Sharing of Power

    While the axiom that “power corrupts” has shown its validity in many instances, it would not be fair to extrapolate that every person possessing power or occupying a position of power is corrupt. What might be closer to the general rule is that those holding power, without any effective checks or balances, have a tendency (if I might borrow a basketball term) to “hog the ball.”

   The test of power—and of integrity of character--is the degree in which there is a willingness to share it as opposed to hoarding it and using questionable means to perpetuate and institutionalize it.

   Our ancestors here in Michigan, no doubt aware of this weakness, crafted Constitutions—the latest one in 1961—that in their wisdom spread out power as much as possible.

  In our state, mirroring the federal set-up, are the three main branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial.

   As for our executive branch, we have a governor at the pinnacle who can wield power, but not absolutely. The offices of the Attorney General and Secretary of State are independently elected rather than serving at the pleasure of the chief executive. They enjoy their realms of duties and responsibilities.

   There is, in addition, a State Board of Education which appoints the State School Superintendent. We also have boards that oversee the public universities, with three of them—the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University—being filled by the choices of the voters.

    Other departments, such as the Dept. of Environmental Quality, Human Services, and Agricultural-Rural Development are run by directors, appointed by the governor. However, assisting their operations are advisory commissions. Presumably these advisors are individuals with some degree of expertise and their input ought to be welcomed.

    In the legislative realm, there is the State Senate with 38 members elected to four-year terms and the State House with 110 representatives elected to two-year terms. Initially, the Senate districts, being larger, were intended (like the U.S. Senate) to mirror geographical areas. With the ‘One Man, One Vote ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964, these districts had to be apportioned so that they are relatively equal in population.

   Unfortunately, the ruling said nothing about gerrymandering the various districts so that, while they had comparable population numbers, the outcome helped one party at the expense of the other.

   Finally, there is the judiciary which consists of the state Supreme Court and, under them, the Court of Appeals. Unlike the federal judges, which are appointed, these judges are nominated by the political parties and then elected on a non-partisan ballot.

   But, of course, there’s much more to government in Michigan than the state level.

    We have a wide range of local government officials that are elected or appointed—county commissions, county department heads (sheriff, prosecutor, clerk, treasurer, register of deeds, and drain commissioner), city councils, mayors, village councils, village presidents, township boards and their officers, school boards, and judges for circuit court, district court, municipal and probate courts.

  There are also planning commissions, zoning boards, Downtown Development Authorities, advisory boards to county departments like Social Services, court magistrates, police chiefs, public works directors, and municipal clerks, treasurers, and attorneys.

   Last but not least are the hundreds of people who are employed at the various state and local governmental offices—the infamous bureaucrats that some officer seekers like to rant and rave about, using them as convenient targets. Certainly there exist workers who behave like petty tyrants and others who occupy space but contribute little else, but by and large most of these public servants are hard working and provide the necessary expertise and experience to make the wheels of government (state and local) operate in an efficient manner.

   Added to the mix are the political parties, the special interests groups, the lobbyists, and the ideological think tanks that attempt to influence governmental decisions and policies.

   Some might look at this long list and think “too much government.” That’s not my intent. I’ve gone through this litany of various offices to illustrate that our democracy—as set up—is spread out; it comes from many sources. The power is diffused.

   And that’s to be desired and, if anything, expanded upon. Not more governmental employees, but more spreading out of governmental power so that policies and procedures come from a wider base of input and, by doing so, creates a larger base of support and involvement.

   What concerns me is the opposite trend that’s been taking place. It’s two-fold.

   One is the attempt to horde more power in fewer hands, and the other is to limit the voices of advice and participation and ultimate impact to like-minded partisans rather than a wide range of representation that more accurately reflects Michigan.

   Recent governors from both political parties, frustrated by this set-up, this diffusion of power, have sought to undermine it; removing some of the institutional obstacles to their wheeling and dealing.

   A number of the legislative leaders have suffered from the same virus.

   I recall that the Natural Resources Commission once played a more prominent role in the operations of the department, but this role was not always appreciated by past governors or legislatures.

   Of late, trial balloons have been sent out with the idea of having the governor, rather that the state board of education, name the school superintendent. Those same balloons have suggested doing away with an elected state board of education and the three elected university boards.

    Further evidence of this hording trend has been numerous initiatives by local government—theoretically the laboratory for self-government and new proposals and the closest government “to the people”—being thwarted or overruled by the legislative majority when the proposals are at odds with the majority’s viewpoint—or an influential special-interest group.

    Local school boards, likewise, have seen many of their previous policy-making prerogatives and control over curriculum and day-to-day operations eroded in recent years by legislative mandates that have evolved into micro-management and often seem more about satisfying ideological concerns than a shared approach to educating our youth.

   In addition, the practice of late when passing a controversial law has been to attach an appropriation to it, thus legally denying the public their Constitutional right of referendum that would otherwise exist. The option of referendum has, itself, been rendered more difficult to achieve, with a higher threshold being enacted.

    Special interest groups, the lobbyists, and the ideological think tanks have been supportive and encouraging of this hoarding of power since it’s easier to influence a few key officials at the state level than having to build a broader base of support for their respective positions.

     I support the right of anyone to vote a straight ticket—which is why I did not agree with the recent law that took away that option and personally considered the sponsor’s underlying motive to be more about perpetuating partisan advantage than (as he claimed) encouraging voters to be better informed about all of those running for an office. However, I think ticket splitting can often be a better practice.

   For much of my voting life—which dates back to 1972--I’ve believed that divided government, at times, is a preferable approach. Detractors argue that it leads to gridlock and paralysis, but that’s mainly when the governmental officials are more loyal to political considerations than to their public duty. It’s up to the voters to remind them where their ultimate allegiance should lie.

  I understand that when candidates run for office, they propose certain priorities and a certain approach to governance and, if elected, they will pursue those goals and do so according to their personal philosophy. But I also understand that in some instances they are the victim of political and lobbying pressures.

   In Michigan, voting outcomes over the last several election cycles show a relatively balanced electorate and, in my opinion, our government ought to reflect that reality as much as possible. Instead, we see governmental power used to legally tilt the balance in favor of one side and, at times, to the detriment of the other. To “rig the system.”

   Divided government is another check-and-balance to the “ball hogging” of power that tends to otherwise occur, although it is not nearly as essential as maintaining the diffusion of power that was built into the state Constitution and has been a tradition of governance in our state.

    There is an understandable reflex by partisans to support the concentration of power when it bolsters their policies and priorities and to use any and all means to stop opposing proposals.  But there is a higher principle at stake and that is the integrity and functioning of self-government.

   If citizens feel they have a stake and that their voices and input are given respectful and fair consideration, they remain engaged. If they feel someone is “hogging the ball” and not letting them take part in the game, or the system is “rigged against them,” their inclination is to cry “foul” and quit or to view government with an angry eye.

   In the game of democracy, having only one side playing due to their hording of power, does not promise a good outcome in the long term.

  It’s much better to share.