100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 17 pages.
again the dissatisfactions that have led to the expression of the demand for social change as a demand for political change are rarely those that arise from popular disgust with the political system as structured, but those that arise from a belief that the system is being perverted internally or threatened by external forces seeking to alter its essential ends. In such cases, there tend to be temporary uprisings, designed to gain satisfaction on specific issues, rather than attempts to change the structure of the system. It is no accident that Minnesota is still operating under its original state constitution despite the problems attendant upon its adoption and occasional drives to rewrite it. Nor should it be surprising to discover that there has been relatively little change in the structure of local governments in Minnesota despite the almost nationwide tendency after World War II to try to cope with metropolitanization through government structural change.The achievements of local reform movements in Minnesota provide a particularly clear reflectionof the basically political character of reform in the state. Local reform has not been apolitical. Even when nonpartisanship was the keynote for reform nationally, in Minnesota it rarely took on an antipolitical character. It was simply a device for overcoming the traditional Republican commitment of the bulk of the local electorate, which frequently enabled anti-reform candidates to win elections by identifying with that party.
The nonpartisan elections were no less political, nor were they intended to be so. In fact, as soon as a competitive two-party system dominated by amateurs was developed in the larger cities, the DFL developed an informal system of party endorsements covering offices from the state legislature to local school boards. As this endorsement system took hold, it was adopted by the Independent Republicans as well. Since the change did not alter the state's basic political character, it met with little public interest. By the late 1950s, Minnesota's formal system of nonpartisan elections had been effectively subverted on a statewide basis by both parties, withoutinterfering with the unity of the state's political system or changing its fundamental orientation.The final demonstration of the difference between political nonpartisanship in Minnesota and theapolitical nonpartisanship of other states was reflected in Minnesota's general resistance to council-manager government. The heyday of the drive for council-manager government was between World War II and 1960. Of the 106 incorporated cities in Minnesota in the latter years, only fourteen had adopted council-manager government. Commission government, a highly political form of nonpartisanship, was slightly more popular in Minnesota. In its day, it was adopted by both Duluth and St. Paul, among other cities. Minneapolis, on the other hand, has retained its mayor-aldermanic system since its incorporation. While St. Paul has kept the