Community associations are not governments -- many years of legislation and court rulings have established that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet they are clearly democratic in their operations, electing their leadership from among the homeowners on a periodic basis.
In fact, associations operate much more democratically than almost any other form of corporate entity. You can own a couple of shares of ExxonMobil, but they certainly aren't going to give you an opportunity to serve on the board, and the process for nominating and electing directors is pro forma from the perspective of a small shareholder. But if you want to get involved in your community's leadership the barriers to entry are much lower. In fact, many communities go begging for folks to serve as volunteer leaders.
Which is why I am so surprised by the lack of faith shown in democratic principles by many of those who would over-regulate and restrict associations. A frequent refrain among the self-styled "homeowner advocates" is "even a good board is only one election away from being a bad one." Well, I guess that is one of the risks inherent in the democratic process, and it is certainly not a risk that is limited to community associations. The same case could be made for any elective office, from dog catcher up to the President of the United States.
The solution to that problem is not to replace democracy with tyranny, royalty, or some other form of government, but to work to make the democratic process better and to hold those elected accountable. But I guess that some folks believe they know best and that we should suspend the democratic process to take "advantage" of their wisdom.
Ultimately I have faith in the democratic process, whether we are talking about the presidency or a condo board. For the same reason that I don't think party insiders should substitute their preferences for the will of the voters in this year's presidential primary process, I don't think government should dictate in detail how associations should be run from some far off state capital or even Washington, DC. That would be taking away an associations democratic rights and responsibilities.
I recently came across a passage by Steven Coonts in his book The Cannibal Queen - A Flight Into the Heart of America. Coonts is an author and attorney who served two combat tours as a naval aviator in Vietnam. He writes:
"My Vietnam experience turned my simple-minded acceptance of democracy into a deep-rooted faith. Vietnam proved that democracy works, slowly and inefficiently and inevitably--the rascals who got us into Vietnam were thrown out by the voters when they saw what a mess it was, and the replacement rascals were thrown out when the press showed the public the smoking gun."
"Democracy is built on the simplest premise that has ever supported a political system, that a majority of the voters will be right more often than they are wrong. The inevitable errors will be corrected by the voters--when they perceive those errors. Democracy assumes that saints won't run for public office. The human condition being what it is, many of those that seek power successfully are charlatans, hypocrites, liars, thieves, and nincompoops, yet democracy provides a way to deprive these people of power when their excesses prove too much. The voters weight the follies of fallible politicians against their contributions at every election."
"Messy and inefficient as it is, the system works. Not very well and with agonizing slowness, but it does work."
Tip O'Neill famously said that "all politics is local" and that is where it belongs. Community issues and leadership should be decided in the community. If we lose faith in the democratic process in our communities, the next step is losing faith at the city, county, state, and federal levels. I for one prefer the democratic principles that have served this country for more than 230 years, as frustrating as the process can sometimes be, rather than the various failed alternatives washed up on history's shores.
