Community Civics and Rural Life Part 54

There are those who take the extreme position that government should manage practically everything for us. Such are the Socialists, who believe that the unequal distribution of wealth and the resulting inequalities in opportunity to satisfy wants are due to the control of industry by a small and essentially selfish capitalistic cla.s.s. They believe that all natural resources and all capital should belong to the people jointly, and that the people's government should control both the production and the distribution of wealth.

It has been objected to the socialist scheme that, since government would still be in the hands of imperfect human beings, it would not be wise enough to accomplish the desired result; that political motives would enter into government management, as they do in government enterprises to-day, and would prevent the achievement of the desired results; and that, the opportunity for private initiative and enterprise having been removed, there would be lacking one of the chief inducements to human progress.

Socialism has made considerable progress in some nations of the world, but it is by no means popular in the United States, although it has many advocates. We adhere in the main to the principle that government should do things for us only when they could not be so well done by private enterprise, and should control our conduct only so far as to secure equality of personal freedom. The fact remains, however, that an increasing amount of service is being performed for us by government, and an increasing control exercised by it over private enterprise.

ORGANIZATION FOR SERVICE AND FOR CONTROL

Insofar as government performs service for us, it must have an organization for that purpose, with competent leadership. And if it is not to interfere unduly with freedom of action or personal liberty, the people must have an organization by which to maintain control over it. Thus there must be an organization to ensure efficient SERVICE, and there must be an organization to ensure democracy, or POPULAR CONTROL. If both organizations are effective, we have an EFFICIENT DEMOCRACY, toward which we have been striving through all our history, but which we have not yet completely attained.

A government may be efficient in performing service for the people without being democratic. In fact, it may be easier to get efficient service under an autocratic government. Germany before the war ill.u.s.trated this. But we believe that a government may be both efficient and democratic. This depends upon competent leadership and popular control; and both of these depend upon education (Chapter XIX).

In the remaining pages of this book we shall consider both the organization of our government for service and that for popular control. In this chapter we shall examine some of the methods by which we seek to control government, or to be SELF-governing.

DIRECT SELF-GOVERNMENT

The people of a community may govern themselves by direct action or indirectly through representatives, just as a group of farmers may build their own schoolhouse or church, or employ someone to do it for them. When English colonists settled New England, geographical conditions and other reasons led them to form small, compact communities, in which it was easy to a.s.semble frequently at the meetinghouse to discuss matters of community concern and to agree upon, rules, or laws, to regulate them. This local government by "town meeting" has persisted in many New England "towns," or "townships," to the present day.

REPRESENTATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT

This direct action of the people in the New England town is for the purpose of MAKING the laws only. When it comes to the enforcement of these laws, it is necessary to delegate the authority to someone. The town meeting could make a law against permitting hogs to run at large, but it chose someone, a "hog reeve," to see that the law was observed. When the community is large it is found more convenient to choose representatives also to make the laws. Thus each Ma.s.sachusetts town had its representative in the lawmaking a.s.sembly of the colony as a whole.

This representative system of government now prevails in our cities, counties, states, and nation.

DIRECT SELF-GOVERNMENT THROUGH CONSt.i.tUTIONS

Even in the larger communities, however, such as cities, states, and the nation itself, the people have sought to retain more or less direct control over lawmaking. In the first place, the "fundamental law" of the states and nation found in their const.i.tutions, which determine what the form and powers of government shall be, has been adopted by more direct action of the people than most other laws. The Preamble to the federal Const.i.tution a.s.serts that "We, the people of the United States...do ordain and establish this Const.i.tution for the United States of America." Neither state nor national const.i.tutions can be altered except by special action by the people themselves, either by direct vote at the polls or by conventions of representatives chosen especially for the purpose.

DIRECT LAWMAKING: INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

It has long been the practice in many communities to submit important local questions to popular vote for decision, such as the question of issuing bonds for public improvements, or of licensing saloons. Within recent years in a number of states the people have gained direct control over lawmaking in regard to any subject whatever, both in local and state affairs, by means of the "initiative and referendum." The "initiative" is the right of the voters themselves to "initiate," or propose, legislation. This is done by means of a pet.i.tion signed by a specified number of voters. The legislature may then act upon the proposed law; but if it does not do so, the law is submitted to the people for their vote at the next election. On the other hand, if the legislature pa.s.ses a law that is objectionable to some of the voters a pet.i.tion signed by a specified number of voters requires the law to be REFERRED to the people for their approval or rejection. This is the "referendum."

DEMOCRACY OF THE WEST

Of the 21 states that had adopted the initiative and referendum (to 1917) only four were east of the Mississippi River (Maine, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio). [Footnote: "The Initiative and Referendum," Bulletin No. 6, submitted to the Const.i.tutional Convention of Ma.s.sachusetts (1917) by the Commission to Compile Information and Data, p. 10.] The movement to increase popular control over government has always been stronger in the West, as we shall see in other connections.

For the most part, however, our laws are made by our representatives, over whom we exercise more or less control. Some of the more important means by which this control is exercised are described in following chapters; but first of all we exercise control by CHOOSING our representatives at frequent intervals. Let us inquire to what extent the people have a voice in this choice.

THE SUFFRAGE

It is not true that all citizens have a voice in choosing their representatives, though it is more nearly true today than ever before. The right to a voice in this choice is called the SUFFRAGE. It is bestowed only on those citizens who possess certain qualifications. The const.i.tution of each state fixes the qualifications for those who live within the boundaries of the state, the national government having exercised no control over the matter except in two cases. After the Civil War, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Const.i.tution was adopted, providing that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"; and recently Congress has enacted another amendment to the federal Const.i.tution which, when approved by a sufficient number of states, will bestow the suffrage upon all women of the nation who possess the other necessary qualifications.

EARLY DISTRUST OF THE PEOPLE

The founders of our nation were far from democratic as we now understand the term. They believed that the government should be controlled by the educated and propertied cla.s.s, which was small.

The lack of confidence in the people was shown in various ways, but among others by the restriction of the suffrage. This was true even in the New England town meeting, which we are in the habit of considering as the most democratic of inst.i.tutions. For instance, no one could vote in colonial times who did not belong to the church. Religious qualifications were soon abolished however, and property qualifications have almost completely disappeared, though in some states voters must be taxpayers.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE SUFFRAGE

Today no citizen may vote in any state who has not reached the age of 21. The reason for this is clear and just, but it excludes from the suffrage about 30 million young citizens. Persons of unsound mind are denied the suffrage, and citizens may be disqualified by crime. In some states illiterates are denied the right to vote. In most states foreigners must have completed the process of naturalization, which requires five years before they may vote.

All states require residence in the state and in their local districts for specified periods prior to voting. But with these exceptions, the suffrage is now possessed by practically all male citizens who are 21 years of age or over, and is rapidly being extended to women on equal terms with the men.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE

There are instances in our early history where women were permitted to vote--in New Jersey, for example, prior to 1807. In 1869, Wyoming, while still a territory, extended full suffrage to women, and has been an equal suffrage state since her admission to the Union in 1890. Woman suffrage has rapidly gained ground in recent years, most rapidly in the West, and at the present writing (1919) 15 states have granted women equal suffrage with men, all but two of these states being west of the Mississippi River. The women of Alaska also have this right. In many other states they have the suffrage at certain elections. Moreover, nearly all of the 36 required states have ratified the suffrage amendment to the federal Const.i.tution.

Why may an autocratic government perform more efficient service than a democratic government?

What is a "benevolent despotism"? What is a "paternalistic government"?

Why do we consider an imperfect democracy better than an efficient autocracy?

Do you have direct or representative self-government in your community? Explain.

What voluntary organizations are there in your community (such as farmers' cooperative organizations, business corporations, churches, clubs, etc.) that have direct self-government?

Representative self-government?

Does your county or town have representatives in state and national governments? What are their names? How long will they be your representatives?

Does your state have the initiative and referendum? If so, explain in detail how they are used. Give instances of the use of either.

Give instances (if any) of the use of the referendum in your community to settle a local question.

From your state const.i.tution ascertain the exact qualifications for the suffrage in your state.

Report on the history of woman suffrage in your state.

Do you think any of the restrictions now existing on the suffrage in your state should be removed? Why?

Do you think any further restrictions should be placed on the suffrage in your state? Why?

MAJORITY AND MINORITY RULE

One of the important principles upon which democratic government rests is that the will of the majority should control. It is the only arrangement that can be made with justice. It often happens, however, that a minority, and sometimes a very small minority, gains control. It also sometimes happens that the party in power in government, whether it is a majority or a minority, governs without full consideration for the interests of other parties or of the community as a whole. We shall try to get some idea of how this happens, and also of methods proposed to prevent it; for as long as it happens we cannot lay claim to a full measure of democracy in our government.

If the pupils of your cla.s.s or school are voting on the kind of entertainment to be given, and a difference of opinion arises, can you think of a fairer way to decide than by a vote of the majority? How else might the matter be decided?

If the majority decides the question, should the minority yield gracefully to the decision? Why?

After the majority plan has been adopted, have the minority any rights in the matter?

Is the majority always right in its decisions? Give ill.u.s.trations to prove your answer.

If your community takes a vote on the question of road improvement, or of school consolidation, is it right that the majority should decide?

If the majority rules in such a case, is it right that the citizens of the minority party should be taxed for the improvement as well as those of the majority? Why?

If your cla.s.s president is elected by a majority of the cla.s.s, or a county supervisor by a majority of the voters of the county, to what extent is it the duty of this officer to consider the interests of the minority which voted against him?

POLITICAL PARTIES