Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Referenda, increased use of
Section B. Constitutional/governance
Do referenda have a place in representative democracies? Some countries’ constitutions demand referenda on certain (often constitutional) issues. In other cases, it is up to the government to call the referendum. The most common referenda deal with either moral questions or constitutional issues which are seen as needing direct public involvement. Europe has seen a number of referenda on economic packages, such as bailouts, since the 2008 global financial crisis. In some countries such as Switzerland, the public can trigger a referendum on any issue with a certain number of citizens backing it. The UK held a referendum on the Alternative Vote system in 2011. Would a move towards further use of this participative model be beneficial, or is the reliance on elected representatives to legislate on our behalf sufficient?
Pros
[1] The first democracy, in ancient Athens, did not rely on elected politicians and parliaments. Instead, the citizens met on the Pnyx hill to debate and vote on every issue of policy. Modern democracy and the size of the modern electorate have removed this participative element from day-to-day politics and distanced people from decision making. We should return to a more direct form of democracy to reengage voters and increase participation. Referenda might work particularly well at the level of local government; e.g. in making transport, environmental and planning decisions.
[2] Modern technology gives us the power to return to the Athenian ideal. It is now entirely practicable for every major policy decision to be made by referenda via the Internet.
[3] Political systems often fall out of touch with the public. There are many issues where the will of the public is simply ignored because the major parties agree; e.g. the British public would almost certainly vote for capital punishment if their politicians allowed them to. Genuine democracy would circumvent the parties’ prejudices and put power back in the hands of the people.
[4] When important constitutional decisions need to be made which it would be hard for future governments to undo, such as a country’s involvement in the European Union (EU) or devolution of power to a region, these should automatically go to referendum to avoid one parliament binding all future parliaments. This could also extend to matters such as party funding, electoral reform, crime and punishment, and privacy laws. Switzerland provides a model of effective direct democracy where referenda are frequently held to determine policy decisions.
Cons
[1] Government involves more than individual decisions. There has to be an underlying strategy, one that is not blown with the wind from day to day. Government by constant referenda does not allow this. California holds dozens of referenda every year. The reams of paper voters have to read through result in widespread apathy, low turnouts and consequently, freakish results.
[2] The vast majority of people are not interested in politics on a day-to-day basis. Government by constant referenda would become government by the politically obsessed — government by zealots and extremists. A system based on Internet access would disenfranchise the most disadvantaged in society who do not have access to the technology, while at the same time making it too easy for the majority to express an ill-informed decision on a matter which they neither know nor care about.
[3] The phrasing of the question to be asked in any referendum has a significant impact on the result. The timing can also be crucial. The politicians who control the wording and timing are retaining significant power, and in a way that is insidiously unaccountable. So, in fact, referendum results are often simply manipulated by the media machines of the political parties involved. Furthermore, it is a strength of representative democracies that they are not just versions of mob rule. Capital punishment has not been reintroduced in Britain despite much popular support because the question is settled by elected representatives with a higher than average amount of information, experience and intellectual ability at their disposal. Using referenda may be superficially more democratic, but will lead to mob rule as opposed to enlightened government.
[4] Elected representatives must be trusted with decisions. It is they, especially ministers and civil servants, who have the time, information, expertise and authority to make well-informed decisions. There is no need for any increased use of referenda. Referenda may be appropriate on some constitutional issues, but sometimes even on these, the level of complexity means that we need experts rather than laypeople to decide. For example, the public cannot be expected to read and understand the whole of an EU treaty on which it may be asked to vote. Referenda are not needed for any issues other than major constitutional change.
Possible motions
This House calls for more use of the referendum.
This House believes that true democracy is direct democracy.
Related topics
Democracy
Voting, compulsory
Written constitution
Social movements: courts v. legislatures