Next week Detroiters go to the polls to elect a mayor, city clerk, council and police commission. There are also important proposals on the ballot, including one that would allow direct control by voters to enact ordinances and allocate the money for them, Proposal S.  Also, Proposal R  would create a task force to explore reparations for Black Detroiters related to housing and economic development and Propose E  would legalize the therapeutic use of some plant/fungi based drugs.

Throughout the primary season, this election captured a tremendous amount of energy. More than 100 people indicated a desire to run for city council, nearly a dozen for mayor and many for police commission. Proposal P, an extensive revision of the City Charter, reflected the longing of people in the city to engage in meaningful ways with the decisions that affect our lives. Now, having seen the defeat of Proposal P, after a barrage of corporate initiated mis- information, and witnessing the influence of “dark money” and dubious endorsements on candidates, we are faced with choices dominated by incumbents. We have a Mayor who refuses to even debate his opponent, a City Clerk who owes $65,000 in back taxes (again), and two Council members under federal investigations for corruption. 

As a result, the enthusiasm that surrounded the primary has waned. We are now seeing stories that describe voter apathy and dispiritedness. At the same time, more than 1000 people showed up at the first public hearing in Detroit on the new redistricting maps proposed by the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.  More than 100 signed up to speak, the vast majority raising concerns about the impact of the proposed districts on Black representation. The current iteration of districts would greatly limit the representation of the city and of African Americans.

The contrast between corporate media efforts to talk about voter apathy and the demonstrated energies reflected in direct citizen participation is worth thinking about. Over these last few months we have seen sustained citizen action in the development of proposed charter revisions, widespread desires to serve in public office, countless hours spent testifying at city council and police commission hearings and widespread street protests. On any given day block clubs, community organizations, churches and volunteer activities of all kinds define a vibrant community life. 

The lack of enthusiasm for the election next week is not an indictment of our citizens. It is an indication of how broken our electoral system is. It is a system designed to disempower people and put decision making into the hands of those who reflect the interests of corporate power. Those who seriously challenge vested interests cannot get a fair public airing on their beliefs. There are few forums offered to think about what we need for our future and how best two secure it. Those candidates who offered fresh, thoughtful and imaginative ideas for our future rarely make it through the primary process.

We have some serious thinking to do about how we will govern our common lives and concerns. What is abundantly clear is that “representative democracy” has become the representation of corporate interests in the public sphere. We need to develop new methods of decision making, new ways of giving responsibilities to those charged with carrying out the public will. The questions posed by this election go far beyond what we mark on our ballots.