You are here
Winter Reading: Robert Dahl's "Who Governs?"
Friday, March 21st, 2014
Robert Wechsler
I just finished reading the classic political science book Who Governs?
Democracy and Power in an American City by Robert A. Dahl
(Yale University Press, 1961). It might have been the second time
around, because I did take an Urban Politics course forty years ago. The book happens to focus on
New Haven, the city in whose suburbs I live and whose public
campaign financing program I used to administer.
Who governs? is a question that is too rarely asked by those involved in government ethics. It is assumed that the only individuals who should be under an ethics program's jurisdiction are those currently in government office or with a government job. Often excluded from jurisdiction are numerous individuals who may be very important to the management of the community, including former officials, candidates, consultants and hired professionals (including outside auditors), advisers, party officers, power brokers and fixers, bidders on contracts, grant and permit applicants, those who own and manage contractors that do government work, such as charter schools and waste management companies, and those who work for independent, semi-independent, and public-private offices, agencies, and authorities. All of these people should be included in a local government ethics program.
Examples of Ethical Misconduct
In his book, Dahl discussed some interesting examples of ethical misconduct. For example, an investigation begun in 1959 showed that "on many occasions assessors had illegally reduced assessments — more often, it turned out, for friends and relatives of political figures than for the Notables or the large corporations.… There are certain tacit understandings in the local political culture that sophisticated participants can hope to rely on. If a firm protests its assessments and threatens to appeal to the courts, the city's attorneys may conclude that the reasonable course — particularly in view of genuine uncertainty over whether the city's claims will hold up in court — is to reduce the assessment. Later, the firm's executives may contribute funds generously to the campaign of the incumbent administration." (p. 80)
One comic instance of ethical misconduct involved a minor subleader who showed how influential he was by "fixing" parking tickets. When this practice was discovered and investigated, it turned out that he was paying the fines out of his own pocket, because he didn't actually have the influence he wanted people to believe he had.
The Role of Democratic Ritual
Dahl was especially interested in the role of democratic ritual in local politics. He noted that, "to gain legitimacy for their actions leaders frequently surround their covert behavior with democratic rituals. These rituals not only serve to disguise reality and thus to complicate the task of observation and analysis, but — more important — in complex ways the very existence of democratic rituals, norms, and requirements of legitimacy based on a widely shared creed actually influences the behavior of both leaders and constituents even when democratic norms are violated." (p. 89) This is something I have often noticed. Even when it appears that those in charge are ignoring the rules, people accept that these officials, and especially government attorneys, may interpret and apply the rules for their own benefit, because they are playing their roles in the democratic ritual, while those protesting the officials' decisions and involvement are calling the roles and the ritual into question.
Dahl's descriptions of the way local politics works clarify why it is so hard for good government organizations and the news media to get improvements made in a local government ethics program. For example, he wrote that "a political issue can hardly be said to exist unless and until it commands the attention of a significant segment of the political stratum [the individuals deeply involved in local politics]. … Although political issues are sometimes generated by individuals in the apolitical strata who begin to articulate demands for government action, this occurs only rarely." In other words, it is not enough for people in the community to raise the issue of government ethics reform. Politicians won't deal with the issue unless they feel they have no other choice, and even then, they will simply pass a window-dressing amendment unless they believe that this won't do the trick. It requires a lot of work not only to get ethics reform on the agenda, but to make sure that this leads to true ethics reform.
Blue-Ribbon Commissions
Dahl wrote about the effectiveness of the blue-ribbon Citizens Action Commission that a New Haven mayor established to help with acceptance of his downtown redevelopment projects. "The mere fact that the CAC existed and regularly endorsed the proposals of the city administration made the program appear nonpartisan, virtually nullified the effectiveness of partisan attacks, presented to the public an appearance of power and responsibility diffused among a representative group of community notables, and inhibited criticisms of even the most daring and ambitious parts of the program." (p. 133) But, in fact, the CAC was a passive body that had neither power nor responsibility.
The same thing can be done with blue-ribbon ethics advisory boards that are employed by a mayor or council, after a big scandal, to give the government an ethics code, when what is really needed is an independent ethics program with teeth that truly gains the public's trust and prevents ethical misconduct and the scandals that it causes. Too rarely do people recognize that a blue-ribbon advisory board is a weak alternative to bringing in experts, which is the way a government deals with other problems when it has no experts on staff. Nor do people recognize that pillars of a community are busy people who often do not want to rock the boat (i) because they, their businesses, and the organizations with which they are associated often seek special benefits from the government, and (ii) because there are issues that mean more to them than the fine points of government ethics administration and, therefore, they are not willing to take strong stands or do the research necessary to even ask the right questions of the government attorneys who advise them.
Blue-ribbon advisory boards can be very useful when their members are considered to have knowledge of and strong feelings about the topic, because in that case, political leaders will be forced to take their feelings into account. But if they lack knowledge and strong feelings, the members of such boards will usually be happy to accept mediocre or even poor solutions that are presented with confidence and legal arguments that someone who actually had a knowledge of the topic could easily oppose.
A Couple of Direct Descriptions of Urban Politics
What is most valuable in this book are Dahl's very direct descriptions of urban politics. They're a pleasure to read and think about. For example, he says straight out that "appointments to the board of zoning appeals were among the most coveted political prizes in the city, since the capacity to grant or refuse variances to zoning regulations could be used to induce payoffs of various kinds." (p. 190)
On the same page, Dahl noted that "the Mayor and the Corporation Counsel constituted whatever center of coordination and control existed. When conflict occurred these two men were usually drawn sooner or later into negotiations, and their wishes carried weight." And yet, in most jurisdictions, it is this powerful corporation counsel, or whatever he is called, who plays the central role in a city or county's ethics program. Rarely does that individual openly admit that he is anything but a legal counselor to officials. Never have I seen such an individual say that he is the mayor's partner or that he is politically negotiating with the very people he is providing ethics advice to and sometimes even prosecuting for ethics violations.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Who governs? is a question that is too rarely asked by those involved in government ethics. It is assumed that the only individuals who should be under an ethics program's jurisdiction are those currently in government office or with a government job. Often excluded from jurisdiction are numerous individuals who may be very important to the management of the community, including former officials, candidates, consultants and hired professionals (including outside auditors), advisers, party officers, power brokers and fixers, bidders on contracts, grant and permit applicants, those who own and manage contractors that do government work, such as charter schools and waste management companies, and those who work for independent, semi-independent, and public-private offices, agencies, and authorities. All of these people should be included in a local government ethics program.
Examples of Ethical Misconduct
In his book, Dahl discussed some interesting examples of ethical misconduct. For example, an investigation begun in 1959 showed that "on many occasions assessors had illegally reduced assessments — more often, it turned out, for friends and relatives of political figures than for the Notables or the large corporations.… There are certain tacit understandings in the local political culture that sophisticated participants can hope to rely on. If a firm protests its assessments and threatens to appeal to the courts, the city's attorneys may conclude that the reasonable course — particularly in view of genuine uncertainty over whether the city's claims will hold up in court — is to reduce the assessment. Later, the firm's executives may contribute funds generously to the campaign of the incumbent administration." (p. 80)
One comic instance of ethical misconduct involved a minor subleader who showed how influential he was by "fixing" parking tickets. When this practice was discovered and investigated, it turned out that he was paying the fines out of his own pocket, because he didn't actually have the influence he wanted people to believe he had.
The Role of Democratic Ritual
Dahl was especially interested in the role of democratic ritual in local politics. He noted that, "to gain legitimacy for their actions leaders frequently surround their covert behavior with democratic rituals. These rituals not only serve to disguise reality and thus to complicate the task of observation and analysis, but — more important — in complex ways the very existence of democratic rituals, norms, and requirements of legitimacy based on a widely shared creed actually influences the behavior of both leaders and constituents even when democratic norms are violated." (p. 89) This is something I have often noticed. Even when it appears that those in charge are ignoring the rules, people accept that these officials, and especially government attorneys, may interpret and apply the rules for their own benefit, because they are playing their roles in the democratic ritual, while those protesting the officials' decisions and involvement are calling the roles and the ritual into question.
Dahl's descriptions of the way local politics works clarify why it is so hard for good government organizations and the news media to get improvements made in a local government ethics program. For example, he wrote that "a political issue can hardly be said to exist unless and until it commands the attention of a significant segment of the political stratum [the individuals deeply involved in local politics]. … Although political issues are sometimes generated by individuals in the apolitical strata who begin to articulate demands for government action, this occurs only rarely." In other words, it is not enough for people in the community to raise the issue of government ethics reform. Politicians won't deal with the issue unless they feel they have no other choice, and even then, they will simply pass a window-dressing amendment unless they believe that this won't do the trick. It requires a lot of work not only to get ethics reform on the agenda, but to make sure that this leads to true ethics reform.
Blue-Ribbon Commissions
Dahl wrote about the effectiveness of the blue-ribbon Citizens Action Commission that a New Haven mayor established to help with acceptance of his downtown redevelopment projects. "The mere fact that the CAC existed and regularly endorsed the proposals of the city administration made the program appear nonpartisan, virtually nullified the effectiveness of partisan attacks, presented to the public an appearance of power and responsibility diffused among a representative group of community notables, and inhibited criticisms of even the most daring and ambitious parts of the program." (p. 133) But, in fact, the CAC was a passive body that had neither power nor responsibility.
The same thing can be done with blue-ribbon ethics advisory boards that are employed by a mayor or council, after a big scandal, to give the government an ethics code, when what is really needed is an independent ethics program with teeth that truly gains the public's trust and prevents ethical misconduct and the scandals that it causes. Too rarely do people recognize that a blue-ribbon advisory board is a weak alternative to bringing in experts, which is the way a government deals with other problems when it has no experts on staff. Nor do people recognize that pillars of a community are busy people who often do not want to rock the boat (i) because they, their businesses, and the organizations with which they are associated often seek special benefits from the government, and (ii) because there are issues that mean more to them than the fine points of government ethics administration and, therefore, they are not willing to take strong stands or do the research necessary to even ask the right questions of the government attorneys who advise them.
Blue-ribbon advisory boards can be very useful when their members are considered to have knowledge of and strong feelings about the topic, because in that case, political leaders will be forced to take their feelings into account. But if they lack knowledge and strong feelings, the members of such boards will usually be happy to accept mediocre or even poor solutions that are presented with confidence and legal arguments that someone who actually had a knowledge of the topic could easily oppose.
A Couple of Direct Descriptions of Urban Politics
What is most valuable in this book are Dahl's very direct descriptions of urban politics. They're a pleasure to read and think about. For example, he says straight out that "appointments to the board of zoning appeals were among the most coveted political prizes in the city, since the capacity to grant or refuse variances to zoning regulations could be used to induce payoffs of various kinds." (p. 190)
On the same page, Dahl noted that "the Mayor and the Corporation Counsel constituted whatever center of coordination and control existed. When conflict occurred these two men were usually drawn sooner or later into negotiations, and their wishes carried weight." And yet, in most jurisdictions, it is this powerful corporation counsel, or whatever he is called, who plays the central role in a city or county's ethics program. Rarely does that individual openly admit that he is anything but a legal counselor to officials. Never have I seen such an individual say that he is the mayor's partner or that he is politically negotiating with the very people he is providing ethics advice to and sometimes even prosecuting for ethics violations.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments