Who Should Rule?
Let us go from debating what should be done—addressed by our political values, ideologies, and parties—to considering who should decide what should be done. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle categorized governments in terms of whether the one, the few, or the many governed. He then considered the virtues and vices of each form and argued that the ideal system is a mixture of all three. Modern political philosophers, such as Karl Marx, argued that we should examine the underlying power dynamics that sustain a formal constitutional structure and ask, “Who really rules?”
The central historical controversy regarding the formal rules and organization of California government is about the balance between representative and direct democracy. Under representative government, the people elect leaders to the state legislature and executive branch who make laws for them. Under direct democracy, the people seize much of this power through the initiative, referendum, and recall processes. To what extent do we trust representatives compared to our fellow citizens to make wise public policies?
The framers of the U.S. Constitution, such as James Madison, believed representatives to be wiser, worrying that the people were often ignorant and emotional. The Progressives in California, who amended the California Constitution in 1911 to allow for more direct democracy, decried representatives as corrupt, arguing that they were the puppets of special interests such as the Southern Pacific Railroad and the oil companies. They believed that a growing educated urban middle class could exercise a wise check on Sacramento politicians (see Chapter 2).
The second debate among political scientists is the question of who really rules. Yes, we have competitive elections that are fairly administered. Yes, we have three branches of government that can check and balance one another and reasonably strong constitutional protections of our civil rights and civil liberties. While just about everyone acknowledged the need for reform in many areas, there are dramatically different perspectives on the power structure behind the constitutional system of representative and direct democracy.
There are three schools of thought. These schools of thought are more like arguments or perspectives rather than theories. The traditional approach is majoritarianism; government is “by the people.” Leaders are accountable to voters in elections. Most people can and do vote in competitive elections among parties or candidates with diverse points of view. Civil liberties and civil rights may not be perfect, but they provide enough protection for us to characterize California as ruled by the people.
The second approach is called pluralism. Pluralists believe that while the people still have a say, primarily organized interests run California. These organized interests include labor unions, large businesses, and influential citizen groups. They propel candidates into office, and their support is crucial for bills to survive the legislative process. Groups mobilize their members and persuade the electorate to support their positions.
The third argument is more cynical; it is called elitism, the idea that the government reflects the will of wealthy people. A political class has concentrated power in society and manipulates the electorate to stay in power. The rules of the game are “rigged,” for example, drawing legislative districts to ensure that politicians are reelected. The expense of campaigns keeps poor people out of the political process. The constitutional system is simply a way to co-opt the people so they do not revolt.
Political scientists argue about who really rules: the majority, the special interest groups, or the elite. As we study each aspect of California government, we will marshal evidence for each position, and you can decide for yourself. As participants in the political system, the question is important: why bother voting if the elite are actually in charge? Is it better to join an interest group to make a difference? Perhaps the elite may sometimes make better decisions than those who may become an unthinking mob.
