Following the first successful gubernatorial recall in 80 years, some have expressed dismay about the consequences of California's latest experiment in direct democracy. Although we had doubts about the Davis recall, we view recalls more benignly. In the arsenal of direct democracy, the recall remains the least worrisome weapon.

Recalls do hold some perils. Elected officials may be cautious about bold or unpopular but necessary policies for fear of a recall. Some local evidence suggests that frequent recall efforts can be disruptive to effective government. On the other hand, October's recall election generated high levels of interest, political debate and political participation. Most importantly, the recall does not undermine our representative form of democracy; it simply allows for shortening transitions between choices of elected officials. Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor via the recall, but he still will be held accountable by the voters in 2006.

Contrast this with the initiative process and its ability to undermine our American system of representative democracy. Initiatives allow narrow interests to by-pass legislatures and governors. Because legislative districts are based on the entire population and initiatives are approved by a majority of the voters who turn out, initiatives can be used to enact unrepresentative policies. And special interests can use the initiative for profit.

Consider this: California has a state lottery not because of public demand but because a Georgia corporation spent enough money to qualify and pass an initiative that guaranteed it got the lottery contract. In 2002 Californians approved the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal & Beach Protection Act or Proposition 50. But how many voters knew that this initiative also directly benefited a corporation that had contributed over $700,000 to the initiative's sponsors? Proposition 10 taxed tobacco to fund children's programs, but how many voters realized that it also deliberately shielded its billion dollar annual budget from the normal checks and oversights given to tax dollars?

Initiatives destroy accountability. If an initiative creates a mess, who should be held responsible? Much of the anger with Gray Davis stemmed from his handling of the budget, but how many voters know the extent to which initiatives have rendered large parts of the budget untouchable? Regular elections and the occasional recall allow Californians to exercise that most fundamental principle of representative democracy: firing their elected officials if those officials fail. But how do Californians exercise their sovereignty over flawed initiatives?

Initiatives can undermine the checks and balances so important to our representative democracy. The current clash between Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature is nothing new. Struggles between executives and legislatures are inherent in any republic, and usually governors and presidents have the upper hand because it's far easier for a single person to go to the people than a collection of disparate legislators. Governors can use the initiative to bypass legislatures, enhance their powers and use a far narrower electorate to enact policies. In 1996 Gov. Pete Wilson sponsored a welfare reform initiative whose fine print also included giving governors extraordinary budget power.

Initiative dangers can be exaggerated. Most initiatives don't pass. Money can win a place on the ballot but can't guarantee electoral victory. Yet there are real problems with initiatives that should be discussed and not dismissed with cliches about thwarting the will of the people. California's governmental system needs change.

While the recall system may need some tinkering, we do not think it should be a top priority. The initiative system, however, will continue to threaten representative democracy and effective government. After all, the state flag proclaims the California Republic, not the California initiative.

TIMOTHY A. HODSON is executive director of the center for California Studies at CSU-Sacramento. EDWARD L. LASCHER JR. is chair of the Department of Public Policy and Administration at CSU-Sacramento.