Unpopular government in the United States

by Albert Martin Kales

The growth and security of extra-legal unpopular government rests upon the increase of the political burdens upon the voter. Every political theory, every governmental bogey, and every practical innovation which tends toward the multiplication of elective offices, the frequency of elections and the consequent decentralization of the power of government, whether state or local, must be advocated and encouraged by the politocrat. Every effort must be made by him to foster and maintain the popular conviction that the centralization and concentration of governmental power in the hands of a few, even though those few hold office as a whole at the mere whim and pleasure of a majority of the electorate, is the real basis of unpopular government and inimical to free institutions. He must make every effort to foster and maintain the popular conviction that the only hope of popular government and free institutions lies in as many appeals to the electorate on as many occasions as possible. This idea may be conveyed in convincing and epigrammatical form by repeating the wisdom that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. The electorate should never be allowed to forget that by reason of the constant appeals to them they are ruling, and that whatever happens they are responsible.

In short, the security of unpopular government lies in the maintaining of the popular conviction that our present constitution and laws are sound. The bulwark of unpopular government in the United States today is the man who believes that our institutions are fundamentally satisfactory; that in the main our scheme of government is the best that was ever devised or can be devised; that it is the fault of the electorate that bad men are in office; that the electorate at the last election put the machine out of business, or came near it, and is going to do better the next time; that if the machine is not disrupted, then the people themselves are at fault and richly deserve what they get; that if any improvements are needed they will be found in the more frequent appeals to the electorate through such devices as the primaries, the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. Extra-legal unpopular government must encourage men of this stamp and teach these fundamental principles to its supporters. While such men represent the views of the masses extra-legal unpopular government will be safe.

Unpopular government in the United States will be secure until our present popular convictions about the science of government are reversed and popular and persistent opinions prevail that the ability of the electorate to vote intelligently is limited; that the moment the voter is called upon to fill any other than a few offices which wield great power and are therefore conspicuous and important, he becomes politically ignorant, even though he be an unusually intelligent man; that it makes no difference that this may be his fault, for the fact remains and will remain; that it is this artificially stimulated political ignorance of the voter that delivers his vote to a permanent organization maintained for the purpose of directing him how to vote; that to prevent this artificially stimulated political ignorance on the part of the voter he must be called upon to exercise such a limited voting power as he is able to use with intelligence. This means that the power of government must be centralized and concentrated in the hands of a few officeholders of the legal government who are prevented from perpetuating their power and so establishing an unpopular government by being at all times subject to be ousted or kept in office at the pleasure of the majority of the electorate. The moment the real government, be it legal or extra-legal, can be swept out of office as a whole at a popular election easily initiated, which makes the existence and action of the real government a direct issue, the most effective means yet devised for preventing a real government from becoming unpopular—i.e., maintaining the selfish exercise of power in the face of popular disapproval—has been found. When these principles of government are received by the masses with the same conviction that they now support the theory of government that a minimum amount of power should reside in any one officer or department of the legal government and that appeals to the electorate should be upon as many matters and as often as possible, the downfall of extra-legal unpopular government will be imminent.

CHAPTER XII
THE MENACE TO UNPOPULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR SMALLER CITIES

It took a flood and a hurricane which overwhelmed a prosperous city to reverse the popular convictions which lie at the basis of government in the United States. In 1900 Galveston was all but destroyed by the waters of the Gulf rising during a hurricane. Confronted with a great emergency in which quick and efficient action was imperative if the city was to be restored at all, the people abandoned the fear of kings and of centralized governmental power. The entire municipal power of government, executive and legislative, was vested in a single board of five commissioners. These were both the legislature and the executive. They made the ordinances and wielded the executive power through subordinate officers appointed by them. The governmental principle which was thus applied in the commission plan is the concentration of governmental power by the union of the legislative and executive functions of government in the hands of a few[9] who are controlled and prevented from becoming an unpopular government because they are subject to the electorate through elections at frequent intervals. The office of commissioner was made conspicuous and elections interesting. The population of Galveston was about 40,000. Hence the entire city was not so large but that a candidate might be personally known with a fair degree of ease by the electorate, and with the least possible expense make a personal canvass. It was, in short, a wieldy district. Hence the coming forward of candidates was increased to the maximum, and the need for a vote-directing machine practically eliminated. The maximum amount of thought and intelligence was obtained from the voter because his attention was concentrated on filling a few important offices. Excessive and artificial political ignorance was thus diminished. The ultimate result was a real expression of the will of the electorate through the representatives chosen and full power in those representatives to enact that will into law and also enforce the law thus made. In actual operation the results of applying this principle left little to be desired in Galveston. Here are the comments of a keen observer,[10] writing in 1911:

To Americans accustomed to inefficiency in public office as contrasted with private enterprise, the story of the achievements of this Commission reads like a romance. Unhampered by checks and balances and legal red-tape, the Commission reorganized the city government, restored the city property, planned and financed and built the great sea-wall that now bars out the sea, raised the ground level of the city, and, withal, reduced the tax-rate and the debt! The annual running expenses of the city were decreased one-third. The new government displayed foresight, intelligence, and dispatch. It appeared sensitive to that public clamor which the average politician considers so needless.

There was striking change in the attitude of the public toward the doings at City Hall. The people began to “take an interest” in their common property, to discuss the doings of the Commission on street corners, to have “civic pride” (since there was now at last something to be proud of), to criticize or applaud the work of their servants. They seemed to have actually a proprietary interest in the government! Amid this widespread discussion the influence of the politicians of the town was swamped and counted for only its true numerical strength.

Now every American city has its spells of good government—the reactions that follow orgies of corruption and scandal—and the fact that the new Galveston government saved money is not in itself significant. The vital difference is that these good administrators in Galveston, without building up personal “machines” or intrenching themselves in power by the usual army-like methods of political organization, were able to secure re-election again and again. They won favor by serving all the people well. They did their work in the spot-light of public scrutiny, where every citizen could see and appreciate and applaud.

Unless, however, the fundamental principles at the basis of government by commission are observed and applied, there can be much apparent commission form of government for cities which will not in any way militate against extra-legal unpopular government.

If, for instance, a municipal government by commission is planted in a territory where several other municipal governments are also operating, each with a long list of elective officers, very little has been accomplished toward that centralization of governmental power in a few commissioners which tends to eliminate extra-legal government. Each of the municipal governments operating in the same territory will divide the entire local governmental power among them. The decentralization of governmental power will still exist in exaggerated form and the political ignorance of the voter must still be such that he will need to be advised and directed how to vote, and the professional adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter will still continue to satisfy that need. Once the professional adviser and director to the politically ignorant voter is retained in the district where the commission form of government operates, he will begin to exercise an influence in the nomination and selection of the commissioners. Extra-legal government as conducted by him may even capture a majority of the commissioners and use the great governmental power vested in them in a scandalous manner. The present situation in Chicago well illustrates this danger. There the municipal government is very highly centralized. The voter casts his ballot only for a mayor every four years, a city clerk and the city treasurer every two years and two aldermen from each of the 35 wards—one alderman being selected from each ward every year. The other administrative officers not under civil service are appointed by the mayor with the consent of the council. If Chicago were the only local government in the territory which it occupies it would be a fair type of responsible city government wielding a highly centralized governmental power. Machine politics would thrive only in the districts where the majority of the voters were illiterate and where corrupt and illegal voting was practiced on a considerable scale. But operating in the same territory with the city of Chicago is the Sanitary District with 9 trustees, and Cook County with 73 elective officers. It is the long ballot for Cook County which causes the densest political ignorance on the part of the voter and makes the existence of the professional adviser and director of the politically ignorant voter necessary and therefore the existence of extra-legal government certain and permanent. Such an extra-legal government, when once established, naturally exerts a great influence even in city elections. If the two principal party vote-directing machines agree to divide the city and county governments between them and each helps the other to appoint those who are to fill the legal offices in that government which it is agreed each shall control, the power of extra-legal government in the city will be very great indeed. In the same way, if a commission form of government be provided for smaller cities which must divide governmental power with a township government, a county government, and a drainage or a levee district, all operating in the same territory and all having a considerable list of elective officers, there is little hope for a real trial of the effect of the concentration of governmental power in a few elective offices to disrupt extra-legal government. It is of the utmost importance to the success of the commission form of government for smaller cities that such government be the only local government operating in the territory occupied by the city.