Democracy in America, especially at the local level, thrives best when guided by the principle, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This approach fosters stability and preserves the integrity of democratic processes – Photo Ford School of Public Policy/University of Michigan

 

Navigating Democracy: Insights and Experiences from Recent Elections

By C. Naseer Ahmad
Washington, DC

During the recent US election season, discussions about potential threats to democracy were prevalent. Now that the elections have concluded, the public will have the opportunity to assess whether their situation has improved and whether democracy stands stronger or more fragile. As we move forward, the resilience of democracy will likely be tested, particularly if its structural safeguards begin to weaken.

Emerging trends at the federal level are cause for concern. Newly elected leaders seem more focused on settling political scores than on public service. Their rhetoric conveys a belief that government is ineffective and fails to serve the people adequately. Indeed, the government likely faces more challenges than the public realizes or it readily admits.

Those acquainted with federal operations understand the crucial role of the Office of Inspector General. Typically, when a federal agency submits its annual report, it includes an assessment from this office that highlights identified weaknesses. An agency's executive officer addresses these findings within the report, outlining measures taken or planned to rectify the issues. This process exemplifies healthy accountability, showcasing the agency's responsibility to both the public and the US Congress, which provides its funding. Such transparency is a testament to the strength of democracy. As the new administration takes charge, it will be essential to observe how this process evolves and what enhancements they introduce to serve the electorate effectively.

At the state and municipal level, the situation shows relatively little concern, except in areas experiencing significant changes in leadership following recent elections. Notably, municipal leaders seem more attuned to the political pulse and responsive to their constituents.

My recent first-hand experience in Northern Virginia highlights this accessibility. One need not be a major political donor to have their voice heard. When a city mayor was unable to assist with a family member's case involving a small school's relocation due to a landlord's decision to terminate the lease, they connected us with the relevant County Supervisor. The Supervisor's staff promptly set up a meeting.

The meeting with the County Supervisor was refreshing. He was sympathetic to the importance of keeping the small school operational for the benefit of his constituents, the parents of the preschool children. Balancing the needs of diverse constituents, including well-funded landlords, he agreed to assist while explaining the legal limits he faced.

Remarkably, I was able to secure this assistance without leaving my house. I simply emailed the city clerk through the city’s website, received a response within 48 hours, and had a virtual meeting scheduled shortly thereafter. This not only demonstrated the efficiency and accessibility of local government but also showcased its environmental friendliness.

My positive experience with a local elected official illustrates democracy functioning effectively at the local level, though it may not represent every case. It raises questions: if a wealthy donor sought to push the County Supervisor beyond legal boundaries, would it work? Similarly, if the landlord wielded significant financial influence, could they obstruct the process? Despite these possibilities, my encounter was marked by the County Supervisor's empathy and commitment to meeting his constituents' needs for affordable care and early education for their children.

There is a widespread perception that knowing an elected official at the federal level, such as a congressional representative or a senator, can sway local officials. However, congressional staffers are often reluctant to intervene unless a case directly pertains to their jurisdiction. While exceptions exist, particularly involving major donors, they generally avoid the risk of a scandal.

Ultimately, democracy in America, especially at the local level, thrives best when guided by the principle, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This approach fosters stability and preserves the integrity of democratic processes.