Caucusing: Opportunity for leading or following?
I admit it, tonight was my first caucus. Don't judge me too quickly, though, I'm a very hands-on participant in democracy - from voting in general elections to calling elected officials and voicing my opinion on issues to even working on drafting policies directly with City Council Members and State Legislators. Still, I was excited about empowering myself by getting involved in my first caucus, especially given the political climate and opportunity (and necessity) for great change.
In preparation for my first caucus, I did a little a research and was rather disappointed with what I found out. The most disturbing finding was that primaries (which are more like general elections) are more democratic than caucuses (in which you elect delegates who go on to elect other delegates who go on to elect other delegates who eventually end up at the national convention to elect a candidate which may or may not be the one you wanted, which is a form of "republic" politics (not democratic). Then my husband debriefed me on American history and told me that our Forefathers didn't want the United States to be totally democratic because any old simpleton would have the power to elect officials. A republic offers more of a buffer for the wealthy and elite to truly have the final say. Surely this is a gross oversimplification, but that's what the caucuses ended up feeling like to me.
Ironically, I thought caucusing would be a more "organic" form of change and leadership as outlined by Allen and Cherrey; a way in which "multi-directional" citizen influence could flourish and everyone could have a voice. Yet, it really ended up being a form of "making change" in which positional power and predictable patterns white-washed true participatory democracy. Experienced and/or educated citizens led the caucus and everyone else followed in chaotic, time-pressed step.
While historic numbers of people waited in line to "vote", did they know it was only for a delegate and not actually for a candidate? While the process is free and open to the public, with a single hour allotted for voting and caucusing how do all the people who are working at that moment participate? Does the term "caucus" scare off the less-educated so that their voice is missed entirely? How much of the population is amputated from this important preliminary discussion of what the issues should be and which candidates should carry them forward? And what about the Green Party who is abiding by Minnesota guidelines and waiting until the prescribed date of March 15th to caucus (not only to follow MN guidelines, but also as a statement against the extension of political campaigning which only increases the millions of dollars necessary to campaign)?
I thought tonight would fill a political knowledge gap for me, but it really just left me with more questions. Can anyone answer them?
Login to the blog
Post a new entry
Subscribe in a reader