Reflections on California recall vote

During the formative years of the US the constituent states were in favour of lessening the powers of the executive and strengthening the legislature. A few states wrote the recall provision in their constitutions as a method of controlling their elected representatives. The Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton, however, strongly opposed the recall principle. He argued that recall would prevent elected officials from being able to make difficult decisions. Hamilton said, "In whatever body the power of recall is vested, the Senator will feel himself in such a state of vassalage and dependence that he can never possess the firmness which is necessary for the discharge of his great duty to the Union". Though Alexander Hamilton's credentials as a democrat remains unquestioned his opposition to the recall principle which essentially is intended to examine the performance of the elected officials could be misunderstood as being reflective of Plato's argument that the ability to rule is a rare skill which needs expertise, talent and extensive training and it would be "irrational to let the people, the rabble, have any say in how they are to be governed". Meanwhile transition from authoritarianism to a regime of liberal values has now taught us that democracy is a process and not a static condition. It is dynamic and not a constant; a means and not an absolute.

In California case the recall mechanism starts with the circulation of the recall petition written in proper legal language and signed by a certain percentage of voters. The recall petition should be strictly procedural and need not incorporate the substantive grounds of recall. By late July the recall petition had gathered 1.3 million signatures. Arnold Schwarzenegger who entered the gubernatorial race on August 6th immediately became the leading Republican candidate. Legal challenges against the recall petition were not considered by the California Supreme Court. In the polls held on October 7th more than 55 per cent voted for the recall and Schwarzenegger won by getting more than 48 per cent of the votes cast. Perhaps the global media attention given to the California recall was due to the facts that California represents the sixth largest economy in the world and the Governor-elect is a Hollywood star and a household name. But the most remarkable aspect of the California recall is the notice served on politicians everywhere, at least in truly democratic countries where politicians reflect the will of the people, that their election to office does not necessarily mean that once elected they will hold office till the end of their term, and that the sword of Damocles is hanging on their head as a watch dog of their performance.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This potential instability inherent in the system which was vehemently opposed by Alexander Hamilton as a Federalist could serve well the people of many countries where they become prisoners of their so-called leaders who consider holding of elected office as a modern version of Lord William Bentinck's "Permanent Settlement" of Bengal's land tenure system where obeisance is paid to the godfathers (in place of British colonial masters) and not to the people who have elected them in the first place. Such behaviour of the "leaders" makes sense if one were to consider that in many countries the "leaders" are elected by money and muscle and votes are usually not counted accurately. In such cases the electorate is an irrelevance but a periodic evil necessity to bless the "leaders" with legitimacy. International observers who observe these elections are no less hypocritical. After their observance of the elections which they often term as being "flawed" their governments are back to business as usual with these flawed elected leaders.

Rwanda and Kosovo are rare examples where Christian conscience made sovereignty divisible, limitable, and punishable. But Burma where people are being oppressed for decades deserves occasional censorial glances which have cosmetic effects on the junta. Why does Saddam Hussein merit to be caught dead or alive with a bounty on his head when Ne Win and his successors in Burma are left alone to obliterate the fundamental rights of the Burmese people in a manner totally unreflective of the winds of change in the world? Is it to be assumed that deep down the mentality of the developed nations has not progressed beyond the Berlin Conference (1884-85) in which they pledged support to the missionaries and institutions "to educate the natives and to teach them to understand and appreciate the benefits of civilisation" or the League of Nations Covenant which officially put the less developed countries under the tutelage of the industrial nations?

If these assumptions have become obsolete then the question of good governance becomes as important to the people who are late comers to the field of democracy practitioners as it was to the Californians. One should remind oneself of Aristotle's assertion that even a democracy needs a stable system of law; otherwise democracy can become dictatorship of the many. Similar apprehension was expressed by De Tocqueville that democracy creates the possibility of the tyranny of the majority. It would also be appropriate to visit James Madison's warning of the danger of factionalism in which factions may try to subvert the democratic process in order to establish the primacy of factional interest over that of the majority population( Political Thought & Wolff 1999).

Quintessentially California recall focused on bad governance and mismanagement of the economy by Governor Davis. While the Californians have spoken the question facing the international community, particularly the developing countries, is whether the underlying principle that elected officials can be recalled for bad performance is to be made an integral part of the political process. One may argue that there is recourse to no-confidence motion against a government in a Parliamentary system and of impeachment in a Presidential system. But the fact remains that when the party in power has absolute majority in parliament the possibility of no-confidence motion being passed becomes negligible. The sense of omnipotence may tempt the party in power to misuse their power through harbouring known terrorists, politicising bureaucracy, awarding lucrative government contracts to the party faithful, forcing law enforcing authorities to overlook criminal acts committed by party hangers-on etc. Such criminalisation of politics and consequent descent of morality to its nadir are not unknown in many developing nations. Henry David Thoreau was right in saying that there would never be a free and enlightened State until the State recognised the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority were derived.

Asian Development Bank's criteria of good governance included accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency. OECD's Development Assistance Committee(DAC) identified four key elements: legitimacy of government( political system); accountability of political and official elements of government; competence of government to formulate policies and deliver services; and, respect for human rights and rule of law. Most donors now include governance as an explicit aim of their aid programme. But given the obsession of the developed nations with "Islamic terrorism" it is not certain whether they would continue with their tolerance of "democratic exceptions" in their dealings with the recipient countries if they appear to be comrade in arms, however momentarily, in the war on terrorism.

Holding of elections does not democracy make. The right of the electorate to constantly hold rulers accountable for their actions and seek redress without having to wait for the term of office to end is essential if democracy is to flourish. The aggrieved electorate should not be held hostage to a fixed term of office before they can legally change an incompetent and corrupt government. This is where the real significance of California recall lies. What the Californians can do others can do as well.

Argument may be advanced that the recall system may breed chaos. Besides, why bother when provisions remain for no-confidence motion and impeachment in almost all constitutions? But such argument is only theoretical given the fact that a member of parliament is obliged to vote for the party on whose ticket he/she has been elected. Leaders like South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun are rare who are willing to test the confidence of the people through referendum before expiry of their term of office. Argument has also been advanced that it is unfair to call for account before the gestation period of a project is over. Such an argument is fallacious when newspapers daily report on unbridled corruption and deteriorating law and order without any convincing explanation from the government. If the incorporation of the provision of a caretaker government (in Bangladesh) in the country's constitution to facilitate transfer of power from one government to another does not lead to chaos then why should a provision on recall/referendum/ mid-term poll, if demanded by an unsatisfied electorate has to lead to chaos?

In underdeveloped countries the proclivity of the leaders to cling to power is immense despite protestas in populo (without a people there is no power). Power in a democracy cannot belong to an individual and the indispensable factor in the generation of power is inextricably linked with popular support . In the words of Hannah Arendt: "Power comes into being only if and when men join themselves together for the purpose of action, and it will disappear when, for whatever reason, they disperse and desert one another."(On Violence, 1969).

The main argument remains that elections should not be interpreted as continued exercise of power by a group for a specified period. Leaders do not have to be overthrown like Presidents Marcos and Estrada in the Philippines or President Ershad in Bangladesh through people power. Since violent upsurge on a large scale invariably impacts adversely the society as a whole, it would make much better sense to have a constitutional provision for recall/ referendum/mid-term poll should an occasion so demand.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.