-
A new politics: Direct democracy
My comment 21 May 09, 5:10pm
flex05, 21 May 09, 3:15pm wrote
"mjm I've read your material before and liked it.But I wonder why you and so many DD advocates focus on the passing of laws. As I said in my post above I think deciding the budget (this would need a special procedure as it is not just a sub-class of law) and the people in charge is just as, if not more, important than having a say in passing laws.
I say this as a civil servant who has seen the current system close up."
"The Initiative" can be used not only to (a) propose law but also to (b) change or re-write constitution (c) make a broad policy proposal (d) veto government law or policy.
Look, if we enable ourselves (how that can be done I won't discuss here) to use some tools of direct democracy then IMO these should be controlled by the people, i.e. *we* should decide if and when a direct democratic procedure shall occur. For instance it would be unwise to introduce *obligatory* plebiscite (= binding referendum) at the beginning. We should start with optional rather than obligatory instruments such as the initiative-proposal and the optional ("facultative") veto referendum.
Also it's probably better to start with the widely accepted "single issue" rule for plebiscite. In this way components of the budget, say spending in a particular political/ministerial area, could be addressed by citizen-led democracy.
It's worth noting that some polities, e.g. in USA and Switzerland, do have obligatory plebiscites on their entire annual budgets.
At our web site there is free material and links about the use of direct democracy, see http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
-
A new politics: Direct democracy
My comment 21 May 09, 2:48pm
It is good to read comments which approve or at least seriously consider citizen-led direct democracy (DD). Most people take this to mean partial DD -- we don't want to get rid of parties and parliaments, we just improve the system by starting to use democratic tools such as the optional veto-referendum and the citizens' law proposal ("initiative").
To get real reform will need an active movement, perhaps more like the Campaign for Real Ale than the Chartists .... ;-)
It will take some years to achieve success so if you want to keep in touch -- and maybe help out -- an educational and advocacy campaign, then please peruse and sign up at
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/Recommended (2)
-
Martin's resignation is a symbolic first step in the cleansing of parliament
My comment 20 May 09, 11:23am
There are many obvious improvements which could be made to our governance and democracy.
For instance there is strong public support, especially among "estranged" electors (people who do not vote in elections) for the introduction of citizen-led democracy. Well tried tools include the "initiative" (law-proposal) and the optional veto-referendum which can reverse or block unwanted law.
Reports about misconduct of ministers and MPs add weight to calls for the introduction of "The Recall" by which the electors of a constituency can sack (fire) their MP without having to wait for the next election.
More detail about these proposals may be found via http://www.iniref.org/
Regards,
Michael MacphersonRecommended (1)
-
Rome was not built in a day
My comment 10 Dec 08, 12:16pm
The Right to Participate
Passive rights such as protection from physical harm can better be maintained if citizens can effectively take part in democracy. Improvements could certainly be made in countries and cities of the UK as well as abroad.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 confirms our right to both direct and indirect democracy:
"Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."
Article 21 (1).The UK government recently stated that "This part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises that democracy can be exercised by electing representatives as part of a representative democratic system. It also makes clear that direct democracy can be part of a democratic system. The principle is that the will of the people is the basis for the authority of government." Communities in control: real people, real power. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, by Command of Her Majesty 9 July 2008
-------------------------Direct democracy enables the electorate to veto unwanted government laws, to make public proposals and to call a referendum by right.
How to introduce this in UK and the countries? See the web site below.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/ -
Necessary but not sufficient
My comment 17 Nov 08, 4:50pm
In the years between elections voters feel and are almost entirely powerless to influence politics, even if new events change the problems or manifesto promises are "forgotten". An infusion of direct democracy into our baroque parliamentary monarchy would be part of the cure which it needs.The Power Inquiry put forward a proposal: Citizens should be given the right to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies and their senior management http://www.jrrt.org.uk/PowertothePeople_001.pdf
With the "citizens' initiative" ideas and proposals which have been widely debated and filtered can be put to parliament. If rejected there, the matter must be put to the whole electorate for decision by ballot. Major reforms such as constitution and many international treaties should be subjected to obligatory, binding referendum.
This type of reform has been put forward by several groups in recent years, including the Power Inquiry, Charter88, Unlock Democracy and I&R ~ GB.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform -
Tories can be the true progressives now
My comment 11 Oct 08, 2:09pm
See our related comment on Tory localism and "direct democracy" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/electoralreform.toryconference Whistling in the wind.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/ -
Whistling in the wind
My comment 01 Oct 08, 4:36pm
The conservative "think tank" founded a few years ago named itself "direct democracy", exploiting a concept which has attracted growing interest and support in recent decades both in Britain and across the world. In western style democracies, the most widely applied forms of direct democracy are the "citizens' initiative" and the citizen-triggered referendum. With the "initiative", a person or group can put forward a proposal. If enough support can be shown by collecting a large, agreed number of voter endorsements (signatures), then the proposal must go to referendum. In the case of a law-proposal or veto, the referendum result resembles a decision of council or parliament and is legally binding on government and the rest of us. An intermediate step may allow parliament to debate the citizens' proposal. If rejected there, the proposal goes on to referendum.
If we had this well-tried sort governing then we could call a referendum on any subject in the competence of a local council, city council or central government.
Now, on the front (index) page of their web site "Direct Democracy", the authors who include the MP for Harwich D. Carswell, list their ten aims. Nowhere to be found is -- guess what -- direct democracy. They state "Decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect.". This is vague and certainly does not guarantee that if elected they will introduce direct democracy. They talk of "localism" -- giving more power to local government but they do not promise to give more power to the people (contrast this with recommendation 24 of the acclaimed Power Report into british democracy). It is no coincidence that the Tories have a strong power base locally, via government, land and property ownership and their business networks.
In other published articles Carswell has indeed put forward the idea of citizens' initiative. But it appears that he is suggesting only a very weak form of direct democracy, namely the "agenda setting" initiative-proposal. This he described in a bill (under the ten minute rule) which he introduced in the House of Commons this spring. Government is not obliged to heed this citizens' proposal (even though a huge number of endorsements are required). If parliament rejects the proposal NO referendum must be held. Also officials have the right to reject unwanted proposals of the electorate.
A second reading of this motion, which should be radically amended or thrown out, is due soon, in October.
Better proposals for citizens' direct democracy in UK and the countries may be found at the web site of I&R – GB,
PROPOSAL FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES IN GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND http://www.iniref.org/steps.html
Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland http://www.iniref.org/gb-debate-dd.html
Citizens and Direct Democracy: What chance of reform do the major UK political parties offer? http://www.iniref.org/CDD,ConLibDemLab.pdf
Douglas Carswell (Harwich) Hansard 30 Apr 2008 : Column 309
Citizens Initiative 12.43 pm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080430/debtext/80430-0004.htm#08043089000003Recommended (1)
-
Let the people have a say over bills in the Commons
My comment 29 Aug 08, 8:49am
In 2001 the Liberal Democrats' manifesto included a promise, if elected to rule, to introduce citizen-initiated referendum. In their 2005 manifesto there was no trace (confirmed by your researcher) of this most effective and well-tried form of democratic participation.
The veto referendum by which a large number of voters can attempt to block a law is to be welcomed.
Bridget Fox's article mentions that the Libdems will discuss what looks like Douglas Carswell's (Con., Harwich) proposal, introduced at Westminster, for the agenda-setting "initiative", which is really a glorified petition and may be ignored by parliament and government.
The Declaration of Human Rights, numerous recently drafted and some older state constitutions indicate that an electorate should be able to decide on pubic issues in addition to electing politicians. Shall we be allowed to decide only on those issues which our politicians (who work for us!) dictate to us?
The term direct democracy covers many concepts and to allow intelligent debate needs to be qualified. Our proposals refer to a clear concept which may be read here http://www.iniref.org/about.html
Dr. Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
-
Labour is bound to bypass the lessons of the 58ers
My comment 19 Aug 08, 12:03pm
Dear Polly Toynbee,
You write that there is "rock-solid research" about electoral reform but I know from our brief correspondence on this that you refer only to (party-) proportional representation for election of politicians. In elections we give away our vote every four or five years and (unless we are prominent journalists and their like) we have no more to say on public policy until the next election. No serious critic suggests replacing parties and parliaments by a process of frequent plebiscites (here: binding referenda). However, partial direct democracy, with the "citizens' initiative" (e.g. law proposal) and the citizen triggered veto-referendum, provides effective and empowering ways for people to take part in running their own (public) affairs.
We can show research evidence as well as common sense argument which support the introduction of more direct democracy. For instance, a recent survey of people who had abstained from voting at the previous general election showed strong support for statements like "A large number of citizens should be able to trigger a referendum on a public issue". Other research has shown that, where there is more citizens' direct democracy: People are better informed about politics; There is greater willingness to accept public responsibility by paying taxes; People are happier with their lives!
I bet that in the planned government (publicly) funded social research to which you refer, questions about citizens' direct democracy will be excluded or censored out.
More about citizens' direct democracy may be found at I&R ~ GB http://www.iniref.org/
Regards,
Michael Macpherson
Dr. Michael Macpherson
Psycho-Social and Medical Research PSAMRA ~ Integral Studies
Guildford, Surrey
Recommended (2)
-
The trouble with iPod democracy
My comment 13 Jul 08, 12:32pm
Most of the measures suggested in "Communities in control:
real people, real power, July 2008" resemble reality show games. There seem to be no proposals which would strengthen democracy. What is good democracy? There is plenty of it in other countries. For the Power Inquiry a political scientist reviewed "57 varieties" of democratic participation in politics and came to the conclusion that the most effective methods are (1) direct democracy such as citizens' law proposal and veto-referendum (2) assemblies of citizens to produce proposals about public policy, such as electoral system or bill of rights. More about proposals for citizens' direct democracy may be found at http://www.iniref.org/
There is a multi-party bandwagon calling for various forms of "localism", to (supposedly or in fact) devolve power from central to local government. (This show helps to distract attention from deficits in democracy.) A rarely stated but correct principle is that shifting power from one level of government to another is a matter of *public constitution*. Public law of this sort must, in a democracy, be widely debated and then finally decided upon by the electorate. A binding, country referendum should be held.
I&R ~ GB: Comments