In my opinion, the California Recall election is firmly against the fundamental principles that this country was founded on. When this country was founded, it was based on the principle of individual rights being inalienable to every single human being by their very nature. The purpose of government therefore, was the protection of these individual rights through a system of representative government. The government, under such a system, would not cater to the whims of the people, but rather, have the citizens elect representatives whom they believed would best uphold the fundamental principles of the government as written in the Constitution.
This has been completely forgotten today. Today, our society is referred to as a “democracy,” which is a very dangerous generalization to make about our system of government. As I stated in my 7/24/2003 post, Democracy:
Today we hear numerous times that our government wants the rest of the world to enjoy “democracy” as the United States does, and that the system of democracy is the best there is. This representation of the American system of government as “democracy” is inaccurate, and democracy is not an ideal system at all. In fact, a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship.
In the system of democracy, the dictates of a certain majority determine what is right and what is wrong for the government to do. So, the purpose of the government in a democracy is to do anything that the majority (the people) wants them to do. If the majority decided that an individual in their society was “undesirable,” they could vote to have that individual executed, or imprisoned, or punished in some other way. An example of such a society was that of Ancient Greece, where the majority of Greece citizens voted to execute Socrates (considered to be the first major philosophical figure) because he advocated “unpopular” views. Or, the people could vote to enslave a section of society, or slaughter a group of society, any horrible thing they wanted to do as a “majority.”
Therefore, in a democracy, a human being does not have inalienable rights but rather is “provided” with their rights according to the majority, which can be revoked at any time whenever the majority dictates it. This means that, in such a society, you would only have your freedom by permission. You would only have “permission” to live and to pursue your happiness as long as a majority of people will it. Such a democracy is merely another form of dictatorship because there is absolutely no protection of the biggest minority in a society, the individual.
What makes the American system of government distinctly free is the fact that this country is founded on the profound notion that every human being regardless of race, sex, religion, etc., has certain inalienable rights: the right to life, and all of its deriviatives, the right to property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (While this notion was not completely recognized by the American government at our foundation, this profound notion was still the philosophical cause for the formation of our government).
This means that the American system of government can not be referred to as a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, there is an exact constitution which determines the powers of government and how such a government recognizes the inalienable rights of its citizens.
However, in America today, our system of government has become a combination between the dictatorship of a democracy and a free constitutional republic. According to the founding of this country, every individual has the right to their own life, which means, the right to be free from the initiation of force from others and that every individual has the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary by their own independent judgment to be beneficial to their own life as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process. Today however, while most people still retain the protection of their rights, if people get a large enough group together and pressure their elected representatives, many times they “persuade” their elected representives to push for new laws which violate the rights of some individuals for the benefit of some group. For example, enough poor people get together to form a large enough majority, and then persuade their representatives to violate the rights of certain rich individuals by forcibly taking their money and giving it to the poor people (income taxes). In this example, a certain majority gets together and decides that they want to force certain “undesirables in society” (the rich) to do whatever the majority wills (they will that the rich do not really “need” all that money, so there is no problem in stealing portions of it from them).
The recall election is yet another example of the erosion of the fundamental principles of our country. Instead of having elections with the intent of electing representatives to uphold the principles of the Constitution, our government is now catering to the whims of the people, despite whether or not these whims violate individual rights or the principles of the Constitution. I have no love for Gray Davis, in fact, I think he is an idiot. However, this does not negate the fact that he was elected by the people of California for a 4 year term. This does not negate the fact that our system of government is supposed to be a constitutional republic based on the fundamental principle of individual rights. Therefore, I firmly oppose this recall election in California.
In support of my position on this issue, I’d like to present an article from Capitalism Magazine by John Lewis:
California’s Recall Election: Dangerous Democracy at Work
The Democrats who criticize Republican advocates of the recall say that we need to respect our democratic processes and allow the governor to complete his term. To subject the governor to the direct vote of the people is “undemocratic.” Democracy, they claim, means following the rules despite the clear wishes of the people.The Republicans, on the other hand, say that the desire of the people to rid the state of an atrocious governor trumps such concerns. Democracy, to these Republicans, means respecting the will of the people despite the requirements of the constitution.
What is the truth here? In the Federalist Papers, James Madison said that the first great difference between a democracy and a republic is that a republic is “the delegation of the government . . . to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” A democracy is rather a society in which the citizens “assemble and administer the government in person.”
Under republican government, the citizens select official representatives, for defined terms, with specific powers. The officials then administer the government. The people may not demand the removal of an elected official unless his actions are manifestly illegal. This is so even if the majority favors the recall. The requirements of the constitution elevate the rule of law over the short-term desires of the people.
