ISLAND VOICES
Hawai'i's sick democracy
By David T. Johnson
In an Aug. 14 column, David Shapiro rightly lamented the fact that many key races in the forthcoming election will be uncontested. Eight of 25 incumbent state senators will be re-elected without opposition, and four of 51 seats in the state House are being conceded to current officeholders. In Pearl City alone, four major races feature only one horse.
Now, combine these facts with Hawai'i's dismal voter turnout and take the temperature of our democracy. Diagnosis: It is ill. Or rather we are ill, for in a democracy, we are it.
Shapiro helps locate a cause of this unfortunate condition: incumbents so loaded with special-interest money and endorsements that prospective challengers consider their chances nil. This is indeed one source of our affliction. Put a party in power for 40 continuous years, and the vigor of that democracy will decline. Ask Japan.
Japan and Hawai'i also illustrate how long-term, one-party rule can be a recipe for political corruption and voter disengagement. This state is now experiencing the convergence of these symptoms, though it is important not to mistake them for the disease itself. They are signs as well as causes.
In an otherwise insightful article, however, Shapiro commits two mistakes.
First, if uncontested races are a disgrace, what are we to make of the chumminess shown by the three Democratic candidates for governor? Among other events, their love-fest at the Plaza Club with Sen. Dan Inouye suggests they are little interested in showing voters how they differ among themselves. Negative campaigning is often bemoaned, but these Democrats have an obligation to scrutinize each others' positions in order to show us what they stand for.
Their old-boy-and-girl clubbiness saps strength from our democracy, a fact that Shapiro failed to see.
In previous elections for governor, most winners were decided during the Democratic primary. Absent real competition among Andy Anderson, Ed Case and Mazie Hirono, many Democratic voters feel they have little to choose from besides party labels.
Second, Shapiro suggests that Hawai'i may "have more elected offices than the state's small population can support with quality candidates," and he cites Nebraska's unicameral legislature as a possible model for reform. We should, he contends, abolish some elected offices.
There are two major defects in this proposal. To start with, Hawai'i has a highly centralized government that elects very few of its public officials compared to other states. One recent study found that our state elects just 160 officials compared to 1,120 in Rhode Island, the state with the next smallest number of elected positions. Another study revealed that per head of population, Hawai'i elects four times fewer representatives than California, 16 times fewer than Oregon, and 22 times fewer than Massachusetts.
More troubling, however, is the logic of Shapiro's proposal, which argues that if the problem is too little democracy, the solution is less democracy still. I don't get it. We need more democracy, not less.
In my view, the solution to our democratic woes begins with the recognition that prolonged one-party rule disengages citizens and disables democracy. The voting implication is obvious.
My colleagues and students routinely call me a liberal, a label I happily wear. This year, however, when I enter the ballot box, I may sacrifice my commitment to Democratic Party principles in order to pursue a greater good: the reinvigoration of our democracy. I invite other liberals to consider doing the same.
Good government depends on public trust, and it is troubling that public confidence in Hawai'i is snake-belly low. Studies show that citizen dissatisfaction with government is best explained not by how well leaders handle the economy but by how well they handle themselves. Which is to say, corruption is the single best predictor of citizen trust in government.
The conclusion is clear. If good government depends on public trust (and it does), if citizen satisfaction with government is low (it is), and if corruption is the main cause of citizen disaffection (ditto), then corruption matters immensely.
This is another reason to consider voting against the Democrats. I wish I did not have to.
David T. Johnson is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa.
