Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland


Proposals quoted from Our-Say, Unlock Democracy, Power Inquiry, I&Rgb



Comments and questions by a Swiss political scientist Paul Ruppen
mailto: forum @ europa-magazin.ch

PhD in Sociology and Political Science (University of Bern). Editor of “Europa-Magazin” and President of the “Forum für Direkte Demokratie” in Zürich. 


(Comments and questions are highlighted turquoise)


24 Feb 2007


Dear Mr. Macpherson,


thanks for your invitation to comment on these proposals for direct democracy in Britain. I put the ideas in blue into the text (sometimes the text evoked some emotions!). Generally people are afraid of other people. They say that they themselves would be mature enough for direct democracy but not the others (the text you sent me expresses some fear of this kind I think). If all think like that, you will not introduce direct democracy. It could be therefore be a good idea to work first especially on the introduction of direct democracy on the local and regional level. So the people get experienced to it and than they want more of it - on the country level. Historical experiences in fact show (Switzerland, USA, actually Germany), that introduction of direct democracy is a bottom - top process. That's just an idea - may be that this is not a "historical law".


In general the text is not clear about the differences we have in Switzerland between obligatory referendum, referendum and initiative (obligatory referendum: referendum whithout collection of signatures about every amendement of the constitution proposed by the parliaments, important international treaties as the EEA, adherence to EU), referendum (about laws, requires collection of signatures), initiative (proposal of the initiating people to amend the constitution, requires collection of signatures). But I think it's linked to the fact that GB doesn't know a written constitution (if I remember well). Sorry for my English!


Yours



Our Say proposal


Based on the recent Power Commission Inquiry, OUR SAY has developed a proposition that would allow citizens to trigger referendums on any national or local issue.

• Each year, on Referendum Day, people would be able to vote on issues of concern, both national and local. To trigger a referendum on a particular topic, more than 2.5% of the electorate would need to sign a petition. 


COMMENT (I would not name that “petition”, but “referendum proposal” or “initiative”. A petition in the political vocabulary is a list of signatures under a text which asks in an juridically unbinding way the rulers of a constituency to follow the petition – it’s begging, not using one’s right). 


This would mean that, for national issues, a million signatures would be required to trigger a ballot. For local issues affecting, say, a district council, this would require around 4,000 people to back the proposition. Referendum Day would be held on the same day as the local elections.


COMMENT

To hold a referendum ballot (perhaps with multiple issues) together with an election could "overload" the voters.  Voters would perhaps be unable in the time available to inform themselves and to  discuss the issues adequately. Further, if a very popular or salient issue were to be among the list of ballot proposals, then other topics might be neglected. In Switzerland we have 4 times referenda on the federal level. The cantons generally put their referenda on the same day. But in California they have a lot of votations on the same day on very rare occasions.   


•The Electoral Commission would need to agree the wording of the question on the ballot paper to ensure that the question was fair and balanced. The Commission would also be given new powers to check the validity of the petition and the number of signatures. 


COMMENT

I don’t see what is the Electoral Commission. Is it a political committee? Who controls it. I would chose here a juridical wording (not fair and balanced) but some clear criteria (for instance: coherence of the subject proposed; respect of fundamental human rights; coherence between the title and the sense of the text; clear text. Sobre text. For a serious proposition I would look for specialists of comparative constitutional regulations interested in direct democracy and give them a mandate to elaborate concrete propositions; in Switzerland you would surely find specialised lawyers ready to participate.  This a general point for you whole initiative!)  


•People would need to sign petitions in person and the signatures to trigger a vote would need to be collected in a one year period.


COMMENT 

Who will control the signatures?


•There would be strict limits on the amount of money that could be spent on referendum campaigns and these would be the same for those supporting and opposing the question on the ballot paper.

•Balance in TV and radio coverage of the issues under discussion would be a legal requirement, as well as fair access to other media coverage for each side.

Source: http://www.our-say.org/Our-Say-Proposals.aspx



Unlock Democracy proposal


A Citizens’ Initiative Act: this would give citizens

the right to initiate legislation and public inquiries at a

local or national level if enough people - say 5% - call

for it. If the elected body concerns fails to respond

satisfactorily, the petitioners could trigger a binding

referendum. Unlock Democracy plans to draft and

table a Parliamentary Bill outlining this process within

the next few months.


From: Unlock Democracy, citizen special edition November 2006 http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/




Power Inquiry proposal


... we feel that when public involvement is well-designed and meaningful it will enhance rather than undermine the standing of elected representatives. As has been pointed out earlier in this report, and as is discussed in more detail below, the main cause of the low esteem in which politicians are held is the widespread perception that they fail to engage with citizens between elections and are more accountable to their party leaderships than their constituents. Thus, an emphasis on public involvement which offers a role for elected representatives will begin to counter this perception and gradually persuade people that their representatives are genuinely interested in, and are responding to, their views and interests.

Recommendation 24: Citizens should be given the right to initiate in SUGGESTION a legally binding way 

legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies and their senior management. 

The right of citizens to initiate referendums on legislation by collecting a pre-ordained number of signatures on a petition is widely used across the world, although it is most famously employed in a number of US states and in Switzerland. 

The great benefit of such citizens’ initiatives from the point of view of the Power Commission is its capacity to address the two key causes of disengagement relevant to this chapter. Firstly, it provides citizens with a very tangible power over the most crucial issues confronting a democracy. Most importantly, it allows those citizens to decide for themselves what those issues are, even if the Executive and legislature have ignored the issues. Secondly, it allows citizens to bring single issues into the formal democratic sphere in a far more precise way than voting or membership of a political party allows. It is this focus on specific policy areas which is increasingly popular with citizens, but operates largely outside of formal democracy, and which has contributed to the declining appeal of parties and elections. Citizens’ initiatives have the potential to capture the political energy generated by single issues and make them a source of re-engagement with formal democratic processes.

We believe, however, that the power of citizens’ initiative should be extended beyond legislative processes to include public inquiries and to include hearings into the performance of public bodies. It is felt that this is important because governments have proved themselves unwilling on occasion to establish major inquiries or hearings on subjects which, at the very least, could be regarded as matters of major public concern.

In addition, it is felt that the power to initiate hearings on the performance of public bodies is an important boost for accountability in a period when the capacity of elected representatives to scrutinize and control such bodies has been eroded (see Chapter 6). This power would, in particular, offer citizens, who feel that a local public body was failing to deliver an acceptable level of service, a significant power to effect change without having to wait for the attention and decisions of government departments, local authorities or regulatory authorities. We note that the current Government has itself recently floated the idea of allowing citizens to initiate inquiries or hearings into local public bodies.

We also note that the power of initiative is not the fact that it is used regularly – it is not – but its very existence exerts pressure on governments and other authorities to take account of public feeling, and address popular concerns, for fear that if they do not a citizens’ initiative is always a possibility. In this way it helps create the more open and responsive government which is so crucial to the resolution of disengagement.

In short, citizens’ initiative would add to the overall perception and reality of direct citizen influence which would address this key cause of disengagement.

We recommend, therefore, that legislation is introduced to Parliament which would allow British citizens to initiate legislative processes on issues of their choosing, to initiate public inquiries on issues of their choosing, and to initiate hearings into the performance of public bodies and their senior management. 

We are aware that serious concerns are raised about initiative procedures, particularly that they can be hijacked by professional lobbying organisations and by sections of the media, and that they can lead to ill-informed, populist measures. To address these concerns, we recommend a process which allows time and freedom for the public and elected representatives to enter into a debate about whether an initiative proposal is appropriate and then whether it should be approved. 


COMMENT Who decides if the initiative proposal is submitted to a referendum or not? If it is politicians, than the imitative becomes a mere petition!!! Every initiative and referendum proposal which respects fundamental human rights has to be put before the people if rejected by parliament.


The following is a possible model which might meet such stipulations, but we are aware that there may be a number of different ways to ensure that time and opportunity for detailed public deliberation is a feature of an initiative process. Hence, this model is provided not as a firm recommendation but as an indication of the type of process we have in mind. 


For a national initiative the process would be as follows.

i. A legislative proposal receiving the support of 1 per cent of registered electors on a petition within the space of one year (approximately 400,000 signatures across the UK) must be formally debated and voted on by Parliament or the relevant devolved assembly. Negotiations between MPs and the principals leading the initiative can be part of this process. If Parliament rejects the proposal or amends it in a way that is unsatisfactory to the initiative’s principals or other members of the public, the process moves to (ii).

ii. A proposal already debated by Parliament or devolved assembly which receives the support of a further 1 per cent of registered electors within the next six months is then presented as a referendum question to the people of Britain. We are wary of the use of internet and email petitions for the launch of an initiative since this may reduce the time and freedom for public deliberation which a traditional paper petition would allow. Therefore, it may be that only paper petitions would be an acceptable way of launching an initiative at either stage (i) or (ii). 


COMMENT The problem of internet is not its speed, but that it is difficult to control a. if the people signing have the right to sign, b. signed themselves und  c. signed only once. If this problem is solved I don’t see why it should be made difficult to the people to sign. It’s difficult enough to get all these signatures!. 


iii. If over 60 per cent of registered electors turn out, and if the proposal is passed by a simple majority, it passes into law. 


COMMENT  This is a very dangerous item. It should always be the majority of people who vote who should decide. People who don’t participate say by that, that they are indifferent. People attending have an opinion and it is good that only these people decide. Otherwise indifferent people decide even if they don’t want. Furthermore, this item offers to people who are against a proposal to block it, even if the majority of the people having an opinion is in favour of it. Example: Let’s suppose that 65% have an opinion and would in principle participate at the referendum. The opponents know that 80% of these 65% are in favour of the proposal. They can just campaign against participation. If 6% of the people abstain because of the campaign against participation, the majority will lose. It’s clearly antidemocratic! I recommend that you discuss this with “Mehr Demokratie” in Germany who have a lot of problems because courts imposing in the Laender this kind of regulation I find clearly antidemocratic. 


iv. At any point, this process may be halted if the High Court rules that the referendum proposal is contrary to the Human Rights Act.

v. If a proposal fails at the referendum stage, it cannot be brought before the British people within the next five years.

vi. Initiative proposals relating to public finances or taxation would be barred on the grounds that they could be used to derail the legislative programmes of governments or local administrations. 


COMMENT I don’t agree with this point. People are not stupid and if a public project is reasonable, it will always win the support of the population. The state is the organisation of public services for the people and the majority of the people sees this clearly – especially in direct democracy. And it is the money of the people that is used for the public services! I really don’t understand why you want to restrict the influence of the people in this important area. In fact quite a lot of articles in this text express the fear of the people – strange for a direct democratic movement!! For direct democracy the link between public services and taxes is very important. One of the main effects of direct democracy is that people see this link and that they can decide which public services they want for their money. In direct democracy because of this the attitude towards the state changes.  This is a very important point. The tax morale becomes better. The responsibility towards the public and the state grows. But I must confess that we don’t have in Switzerland a financial referendum on the national level – but generally on the “lower” levels. There is scientific literature on the correlation between these instruments and the efficiency of public spending, tax-payer morale, etc. We nevertheless have recurring discussions about the introduction of that instrument on the national level. Until now the majority of the people was always against this instrument on the federal level in Switzerland, but that can change. It is the people who decide!

 

Initiatives for legislation would be managed, and any disputes about process resolved, by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission would also have responsibility for reviewing the petition thresholds which would trigger the two main stages of the initiative process 


COMMENT I find this dangerous. It should be a decision of the people – it should be the people which is sovereign and not an Electoral Commission! It is not necessary to be afraid if the people determine the thresholds. People don’t want to decide (vote or ballot) too often and they don’t like their rights being abused by too small minorities! So the majority will fix the thresholds at a level the majority finds appropriate. The central point in direct democracy is the sovereignty of the people: it’s the people who determine who decides what in which procedures (= competence to attribute competences. 


The threshold level should ensure that launching a successful initiative is not a common event but neither is it likely to be a rarity. If it became clear that petition threshold levels were allowing too many or too few initiatives, the Electoral Commission would conduct a consultation and research process to decide on a new level.

The process would be broadly the same at local government level as at national level but petition thresholds would be set at a sliding scale depending on the number of registered electors within an authority’s area. These levels would also be set and reviewed by the Electoral Commission. Of course, initiative proposals would be submitted to the local council for discussion and decision by councillors rather than by Parliament.

Initiatives designed to launch public inquiries or hearings into public bodies would have a different process.

i. Demands for public inquiries or hearings relating to national public bodies which receive the support of 2 per cent of registered electors nationally over a period of one year would automatically be referred to an independent Commissioner for Inquiries and Hearings. Demands for hearings into local public bodies would require the support of a percentage of electors in the area covered by the relevant public body. This percentage would be set on a sliding scale akin to that used for legislative initiative as detailed above.

ii. The Commissioner would be charged with drawing up the remit for the inquiry or hearing – in negotiation with the principals behind the initiative – and inviting independent individuals to sit on the inquiry or hearing including members of the public. All inquiries and hearings would be led by a commission rather than a single individual to ensure that evidence and conclusions are given the fullest consideration.

iii. The inquiry or hearing would have the power to compel attendance by witnesses. In the case of a hearing, testimony would be given under oath.

iv. In the case of an inquiry, findings and recommendations must be formally debated and voted on by Parliament or relevant devolved institution. In the case of a hearing, recommendations would require a written response from the elected authority to which a public body or its management is 

accountable. If action is not taken in response to a hearing’s recommendations, the Commissioner for Inquiries and Hearings will judge whether the reasons given are sufficient. If they are not judged sufficient and the relevant elected body refuses to take further action, then the Commissioner will assume responsibility for enacting the hearing’s recommendations as he or she sees fit.


We believe that the introduction of citizens’ initiative in the way described above would amount to a major symbolic and practical step towards rebalancing the relationship between the state and citizen in a way that meets the expectations and preferences of the modern citizen and reinvigorates the British political system through the application of the democratic ideal of self-determination. In this way, it would make a major contribution to ending disengagement from formal democracy.


Source: Power to the people, report of the Power Inquiry 2006 ISBN 0 9550303 15 http://www.makeitanissue.org.uk/Power%20to%20the%20People.pdf (This file is 1.6 MB)



I&R~GB Campaign for citizens’ initiative and referendum 

Proposal drafted 1994 -- 1999


The texts copied here below are taken from a series of pamphlets which were posted to individuals by snail post, by e-mail and to Usenet and Internet on-line discussion fora. The purpose of this early campaign was to alert people to the fact that direct democracy is a well established form of governance in countries similar to Britain,  to provoke debate about our democratic deficits and to present promising reform proposals.


Citizens' initiative, referendum and direct democracy

Brief Introduction


Many people have expressed discontent with the way democracy works and

there are different opinions as to what should be done to improve it. In Britain

there have been initial attempts to reform the second chamber of parliament and

there is long-standing debate about how we should elect our members of

parliament.


We propose another improvement, namely to introduce the right of citizens to

make their own proposals or laws to be put to the people's vote and the right to

change or veto laws passed by parliament. An agreed number of supporting

signatures must be collected to start these procedures.


This type of "direct democracy", side by side with "representative democracy",

is already well tried in Switzerland, the USA and elsewhere. New systems of

communication such as internet may prove to be helpful for improving and

reforming both types of democracy.


At present we are allowed to vote for candidates, parties and their promises once

every few years. "Initiative and referendum" allows us to vote and decide

directly on those important issues, problems and challenges of public affairs

which we citizens select.


Basic Proposal: "Three Step" democracy

NEW DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES FOR GREAT BRITAIN AND

NORTHERN IRELAND


Our proposal, presented here in brief, for discussion, has a three-step procedure:


STEP 1. Initiative (citizens' proposal) which can lead to debate of the proposal

by parliament. In order to proceed to Step 2 an agreed number of endorsements

by fellow citizens ('signatures') must be collected without time limit or within a

period which may be limited to, say, six months or one year. If parliament

rejects the citizens' proposal then we can proceed to


STEP 2. People's referendum demand. The procedure from here can vary. A

simple application by the proposers may suffice to trigger a referendum, or the

collection of further endorsements may be required. If the referendum demand

succeeds, the referendum must be held within an agreed period, say six months


STEP 3. Referendum. The decision of the electorate has the power of law.


-------------------------------------------


This scheme has a number of advantageous features:


• It encourages reforming and creative proposals to emerge -- an "ideas

greenhouse" (attributed to Nordfors).


• The best proposals compete and are selected to go forward only if they collect

enough endorsement by (many) fellow citizens. The (endorsed) proposal goes to 

parliament (or local council, as appropriate)  which is allowed a generous period 

during which to inform, debate and decide upon the proposal.


• This system integrates parliamentary and citizens' democracy. It brings citizens

and MPs together to consider and debate issues of real concern to the electorate.

Negotiation often occurs.


• The elected parliament may put forward its own proposal as an alternative to 

the citizens' proposal. The proposing group may accept this, or both proposals 

may be put to the people in referendum.


• During the various stages and steps, which take many months, there is ample

time and much opportunity for information about the proposal, public debate

and deliberation of the issue (consider also the role of internet).


Comments may be sent to <proposal@iniref.org> Also you are invited to join

Democr@cy Forum via http://www.iniref.org and start a discussion there.


Source: I&R ~ GB web site http://www.iniref.org and 

brochure Democracy Within Reach http://www.iniref.org/reach.pdf


________________________________


DEBATE DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN

Initiated by


I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum

a campaign for direct democracy in Britain

http://www.iniref.org/

Tel. +49 30 262 3768 e-mail info@iniref.org

PAGE  6