The Death Of Democracy?

[Commodore]

Read the full article here

CENTRAL FALLS, R.I. (AP) — When the state stepped in to take over financially struggling Central Falls in 2010, Rhode Island's smallest city lost something fundamental: its democratic government.

Mayor Charles Moreau would be forced to give back his key to City Hall, and the City Council was relegated to advisory status — unsure for months whether it was even allowed to convene.

"They're being governed without elected representation," state Sen. Elizabeth Crowley said of Central Falls' 19,000 residents. "That flies in the face of the democratic principle that our country is founded on, not only our little city. Maybe we should have a tea party and dump some tea in the Blackstone" River.

Crowley, a Democrat and lifelong Central Falls resident, uses a twist on Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to describe government there, under a state-appointed receiver, these days: "of the receiver, by the receiver and for the receiver."

That receiver, former state Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Flanders Jr., is often criticized for sweeping like a dictator into a city he doesn't know, where he doesn't live and where, with the state's blessing, he unilaterally decides matters that go far beyond the fiscal.

What I want to know is why the people of Central Falls weren't allowed to hold an emergency election to elect new officials instead of giving a judge dictatorial control over the town?

So what do you guys think? Is this the beginning of the end for American democracy? I mean if this goes unchallenged in a small town, who's to say other levels of government won't start pulling the same crap?

 

[wilycoyote]

Read the full article here



What I want to know is why the people of Central Falls weren't allowed to hold an emergency election to elect new officials instead of giving a judge dictatorial control over the town?

So what do you guys think? Is this the beginning of the end for American democracy? I mean if this goes unchallenged in a small town, who's to say other levels of government won't start pulling the same crap?

Weird crap like this happens all the time in tiny towns and no one cares outside of those towns. This isn't a good thing, but it isn't new.

 

[SerriaFox]

a couple of comment firstly:

Everything is fiscal. Since even non-monetary laws can effect the business climate.

Secondly if the don't like his decisions they can always change them later (As in after the receivership ends).

And finally Democracy (or more correctly representation) still exist at the state level (since the state is the one likely paying the bill).

 

[Cutlass]

Unlike a state's relationship to the federal government, a city's, town's, or county's relationship to the state is one of a completely dependent subsidiary. Cities have no rights in relationship to the state. Only what the state chooses to grant them. And that includes putting them out of business.

The voters can still vote for their state government. So they haven't really lost representation.

 

[Commodore]

Unlike a state's relationship to the federal government, a city's, town's, or county's relationship to the state is one of a completely dependent subsidiary. Cities have no rights in relationship to the state. Only what the state chooses to grant them. And that includes putting them out of business.

The voters can still vote for their state government. So they haven't really lost representation.

But they have lost repesentation because their town policy is now dictated by what everyone else in the state wants and that's not very fair.

Plus no good reason was given for why they weren't allowed to just hold an emergency election. Wouldn't that have been a more democratic way to deal with the problem?

 

[Monsterzuma]

democracy does not entail the ability to vote away one's financial liabilities or the consequences to defaulting on these.

 

[Commodore]

democracy does not entail the ability to vote away one's financial liabilities or the consequences to defaulting on these.

How is having a new election "voting away one's financial liabilities"? They should have been allowed to vote in people that they felt could solve the budget problem.

 

[Cutlass]

But they have lost repesentation because their town policy is now dictated by what everyone else in the state wants and that's not very fair.

Plus no good reason was given for why they weren't allowed to just hold an emergency election. Wouldn't that have been a more democratic way to deal with the problem?

But they only have the right to a local government to the extent that the state allows it. And all the local voters can vote in the state elections.

Let me put it this way: A state has a independent existence from the federal government and nation. A city does not have an independent existence with regard to the state.

Now as to whether they should have the right to elections, it is for the state to decide. But in this case the city lost it because the city cannot pay its bills. And IIRC the case is that there is essentially no possible way that the city will be able to pay its bills in the foreseeable future. Probably not ever. The city should cease to exist and be folded into one of its neighbors.

So there's no way to elect a new government and have them solve the problems. It is beyond the local resources.

 

[aelf]

Isn't this essentially the same problem that Greece is facing? I suppose people start to care more when it happens on a larger scale. It would be interesting when this happens to larger countries or even to whole regions... Err, never mind. For a second I forgot that there's this thing called the IMF that has been around for a while.

 

[Cutlass]

Greece's situation compared to the EU is closer to a state's situation compared to the US. Except Greece can remove itself or be expelled from the EU. And the EU cannot strip Greece of its rights to govern itself. They can only try to bully Greece into giving things up.

 

[Commodore]

But they only have the right to a local government to the extent that the state allows it. And all the local voters can vote in the state elections.

Let me put it this way: A state has a independent existence from the federal government and nation. A city does not have an independent existence with regard to the state.

Now as to whether they should have the right to elections, it is for the state to decide. But in this case the city lost it because the city cannot pay its bills. And IIRC the case is that there is essentially no possible way that the city will be able to pay its bills in the foreseeable future. Probably not ever. The city should cease to exist and be folded into one of its neighbors.

So there's no way to elect a new government and have them solve the problems. It is beyond the local resources.

Since when does something being legal make it right? What you are describing is state tyranny, that has absolutely no place in a nation that claims to be dedicated to democracy.

And again, the locals' voices are being silenced, since they will never have enough votes to actually make a difference in state elections. Giving a local government no autonomy defeats the purpose of that government exisiting in the first place.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

The city should cease to exist and be folded into one of its neighbors.

Does that entail nuking the city, physically picking up the crater, physically picking up the neighboring city, and folding them both into a piece of origami?

 

[aelf]

Greece's situation compared to the EU is closer to a state's situation compared to the US. Except Greece can remove itself or be expelled from the EU.

I suppose there's that. So for Greece it's the death of democracy, maybe. Either that or suffer some kind of crazy upheaval for a while. I think they are wondering which is worse.

And the EU cannot strip Greece of its rights to govern itself. They can only try to bully Greece into giving things up.

Is this just a legal distinction?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If think this is a pretty sweet mechanism. The people of this city and their representatives seemed to have failed their task of self-governance, it gets a temporary ideally neutral dictator who assesses the situation and gets things in order until it is either decided that the city will also not be able to govern itself in the future (and hence is integrated in some other local enitity) or that it deserves another chance.
Quit elegant.

 

[aelf]

The state of emergency/exception is also the elegant legal mechanism that brought into existence the dictatorships of 20th century Western Europe.

 

[Cutlass]

Does that entail nuking the city, physically picking up the crater, physically picking up the neighboring city, and folding them both into a piece of origami?

If that's what floats your boat

Since when does something being legal make it right? What you are describing is state tyranny, that has absolutely no place in a nation that claims to be dedicated to democracy.

And again, the locals' voices are being silenced, since they will never have enough votes to actually make a difference in state elections. Giving a local government no autonomy defeats the purpose of that government exisiting in the first place.

That local government has no "right" to exist. It is a privilege granted by the state. And it is a privilege the state can take away again.

That's not an argument about right or wrong, that's a simple statement of the law.

If you want to argue right and wrong, a state takeover is the only thing that can protect the local people from circumstances beyond their control.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Aelf
Oh please, don't treat democratic means like an end itself. They have advantages and disadvantages and how they balance each other out depends on the context.
In the context of your flawed comparison, the suspension of democracy takes place on the national level - which makes it a completely different matter, because it actually is a suspension of democracy per se.
Contrary to that in the context of the OP there actually is no suspension of democracy per se, but merely its modification. Or would you call the absence of state-mandated neighborhood democracies the absence of democracy per se? Alternatively, just think of all the personal with state-sanctioned powers over your life you have no direct influence over whatsoever in all our democracies. Technically, the cities governing body would just be a new addition, that's all.

 

[Commodore]

That local government has no "right" to exist. It is a privilege granted by the state. And it is a privilege the state can take away again.

That's not an argument about right or wrong, that's a simple statement of the law.

If you want to argue right and wrong, a state takeover is the only thing that can protect the local people from circumstances beyond their control.

Of course it has a right to exist. That government was elected by the people of Central Falls, not appointed by the state of Rhode Island. This is tyranny, no matter how you slice it or how legal it is.

 

[Bugfatty300]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

 

[aelf]

@Aelf
Oh please, don't treat democratic means like an end itself. They have advantages and disadvantages and how they balance each other out depends on the context.
In the context of your flawed comparison, the suspension of democracy takes place on the national level - which makes it a completely different matter, because it actually is a suspension of democracy per se.

I'm addressing the principle behind what you were saying, not saying that this will literally turn into a dictatorship.

Of course, you may hold the belief that a simple temporary suspension of democracy in order to protect the interests of society is completely fine, and there certainly are enough precedents for it not leading to the permanent suspension of democracy. I think it's not so neat in the long run, though. The change need not be quick and dramatic.