Critically
discuss the pros and cons of using referendums to make decisions in a
democracy.
The term democracy is perhaps the most challenging to
define within the context of political science. Even though it has been used in
a general sense to refer to 'rule by the people', the ways in which the concept
has been understood and in turn implemented, has been many varied. One defining
source suggests that democracy is "a form of government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people an exercised directly by them or by their
elected agents under a free electoral system". Similar definitions
describe democracy as "a government in which the people have a voice in
the exercise of power, typically through representatives "(Oxford, 1999) and
in so doing minimise the importance of civil liberties and the power of the
people outside of the regular election process.
In light
of the foregoing, one acknowledges that different ideas about what 'true
democracy' is may lead to different forms of democracy. A democracy may thus be Representative where
political participation is limited to voting over an agreed period of time and
elected officials then represent the interest of their constituents. It may also be the Participatory type in
which voting is limited to a specific time period, but allowance is also made
for the population to participate actively in the affairs of the state at
national and local levels in between these periods. Alternatively, a Direct Democracy
may be in effect whereby the participation of citizens in the voting process
and the control which they have over those chosen to represent them holds much
weight.
Of
interest is the participatory or direct form of democracy particularly as it
concerns the use of practices, which seek to involve popular discussion. One
such noteworthy measure is a referendum. This is the "means whereby a bill
or constitutional amendment which has been voted by the legislature is
submitted to the electorate for its approval before going into effect". It gives individuals of a nation the freedom
and to vote on specific issues of concern to them and it is in this respect
that the "power of the people" is strongest. In recognition of that
fact "many democracies that would not accept regular use of referendums do
use them for decisions of great gravity, where it is felt that all the people
should be involved in the decision, if only by voting"(156; Shively, W.
Phillips).
David
Butler in commenting on referendum use around the world suggests that there are
two types of referendums: "advisory or mandatory". Advisory
referendums are comparable to opinion polls on a significant issue with the
exception that the "verdict can be transmitted into law or
policy"(1). Conversely, a referendum may be a part of a statutory process and
as such a popular YES vote is needed to effect any change in the law or
constitution.
Referendums
over the years have been used to decide issues of a constitutional nature,
territorial issues, moral issues and other issues usually apolitical. The effect of referendums therefore is far
reaching, as they are able to provide legitimacy for a government; settle
border issues; decide on laws governing alcohol, divorce and abortion; and even
decide on whether to adopt Daylight Saving Time.
Regardless
of its use governments the world over have not underestimated the powerful
effect of referendums. Such attention however, leaves its use open to much
praise and considerable criticism.
Advocates of referendum use, point to the benefits of involving and
ideally educating citizens in the political process above and beyond elections
as well as the fact that as a forum for the expression of popular will,
referendums presumably provide decisive answers to issues. An additional positive factor in the use of
referendums is it's stimulation of interest in politics, in contrast to the
prevailing apathy and mistrust of the government, politicians and the political
process; as persons would actually have a say in decision-making.
Negative
perceptions of referendums arise from the following misconceptions:
a) Referendums are habit forming
b) Referendums are normally decided by a close vote
c) Referendums are instruments for radical change
The public
likes referendums. Opponents of the practice say that referendums are inherently
divisive, cleaving a society into two (2) camps: yes or no. As a result the exercise in winning over
votes often takes precedence over educating citizens about issues at hand. Further, they say that the environments in
which referendums are used are characterised by appeals to emotion,
sloganeering and fear tactics. Other
objections concern the idea that modern issues are too complex to be
effectively answered with yes or no, rather, there is a need for substantial
debate and compromise. Perhaps the
strongest of contentions come from the idea that referendums undermine the
power which people already give to their elected representatives.
The job of
a government is necessarily long term. It is right that once the people have
given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long-term
aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular
in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only
fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does
indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.
Likewise it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social
legislation. Although the vast majority of UK citizens are now in favour of the
legalisation of homosexuality, the opposite was true when it was legalised.
This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not
delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776)
and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet
the people’s wishes.
It is possible to avoid freakish results by only allowing a
referendum to be valid if a certain percentage of the population votes, say
30%.
If there
is no turnout threshold for a referendum to be valid then freakish results
occur. If the threshold is too high then no referendum will ever be valid!
People are
currently bored with politics. The last thing they want is more votes. This
will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general
elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to
ignite any noticeable interest among its people.
There
would clearly need to be an independent body to oversee referendums and set the
question - this is easily possible. It could be done by the same authority as
oversee general elections and in almost all democracies these authorities are
acknowledged by all as fair and unbiased.
Referendums
are very artificial. The government can control the timing, which is a key
factor in deciding who wins. The media, by playing an irresponsible role, can
further distort the result. Furthermore, how should the all-important wording
of the question decided upon? Referendums are also very expensive and a huge
waste of money.
Many
countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of
opinion between these parties. Consequently, large sectors of the public find
their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this.