Competitive elections to choose governments lie at the heart of democratic process; a crucial difference between democratic and non-democratic states is to be found whether or not they hold competitive elections. They are also important in giving legitimacy to government and therefore oblige the public to obey the laws passed by the parliament. Voting is used in elections is used to decide who will govern us the best in our views. On the plus side of referendums it seems to increase voters understanding of the issue, also their faith in government responsiveness. Referendums can also cause caution. A surfeit of referendums can tire the voters, depressing turnout. By its nature, the referendum treats an issue in an isolated way, ignoring the implications for other areas.
3. To what extent do referendums promote democracy?
There are many different ways in which referendum is used to promote democracy.
-It is the most direct form of democracy. The public’s views are clearly indicated; there is no confusion which may be caused if politicians simply claim to be representing public opinion. In other words this is described as a referendum helps to make the legitimate and confirms the principle of government.
-Referendums in some occasions may prevent the government from making unpopular decisions when no vote is delivered. This occurred in 2004 when regional government was rejected by the people of North-east England.
-In some occasions when the government and in general the parties; are likely to effectively fait to resolve an issue. In 1975, the labour government and the conservative oppositions came face to face whether Britain should remain in the European Community. In this issue ‘yes’ was the decisive vote. It may well occur that another similar situation such as in 1975 might occur again, regarding whether Britain should adopt the European currency (euros). This problem would be solved with an referendum with in the country.
-People may be more likely to respect and conform to decisions they have made themselves. This was especially important in Northern Ireland, where the Good Friday agreement of 1998 could only have a chance of success. If it received widespread and clear support from most of the community. The yes vote over 70 percent was therefore crucial. Later on, this agreement cam to difficulties, but the peace did last even if the political settlement faltered.
-They entrench constitutional change. It protects them from getting attacked by the future governments whose policies may be only short term. In order to reverse a referendum decision, it is accepted by the majority that a fresh referendum would have to be held. This principle prevents a possibility in the future government would simply dismantle the constitutional reforms already made. An example, as the Scottish voted for their own parliament in 1997, it would be extremely disruptive if a future conservative government decided to abolish that parliament. Only the Scottish would be able to undo what they did in 1997.
There also many different ways in which there are problems of referendum use.
-This may undermine respect for representative institutions. In ancient Greece philosopher Plato argued against direct democracy of this kind by suggesting that people will not respect the decisions which they made themselves. Many people preferred to be led, especially if they believed their elective representative had better judgement than themselves. Plat o had another point which if people made their own laws, they will get used to the idea of repealing the same laws when it does not suit them anymore. It is certainly true that there has been a general loss of confidence in politicians and parties in the modern period, but their replacement by regular referendums might cause the political system to collapse altogether. There are very few political commentators who believe that the people can replace the political system entirely.
-Some issues may be too complex for people to understand. The majority of the people find it too complex to understand and make a judgement on many issues. It doesn’t matter if your really good educated some questions still remain to be difficult and technical. For example, the issue that whether Britain should sign up to the European community is beyond the understanding of many. There are many who feel particularly uneasy about the way in which the tabloid newspapers tend to reduce such issues to oversimplified symbols. In referendum campaigns the tabloids may well have a disproportionate influence over the result. Many would argue that matters should be left to our representatives under the guidance of experts.
-People may use the referendums as a verdict on the general popularity of the government rather than on the issues in question. There is also a consequence that people will use referendums as an opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the government of the present and ignore the issue in question. The decisive no vote to devolution for the North-east of England in 2004 may well have been the result of such an affect, especially as the minister who was promoting such devolution (John Prescott) was personally unpopular.
It would be irrational if Britain adopted the euro or rejected it simply on the basis of whether the government of the present was popular or unpopular. In parts of Europe where referendums are used more often than in the UK there is evidence that this is a common occurrence.
-Wealthy groups or tabloid press may influence the result unjustifiably.
When you have a referendum campaign it is very expensive and quiet rightly so that one side will prevail because it has more resources. Although on theory there are limitations on campaign expenditure, money always seems to have the decisive roll. During 1975, European community referendum vastly spent more money than the opposition side. This resulted in most businesses favour of membership and they clearly used their wealth in good affect. Furthermore, if the government supports one side of the argument it will be a distinct advantage to that side.
