends on whether one tends to see the glass as half full or half empty. The 1998 Civics Report Card, based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, provides support for both views. It found that two-thirds of the students at grades 4, 8, and 12 performed at a basic level, but that only one-quarter reached the level designated "proficient." Adults evidence little more knowledge than youngsters, as repeated surveys document. The civic educational objectives of the school system are designed mainly to increase civic knowledge.
Much of the civic education conducted by legislatures is principally concerned with providing knowledge. Instilled in legislative public information offices is the need to inform citizens of how a bill becomes a law and that there are three branches of government and two houses (except in the case of Nebraska) of the legislature. The types of information that have been at the core of much of the legislative civic education enterprise may well come across as static, to adults and school children alike. Such knowledge does not get to the heart of the system.
Civic engagement. This is the civic educational area of greatest popularity today. Increasing emphasis is being devoted by social studies teachers and schools promoting participation, and especially voting and advocacy. Civic education by state legislatures is also turning to the activation of citizens. Legislatures are doing this by providing online access through web sites to information on bills and bill status. The Hawaii Legislature, for example, has set up a "public access room," with computer terminals and a staff to assist individuals on lobbying strategies. Hawaii wants people to express and advocate their views and thus feel that they are part of the process. Increasingly, legislators are producing and distributing videos bearing the message that students ought to get involved. If they have an issue and address the legislature, their involvement can lead to a change in the law. Idaho is an example. In 1997 it produced a video, which was scripted to focus on student actors lobbying a bill in the legislative process. Titled "Saved By The Bill," this video was designed to encourage young people to become involved.
If people participate, the civic engagement approach maintains, they will have a commitment to and become positive about the political system. That may or may not be the case, however. Orientations and engagement can operate independently of one another. Some evidence is available to support the argument that engagement does not affect orientation, and further evidence would not be hard to develop. Civic engagement does not tend to make people more positive, but it does encourage people to express their views, advocate, lobby, and increase the demands on the legislature. These demands are legitimate, but so are competing demands — and no legislature can satisfy everyone. What if after encouragement to engage, and after working at advocacy, the legislature does not respond favorably to people’s demands, or not favorably enough? How will people feel then — more trustful and supportive, or more cynical and critical?
Civic orientation. Currently, the political system is loaded with demands from interest groups and interested individuals. If one pictures a balance scale, the demand side is far more heavily weighted than the support side. What the system needs is greater balance, which means more support, not more demands. Therefore, civic orientation — how people perceive representative democracy — has to be changed. What is needed is a more balanced and accurate view of politicians and political institutions. The perceptions that Americans have of legislators and legislatures do not reflect the reality of actual practice and performance, nor do they accord with how the system ought to work.
The overly negative environment for politics represents a disservice to the nation’s political system and a disservice to the nation’s citizens as well. In a democracy, people have a right to an alternative to the perspective that prevails today.
A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy
The first task of the NCSL-APSA-CCE project was to figure out the message to be conveyed about how representative democracy ought to work and how it actually does work. This message was formulated by four political scientists — John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, Burdett Loomis of the University of Kansas, Karl Kurtz of NCSL, and myself. We call the message The New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy, not because it is new (it is as old as Madison), but because it is almost completely ignored in the contemporary environment. It is detailed in the authors’ A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy: A Guide for Legislative Interns (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, January 2000).
The New Public Perspective counters prevailing public perceptions in the following ways.
1. What makes legislators run?
The Prevailing Public Perception: Legislators are simply out for themselves; they lack integrity and act unethically.
The New Public Perspective: Despite a few rotten apples in the legislative barrel, the overwhelming number of legislators are out to promote the public welfare, as they and their constituencies see it. Moreover, they are generally ethical, although not everyone agrees on just what is and is not ethical in the gray areas of public life.
2. How are legislators linked to constituents?
The Prevailing Public Perception: Legislators do not care what common people think, but are servants of interest groups and those who contribute to their campaigns.
The New Public Perspective: Legislators care more about what their constituents want and need than perhaps anything else. No one is denied access or a hearing. But groups that have sizeable memberships or are major employers in their districts tend to have more influence than individuals alone.
3. Where do people stand?
The Prevailing Public Perception: People agree on what is right and what is necessary. Thus, they see no good reason for legislators and the legislative system not to enact such consensus into law.
The New Public Perspective: People in our diverse and pluralistic system do not agree on issues except at a general level. It is the job of the legislature to resolve the clash of values, interests, and claims.
4. How special are interests?
The Prevailing Public Perception: The values and interests of the average individual are not represented.
The New Public Perspective: Americans are represented directly or indirectly by interest groups as well as by legislators. Nearly eight out of every ten Americans are members of an organized group, and many belong to multiple groups. In politics, sheer numbers count, but those who are vocal and intense also have influence.
5. Why is the process contentious?
The Prevailing Public Perception: The legislative process is unworkable because of bickering, politics, unprincipled deal-making, and needless conflict.
The New Public Perspective: The process is contentious because it encompasses different and competing values, interests, and constituencies, all of which are making claims on government or on one another. Some differences are fought out, but most are negotiated, compromised, and settled — at least to a degree and for a while.
6. What makes the system accountable?
The Prevailing Public Perception: The political system and politicians are unaccountable.
The New Public Perspective: Legislators who run every two or four years, who may be subject to recall and whose every vote is on record, are as accountable as anyone could be.
The New Public Perspective does not suggest that representative democracy in the states and nation is a perfect system. It is in need of continuing improvement. Currently our political institutions are trying to figure out how campaigns can best be financed: so that candidates have enough money to get their messages to citizens, corruption is minimized, a role continues to be played by political parties, people can know who is giving to whom, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is observed. Achieving these objectives is no simple matter, so it is easy to be critical. But demonizing the political system is not a healthy approach. Unfair campaigning, the intrusion of campaigns into the legislative process, and extreme partisanship are also problems with which legislators have to come to grips. Probably the major institutional challenges these bodies face is that of the electronic revolution, which is now underway. Will representative democracy be able to adopt the new technology to its purposes, or will the technology determine the shape and functioning of our political system in the years ahead?
Of course, alternatives to representative democracy exist, if citizens prefer a different system. One alternative is to leave lawmaking to the governor and the executive branch. Another is democracy by plebiscite, whereby people themselves would vote on all issues, making the legislature virtually unnecessary.
The hope of those sponsoring this project is that if citizens are informed, they will choose what they have now. But, first, they will have to acquire a better sense of what they presently do have. Even if there are objections to the perspective offered here, we believe that an alternative perspective to the one dominating the environment is necessary.
Mobilizing Legislatures
A major objective of the project is to strengthen the civic education activities of the 50 legislatures, focus them on the New Public Perspective, and encourage the institutionalization in state legislatures of the civic education on representative democracy function.
One activity that legislatures have undertaken, in response to an NCSL initiative, is "America’s Legislators Back to School Day." The objective of the program, which encourages legislators in all 50 states and 99 chambers to visit a school in their district on a specified day, is to serve as a vehicle for delivering to students and teachers the New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy and establishing relationships with local educational systems.
Begun in 1999 as a pilot in six states, this year "America’s Legislators Back to School Day" was held on September 15 and went on in states throughout the nation. The results are mixed, but promising for the future. There are other activities to supplement legislator visits to schools.
If the legislature accepts responsibility for providing civic education on representative democracy, how does the job get institutionalized so that mobilization does not always have to begin from scratch? This year, legislative leaders appointed contacts or coordinators for "Back to School Day." But leaders and their staffs change, and legislatures continue.
Public information offices, which vary in structure and responsibilities, already have, or are taking on, responsibility for civic education. If they adopt the New Public Perspective and stay on message, a lot can be accomplished. The Minnesota Senate is currently working on a multimedia simulation of representative democracy, and the Ohio Legislature is producing a video that involves high school students discussing some of the lessons of the New Public Perspective.
But staff efforts without significant legislative support and/or involvement over time are not sufficient. Mechanisms, such as joint committees or senate and house committees, have to be established, preferably by statute. A committee on civic education will attract legislators interested in the subject and will afford them the opportunity to pursue their interests throughout their legislative careers. Initiatives from the members, from organizations in the state engaged in civic education, from universities, and from NCSL and other legislative organizations will bring forward programs and activities that the legislative committees can undertake or encourage. In this way, legislatures can take on a central role in explaining and reexplaining the system of representative democracy to people in the states.
Most states still have time between sessions — interim periods — during which legislatures and/or their committees meet only occasionally. Staff is cleaning up from the previous session and getting ready for the next one, while also pursuing interim studies. Legislators are catching up with their outside jobs, working their constituencies, and probably running for reelection. But the interim period is still a time when civic education projects can be undertaken — by staff and by some legislators. It is as good a time as any to talk to people about the merits, and even the problems, of representative democracy in their states.
As the chief administrative officers in the 49 houses and 50 senates of the states, the clerks and secretaries are vital to the legislature’s civic education enterprise. Without their encouragement, support, and continued attention, the New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy will not get far. They can help get the subject on the agendas of leaders and members. They can back the efforts of public information staff. They can provide continuity of concern. And through their staff section of NCSL, they can monitor and assess civic education efforts in the states and facilitate the spread of best practices.
For more information about ASLCS, write or call:
Joan Barilla
National Conference of State Legislatures
7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
Phone: 303/856-1349
FAX: 303/364-7800
E-mail: joan.barilla@ncsl.org
|
