Governments think that by having frequent referendums they are not only involving the public in democracy and reconnecting politics with the people, but also making them more accountable to Parliament and the public. However, some people argue that New Labour especially are using them to carry through radical changes in our constitutional system without proper rules, and open to the possibility of rigging the outcome. A solution to this could be a set of rules governing the use of referendums, as if these were followed, there would be less room for criticism and more chance for direct democracy.
Referendums shouldn't be used to simply side-step parliamentary procedures, and they should not be a substitute for parliamentary democracy; they should be used whenever the public show they have strong views on an issue, either through petitions or pressure groups. For example, the issue of fox hunting has become extremely controversial, and a referendum would easily produce a clear outcome. In the referendum for Wales, the referendum could have easily produced the opposite outcome if the campaign had been fairer - this is a perfect example of the government almost abusing the power they had over the referendum. Maybe the government realise they can use referendums in their favour, and maybe this could be a valid reason explaining the increased use of asking the people's opinion.
Despite the use of referendums more widely over recent years, this form of democracy has been open to criticism of many different kinds.
Not only have referendums been accused of being unfair through many different means, but also the subject of parliamentary sovereignty and representative government has been threatened. People may argue that a clear, final decision can be made through use of a referendum, but this is not always the case, the perfect example being in 1955 when the Swedish government ignored the people's vote to continue to drive on the left hand side of the road. To consult and then to ignore the verdict is worse than ever to have sought an opinion in the first place.
An example of the unfairness of referendums took place in 1997 when the referendum for the devolution of Wales happened, which allowed Wales to have an assembly. The Neill Committee's report said the campaign could have gone the other way if it had been fairer. As the Government funds backed the 'yes' vote, the report suggested the campaign for a Welsh assembly only won narrowly due to this fact. The votes counted showed 559,419 votes to 552,698 votes, that being only 50.1% of the electorate anyway. The 'No' campaign was seriously under funded, which would mean that they would have less money for propaganda and advertising, therefore making the argument very one-sided. To solve the problem of being accused in this way, funds should be provided for both sides of any issue subject to a referendum, and the government should remain neutral throughout the campaign.
Another disadvantage of referendum that falls into the unfairness category could be the accusation that governments use referendums to side-step parliamentary protocol i.e. stepping past Parliament by side-stepping its conventions and putting power directly in the hands of the electorate. An ex Conservative MP Jonathon Sayeed said 'Referendums are not a substitute for parliamentary democracy and must only be used sparingly'. Many people have accused the present Labour Government of abusing this convention and having four referendums in their first year of office.
To overcome these criticisms of referendums, they should be governed by legislation. As the use of referendums has become much more common recently, both in Britain and many other places around the world, we have no rules governing their use. At present, the government decides when and on what issues they will be held so they become another political tool for the party in power. If a set of rules was passed, it may limit the government on their use of referendums, but it would make them a formal part of the political process, and would draw the attention back to the real reason of using them in the first place; to enhance fair direct democracy.
Despite the arguments that appear against the use of referendums, there are many advantages which explain the use of them in the first place. Obviously the far most important issue is that fact that democracy is enhanced by public participation; they feel like they are involved in politics and this will not only educate and stimulate the voters but also make them more aware about politics and the views and promises of the government itself. As people are being given a more direct participation in the decision making process, they may feel possibly prouder to be a citizen as their individual preferences are being taken into consideration. It is even argued that if politicians are seen to care about the views of the people, the gap that has opened up between the governing and the governed will be narrowed.
Even though no large-scale referendums took place in Britain until 1973, political parties are using them to their advantage. This is a definitely a positive thing for the parties themselves, however opponents of the use of referendums could argue that political parties use them to quickly pass through radical change.
The power of backbenchers in the House of Commons might be increased through the use of referendums, especially if they were in a position to insist on a referendum as a condition for supporting a bill, as happened in 1978 over devolution. However, backbencher MPs may disagree as their role as a representative to their constituency may be at risk as the use of referendums increases since constituents use their MP to put forward their ideas in Parliament. This could also be seen as an advantage as the use of referendums would surely then strengthen representative government by weakening a party system that frequently fails to represent the will of the public.
Some people argue that parliamentary sovereignty could be threatened by the establishment of an alternative means of ratifying laws, made clear by Margaret Thatcher in 1975 'To subject laws retrospectively to a popular vote suggests a serious breach to this principle'. This can easily be contradicted by the argument that parliamentary sovereignty ultimately lies in the sovereignty of the people in a democratic system. Also, as long as referendums have to be approved by parliament and remain advisory, rather than binding, sovereignty will remain in parliament's hands and representative government will be untouched.
Supporters of referendums believe that only through a referendum can a government receive a clear, final decision through guidance from the public on a particular issue. This cannot be done in a general election, as the public doesn't always vote for party policies in particular, maybe because they are not fully aware of the policies in the first place. In 1975, the Leader of the House of Commons, Ted Short, justified the use of a referendum in the decision to stay in the European Community by saying 'Only by means of a referendum can we find out whether the British people do or do not consent to our continued membership'. Similarly, the Prime Minister in office at the time of the European referendum said 'It means that fourteen years of national argument are over', emphasising the ability to make a final decision on various issues.
Using the promise of referendums have proved to play a part in attracting support for political parties in general elections. A possible example could have been the Labour Party before the 1997 election. They promised referendums on reform, devolution and the Euro, and since the Conservative Party were opposed to change involving these issues, a percentage of the electorate may have voted according to these policies.
Referendums can be used to break deadlocks between the Houses of Lords and Commons. Although this doesn't happen as frequently nowadays, in the crisis of 1909-1911 over the People's Budget and the Parliament Bill the Conservatives proposed for any bill relating 'to a matter of great gravity' to be taken to a referendum if rejected by the Lords.
Another advantage is that surely it is the British citizens' right to be asked their opinion in certain cases, because the fundamental issues are matters which affect the future direction of the country, and to keep the interests of the public in hand, governments should continue to use referendums.
Overall, even though there are both advantages and disadvantages for the use of referendums, as long as referendums are fair and honest there is nothing wrong with using them to their full advantage.
