You have recently commented on:
-
Energy policy: Atomic dreams
My comment 10 Nov 09, 11:33am
Your editor wrote:
"The new planning process is already controversial and will become more so once it swings into full operation next year. Decisions will be taken quickly and once made cannot be overturned by ministers (a point the Conservatives intend to change). There are promises of consultation, but no right of veto for local people on big projects."Not only is there NO right of veto for local people, there is no right of veto for the electorate. The British people have no democratic means to block a bad law or government policy.
We give away our vote to a party and candidate once every five years and after that we have nothing to say about what the government does. Sure, after five or so years we can "throw the blighters out" but it is likely that in many policy areas the new lot will follow very similar lines.
If We The People took for ourselves the right to referendum, then we could veto unwanted policy about specific public issues. This type of partial direct democracy has operated for many years in Italy, Switzerland and more recently in all Lands of Germany. A reasonably large number of voter-endorsements must be collected in order to trigger this procedure.
Generations to come will be affected by a decision to massively build nuclear power stations. The public must be informed about previous nuclear disasters at Calder Hall, Harrisburg, Chernobyl and elsewhere, and about the technical and environmental problems which for new installations remain unsolved. It should be possible to call a referendum on this and for instance, on new laws which give greater powers to central government.
More about citizen-led democracy may be found via
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm
http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.htmlRecommended (4)
-
A new politics: How to give power away
My comment 19 Oct 09, 10:29am
Two cheers that our O So trustworthy elected representatives have been able to re-assert their authority. What about We The People? Seldom an elite comment on our constitution and governance which omits a swipe at "direct democracy". Do you equate this with Twitter and Petition the Prime Minister? No serious reformer suggests that we abolish the indirect democracy of parties and parliaments but there are very good ways to enable more effective participation of the electorate beyond improving (or as apparently intended by Jack Straw & co, fiddling with) our electoral system. A beauty of citizen-led direct democracy is that it allows our governance improved checks, balance and creative input also in the periods between elections. The veto-referendum may be used to stop a bad or unwanted law proposed or recently passed (e.g. subsidising nuclear electricity?). The recall initiative allows incompetent or corrupt MPs to be sacked and replaced. The "initiative", such as a law proposal, allows any person or group to put a serious proposal onto the public agenda. If the proposal gathers massive support, then it will be put to the whole electorate for plebiscitary decision.
See NEWS at http://www.iniref.org/ir+r09october.html
I&R ~ GB
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
http://www.iniref.org/Recommended (1)
-
Back to the same old Ukania, with a muddle in place of a constitution
My comment 15 Oct 09, 12:05pm
Long before the Telegraph's exposure (2008) of expenses abuse by UK members of parliament, there was widespread and deep public dissatisfaction, not only with our politicians but also with the system of government and our democracy. These new revelations of MPs' fiddling, greed and even dishonesty made many people angry and pushed prominent politicians, once again, to make promises of reform, promises which we know from experience they will not keep.
Critics have identified numerous areas of public governance which are in urgent need of reform, for instance the way we elect our MPs, the power of parliament to elect and control government, local government powers and our relationship to the European Union. This list could go on. All of this can seem overwhelming, not only to the average citizen but also to experts and members of the government. Where on earth should we start? Who -- which persons, groups or organisations -- should decide which are the areas of priority and who should work out and formulate the proposals for reform? Should we continue as hitherto to reform our constitution of state by de facto decree of a single government, as has been done before?
Most of the areas of public governance to which we refer above would in many if not most comparable countries be seen as matters of state constitution. In the UK there is no clear concept of constitution and no distinction between "ordinary" law and constitutional law. A single government acting on a vague (if any) electoral mandate can change constitution which may have been in force for hundreds of years by pushing a law through parliament with a majority of one vote, law which will likely endure for decades at least. To date no serious attempt has been made to involve the electorate in consideration of such changes.
In almost all modern states there is a clear distinction between constitutional and other law. Commonly, it is more difficult to change constitution. For instance, a "super-majority" of elected representatives may be required and an indication of regional consensus needed. These measures serve to indicate how importantly constitution is regarded. There are very good reasons to distinguish constitutional from other law and to treat it with more care.
For decades, across the world, it has been accepted and practised that only an electorate -- The People -- may enact a state constitution. In many countries, a number of them in Europe, NO change can be made to state constitution unless (a) the electorate has been informed and consulted (b) a broad and extended public debate has been enabled and organised (c) a referendum (plebiscite) has been held for the final decision.
In conclusion two aspects will be selected and the reason for their importance briefly explained.
Firstly, a constitution of state. The People should act to give themselves a charter or group of laws ("constitution") which defines the role of citizens and their relationships with political representatives, parliament, government, judiciary, aristocracy and monarchy. First principles of the new constitution should make clear that: All power in the country and state belongs to the people. In a prominent position should appear a statement that power shall be exercised by the People in ballots and elections; in other words plebiscites by which they decide on public issues in addition to electing persons to represent them in parliaments and councils.
A crucial question remains, namely, how can we make ourselves a modern constitution when the "constitution" and related tradition which we appear to possess provide no suitable tools for the job? Given the essential and fundamental role played and to be played by electorates in making and changing modern constitution (see above), it appears most urgent that we should give ourselves the instruments of citizen-led democracy in order, as a people, to make, re-write and modernise our state constitution. The principles behind the citizens' law proposal, veto-referendum and citizen-initiated plebiscite flow directly from the (denied by some) reality that "All power in the country and state belongs to the people". We could introduce guiding regulations to enable citizen-led democracy while at the same time extensively promoting public information and deliberation about renewing our constitution. A rapid learning process would be expected, leading to a discourse enriched by the acquisition of long-denied democratic rights. The electorate could then decide on constitution-building, perhaps in a step-wise fashion, section by section or "brick by brick".
Let's get on with the job!
Michael Macpherson
Dr. Michael Macpherson
Psycho-Social and Medical Research PSAMRA ~ Integral Studies
Guildford and BerlinFounder
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/Recommended (4)
-
The budget airline model won't work for councils
My comment 02 Sep 09, 6:47pm
A good way to ensure that public services become more "Democratically accountable" would be to improve the quality and power of local democracy.
If electorates have the power to intervene in public affairs in periods between elections then councils are likely to pay more attention to the wishes and views of the citizenry. In recent years, in countries (abroad) with effective local democracy, some retrospectively dangerous financial adventures of local councils were blocked by wise electorates using referendum . If the appropriate tools of democracy are available then a council plan may be vetoed or a good idea coming from the electorate can be put forward as a policy proposal. To allow all of this our local democracy would need improvements. Suggestions about how to do this may be found here http://www.iniref.org/poll-regulations.html
Recommended (2)
-
Jack Straw to outline Lords reforms but warns of 12-year delay
My comment 26 Aug 09, 1:06pm
calminthestorm wrote 26 Aug 09, 1:26am
Or I suppose in your ideal world scrutiny could be done at home after dinner on a Wednesday while also browsing for cheap late flights?
... and further
Or maybe we accept, as I do, that representitive democracy is just that. I would rather not have to think about the finer points of the Finance Bill on a Tuesday morning,
If this is not part of the endemic elite bulwark built to keep democracy out of Britain then it shows the common British ignorance about the subject.
No serious reformer or critic of Britain's elective dictatorship suggests that more than a minority of laws and policy should be directly decided on an issue to issue basis. The "state of the art" is partial direct democracy. There are many benefits over a purely (often poorly) representative system. For instance, the electorate, demos, is always in charge of public governance, not only at election time. This helps politicians to keep their feet on the ground and to remember for whom they work. All fields of governance can, but must not, be addressed. Only proposals which have been approved by many electors go forward "onto the public agenda". In the system which we at iniref.org approve, citizen-initiated proposals go to parliament or local council for consideration. Parliament may pass the proposal into law. If parliament offers an alternative or rejects the proposal then the matter goes before the whole electorate in a ballot.
More about citizen-led democracy may be found at
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html -
Labour's summer fightback hopes dashed by new Guardian/ICM poll
My comment 25 Aug 09, 4:37pm
@ archytas wrote 24 Aug 09, 11:01pm
Currently, we can't sensibly even vote to stay out of stupid wars or try to form a more stable society based on greener values and more direct democracy.
Most people if asked are in favour of more direct democracy but very few understand that it won't simply happen. It will require a reform movement with active campaigning. Politicians and mass media are opposed and will fight tooth and nail to block this reform.
Take at look at the several UK campaigns and help to get these democratic tools introduced soon. See
Campaign for direct democracy
Good introduction
Get involved -
My town is menaced by a superstore. So why are we not free to fight it off?
My comment 11 Aug 09, 3:09pm
Quite a few comments and Monbiot's article raise the possibility of holding a referendum on a planning issue, here a new supermarket.
In UK there is no citizen's right to call a referendum, neither locally not centrally, with very minor exceptions which offer only "weak" democracy.
In the case described it might be possible to start a "Parish Poll" -- I think that in Wales the term "Community" is used. This form of democracy was established in the Local Government Act 1972. A Parish Meeting must be called (several electors can do this) and at the meeting a proposal for referendum can be made if ten people or a third of those present (whichever is less) support the demand. In England the District Council, after being told of the result, is obliged to organise a Parish Poll. In Wales maybe the procedure is a bit different.
A major problem from the citizens' perspective is that the local authority is under NO obligation to take any notice of the people's decision. The "Parish Poll" is not, according to the powers that be, legally binding.
This very local "direct democracy" has a number of faults which need fixing. This could perhaps best be done as part of a comprehensive reform which brings in "citizen-led" democracy at all levels of government. Instruments of democracy such as the "citizens' initiative" (e.g. for law-proposal or planning issue), and veto-referendum (to block council or government action) would be applicable to the areas of responsibility of the various levels of government. So there would be little risk @ copperanne that local referenda could introduce law which would break higher laws or human rights standards etc.. More info. about this may be found here http://www.iniref.org/
For the immediate conflict about a new Tesco's in Machynlleth, a referendum could be held by the authority responsible for planning permission (is that the Community of Machynlleth)? The authority could agree in advance to abide by the electorate's decision ....
Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb endorse the proposalRecommended (1)
-
California: Judgment day
My comment 30 Jul 09, 10:18am
Ed. wrote:
But direct democracy has been abused by both sides, and maybe Californian voters should not be asked so often to make specific budgetary choices which are then cast in cement. The result is that the room for manoeuvre of the sitting governor is limited, whoever he is. That surely has to be changed, along with a tax structure that is both punitive on the poor and over-reliant on the rich.
Martin Usher (above) points out that the "ballot issue" known as Proposition 13 (which was made into law by the citizens of California thirty years ago) cannot be held responsible for the recent financial woes of the sunny state.
The Guardian writes here that Proposition 13, "capped state property taxes at 1% of their assessed value, placing a straitjacket on any attempt to raise taxes". This was about property tax. A recent comparison of tax revenue (cited by the State of Massachusetts) shows that among the US states California is close to the top. A straitjacket on taxation?
Also, what do you mean by "budgetary choices ... cast in cement" ? A law made by Citizens' Initiative can of course be changed. What is involved here appears to be fiscal politics. So, if you want change, you need to convince enough people to vote for it.
In the UK and countries recent public events and calamities have emphasised that what we need is more democracy and not less.
Michael Macpherson
I&R~GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gbRecommended (2)
-
After a global howl of outrage, we have returned to business as usual
My comment 24 Jun 09, 11:22am
Changing the electoral system promises to improve representation of
citizens' views and desires but it allows only indirect democracy.
As with "first past the post" you give away your vote to a candidate or
party (-list) and have no effective way to influence policy for around
five years. This applies to a vast majority of the population.In the introduction to the Power Inquiry report 2006 we find
"This is not a report simply about constitutional change. It is a report about giving people real influence over the bread and butter issues which affect their lives."
"The disquiet is really about having no say. It is about feeling disconnected because voting once every four or five years does not feel like real engagement. Asking people set questions in focus groups or polling is a poor substitute for real democratic processes."
How do you pundits and chatterers suggest that we should achieve this "real engagement" which is clearly not allowed through "voting once every four or five years" ?
Some ideas may be found in our "Our reply to the Power Inquiry" to the Power Inquiry, via http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
(scroll down the page) -
They could be heroes. Instead these bankers are pariahs
My comment 23 Jun 09, 12:39pm
At the time of the crash, Brown and Darling had a choice to become the representatives of that voice but they ducked the radical moment. Instead they are defenders of the status quo, halfhearted in political and electoral reform, timid apologists for the City. What more will it take to make politics respond to popular anger?
The electorate should be enabled to intervene on public issues without having to wait for a general election (electoral reform will not achieve this).The democratic "tools" to allow this are well tried outside of the UK. They include the law-proposal and the veto-referendum, which can block a law going through parliament or any government proposal. An agreed large number of citizens can trigger these procedures. So we could steer policy in all fields of government responsibility and indeed regulate MPs pay and perks.
More detail may be found via the following links:
http://www.iniref.org/
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 reformRecommended (3)
-
Enough review and protracted debate. We need action now
My comment 18 Jun 09, 11:30am
Michael Wills, a UK minster of justice wrote
Other countries have pioneered new forms of deliberative democracy, where demographically representative groups meet to deliberate and decide on policy. We need to join them.
Where and when have "demographically representative groups" ever decided on "policy" ?
Wills statement seems to be a "deliberated" inflation of the value of such things as "citizens juries" (always installed by government) and "deliberative polling".
For decades over 70 percent of people in UK have expressed support for citizen-initiated referenda.
What is the best democracy reform so far offered by Gordon Brown? Citizens' juries. They are purely consultative and can make no policy or binding recommendations.
More about "democracy" proposals of Ministry of Justice may be found at http://www.iniref.org/blog.html See the items:
DEMOCRACY AND THE UK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 2008 (I),(II),(III)Michael Macpherson
Recommended (1)
-
Politicians must stop chasing their tails
My comment 14 Jun 09, 1:01pm
A C Grayling writes of his "deep differences with Gordon Brown over civil liberties and the fact that he has allowed some of his colleagues, such as Jacqui Smith, to introduce stupid and damaging legislation."
Sadly it seems for Professor Grayling he is neither a high court judge in a constitutional republic nor a member of the highest council in a theocratic dictatorship. So he cannot by the stroke of a pen or oral decree forbid a law of the land made by the UK government and (however weak) parliament. Our democracy is also weak and inefficient. The best way to hinder a bad or unwanted law is to veto it before it can harm. To wait for the next general election and punish a ruling party by "throwing the blighters out" is a crude "checking" method -- the new lot may turn out overall to be just as bad.
What is a better method? It is the abrogative or "veto" referendum. This enables the electorate to prevent an unwanted law from coming into effect. To do this a proposal for veto-referendum must be published and attract an agreed number of endorsements. If that can be achieved a referendum of the whole electorate must be held to decide whether the law shall pass or not. This advanced form of democracy is not from another world and has been extensively used in countries with similar to ours.
More detail may be obtained from the web site below.
Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reformRecommended (1)
-
The fabric of our democracy has not been torn - it merely has a few stains on it, and they are removable
My comment 03 Jun 09, 12:20pm
Mr. Berlins in a somewhat bitter parting shot denounces those who propose that we in Britain should introduce elements of "direct" democracy.
For some years we have observed that many journalists have little knowledge of citizen-led (direct) democracy, such tools as the law-proposal ("initiative"), the veto referendum and the recall initiative. (See below *). This does not stop them from venting their anger against these forms of democracy.
Numerous experts in politics and democracy for decades or longer have advocated the introduction of these methods. This reform is necessary because of weaknesses in our "representative" governance and by no means, as implied by Mr. Berlins, a knee jerk reaction caused by anger about the behaviour of MPs, .
Although Mr. Berlins can run off a handful of "arguments" against direct democracy he does not balance this with the plentiful and sometimes horrendous examples of bad policy made and pursued by, and failures of omission by, our masters in the "elective dictatorship" of representative rule.
On the other hand there are many positive reasons for strengthening democracy by improving the chances of citizens to take part in running "our" own affairs. That said, in partial direct democracy, the day to day business of law-making and governing is done by the elected bodies.
Despite the current heightened anger about politicians it will NOT be easy to bring in high quality reform of our democracy and governance.
A strong movement for reform, in tactics perhaps more like Campaign for Real Ale than The Chartists, will be needed ;-)
More information may be found via http://www.iniref.org/
(*It is indeed sad that yet another journalist, like many all too ready to fight off much needed reform, is ignorant of the subject. He writes, "Switzerland's version of it is the cantonal referendum, which allows any cause that attracts 50,000 signatures to be put to the people." This is wrong. Berlins appears to refer to the optional (facultative) veto referendum held at FEDERAL, not cantonal level. Further he writes, "California has two kinds of direct democracy." This is also wrong -- there are more than two kinds.)
Michael Macpherson mm AT iniref.org
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/Recommended (1)
-
After the party
My comment 31 May 09, 3:09pm
During these heady days of public interest in the way we govern ourselves and are governed I have spotted numerous statements, some by journalists, others by readers, that we should make more use of plebiscitory democracy, such as referendum for law-making and veto, and recall of elected officials, here MPs.
Living in the UK we have almost no experience of citizen-led direct democracy whether at the level of town, city or state. However according to representative surveys there is strong public support for the increased use of referendum and the citizens' right to demand that a referendum be held on a particular issue. These democratic tools could have prevented us from sliding into our current crisis of government, politicians and parliament and now they could help us to come through it.
The above comment by Rainborough and reply by the Guardian's author Matt Seaton provide a good example of this interest.
I and a few others have for more that a decade argued for the introduction of the citizens' initiative and right to referendum.
In order to further the debate and move towards reform it is now necessary to build a campaign which aims to inform about these elements of citizen-led democracy.
If you want to help by campaigning, educating or researching or to support those who do then please make contact.
Michael Macpherson
mm AT iniref.orgI&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/ -
A new politics: An optimist's charter
My comment 27 May 09, 11:18am
Your Ed. mentions that in the current crisis of confidence many commentators have called for "direct democracy" as a way to improve the way we govern ourselves. Mainly these calls have come from members of the public and electorate rather than from the political parties, the government or journalists.
Most people in the UK and countries have no experience of citizen-led direct democracy for the simple reason that – with very rare exceptions – we have no elements of direct democracy (for a definition of citizen-led democracy see http://www.iniref.org/ ) So it may help to find out if the political parties plan to bring in reform of this type.
For some years our advocacy and education campaign for "more" direct democracy has been following what the major parties say or do about this.
All three of the major parties have claimed that they will "give" us more direct democracy, with devolution "down to the citizen" and real opportunities to participate in politics. To what extent can they be trusted to enact reform in this area?
Short introduction.
A few months ago our Labour Party government of the day published a "green paper" about governance which, in the introduction, emphasises the importance of direct democracy. Later, apparently without batting a ministerial eyelid, Michael Wills decrees that in future the only way for us to obtain a referendum will be if the government (formally, parliament) allows us to have one. They also set the question, fix the timing and decide at their whim whether to not to act upon the people's decision! That's reform? It is exactly what we have now. In summary: expect little from Labour except spin and placebo reform such as "citizens' juries".
The Conservatives are a tricky old bunch. They founded a "think tank" (for several months off-line, presumably defunct) which they had the nerve to call "direct democracy". It's well established that direct democracy includes citizen-led governance such as the "initiative" (e.g. law-proposal) and the citizen-triggered plebiscite (binding referendum). In their Ten Aims this think tank did not mention any form of direct democracy. However, a few of the (while in opposition) ideas of the Tories are well worth considering, e.g. the veto-referendum, which could be demanded by voters. Like the LibDems, Cameron has recently mentioned the option for constituency voters to "recall" MPs. In summary: A few useful ideas but their proposals are not democratic enough. What would they do if elected to power?
The LibDems at their last party conference (2009) voted to reject a proposal to introduce citizen-led direct democracy ("initiative and referendum"). Clegg mentions that the "Recall" of failed or corrupt MPs might be introduced. There is a handful of praiseworthy lonely voices in the party, people who have consistently worked for effective reform.
PROSPECTS FOR REFORM
Whatever the outcome of the next general election (assuming no great surprise involving a fourth party), whether Conservative, Labour, LibDem or some unlikely coalition, the chance that our new Leaders will seriously begin to share power with the electorate are slim. Those who would like to see elements of direct democracy in the UK, countries, cities and towns, must continue to campaign and inform, seeking support from broad segments of the electorate in order to change public policy and constitution regarding our democracy. There are not enough campaigners and supporters. We urgently need help.Our survey is available free of charge via the web page http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
CLICK THE HEADER Citizens and Direct Democracy: What chance of reform do the major UK political parties offer?Michael Macpherson
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/Recommended (3)
-
A new politics: Direct democracy
My comment 25 May 09, 11:02am
hsutreal wrote
Washington opens doors to meaningful public participation
This appears to be part of a process of consultation. The results will not be binding on the government. So a further improvement would be to introduce the citizens' initiative (law-proposal etc.) with the option to trigger binding referendum. At present these forms of democracy are available in about half of the USA states. There are proposals to introduce this citizens' direct democracy – which would complement rather than replace parliaments and government – for central government in the USA, see vote.org
Of course, direct democracy can be assisted in exciting and effective ways by information and communication technology – "e-direct-democracy". I know some great examples from e.g. USA, Germany, Switzerland.
But to achieve good democracy it is not enough to play with ICT. You have to have state-of-the-art ground rules as well.
Some ideas for Britain are at http://www.iniref.org/ and
http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/Recommended (1)
-
A new politics: Direct democracy
My comment 22 May 09, 4:36pm
wh1952 22 May 09, 3:33pm wrote
"Well mjm568, you aren't convincing me. ...."Let the Cyberjury be our arbitrator?
While being well aware of the "warts" of direct democracy I am pained by the cancers of unchecked indirect "representative" democracy. Your suggestion to create directly elected minsters is not without hazard. In those places where partial direct democracy has been practised for many years the people on balance want to keep it. Brian Beedham's paper contains a very good case for partial DD, available via http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
Recommended (1)
-
A new politics: Direct democracy
My comment 22 May 09, 2:43pm
Re. Citizen-led direct democracy
wh1952 22 May 09, 11:53am " Doesn't that fill you with real enthusiasm?Actually it doesn't. Not because I think the present system is perfect but because the motivation for direct democracy is wrong. Basically what people are wanting is the right to make the decision without having gone through the learning curve necessary to reach an understanding of why the options put in front of them are there. Nor do I think that adopting direct democracy as a reactive measure is going to lead to success."
wh1952 appears to regard the British electorate as ignorant and lazy. In contrast WH appears to support the principle that the people should, for many complex tasks, choose and select "representatives". Surely, according to your logic, the people are too stupid to do that?
You re-iterate your phobia and scare-mongering about "single issue groups". With direct democracy, established organisations have some advantage. But -- and you ignored my point about this -- many initiatives come from "ordinary" or disadvantaged people. At present they have almost zero chance to be heard in our weak democracy. With internet it's easier for them than it used to be. And in direct democratic procedures there is a very powerful built-in learning process for all concerned -- public, proposers and even civil servants and politicians.
Recommended (1)
-
A new politics: Direct democracy
My comment 22 May 09, 10:50am
wh1952
22 May 09, 9:27am (59 minutes ago)
"And finally, is it wise to let the obsessives of the single issue groups have too much influence. Contrast the fates of Ghurkha veterans supported by La Belle Lumley with the Iraqi interpreters who have no one glamorous to make their case."MJM With citizen-led democracy any person or group can put forward a proposal. But not all proposals lead to referendum. There are high hurdles to be jumped. The system works like an "democratic ideas greenhouse". Only the best proposals go forward, the rest fall by the wayside. So, single issue groups can put forward proposals but they do not go to referendum until they have collected a huge number of supporting signatures and (in our reform proposal) the matter has been debated in parliament. More about how this works may be found via http://www.iniref.org/
Earlier WH1952 wrote
" "A strong example of direct democracy preventing the cosy cabals stitching up the people are the referenda on the European Constitution. The reason the UK has not had a referendum is because the government knows it doesn't represent the people on this (and I say that as a strong pro-European)"Not a good example. One thing that has been blindingly obvious about the EU referenda is that the voters are not voting on the question put. If nothing else these referenda demonstrate what is wrong with direct democracy rather than what is good about it."
MJM If you look at the research on motivation in the French and Dutch referenda you will find that your "blindingly obvious" conclusion is wrong. Issues were important. Also, research at the time of the Danish EU referendum re. Maastricht treaty showed that the electorate was better informed about the treaty than the average member of parliament.
Recommended (1)
-
A new politics: Direct democracy
My comment 21 May 09, 7:41pm
Our position is that fundamental reforms of the state (such as whether to elect ministers of state or not; EU constitution) should occur only after informed public debate and binding referendum.
FLEX But "initiative" mechanisms are by their nature bound to be piecemeal and driven by single issue campaigns.
MJM No, the people have (allowing for correctable weakness of representation) set general policy directions by choosing among political parties and candidates. Assuming that it would be impracticable and perhaps undesirable to decide all policy, law, spending etc. by frequent referenda, (making politicians redundant) the "initiative" and people's veto can be seen as "fine tuning" of governance.FLEX This is not the same at all as "the people" being in charge.
MJM With the initiative and the right to trigger binding referenda the people (at least as electorate) are able to overrule parliament and government.FLEX Elected politicians would still hold all the main positions and levers of power and "the people" would just be faced with a random and contradictory buffet of single issue referendums
MJM See above re. fine tuning and "who is in charge". A large number of citizens are needed to put a proposal forward so this is likely to be wise and *not* random e.g. Swiss alpine initiative, see good free film http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html There is public deliberation of proposals. Not random. Not contradictory. Just the will of the people (if approved by plebiscite).FLEX (e.g. look at the various California initiatives on the table at any one time - some are sensible, some are not and the package doesn't add up to any kind of comprehensive governance of California).
MJM We at I&R – GB propose a better system than in California which causes more information and deliberation of proposals. Citizen-approved proposals go to parliament for debate and decision NOT directly to ballot. There is public debate and scrutiny. Parl. may out forward an alternative. Only if parl. rejects the proposal does a referendum follow . Even more refinements can be applied in order to increase deliberation and avoid ill-considered or contradictory decisions.
(I read that learning from experience they in California have found a way to deal with contradictory propositions on a single ballot.)FLEX As for the budget, most of the things people care about: education, health, transport etc even the economy are fundamentally an issue of government spending not laws. Therefore for there to be a true direct democracy "the people" must be in charge of taxation and spending and also decide the holders of the key posts.
MJM Agree a bit ;-) except that lawmaking is more important than you think and regarding how to elect/select minister et al see my intro. remark.
Recommended (1)
I&R ~ GB: Comments