I attended a debate this evening, organised by the Hansard Society, on referendums. There were two speakers in favour of their use – former Cabinet minister and now independent MP Clare Short and Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne. Speaking against were Conservative MP David Curry and Steve Richards from The Independent. David Butler, the doyen of election experts, took a middle view, though admitted he leaned towards the view taken by Steve Richards.
Clare Short said she was drawn to the idea of popular initiative, allowing citizens to trigger referendums. Chris Hune favoured the Swiss system, which was somehat more deliberative than the California system. He accepted that people could hold two contradictory opinions at the same time and that this could result in the sort of problem generated by referendums in California, with people voting to increase public expenditure in one referendum and for tax cuts in another. On Swiss referendums, David Butler noted that they generated some of the lowest turnouts in the world. He also touched upon a point I raised in response to comments on my earlier post: we don’t know why people vote the way they do.
David Curry described referendums as ‘the landfill of democracy’, where unwanted rubbish was piled. He thought they were clumsy, imprecise tools. However, perhaps the most interesting comments came from Steve Richards. He said referendums do not resolve issues. He pointed out that the 1975 referendum, initiated by a Labour Government, was supposed to decide the issue of our membership of the European Community, yet within five years of the ‘yes’ vote Labour was committed to withdrawal from the EC. He also argued that they do not assist debate but rather have been used to achieve the opposite: parties have promised them as a way of avoiding debate, especially within their own ranks.
The point was also made that people who advocate a referendum on a particular issue tend to do so because they think they can win it. Their enthusiasm tends to wane if it is on an issue they think they will lose – the example of a referendum on capital punishment was cited.
There is an important debate to be had at the level of basic principle – I am opposed in principle to the use of referendums – but what we heard this evening were some powerful practical arguments against their use.
Speaking from California, I would like to clarify that there is a difference between the initiative power and the referendum power. What you are discussing seems to be the initiative power.
While your usage is clear to you, you might want to at least be aware of the differences between the two: after all, if you approve one, surely the next call will be for the other. (And then there’s the recall power, the third in the trio of the late-nineteenth/early twentieth century reforms of the political process: it authorizes the process (another petition) of forcing a vote as to whether a sitting (elected) member of a legislative body should be allowed to complete his/her term.)
Under the referendum power, the people can, by petition, call for a vote of the people on whether or not a recent enactment by the legislative body (state, county, or local) should, in fact, become effective. If enough valid signatures are gathered in a very-tight time period, the enactment does not go into effect until it is approved by a majority of the voters at an election. Referendums are rare.
Under the initiative power, the people can, by petition, call for the enactment by the legislative body of a law (or ordinance,) the specific wording of which is part of the petition. If enough valid signatures are gathered within a more-generous time period than for a referendum, then the legislative body can either enact the law/ordinance, or place it on the ballot for a vote by the public. It is unusual for a legislative body to enact the suggested wording.
The more controversial initiatives that are approved are often then challenged in court as unconsitutional. The courts are free to so decide, thus invalidating the measure enacted by the voters, with predictable outrage by those who voted for the measure.
As a person brought up to believe that a failure to vote in every election probably condemns one to an after-death hell of endless political speeches, or something worse (maybe endless political advertisements on tv?)I continue to vote regularly, but now refuse to sign all petitions as I am quite tired of voting on initiatives.
Thanks for clarifying, marianariasrabibliotecaria. That was interesting to read.
I wish I had attended the debate on referendums, Lord Norton, but unfortunately I did not book in time and I had other plans. I agree with what you say though – they don’t encourage debate, only shunt it off. And even then, it doesn’t solve the issue, as you rightly point out Labour’s U-turn on the EC.
It makes me wonder what would happen in Australia if they had another referendum on retention of the monarchy and the republicans won (heaven forbid) – would they permit another referendum a few years down the line on reversing the decision? I very much doubt it.
Lord Norton, I agree with the observation that advocates of a referendum are mostly those persons that think they can win one. I’m a Dutchman and we had a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty back in 2005. I campaigned vigorously in favour of the CT, but the vote went massively the other way. Now, with the Lisbon Treaty, our parliament is ratifying it without holding a referendum, because the government of the day believes that the objections of the people to the CT are removed because the Flag and Anthem are removed from the text.
Of course this is a strange way of reasoning and a limited interpretation of the no-vote. Members of the no-campaign were for instance the Socialist Party (because the EU promoted free-market), the Dutch Reformist Party (because God was not mentioned in the Treaty and they believe in a Theocratic State), the Animal Party (because the CT gave insufficient protection of Animal Rights) and the Party for Liberty (because the possible accession of Turkey and the immigration of workers).
This goes to show how difficult it is to interpret the earlier no-vote and a referendum in general. Therefore I totally agree with your basic observation that referendums should not be held, but that parliament should decide (the Dutch Parliament is in the process of ratifying, waiting for the senate’s approval). However, the difficulty is, that is hard to see why we cannot have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, since the consolidated version of this Treaty once implemented (if that ever happens), is almost identical to the CT. No wonder there is a increasing gap between politicians and the public at large.
Regarding the low turnout for referenda, I note that the attendance in the House of Commons just before the Hansard meeting was very low, I would guess less than 30. In my local council ward elections turnout is about 20%. When a referendum issue is of importance to a lot of people, the turnout will be high. If I am undecided or impartial on a particular issue I would abstain by not voting, but at least I would have had the opportunity to vote.
The discussion on referenda often revolves around the possible decisions that would be made. This is the same process as the arguments over giving women the vote and before that giving working class men the vote – would they make the right decisions?
We now take it for granted that everyone should have the right to vote – it is a fundamental human right. But restricting it to one vote every four years for a representative to make all the decisions for us makes it totally useless – my vote cannot influence any decisions so I don’t vote.
Representation and referenda have lots of difficulties, but both are necessary.
marianariasrabibliotecaria: Thanks for a very helpful comment. The two types you identify are essentially sub-sets of what we would term an initiative, that is, where the determination for a popular vote on an issue derives from the people (bottom-up determination) rather than from the legislature (top-down). In the UK, there is no provision for the former. Any referendum has to be provided for by Parliament through legislation.
David: I think your concluding observation touches upon an important problem. I am against referendums on principle. However, there are obvious problems if a party or government which is not against on principle actually holds out the prospect of one and then does not deliver. If a referendum is held on the European constitutional treaty, then it is possible to argue that one should be held on the Lisbon Treaty. You either have a referendum on neither or on both. That is a perfectly legitimate line to take.
Jim McGlynn: I appreciate the point you make, though in practice turnout for elections of candidates tends to be higher than turnout in referendums. That was one of the findings from the study by Austin Ranney and David Butler of the 800+ national referendums held in the history of the world. (I gather from David Butler that the figure is now closer to 1,000.) Turnout in referendums, even on major issues, is not as great as you appear to think. Look at experience in the UK. Was not devolution a major issue in Scotland and in Wales, but what was the turnout in the referendums? It was 60.4% in Scotland and 50% in Wales. In Wales, the ‘yes’ vote only just edged the ‘no’ vote. A National Assembly was created on the vote of 25% of Welsh electors.
The Welsh vote also illustrates the point I have previously made and which David refers to: we don’t know why people vote the way they do. Did those Welsh voters who voted ‘no’ do so because they felt the proposals for a Welsh Assembly went too far (they didn’t want an assembly) or did not go far enough (they wanted a parliament on the Scottish model)? The Welsh referendum also illustrates the point about the implications of unequal resources in a referendum campaign. The ‘no’ campaign almost won, yet was run – as I understand it – on a shoe-string budget.
Dr. Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
Hansard Society sponsored meeting, House of Commons, 17th June 2008
Referendums: What are they good for (1)
Some reported remarks are taken from Lord Norton’s blog (2)
Clare Short made two very important points, firstly favouring “the idea of popular initiative, allowing citizens to trigger referendums and secondly “that referendums are an essential tool to be used to help reinvigorate an alienated public dissatisfied with current political arrangements that they often feel are damaging British democracy.”
By pointing to initiative and referendum (I and R) Ms. Short clarifies and corrects this Hansard Society debate about referendum in a most helpful manner. The other speakers, except perhaps C. Huhne, appear to have given little consideration to the essential difference between plebiscite imposed by an authority on the one hand, and proposal plus referendum demanded and pushed through by a large number of citizens on the other. As well as allowing correction of government in the periods between elections (with the “brake” of veto referendum), I and R allow creative proposals to be filtered and then pushed onto the public agenda for information and debate.
For Dr David Butler “referendums had a part to play on issues of ethical importance and boarder disputes, but could not deal with the often complicated nature of political debate”.
In his opinion that electorates cannot deal with “complicated” public affairs he ignores much contrary evidence. Research with randomly selected groups of citizens has shown that if supplied with information and opportunity to debate then most people can grasp political issues. More importantly here, “real life” experience of referenda has shown that citizens with access to direct democracy learn to grapple with complexity and that on featured issues they may become better informed than members of parliament (e.g. Denmark at the time of the referendum about the Maastricht treaty). Presumably, amusingly you misreport Dr. Butler in the matter of “boarder disputes” – was this about democracy in his prep-school?
Steve Richards (The Independent Newspaper) said that parties have promised (referenda) as a way of avoiding debate, especially within their own ranks. We can add that governments have promised referenda as a way to win votes, only to later refuse for reasons of their own, recently about our electoral system, the Euro currency and the EU constitution. Referenda in which the government of the day writes the questions, makes the rules and sets the timing can often serve to harm democracy. For these reasons we propose that referenda should usually be initiated by an agreed large number of voters, citizen-initiated referenda, rather than by a ruling authority.
We welcome support for Swiss-style citizens’ democracy expressed by the senior Lib-Dem politician Chris Huhne. Presumably in his Party he is in a minority. In 2001 the Lib-Dem manifesto contained a promise to introduce citizens’ initiative referendum. Perhaps sniffing some electoral success, the Party dropped this promise from their 2005 manifesto and subsequently did little to promote this vital and publicly desired reform. Huhne expresses concern about inconsistent ballot results in the USA. Recent research has shown that this sort of problem is very rare and that criticism of the majority decision on Proposition 13 (about property taxes) was wildly exaggerated. In any event, with the more deliberative democratic methods to be found in Europe, ill-considered plebiscite decisions are even less likely. (Compare the broad proposal of I&R ~GB and several recent proposals of other groups based in UK (3)).
References, background
Citizens’ direct democracy: background http://www.iniref.org/learn.html Debate and News http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
1. Referendums: What are they good for http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/recent_events/archive/2008/06/18/referendum.aspx
2. http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/referendum-debate/
3. Preliminary Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland http://www.iniref.org/gb-debate-dd.html
To many Australians who follow politics, at home and abroad, the debate on the merits of referendums and plebiscites appears somewhat jejune.
Australia has used referendums for constitutional questions – and plebiscites for questions that are non-constitutional but of significant public importance, for over 100 years.
This is not thought to detract one iota from, or conflict at all with, our system of responsible, democratic government. Rather, it is seen to be part of and enhance, a system in which ultimate authority and power resides with “the people” – as the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia clearly states and implies.
The Australian constitution even takes it so far as, that when an executive is unable to obtain appropriation, because the Senate (upper house) refuses the appropriation, after a period of time, the matter can be referred to the people via a double dissolution. They decide in a type of national plebiscite.
I know it sounds chaotic, but it is not. We have never had a civil war; we have economic prosperity and we are profoundly democratic. It works: the combination of responsible, parliamentary democracy, inherited from the UK, combined with direct democracy has produced a stable, effective system that holds to account those who administer public affairs and for hte most part do what is in the public interest. Or else (the or else being the ballot box, not the gun.)
The legal basis is that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia was adopted through a series of plebiscites in the 1890s in the the Australasian colonies, which formed the original states of the Commonwealth. The Constitution as adopted, provides for only one way for its alteration – referendum (sec. 128), although the State can refer powers to the Commonwealth, which is a type of alteration.
The Constitution then was approved – as was required – by the then imperial parliament (Westminster) and signed into law by the Queen (Victoria) on 9 July, 1900. It was well known at the time, that when Victoria signed the Bill into law, that the imperial parliament would lose all control over the Commonwealth – though this was fiercely debated; but the law was clear – as sec. 128 provided – and when signed, Australia was cast adrift legally from the UK parliament. It too another 86 years to sever ties to the Privy Council. [Other laws set out the conduct of referenda – compulsory turnout; equal time for yes and no sides and so on.]
The purpose of this long disquisition is that people should not fear referendums or plebiscites (they are different creatures). They are part of the democratic process. And people who debate the merits of plebiscites and referendums should go beyond the slogans and rhetoric and look at these practices in action in mature democracies.
(Part 1, 20th June)
Dr. Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
Hansard Society sponsored meeting, House of Commons, 17th June 2008
Referendums: What are they good for (1)
Some reported remarks are taken from Lord Norton’s blog (2)
Clare Short made two very important points, firstly favouring “the idea of popular initiative, allowing citizens to trigger referendums and secondly “that referendums are an essential tool to be used to help reinvigorate an alienated public dissatisfied with current political arrangements that they often feel are damaging British democracy.”
By pointing to initiative and referendum (I and R) Ms. Short clarifies and corrects this Hansard Society debate about referendum in a most helpful manner. The other speakers, except perhaps C. Huhne, appear to have given little consideration to the essential difference between plebiscite imposed by an authority on the one hand, and proposal plus referendum demanded and pushed through by a large number of citizens on the other. As well as allowing correction of government in the periods between elections (with the “brake” of veto referendum), I and R allow creative proposals to be filtered and then pushed onto the public agenda for information and debate.
For Dr David Butler “referendums had a part to play on issues of ethical importance and boarder disputes, but could not deal with the often complicated nature of political debate”.
In his opinion that electorates cannot deal with “complicated” public affairs he ignores much contrary evidence. Research with randomly selected groups of citizens has shown that if supplied with information and opportunity to debate then most people can grasp political issues. More importantly here, “real life” experience of referenda has shown that citizens with access to direct democracy learn to grapple with complexity and that on featured issues they may become better informed than members of parliament (e.g. Denmark at the time of the referendum about the Maastricht treaty). Presumably, amusingly you misreport Dr. Butler in the matter of “boarder disputes” – was this about democracy in his prep-school?
Peri. I don’t have any particular fear of referendums. I just do no find them as valuable tools for enhancing deliberative democracy. They are blunt mechanisms that can, in some circumstances, be damaging. The fact that Australia holds them does not of itself mean that they contribute to it being a stable democracy. There are plenty of stable democracies that do not hold them. The position in Australia is complicated by the fact that, as you mention, turnout is compulsory. This raises important questions in itself.
IandR: As I have mentioned before, my views on referendums do not derive from perceptions as to the ability of people to grasp the complexity of issues. The problem is not the people but the mechanism.
Part 2 of 2, 21st June
Steve Richards (The Independent Newspaper) said that parties have promised (referenda) as a way of avoiding debate, especially within their own ranks. We can add that governments have promised referenda as a way to win votes, only to later refuse for reasons of their own, recently about our electoral system, the Euro currency and the EU constitution. Referenda in which the government of the day writes the questions, makes the rules and sets the timing can often serve to harm democracy. For these reasons we propose that referenda should usually be initiated by an agreed large number of voters, citizen-initiated referenda, rather than by a ruling authority.
We welcome support for Swiss-style citizens’ democracy expressed by the senior Lib-Dem politician Chris Huhne. Presumably in his Party he is in a minority. In 2001 the Lib-Dem manifesto contained a promise to introduce citizens’ initiative referendum. Perhaps sniffing some electoral success, the Party dropped this promise from their 2005 manifesto and subsequently did little to promote this vital and publicly desired reform. Huhne expresses concern about inconsistent ballot results in the USA. Recent research has shown that this sort of problem is very rare and that criticism of the majority decision on Proposition 13 (about property taxes in California) was wildly exaggerated. In any event, with the more deliberative democratic methods to be found in Europe, ill-considered plebiscite decisions are even less likely. (Compare the broad proposal of I&R ~GB and several recent proposals of other groups based in UK (3)).
References, background
Citizens’ direct democracy: background http://www.iniref.org/learn.html Debate and News http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
1. Referendums: What are they good for http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/recent_events/archive/2008/06/18/referendum.aspx
2. http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/referendum-debate/
3. Preliminary Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland http://www.iniref.org/gb-debate-dd.html
So I suppose the alternative is also true. The government will refuse to hold a referendum for something they know they’ll lose. Like the Lisbon Treaty.
And since this treaty is being pushed so much by France and Germany, it reminds me of the old saying “The pen is mightier than the sword”. They failed with the sword, so are now using the pen.
As long as a government denies it’s electors the right to decide on major issues, through referenda, the demand for referanda will be great.
Once we have the right to vote on what we perceive as major issues, our interest will wane very quickly and we will pose the question
“Why are you asking me to make this decision ………. what do we have politicians for?”
Personally, I favour a referendum on everything pertaining to Britains relationship with the EU. It is a corrupt body of unelected officials who need to be kept in check. The power of a referendum is the only way we can have any influence over these people at this point in time.
David Ashworth: the evidence is that people actually lose interest in the stage between being asked ‘would you support a referendum on issue x?’ and actually voting in a referendum on issue x.
Incidentally, it is more appropriate to refer to referendums rather than referenda. Referendum is a rare Latin gerund for which there is no plural in Latin.