Chicago By MILTON RAKOVE

The revolution is over: Evolution begins

THE CITY of Chicago's bitterly fought mayoral election is finally over. The victors, Chicago's solidly united black community, are preparing to enjoy the fruits of victory. The losers, the city's almost solidly united white ethnic community, are in a state of watchful waiting, having lost the battle (although not necessarily the war). The city's peripheral constituencies, the Lakefront white liberals and Hispanics, are in a state of limbo, having contributed some to Mayor Harold Washington's victory, but not being primarily responsible for it. They are in a situation comparable to what Webster's Dictionary defines as limbo: "the abode after death of unbaptised children and righteous people who lived before Jesus."

In the contemporary political arena in Chicago, significant changes have clearly taken place. But the long-range consequences of the 1983 mayoral election are still murky, encapsulated in a clouded crystal ball that no seer can, as yet, decipher. The 50-year-old Democratic political machine is in a state of confusion and inertia, fragmented by the racial bifurcation of the city. It lost control of the black vote in the February 22 mayoral primary contest between former Mayor Jane M. Byrne, State's Attorney Richard M. Daley, and newly elected Mayor Harold Washington. It then lost control of the white ethnic vote in the city in the April 12 mayoral election. The white ward committeemen are without a viable party leadership, left to fend for themselves after Cook County Democratic Chairman Edward Vrdolyak suffered a personal defeat only a few months after his excellent showing in last November's gubernatorial election.

The black ward committeemen, many of whom supported Byrne in the primary, then Washington in the election, are in their own state of uncertainty. A number of them lost their own aldermanic seats in the recent election, and others suffered a personal defeat in their wards when the candidates they backed were defeated by Washington-backed black independents. Their precinct captains, too, face an uncertain future of watchful waiting. They have to decide whether to continue to obey their ward committeemen or look for leadership and support to the newly elected black aldermen, who do not hold the post of ward committeeman but who may stand well with the incoming Washington administration. And many of the leftover ward committeemen may face a challenge for that position in two years from those newly elected aldermen.

Who are the key political figures to watch in Chicago's political future? No one can be sure of the answer to that all important question.

There is, of course, the victor, Mayor Washington. He emerged from the campaign as an intelligent, moderate, articulate and conciliatory man who wants to heal the wounds left by the campaign. And he has long legislative experience. But how much power will he really have in a racially divided and otherwise fragmented city council? How much control will he have over the lower levels of the city bureaucracy which is now ostensibly locked in by Federal District Judge Nicholas Bua's latest Shakman case ruling on job recruitment, promotion, retention and disciplining of most of the city's 40,000 workers? How will Washington raise the money to meet the looming deficits of the city's precarious financial situation bequeathed to him by former Mayor Jane Byrne's chaotic four-year term? What will Washington's relationships be like with major Cook County officeholders, the leadership and membership of the Illinois General Assembly and the state's congressional delegation? How effective an administrator will he be, after a lifetime spent in ward and legislative politics, but with little administrative experience — especially in view of the chaotic state of his campaign organization's conduct of the recent campaign? After all, Washington was recruited, supported, sustained and elected by an unstructured, almost revolutionary black movement begun by other black leaders whose momentum and effectiveness surprised many of them, as well as almost all observers of the Chicago political scene. Such movements are great for creating revolution and putting people into office, but are relatively worthless for governing society. Every great revolution in history bears testament to the ultimate evolutionary consequences of such revolutions.

As for the other major political and governmental Democratic figures, their future roles and prospects are also uncertain. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, State Senate President Philip Rock, State's Attorney Richard M. Daley and Party Chairman Edward Vrdolyak are people to watch, but are also adrift in the unknown and uncharted waters of Chicago's surging and eddying political sea.

A final word on the status and future prospects of Chicago's pathetic Republican party. It, too, after this election is still a failure insofar as the local political scene is concerned. But what this election will mean for national Republican prospects in 1984 and beyond is still a debatable question. Will the white ethnics of the city come back home in 1984, having once crossed the line of party identification from Democratic to Republican fealty in such a bitterly fought election? This is an unpredictable and, as yet, unanswerable question. The national Democratic party may well be able to hold the black vote in the city, but the white ethnic vote may have broken loose over the racial issue and may become a wild card in future national and statewide elections.□

May 1983 | Illinois Issues | 36