ALWAYS IN SEARCH OF A PERFECT DEMOCRACY

You may recall, during the political interregnum of 1992 as Ross Perot was suggesting the desirability of having voters become more involved in governing themselves, feeling that this idea had been proposed sometime at any earlier date. Your deja vu was intact, and working well, for the first published concept of citizen-democracy occurred during the halcyon Lyceum days of Plato and Aristotle. Greek philosophers longed for the practice of self-government and attempted to initiate it in their own country as well as in nations that had been conquered by Alexander the Great.

The failures of this noble concept notwithstanding, political systems ever since have sought, in one way or another, to emulate the Platonic view of public plebiscite. The proceedings of the first colonial Continental Congress touched but lightly on the subject, but by the time Americans were ready to fashion the form of government under which they were to live, Plato was back in style and very much on the minds of many delegates to the post-Revolution constitutional convention.

The problem attached to holding votes on central issues of the government of the new United States was not insignificant. Transportation was primitive, at best, and communication was even less commodious, the principal form being personal correspondence, with newspapers, delivered weeks after publication date, coming in second. Even the advent of more sophisticated communication systems, such as the telegraph and later the radio and eventually television, still did not lend themselves to a satisfactory implementation of Plato's concept of citizen referenda.

It took the computer, and the later achievement of connecting all computers to electronic networks that spanned both states and nations, to provide the perfect tool for the Platonic concept of the purest form of self-government. It was only natural that Perot, whose highly publicized fortune came from this very corner of science, should be the first serious advocate of a form envisioned more than 20 centuries before his arrival on Earth.

Derivatives of the Plato-Perot concept have made numerous appearances in the time span between the two men. One of the most famous plebiscites was conducted, believe it or not, by the German political party members who eventually become known as Nazis. The mislabeled German republic under Adolf Hitler provided such a referendum to the citizens of Austria, posing a question of annexation that was too powerful for the hapless Austrians to refuse. That they did not refuse to accede to the German chancellery's strong desire for a favorable vote on the proposed annexation of their small and defenseless country is a tribute to the basic human instinct for survival. The Austrians could either annex with their stronger neighbor or be annihilated. It is not surprising, nor even historically demeaning, that they chose to follow the strongly worded recommendations of the Germans' glorious leader.

The state of California in 1978, under the leadership of an unknown Platonic advocate named Howard Jarvis, adopted still another version of self-government, a.k.a. the Prop 13 tax revolt. It called for a public vote on selective tax increases proposed by public officials in that state, as well as a mandated rollback of taxes at both the local and state levels. Since then, at least 22 states have adopted some version of Mr. Jarvis's original proposition, although most have not suffered the diminishment of essential public services as has California, which now finds itself in a most uncomfortable, even embarrassing, financial crisis.

Inspired by California's Prop 13, as well as the political notoriety it inspired on its author, Missouri got its version of the Platonic concept with the 1980 enactment of what has become known as Hancock I, bestowing upon a Springfield businessman a lasting contribution to Missouri's vocabulary as well as a series of terms in the U.S. Congress for its creator. After nearly a decade and a half, Mr. Hancock has decided to favor us with a second, and much more comprehensive, version of his earlier contribution to citizen government. There are those among us who fail to appreciate his efforts on our behalf, but this is beside the point. Hancock II is before us, and hopefully it will be properly judged by voters in November.

The latest to propose the advent of direct democracy is an observer of the American political scene whom I greatly admire. His name is Kevin Phillips, a conservative but highly intelligent student of politics and the political process, and his suggestion comes from his newest book entitled, "Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics." It is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.

Phillips proposes the establishment of a direct democracy in the U.S. that would permit citizens to supplant decisions made by the federal government in certain categories of national issues. Unlike the present Swiss system, which provides for votes on every decision made by the central government, Phillips would institute certain categories that would have to be confirmed by voters before decisions could be implemented. The recent presidential decision on Haiti, for example, would be subjected to an electronic referendum before U.S. troops could be dedicated to armed action. So would any national health-care plan when, or if, one may appear.

Such an idea, while revolutionary, would create not only considerable confusion but numerous resolutions to existing problems. The arrogance of Congress, the errancy of presidents and the stupidity of courts could be corrected, not to mention the cancellation of the immense powers of special interests.

Is it worth the try? I think it might be. Shall we vote?

Jack Stapleton is a veteran Kennett journalist.