Charter Reform: a Paradox Rather Than a Panacea

In the debate over Los Angeles charter reform, those who believe that giving more power to neighborhoods will mollify the various secession efforts would do well to study how decentralization has fared in other countries. There is evidence to suggest that, in the long run, turning over power to disgruntled communities is as likely to exacerbate secessionist impulses as it is to alleviate them.

Take, for example, the recent experience of three Western democracies confronting the issue of secession: Canada, Spain and Britain.

In Canada during the 1950s and 1960s, Quebec experienced a revival of cultural awareness. This led to a political movement in the mostly French-speaking province to become maitre chez nous--masters of their own house.

Under Prime Minister Lester Pearson (1963-1968), the Canadian government responded by granting Quebec substantial legislative autonomy. Issues previously under purview of the central government--such as education, language policies and economic development--were thereafter decided in Quebec. Since then, the region has periodically received further concessions with regard to self-rule.

Despite these efforts, widespread support for Quebec’s independence remains. In 1995, Quebec’s voters narrowly defeated a referendum that would have split Canada into two separate countries.

Rather than relieving pressures to secede, some observers believe that decentralizing power actually reinforced the province’s sense of political and cultural isolation, thus fueling the desire for independence.

The limitations of resolving secession conflicts through decentralization have also been evident in Spain. Since 1976, Spain has undergone a remarkable transformation from a centralized authoritarian state under the dictator Franco to a far more decentralized system. In the early stages of this transformation (1976-1978), Spain granted limited autonomy to three historical communities, including two independence-minded areas: Catalonia and the Basque region. These communities were allowed to form separate parliaments and administrative bureaucracies with greater authority over issues such as land use, highway construction and education.

Later the central government was forced to grant similar powers to 15 other Spanish sub-regions. Fearing that these semi-autonomous communities identified more with their sub-region than with the Spanish nation, the central government halted plans for further decentralization.

Britain has followed a similar pattern. Since the 1960s, Scotland and Wales also have experienced a revival of traditional culture and the rise of regional movements to secede. In response, the British central government has allowed for a system of territorial management and administrative “devolution” to regional assemblies in both Wales and Scotland. But according to some observers, this decentralization has stoked the fires of secession, particularly in oil-rich Scotland.

In the cases of Canada, Spain and Britain, it could be argued that secession efforts persist only because devolution hasn’t gone far enough. However, it may be that rather than quelling efforts for independence, devolving power to localities has served to strengthen them.

*

If charter reform results in decentralizing authority to secession-minded communities such as the San Fernando Valley, Venice, South Central Los Angeles, Eagle Rock and Wilmington, the danger is that these areas may become even more politically and psychologically isolated from the rest of the city.

As in Canada, Spain and Britain, devolving authority to Los Angeles’ neighborhoods--an idea under consideration by both the elected and appointed charter reform commissions--could lead to heightened community identification, encouraging some areas to further embrace independence.

Expanding neighborhood authority could also lead to power struggles between communities as well as political battles between individual neighborhoods and the larger city. One can easily foresee scenarios in which communities that didn’t get their way on a particular policy would throw up their hands and begin the process of secession.

Finally, giving greater local authority to neighborhoods could also reinforce the notion that communities are perfectly capable of governing themselves.

In the short run, charter reform could take the wind out of the sails of secessionists by altering existing perceptions that city government is too distant, unresponsive and unaccountable. Over the long term, however, the risk of devolving authority is that Los Angeles--sometimes derided as a hundred suburbs in search of a city--will become a hundred semi-autonomous suburbs each in search of its own city.

Giving greater legislative authority to the neighborhoods is not inherently a bad idea. In fact, it may yet prove to be a positive step toward reconnecting residents with their city government. However, supporters of charter reform should be wary of touting community councils as a panacea for secession.