Dear Editor:
Criticizing the recall process in California, many citizens (and the press) conclude that it is a harmful way to proceed in our republic (The U.S. is not a democracy!) In California, the people proceeded in accordance with a law which was voted into being by the citizenry (NJ has a similar recall law) as was their right; many would deny them this right.
Political federal government in the U.S., we should note, is an anomaly. Throughout much of the free world, governments operate under the Parliamentary System; Canada, our neighbor to the north, has such a system.
Canada’s Parliament is divided into two chambers: 1) House of Commons (301 members); 2) Senate (104 members). The occupants of the House of Commons are voted into office by its resident citizens; the Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister (no elections.) It is important to understand that, under the Canadian Parliamentary system, “you elect the party, not the person”; thus, the Prime Minister of Canada is not directly elected by the people, but rather appointed based on party status. In the U.S. we elect members of the Electoral Collage, not the person for whom we have cast our vote.
One of the key principals of Parliament is the concept of the No Confidence Vote. Supposedly, if the Parliament does not like the Prime Minister, they can introduce a bill demanding that he resign. If the vote is successful, the Prime Minister is forced to resign. Then the Governor General will almost certainly call a new election, and the people will decide what party they want to see form the new government.
You can see that the concept of ousting an incumbent is embedded in the Parliamentary System. The California recall movement involved the concept of the people ousting an incumbent.
It would appear that the California recall system is democracy in action, however much opponents may disapprove of it. Such a course of action was only undertaken because Governor Davis was perceived as having been responsible for the despicable condition of the state and for the introduction of unpalatable governmental measures.
Frank X. Landrigan