Northwest Arkansas Times
Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003
We often use the word democracy as a lofty term, a noble concept that epitomizes western political thought and represents all that is right with regard to equality, fairness and justice. Our great nation operates as a representative democracy, where every adult’s vote contributes to who gets to say what in the decisions that affect our lives. But the direct styles of democracies — the endless ballot initiative that can result when a particular issue is abdicated by the people’s representatives and handed over to the voters — have their drawbacks. And the comments made by officials familiar with political science and past referenda in municipalities certainly illustrate how expensive and unstable such an option can be. For whatever reason, the Great Smoking Debate of 2003 in Fayetteville has sparked some serious emotion-laden feelings in locals. Nobody seems to be without an opinion as to whether smoking should be banned in all Fayetteville restaurants, and every opinion one hears is a passionate one. That makes the issue inherently volatile, which of course tempts aldermen charged with making a decision on the matter queasy about fulfilling that charge and reaping the political whirlwind. But that’s just what we need them to do.
The Fayetteville City Council is naturally tempted right now to just send this controversy to the ballot, and aldermen will meet next week to debate if that’s the appropriate route. It isn’t: One could argue that when issues like the smoking debate are put to the fore in a society, the inevitable decision that results is far more stable when it comes from duly elected representatives of the public. Legislating by referenda can become a complicated, expensive and sometimes repetitive task.
Shirley Clark, a city clerk from Las Cruces, N. M., told one of our reporters recently that her city passed a referendum that prohibited smoking in bars and truck stops (smoking was already prohibited in restaurants) and shortly thereafter another referendum was put on the ballot that repealed the original one.
With both sides of the smoking debate charged up in Fayetteville and enjoying considerable support, it’s possible that could happen here: One ballot initiative could lead to another, and another and so on. Because the City Council can’t amend a vote of the people without yet again referring the matter to the public, it can become a cyclical affair. And with the city footing the bill for every special election — which can run upwards of $12,000 apiece — that can be an expensive prospect.
Nobody can stop citizens from exercising their rights to petition for a referendum, nor do we advocate such a cessation here. But the City Council needn’t contribute to such instability by themselves referring to the ballot a measure that aldermen could very well tackle themselves. At least when the council takes a vote, we know that the issue isn’t likely to return to that panel for a while, at least until after the next round of alderman elections. Even in that context, the issue can be another criterion on which voters choose whether to vote for a given candidate: It therefore puts the issue where it belongs — in the regular campaigns for mayor and city council every four years. The founders of our great country believed that the people should have the right to vote out their elected leaders, but they also recognized the need for stability that comes with keeping decisions in the hands of those representatives, not left to the popular political whims of the day.
The smoking ban has indeed become an emotional issue, and perhaps that’s why we’re more comfortable with our elected aldermen addressing the matter. The council is charged with exercising care and wisdom in staying above such an emotional fray and should — whether they be for or against the ban — approach it by weighing the facts available against the values and ideologies that got them elected.
It’s our hope that aldermen are up to such a task. They weren’t elected to just make the easy decisions — the authority of their routine decisions rests with the knowledge that they also vote with discernment when called upon to make the big decisions.
Aldermen must resist passing the buck to the voters. They should amend the smoking ban however the majority sees fit, and then take an up-or-down vote to finally make a decision on the proposal to ban smoking in restaurants.
University of Arkansas |
|