Senator Maziarz answered a few questions I had tonight on LCTV’s Access to Government regarding his position on downsizing the Niagara County Legislature. In no uncertain terms he is for it. So he will support the move to downsize to 15 and would probably support a larger reduction.
As usual there are those who believe that the Senator has given the green light to the predominantly Republican legislature to take advantage of the bandwagon effect of the downsizing campaign. Not that they can’t think for themselves. It’s just a not uncommon belief in
It seems more clear than ever now that the move to downsize is really not about improving or securing the strongest democratic structures and process. Given that the reasoning regarding why downsizing should be done is vague and evasive, one can only conclude that the real motives for favoring this action has not been transparently offered up to the public. This evasiveness and virtually authoritarian reticence regarding the reasons why actions are or should be taken is standard fare which the people expect and many have succumb to as reason to accept their de-politicized status.
I was hoping to hear better reasoning from Senator Maziaz regarding why downsizing was at least justifiable if not wise. That’s not what I heard. Basically he said that he believes 15 is “sufficient.” He “argued” that given the state of technology somehow representation would be adequate. He seemed to lean on the fact that
Senator Maziarz did not really address my claim that the supposedly excess “layers of government” was a different problem than whether we should reduce representatives of the people. He also didn’t, to my mind, adequately address the fact that problems of consolidation are also a different domain of problems having nothing to do with the question of downsizing. In fact whether we downsize or not the problem of overlapping layers of government, excessive numbers of districts, bloated bureaucracy and autocratic Authorities will remain. Whether we downsize or not we still have work to be done in consolidation of county services and infrastructure. Also, a downsized Legislature is less likely to correctly appraise and address the complexities of consolidation.
Interestingly, however, his “sufficiency” argument in toto amounts to an aspect of or kind of “efficiency” argument. ‘Sufficient’ really means bare bones necessity. The drive to cut expenses is of course at play here. And if we were saving $60,000 on anything other than the optimal status of democratic representation, it may well be worth it given the economic times we live in. But that amount is just too small to justify eliminating 4 representatives from the Legislature. The health and integrity of our political foundations are at stake and to me ‘sufficient’ is not sufficient. To presume that technology itself will make up the difference in loss of voices to represent the diversity of views, conflicts and tensions in the County, is technocratic faith gone wild. Technology may change the playing field. It may offer strategic possibilities and advantages or disadvantages. However, technology cannot think, nor contextualize by itself. Technology and media is all too easily used to misconstrue, distort and manipulate discourse in the interest of power, disinformation and control of information. This complicates and makes more complex the problem of "sufficient" democratic representation. Media never quite allows the sustained face to face examination of ideas requiring for convincing, reasoned truths to emerge.
Downsizing our Legislature is playing into the hands of the linear hierarchy of bureaucratic group-think and the state centralization of power. The fewer the representatives living out and among the people, suffering what they suffer, living in their neighborhoods, the less likely a real understanding of the communities lot will come to light and the less likely that any one voter will ‘get them’ and take a stand for the cause of the people. The people are those who are a part of “no part” especially no part of the network of official, institutionalized, Party-dominated power and concern.
Technologically and technocratically mediated reasoning will never permit the kind of conversation where grounded and justified reasoning is obligatory and moves decision-making but only after it has passed the test of critical dialogical scrutiny in the face of the people. Even moreso such faith in the power of techncity to do the work of people prevents the people, all the people, from seeing that their feelings have been dissociated from such technologically mediated practical strategizing. Fewer representatives means that the voices that matter are that much more difficult to reach. Fewer representatives means that less creative resistance is available to offer alternative ideas, questions and mirrors for reflection. Technology is not creative and technology cannot ask a question.
The tragic part is that the Legislature and Mr. Maziarz do not see that the reasoning does not hold water and would not withstand sustained scrutiny. Unfortunately the court of political debate and dialogue does not have the force, claim and power of the obligation to truth. Today and possibly since the turn of the last century, reason has lost its integrity and humility. A personal egoic opinion is as good as any well-reasoned argument, especially when you know you have the votes.
Corrupted power is that which will not allow itself in good faith to be subject to the court of reason. And it is unfortunate that the power to persuade through power alone will not offer itself to the test of convincing those not persuaded by its words, that is, to those who suffer your power without the confidence nor conviction that your power is reasonable and has reasoned well.
The failure of the power of reasoned truth was also exhibited by the Senator when he rejected my reference to the UB study that concluded that consolidation of schools is of, at best, questionable value overall. Mr. Maziarz said that you can always find studies that disagree with such findings. He said you have to look at who funds the study. So I don’t know if he mistrusted the UB study or not. He has yet to read it. But with respect to reasoned discourse and inquiry, we must at least have faith that truth is possible in Science. If we allow our skepticism to degenerate any further in our suspicion of ‘bought and paid for’ scientific results, then that is exactly what we will do: buy our scientific results with money from those who want to see certain advantageous results. I hope that Mr. Maziarz sees the danger in believing that science itself cannot be trusted because of the corrupting power of money and selfish self-interest. I hope when he thinks further about consolidation, that he does not simply look for studies that support his own present beliefs.
After all, such stacking of the deck and selectively choosing one’s evidence in the end is not very “efficient” if we consolidate services and institutions yet in the end save nothing but possibly cost ourselves more than was previously the case.
Lastly, it was sad to see but telling to experience that the people were not permitted to ask Mr. Kessel even one question during his visit to the Legislature on July 28. Mr. Ross said ‘that was the way it was set up.’ My fear is that that is the way it’s always set up. The voice of those with little power, what I call those who are really a part of no part, are not there for the “setting up” when power comes to speak. It is odd if not tragic that those who have most to lose are denied the opportunity to speak their truth to power. Whoever in the Legislature “set up” the rules according to which Mr. Kessel would be questioned ruled out the unofficial voices of the people.
Do you see why every possible representative voice must be preserved? Well, it’s because one of those downsized voices may well be the only one who doesn’t forget the voice of the people when power comes to town.
No comments:
Post a Comment