Op-Ed: If we care about democracy in D.C., we must first protect it in CT

Read from the CT Post.

Much of today’s political conversation is focused on Washington, D.C. We hear constant concern about executive overreach, concentration of power, and leaders who dismiss opposing viewpoints rather than engage them.

Those concerns are real. But if we truly care about protecting democracy, transparency, and representative government, we must also be willing to look closer to home.

Here in Connecticut, I am increasingly concerned by efforts to limit public input and reduce meaningful debate on major policy issues that directly affect families, taxpayers, students, and local communities. These are not minor procedural matters. They are decisions involving civil liberties, education policy, taxation, affordability, and the basic relationship between government and the people it serves.

Recently at the State Capitol, I was disappointed to see legislative committee leaders move to limit public testimony on several major proposals. Regardless of where one stands on the underlying issues, that should trouble anyone who values open government.

Public testimony is not a nuisance to be managed. It is a cornerstone of democracy. It is one of the clearest ways residents can speak directly to those making decisions on their behalf. The people who live with the consequences of public policy deserve the opportunity to be heard. The people who elect us to represent them deserve confidence that their voices matter not only on Election Day, but throughout the legislative process.

Democracy is not simply majority rule. It is majority rule restrained by process, accountability, transparency, and respect for dissent. When those in power begin to treat debate as an obstacle and public input as inconvenient, democracy is weakened even if the outcome is technically legal.

One recent example is HB 5554, which was introduced to change the makeup of the Legislative Regulation Review Committee. That committee was intentionally designed as a bipartisan body with equal representation from both parties. Its purpose is to provide an important check on regulations issued by unelected state agencies based on laws passed by the legislature. Changing its membership to mirror the party in power would weaken that check and upset a deliberate balance. It sends the wrong message: that institutional guardrails should be adjusted whenever they become inconvenient to the majority.

We are also seeing troubling signs closer to home. In Fairfield, the Town Plan & Zoning Commission’s 5-2 Democratic supermajority recently created a special subcommittee to draft new commission bylaws over the objections of minority members, who noted that long-established Robert’s Rules of Order already govern commission business. The concern is not merely procedural. The proposed bylaws were viewed as an effort to limit public debate and restrict commissioner questioning and fact-finding. When public bodies narrow deliberation rather than encourage it, they erode confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the process.

Unfortunately, there is a growing attitude in politics that winning an election entitles the majority to silence disagreement. The thinking goes something like this: we won, we have the votes, so we know best.

That is not leadership. That is arrogance.

Winning elections gives public officials the authority to govern, but not the right to shut down debate, sideline minority viewpoints, or disregard public participation. Democracy requires humility. It requires patience. It requires a willingness to listen, especially when the voices being heard are frustrated, inconvenient, or in disagreement with those in power.

Over the years, I have repeatedly raised concerns about a legislative process that has become increasingly closed to meaningful public engagement. The expanded use of emergency certifications, shortened timelines, omnibus legislation, and limitations on testimony all move us farther away from the open, transparent government our residents deserve. These practices may be efficient for those in control, but efficiency is not the highest value in a representative democracy. Legitimacy is.

What happens in Hartford does not stay in Hartford. When debate is curtailed at the state level, it creates a trickle-down effect in towns and cities across Connecticut. Local officials begin to follow the same model. Public participation is tolerated rather than welcomed. Dissent is treated as obstruction. Outcomes appear predetermined. Citizens begin to feel that hearings are for show and that their voices no longer carry weight.

That is dangerous for civic life.

This should not be a partisan argument. The temptation to consolidate power exists for any majority, Republican or Democrat. But principles only matter if we defend them even when doing so is inconvenient to our own side. We cannot criticize national leaders for concentrating authority while excusing similar behavior when it occurs in our own statehouse, commissions, or communities.

If we object to the politics of “No Kings” in Washington, then we should reject any version of it in Hartford as well. Our system was built not on blind obedience to power, but on deliberation, checks and balances, public accountability, and respect for the people.

Connecticut residents deserve thoughtful policymaking, transparent government, and leaders willing to listen even when the conversations are difficult and time-consuming. They deserve a process that respects both the public and the representatives elected to give voice to their concerns.

If we want to defend democracy nationally, we must first practice it locally. And if we fail to protect public input, open debate, and representative process here at home, then our rhetoric about democracy means very little at all.

State Sen. Tony Hwang, a Republican, is in his fifth term representing Connecticut’s 28th district.