Referendum
Terminology
The terms referendum and plebiscite are often used interchangeably but the term plebiscite is usually preferred in circumstance in which a decision is being made on fundamental issues of sovereignty, such as in determining national borders or adopting a new constitution. Plebiscite is also often the term used to describe a direct vote held by a dictator or an undemocratic regime, in circumstances in which a free and fair vote is impossible.
The term referendum is usually preferred to describe routine votes held in liberal democracies. Thus the direct vote that adopted the constitution of the modern Republic of Ireland is referred to as a 'plebiscite' while every subsequent such direct vote has been described as a 'referendum'.
Procedure and status
Referendums may be either binding or non-binding. A non-binding referendum is merely consultative or advisory. It is left to the government or legislature to interpret the results of a non-binding referendum and it may even choose to ignore them. Nonetheless, actual political circumstances in countries that hold non-binding referendums are such that the results of such a referendum are usually honoured. In contrast, a number of nations permit binding referendums in which the result is legally enforceable.
A foundational referendum or plebiscite may be drafted by a constituent assembly before being put to voters. In other circumstances a referendum is usually initiated either by a legislature or by citizens themselves by means of a petition. The process of initiating a referendum by petition is known as the popular or citizen's initiative. In the United States the term referendum is often reserved for a direct vote initiated by a legislature while a vote originating in a petition of citizens is referred to as an 'initiative', 'ballot measure' or 'proposition'.
In countries in which a referendum must be initiated by parliament it is sometimes mandatory to hold a binding referendum on certain proposals, such as constitutional amendments. In countries, such as the United Kingdom, in which referendums are neither mandatory nor binding there may, nonetheless, exist an unwritten convention that certain important constitutional changes will be put to a referendum and that the result will be respected.
In most referendums it is sufficient for a measure to be approved by a simple majority of voters in order for it to be carried. However a referendum may also require the support of a super-majority, such as two-thirds of votes cast. In Lithuania certain proposals must be endorsed by a three-quarters majority.
In some countries there is also a requirement that there be a certain minimum turn-out of the electorate in order for the result of a referendum to be considered valid. This is intended to ensure that the result is representative of the will of the electorate and is analogous to the quorum required in a committee or legislature. An alternative is to insist on a certain minimum absolute number of yes votes before a measure can be deemed to have been carried--or of no votes if it is to be deemed vetoed.
Criticisms
Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in practice, in modern times, the referendum exists solely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are taken by an elected legislature.
Furthermore, with the exception of Switzerland, in most jurisdictions that practice them referendums are relatively rare occurrences and are restricted to issues of major importance.
Nonetheless the referendum is sometimes the subject of controversy.
Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of political elites and determined directly by the people. Some adopt a strict definition of democracy in which elected parliaments are merely a necessary expedient needed to make governance possible in the large, modern nation-state; direct democracy is nonetheless preferable and so a referendum must always take preference over a decision of parliament.
Other advocates insist that the principle of popular sovereignty demands that certain foundational questions, such as the adoption or amendment of a constitution, the secession of a state or the altering of national boundaries, be determined with the directly expressed consent of the people.
Criticisms from representative democracy
Opponents of the referendum argue that representative democracy is superior to direct democracy. As often conceived by such opponents, representative democracy is a system in which elected officials are the exercisers of independent judgement rather than merely delegates bound to robotically carry out the wishes of voters.
Some opponents therefore insist that the referendum is used by politicians as a way of abrogating responsibility in the taking of difficult or controversial decisions.
It is also argued that voters in a referendum may be driven by transient whims rather than careful deliberation, or that they may not be sufficiently well informed to take decisions on complicated or technical issues.
Voters might furthermore be swayed by strong personalities, or the adverse influence of propaganda or expensive advertising campaigns. Some argue that tools such as the referendum may lead to the "tyranny of the majority" and to the erosion of the rights of individuals and minorities.
Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to clothe oppressive policies in a veneer of legitimacy. Hitler's use of the plebiscite is one reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.
Many of the arguments used by those who oppose the referendum are summarised in the following comment made in an interview in 2003 by the British politician Chris Patten concerning the possibility of a referendum in the UK on the European Union Constitution:
I think referendums are awful.. they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster [parliament]. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is if you have a referendum on an issue politicians during an election campaign say oh we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum. So during the last election campaign the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak (BBC, 2004).
The terms referendum and plebiscite are often used interchangeably but the term plebiscite is usually preferred in circumstance in which a decision is being made on fundamental issues of sovereignty, such as in determining national borders or adopting a new constitution. Plebiscite is also often the term used to describe a direct vote held by a dictator or an undemocratic regime, in circumstances in which a free and fair vote is impossible.
The term referendum is usually preferred to describe routine votes held in liberal democracies. Thus the direct vote that adopted the constitution of the modern Republic of Ireland is referred to as a 'plebiscite' while every subsequent such direct vote has been described as a 'referendum'.
Procedure and status
Referendums may be either binding or non-binding. A non-binding referendum is merely consultative or advisory. It is left to the government or legislature to interpret the results of a non-binding referendum and it may even choose to ignore them. Nonetheless, actual political circumstances in countries that hold non-binding referendums are such that the results of such a referendum are usually honoured. In contrast, a number of nations permit binding referendums in which the result is legally enforceable.
A foundational referendum or plebiscite may be drafted by a constituent assembly before being put to voters. In other circumstances a referendum is usually initiated either by a legislature or by citizens themselves by means of a petition. The process of initiating a referendum by petition is known as the popular or citizen's initiative. In the United States the term referendum is often reserved for a direct vote initiated by a legislature while a vote originating in a petition of citizens is referred to as an 'initiative', 'ballot measure' or 'proposition'.
In countries in which a referendum must be initiated by parliament it is sometimes mandatory to hold a binding referendum on certain proposals, such as constitutional amendments. In countries, such as the United Kingdom, in which referendums are neither mandatory nor binding there may, nonetheless, exist an unwritten convention that certain important constitutional changes will be put to a referendum and that the result will be respected.
In most referendums it is sufficient for a measure to be approved by a simple majority of voters in order for it to be carried. However a referendum may also require the support of a super-majority, such as two-thirds of votes cast. In Lithuania certain proposals must be endorsed by a three-quarters majority.
In some countries there is also a requirement that there be a certain minimum turn-out of the electorate in order for the result of a referendum to be considered valid. This is intended to ensure that the result is representative of the will of the electorate and is analogous to the quorum required in a committee or legislature. An alternative is to insist on a certain minimum absolute number of yes votes before a measure can be deemed to have been carried--or of no votes if it is to be deemed vetoed.
Criticisms
Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in practice, in modern times, the referendum exists solely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are taken by an elected legislature.
Furthermore, with the exception of Switzerland, in most jurisdictions that practice them referendums are relatively rare occurrences and are restricted to issues of major importance.
Nonetheless the referendum is sometimes the subject of controversy.
Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of political elites and determined directly by the people. Some adopt a strict definition of democracy in which elected parliaments are merely a necessary expedient needed to make governance possible in the large, modern nation-state; direct democracy is nonetheless preferable and so a referendum must always take preference over a decision of parliament.
Other advocates insist that the principle of popular sovereignty demands that certain foundational questions, such as the adoption or amendment of a constitution, the secession of a state or the altering of national boundaries, be determined with the directly expressed consent of the people.
Criticisms from representative democracy
Opponents of the referendum argue that representative democracy is superior to direct democracy. As often conceived by such opponents, representative democracy is a system in which elected officials are the exercisers of independent judgement rather than merely delegates bound to robotically carry out the wishes of voters.
Some opponents therefore insist that the referendum is used by politicians as a way of abrogating responsibility in the taking of difficult or controversial decisions.
It is also argued that voters in a referendum may be driven by transient whims rather than careful deliberation, or that they may not be sufficiently well informed to take decisions on complicated or technical issues.
Voters might furthermore be swayed by strong personalities, or the adverse influence of propaganda or expensive advertising campaigns. Some argue that tools such as the referendum may lead to the "tyranny of the majority" and to the erosion of the rights of individuals and minorities.
Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to clothe oppressive policies in a veneer of legitimacy. Hitler's use of the plebiscite is one reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.
Many of the arguments used by those who oppose the referendum are summarised in the following comment made in an interview in 2003 by the British politician Chris Patten concerning the possibility of a referendum in the UK on the European Union Constitution:
I think referendums are awful.. they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster [parliament]. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is if you have a referendum on an issue politicians during an election campaign say oh we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum. So during the last election campaign the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak (BBC, 2004).
posted by Roy Evers at 8:42 PM
0 comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home