MISSOURI WATCH: DEMOCRACY'S DISAPPEARING DREAM

Ask any candidate for a statewide office in Jefferson City whether he or she favors bringing government closer to the people and, chances are, the response will be one approaching unbridled enthusiasm.

You can almost hear the words flow from the mouths of candidates: "Of course I favor such a suggestion, and this is one improvement I want to sponsor if I am elected by you good folks."

Sometimes there is a caveat to this pledge: "You understand that I will be only one among many, and implementing your suggestion will require both cooperation and participation of still others in the Capitol." Translation: Forget it.

Such scenarios are often heard during campaigns in which candidates say and do virtually anything to receive high approval ratings from their bosses. And why not? Who among the candidates will be the first to admit that once a wannabe state official is sworn into office, he or she has inherited enough problems, puzzles and dilemmas to stay busy for the remainder of the term. Looking for new duties in addition to the ones already proscribed is not only asking for trouble at the next election but compounding the difficulties of solving the problems inherited from predecessors.

All of us who consider it a high privilege to be called citizen want to participate as fully as possible in the deliberation and solution of the problems that face our municipalities, counties and state. We want to earn the honor of being a member of history's most successful representative democracy by taking part in public issues that hopefully will be discussed at open meetings in much the same manner as Athenian forums decided the fate of ancient Greece.

The problem is that the distance between theory and reality keeps getting farther and farther apart at the end of the 20th century. The complexity of governing has grown with each decade, and the governorship of Forrest Smith at the end of World War II and of Mel Carnahan at ~the end of the Cold War bear few similarities.

The complexity of today's conduct of public affairs is merely a reflection of our modern society, for the Age of Mel Carnahan bears little resemblance to the Age of Forrest Smith. The latter would have been both surprised and overwhelmed by the complexity of his office in 1998.

If Forrest Smith would have been at a loss to confront the problems facing his half-century successor, then consider the sheer helplessness, and hopelessness, of citizens living today under a government that each year has increased in size, scope and complexity from the Smith to the Carnahan years.

If today's system of polity and politics has grown more difficult to manage, it follows that those living within the system have found it more difficult to cope. There are programs in place in Jefferson City today that did not even exist in the dreams of politicians 50 years ago. The entry field is enormous: Medicaid, access to higher education, utility deregulation, addiction prevention, disease control, economic development, abortion, AIDS, crime prevention, rapid transit. These, and many others, were not around when Forrest Smith took the oath of office, yet by the time the incumbent governor took his second oath of office they were challenging realities.

In outlining the agendas of today's politicians, it is easy to forget the hastily made promises of campaigns: bringing government closer to the people. When it is all an officeholder can do to tackle new challenges, it is easy to overlook something as nebulous as moving government closer to the people. If the memory of earlier promises does stir recollection, they are easily repressed by the reminder that such a pledge was probably impossible to keep in the first place.

And so, in 1998, we can survey the one government that touches all of our lives virtually every day of the year and realize that Jefferson City has not only not moved closer to us, it has moved farther into the distance, oftentimes not from intent but from circumstances beyond anyone's control.

There are the pessimists among us who insist that if self-rule continues to emphasize the rule and de-emphasize the self, our system will someday collapse or be destroyed by citizen distrust and anger. This is the worst case scenario, and while it has a degree of validity, it would seem another result is more logical. That result is the further disillusionment of voters and the collective electorate, which will serve to stultify still further the effectiveness of representative democracy. Our society stands in danger of further complications that could serve to destroy what enthusiasm will still remain for representative democracy.

At which point, our precious democracy is dead.

There are countless ways to bring government closer to the people. Send government officials to every city and county in the state to discuss programs. Create an independent, constitutionally created ombudsman to field and investigate and resolve constituent concerns. Explain to more of us the complexities of government and explain less how the genius of the officeholder is responsible for good results but never the bad results. End systems that reward heavy contributors and ignore deserving constituents. Lessen the influence of political parties, none of which has any responsibility for creating good government, just popular political temps.

No one can claim the concept of bringing government closer to the people is easy. When Alexander McNair was governor 175 years ago, his tasks would have been relatively simple. The state didn't even have a system of public schools. Moving it closer to the governed today may seem an impossible challenge.

It is nevertheless an absolute necessity for democracy's survival.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.