CONSOLIDATING SOUTH AFRICAN DEMOCRACY: THE POLITICAL ARITHMETIC OF BUDGETARY REDISTRIBUTION

An absence of legitimacy of an economic dispensation cannotbe overcome by democratization alone. In unequal societies,new regimes also seek to increase economic legitimacy and thereforetheir own political legitimacy through redistribution. Socialspending is the most promising redistributive device availableto South Africa's new democracy to reduce racial inequalities,but there are constraints on increasing social spending or evenredistributing existing spending. To maximize political impact,spending will thus probably be concentrated on the most visibleprogrammes and concentrated in die cities. The impact on blackmaterial living standards of complete redistribution of socialspending is shown to be fairly large, but still may not satisfythe newly enfranchised. Coloureds, Indians and poorer whiteswould lose most from budgetary redistribution. As demands exceedresources, resource allocation then becomes a question of politicalarithmetic. This may assist in consolidating democracy amongsturban black ‘insiders’, but would effectively leavethe unorganized rural poor fiscally disenfranchised.     

VOTER PARTICIPATION IN MUNICIPAL COURT ELECTIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Although significant research has been done on voter participation and the election of executives and legislators, very little literature exists on the election of state judges, and there is virtually no literature on the election of trial court judges. In view of the policy-making activities of judges, this absence of research hampers understanding of the overall public policy-making process. The few studies of the election of state supreme court justices indicate that, compared to other nonpartisan elections, participation in judicial elections is somewhat similar. This study of municipal court elections in Los Angeles county found that voter participation was higher than expected and suggests that changes in the process could have policy implications.     

The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value

California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well-financed and professional special interest groups.
Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the "professionalization" of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda-setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature-gathering services. The era of the "popular initiative" is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda-setting function.     

The Proof of Capitalism: Usher's Celebration of the Status Quo

In The Economic Prerequisite to Democracy , Dan Usher tries to prove that capitalism is necessary for the survival of democracy, defined as majority rule by means of a popularly-elected legislature. Usher assumes that this survival requires general agreement both on the legislative majority-rule method and on certain substantive issues. This assumption turns out to be doubtful. Usher believes that the issues most likely to provoke serious disagreement are 'assignment' issues; that is, those issues which involve the stability of the positions assigned to individuals in the economic rank order. Some of his reasons for this belief do not seem valid, although the belief is somewhat plausible. Usher asserts that to prevent serious disagreement from disrupting legislative majority rule, assignment issues must be largely decided by a 'system of equity'. Usher's reasoning here is unconvincing. Finally, Usher states that (the present form of) capitalism is the only practicable system of equity. This statement is open to doubt. Usher has not proved that capitalism is necessary for the survival of democracy. One implication of Usher's argument is that major reassignment by the legislature will be strongly opposed by the economically superior ranked. Another is that some of the most important issues—assignment issues—should be largely kept out of the legislative majority decision; in other words, democracy must be curtailed in order to survive.