[ccebook.cn]The World in 2010

much of the asylum. Voters pass, for example, “tough on crime” sentencing laws with nary a thought about
paying for more prisons. When their elected representatives subsequently cannot muster two-thirds to raise
taxes or cut another part of the budget, voters then profess shock at their incompetence.
Thus the state lurches from one fiscal crisis to the next. Last summer, California even had to issue IOUs in
lieu of cheques to its creditors. The appeal of starting afresh, with a clean constitution, is obvious.
The idea immediately brings to mind Philadelphia in 1787, where 55 of the most
august minds ever assembled shuttled between Independence Hall and the City
Tavern for four muggy months of secret deliberations. Despite daunting conflicts—
who today owns slaves?—they produced the most robust constitution in history.
Surely, air-conditioned California can have a go.
Missing Madisons
Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
The inmates—ie,
the voters—run
much of the
asylum
And yet, who would be California’s “Founding Fathers”? Thomas Jefferson, absent from Philadelphia as minister
to France, called the 55 delegates chosen by the states “demi-gods”. These were men such as James Madison,
deeply versed in Aristotle, Cicero, Locke and Montesquieu, who preferred the word “republic” to “democracy”
for fear that the latter might evoke the chaos of ancient Athens.
If California has intellects of this stature, it certainly has none with Madison’s nonpartisan credibility. Instead,
there is a fear that the state’s entrenched interests, from the prison-guards union to party bureaucracies or
“Prop 13” fanatics, will take over the process and make it a microcosm of the state’s dystopia.
Hoping to meet these concerns, the organisation behind the ballot measures, Repair California, proposes a
random, jury-like draft of ordinary citizens as delegates. “Average Californians are the only ones who can lead
our state out of the quagmire of special interests and partisanship,” argues one adviser.
But can lay people be expected to assume the responsibilities of a Madison? As jurors, citizens deliberate on
binary questions of guilt after hearing evidence under the guidance of a judge. In a constitutional convention,
the questions will be complex and large. Who would present the evidence, if not the same loonies who cannot
agree in the legislature?
The irony that California is preparing to reinforce its populist instincts with yet more direct democracy would
surely be too much to bear for Madison, the “republican” founding father.
Andreas Kluth: Western correspondent, The Economist
-25-