The
People Matter the Most
Introduction
Every organized system has its components which may give
it a distinguished appeal when compared to other systems, and to this fact, a
state or local government is no exception.
It goes without saying that some governments are better because of this
and some are worse because of that, but it is ultimately the individuals
occupying the positions that make the system effective. Here, the state government systems of
California and Louisiana will be considered and analyzed along with the local
government system of New York City. This
paper primarily discusses some of the components that may distinguish these
government systems from other state and local government systems while briefly,
in certain instances, considering other variables that may be conveniently
associated. Additionally, however, in
analyzing these three government systems, this paper will present the argument
that even though governing bodies may develop and use various strategies to
govern more effectively, it is explicitly the people occupying government positions
that possess the most significance within the equation of any government
system.
A Peep at California
“In
politics and government, California is a state divided, not so much between
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, or business and labor as
between political partisans and reformers” (Los Angeles Times, 2011). Interestingly, a large percentage of these political
partisans and reformers that seem to have been the most politically active for the state in recent decades
are not elected government officials, but average American voters, allowing the
governing mechanism of direct democracy to become California’s underlying
avenue for policy reform. Moreover, this
potent use of direct democracy in California certainly distinguishes the state
from most other entities within the Union, but is only, however, one facet of this
distinguishing factor.
In
the state of California, this citizen-powered method of governing known as
direct democracy has evolved from a time in history when the most progressive
mentalities were becoming more and more noticeable throughout the nation,
especially in the Golden State. It is
worth noting here that California was one of the first states to implement
direct democracy practices as they followed preceding states back in 1911 when
“Gov. Hiram Johnson […] proposed and campaigned for what have become the three
faces of direct democracy: the recall, which allows voters to throw out an
officeholder even before the next regularly scheduled election; the referendum,
which empowers voters to overturn laws adopted by the Legislature; and the
initiative, which lets voters circumvent the Legislature and adopt laws and constitutional
amendments directly” (Los Angeles Times, 2011).
This is such a considerable distinguishing factor because it
acknowledges and highlights not only the state’s progressive character, but
also the idea of this particular character proving to be potently rooted within
the states DNA for over a century. Additionally, as we consider the state today,
along with the way of direct democracy, we must not disregard citizens of
California and their “deep distrust of politicians” (Sappenfield,2003), and contrastingly, how this governing
mechanism—as somewhat domineering as it has been in California—has also proven
to be counterproductive.
Although
there seems to be a great level of nationwide distrust in government these
days, the state of California has suffered from this, as it has been damaging
to the state’s governing effectiveness because of the use of direct
democracy. California citizens’ lack of
trust in politicians “has increasingly led them to limit politicians' power and
discretion” (Sappenfield, 2003) through the implementation of direct democracy
practices, rendering a sort of dysfunctional government system. According to The Economist, “Many initiatives
have either limited taxes or mandated spending, making it even harder to
balance the budget” (2011). The
Economist article also specifically mentioned an “impoverished” affect that
ballot initiatives have had on the representative government of
California. In addition, it seems,
clear—based on a limited amount of information—that because of the potent
nature of direct democracy practices, California citizens have metaphorically robbed their government of a great deal
of its legislative power.
The
power of direct democracy, without a doubt has been advantageous for the
citizens of California in regards to their undying hubris, in that it has
allowed them to contest their government, and be more active politically—the
citizens, over the years have been able to feel more in control. However, “this citizen legislature has caused
chaos” (The Economist, 2011). Decisions
that have been made by citizens via direct democracy practices in California
seem to have done more harm than good, accomplishing the complete “opposite of
their intent” (The Economist, 2011).
Direct democracy, obviously, according to the Golden State’s experience,
is a dangerous double-edged sword.
How Louisiana Looks
It is a fact that a major distinguishing component of
Louisiana’s government in recent years has been its resilience. Much of the recent sources of information about
Louisiana’s government refers, somehow, to its ability to effectively manage
things in response to the devastating damages caused by Hurricanes such as
Rita, most certainly Katrina and Gustav.
The mitigation and management of the terroristic affects caused by
Hurricanes and other natural disasters such as floods is a part of the equation
that is of the utmost importance to the state of Louisiana and its government—in
a way that is unlike governing bodies of other states. Thus, governing officials of Louisiana must
budget properly and be absolutely certain that funds are allocated particularly
for a rainy day that has a high
probability of presenting itself at any time—those running Louisiana’s
government do seem to have proven to be effective in this area, allowing the
state to bounce back in a prominent way.
Because
Louisiana’s system of government appears to be a system that has been effective
when it comes to budgeting fiscal resources, it seems the state has been able
to effectively provide services that are meaningful to citizens. For example, the state has been able to, in
recent years, implement a more updated and efficient emergency response system. Another example is VITA—Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance—a free income tax preparation program. This Program was documented by Lim, DeJohn,
and Murray, as a “vital resource available to low-income families” (2012). Other services, of course, which are
typically provided to individuals via the Department of Human Services are
available to the public, representing a system of government that is ever-ready
to provide quality services to its citizens.
New York City at a
Glance
What appears to be the most unique about the government
system of New York City, is its wide scope of responsibility as a local city
governing body. New York City’s
government is responsible for as much, and sometimes more than some state governments. The local governing entity of New York City can
be likened to a state. The ostentatious
city is comprised of 5 boroughs, which are essentially cities/towns in their
own right; however, they just happen to exist within a legally established city
jurisdiction which oversees and governs them. Moreover, New York City mayors,
which can be likened to a state’s governor, must accept a lot more
responsibility than mayors of other smaller cities, and are often more popular
than most of their fellow counterparts.
Moreover, it is interesting to consider the fact that in the last twenty
years, New York City has had only two mayors, both of which campaigned on
Republican tickets, and have been able to lead an “overwhelmingly Democratic” city
of very proud citizens—a government system may
not be able to get any more unique than that.
Conclusion
Every
state and local government will have their distinctive differences, of course,
but having the most unique government, obviously does not insure effectiveness. It seems sensible that the most significant
variable in any government system is personnel.
It is a complete exercise in futility to expect positive results (i.e.
proper plan/strategy execution) from a government system which is managed by
corrupt, incompetent, and even obstructive individuals. Subsequently, when
governments fail or fall short of their agendas, fundamentally, the most
meaningful solution is personnel replacement somewhere within the body. Whether it be the head, the tail, or anywhere
in between, someone has to be replaced.
Moreover, this personnel replacement does not necessarily have to entail
terminating someone’s existence within the system unless that action is utterly
appropriate—but a simple reconfiguration will be just as effective, and oftentimes
even more effective. Why? Typically, whoever is being replaced is
intimately aware of the governing agenda, making him an asset in one way or
another. Thus, a simple
demotion/promotion maneuver will ultimately be the most effective, especially
since the individual being demoted, in most situations, is happy to still be a
part of the game and is suddenly more motivated to prove himself—it works out
holistically better. Without the right
people, any government system will reap negative results.
Because
personnel is essentially the single most important variable within a government
system, there must be an effective method which allows a solid understanding of
an individual’s sincere perspective and abilities. If each person within a governing body, from
the head to the tail, is thoroughly understood in terms of their sincere perspective
and abilities before they are offered a position as well as during their
tenure, there is a higher probability that a government’s agendas will be
effectively executed. This particular
perspective is nothing more than simple logic, anyone with credentials
sufficient enough to occupy a position within a governing body should agree.
After
a very limited analysis of the three states included here, the most effective
governing entity cannot intelligently be depicted. Each government system has its flaws as well as its areas of
effectiveness. However, what seems
worthy of noting here is the fact that even in the very limited amount of sources
that were examined to support the information expressed in this paper, an
explicit, encased analysis of various individuals occupying various government
positions was not apparent. Although
this sort of analysis is certainly available in some data base somewhere, its
level of significance in terms of an effective government system should give it
a sense of precedence that would allow it to be easily accessible. Nevertheless, the spirit of right reasoning
sufficiently supports the assertion that it is the people that matter the most.
References
A california
tuneup; direct democracy is here to stay. but the state's initiative system has
flaws that should be fixed. (2011, Oct 10). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/896812155?accountid=32521
Leaders: The
perils of extreme democracy; lessons from california. (2011, Apr 23). The
Economist, 399, 11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/863131551?accountid=32521
Lim, Y., DeJohn,
T. V., & Murray, D. (2012). Free Tax Assistance and the Earned Income Tax
Credit: Vital Resources for Social Workers and Low-Income Families. Social
Work, 57(2), 175-184. doi:10.1093/sw/sws035
Louisiana parish
saves $400,000 annually with O&M contract. (1993). The American City &
County, 108(8), 42. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/195913673?accountid=32521
Mark Sappenfield
Staff writer of The Christian,Science Monitor. (2003, Oct 10). How direct
should democracy be? ; schwarzenegger prepares for office, but some see recall
as part of a broken system. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/405683540?accountid=32521
Marris, E.
(2008). 'Lucky' Louisiana unprepared for Gustav. Nature, 455(7210), 147.
doi:10.1038/455147a
NORDLINGER, J.
(2013). Freedom From Fear, For Now. National Review, 65(16), 19-21.
Parkes, C.
(1998, May 23). White power by plebiscite: Referendums are often seen as the
purest form of democracy. FT writers look at their impact in california and
switzerland, which is about to hold the world's first state poll on genetic
engineering: Financial Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/248681902?accountid=32521
The board of
estimate, 1898 - 1989; shaping the new new york city government. (1989, Apr
06). New York Times. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/427160812?accountid=32521
