Arlington, Virginia, is a progressive county of about 210,000 across the Potomac River from Washington, DC. Its policies are set by a County Board consisting of five at-large members serving four-year, unlimited terms. For as long as anyone can remember, the Board has consisted entirely of Democrats; in a county that voted 72% for Barack Obama, that is not expected to change. Arlington's day-to-day operations are run by a nonpartisan County Manager.
Generally speaking, Arlington is a happy place. It features low unemployment; strong and stable property values; minimal crime; good schools; a diverse and immigrant-friendly populace; hip restaurants and urban amenities; a vibrant nonprofit infrastructure; active neighborhood associations; a clean and reliable subway line; and policies that, however imperfect, respect the need for affordable housing, smart growth, participatory democracy, parks and bike trails, and inclusiveness.
But there is trouble in paradise. Important groups within the community are mobilizing to pass a referendum that would fundamentally change the form of government in Arlington -- and with it the County's power structure and policy prerogatives.
The dissenters include the police and firefighters unions, who believe that the County Manager has too much power and not enough appreciation for their needs. Also supporting the change-of-government effort are the Green and Republican parties, who are tired of one-party Democratic rule, the near-inevitable result of electing County Board members at-large, rather than by district (as the dissenters have proposed).
Opposing the change-of-government effort are the Democratic party, the County's local and state elected officials, and numerous civic organizations. Opponents are concerned that, among other things, the proposed change of government would undermine the County's ability to set strict standards for child care centers, promote affordable housing (and with it ethnic and class diversity), and sustain a Human Rights Commission. These are features that distinguish Arlington County from the rest of the state. Referendum opponents argue that, besides endangering these policies, the referendum would undermine Arlingtonians' right of self-governance and self-determination.
As the referendum effort has ginned up, most of the commentary has focused on the merits (or not) of the question at hand - whether Arlington should go from a County Manager Plan to the County Board Form of government. But a secondary and very interesting debate has arisen over a prior question -- whether Arlingtonians who are opposed to or undecided on the matter should sign the peitition to put it on the ballot.
Supporters of the referendum must gather roughly 14,000 signatures -- about 10% of the Arlington electorate -- for the proposal to go to a popular vote. So far, no one knows how many signatures have been gathered -- the sponsors won't tell.
Anti-petition forces have launched a "Decline to Sign" campaign, urging Arlingtonians to keep the referendum from advancing beyond the July 15 signature deadline. In effect, they are taking the position that the referendum should not be put to a popular vote.
Ironically, perhaps, those opposed to the reform effort include some of Arlington's stalwart defenders and practitioners of participatory democracy, including County Board Chair Jay Fisette and the prominent civic activists behind the newly created opposition group, the Coalition for Arlington Good Government.
Their "decline to sign" position raises important normative questions for Arlington citizens and civic associations specifically and for deliberative democrats generally.
Should deliberative democrats and other advocates of participatory politics ever advocate nonparticipation?
What if participation would advance a measure that would undermine participatory democracy down the line? (Or, as a friend put it, "What if the referendum advocated a return to slavery? Should we sign the petition then?")
What if the measure would undermine participatory democracy and self-governance in some ways but enhance it in others?
Shouldn't participatory democrats support signing the petition, advocate for or against the referendum in a robust public debate, and trust the voters to decide?
Or are participatory democrats reasonable in assuming that voters in low-turnout elections may have particularly self-interested motives, making them questionable stewards of the broader public interest?
What should self-styled participatory democrats do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting question that comes up often, especially when the opportunity for a popular vote becomes a framing device to hang around a policy proposal. Advocates do the math and figure out what the turnout is likely to be on the pro and con side, or how much advertising and fundraising it would take to tip the balance. If they think they can rouse their publics, they go for it.
ReplyDeleteSometimes estimates backfire, however. I was struck by my former colleague Bob Geary's explanation for how the Republican majority on the Wake County School Board got elected:
Wake County Goes to Hell, March 3, 2010
"...Wake's systems of government are a vestige of the consensus age and very poorly adapted to the new era of hard-edged, big-money conservative politics.
In the consensus age, it made sense to hold school board elections in the odd-numbered years (and in October), when turnouts would be low. The idea was to let the most knowledgeable, avid supporters of the schools choose the board.
As a check on their enthusiasms, however, the county commissioners were given control of school budgets.
But in the new era, these low-turnout elections are ripe for a charged-up, Tea Party takeover. And if, as they promised in their campaign, the new majority intends to run the schools for the same amount of money or less—"starving the beast," in Tea Party parlance—the commissioners' ability to block them is limited."