Is a referendum a democratic tool for the citizen?

Democracy through the years has become the most widespread form of governance throughout the world. Through this essay the issue of referendums and their effectiveness in a democratic setting will be discussed. This discussion will show the importance of referendums to democratic states in the light of democratic theories. This issue will be reviewed and examined from a political perspective; therefore importance is given to the elements of the political system in which referendums are held, the culture of the governed, the impact of the media and the historic background of the country.

The impact of democracy on the world of politics has been one of extreme importance. As the twentieth century draws to a close, the prosperous liberal democracies preside triumphant over the world. The idea of a democratic state based on certain characteristics has become widely accepted as a fair system of governance in most states. But democracy has evolved throughout the years. This evolution occurred mainly not in the meaning at the heart of its concept, but in the way democracy was practised. Therefore a comprehensive understanding of the origins of democracy is useful for the issues that will be discussed.

It’s widely acknowledged that democracy originated in ancient Greece. “The Greek notion of democracy influenced modern views, but differed from them substantially. Contrary to popular mythology, Greek democracy was far from ideal”. It referred to democracy as the rule of the people. Even in ancient Greece this notion of democracy was far from true. Decisions were taken by an assembly, and the majority vote decided on issues. This assembly was made up of only a selected number of people usually men. Women and slaves were not allowed to participate. Thus only the interests of the assembly, and more specifically the interests of the majority, were pursued. This became a starting point for the evolution of a democratic system of governance. Throughout the centuries more elements were subsequently added resulting into democracy, as we know it today. The ancient Romans introduced the due process which is a system were an established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities are designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. The idea of ruling by the divine will became more weak and the importance of laws more widely accepted. The importance of a set of laws, which safeguard the individual’s rights and freedoms from the ruler’s tyranny, became more evident thanks to the French revolution. This set in motion the mechanisms that led to the creation of constitutions.

Democracy today has a set of characteristics and features which have developed along the years from the practices of different civilizations as we have already mentioned above. The most common democratic characteristics include; Popular Sovereignty; the people are the ultimate source of the authority of the government which derives its right to govern from their consent. Majority Rule and Minority Rights; although "the majority rules," the fundamental rights of individuals in the minority are protected. Limited Government; the powers of government are limited by law and a written or unwritten constitution which those in power obey. Institutional and Procedural Limitations on Power; there are certain institutional and procedural devices which limit the powers of government. These may include:

Separate and shared powers. Powers are separated among different agencies or branches of government. Each agency or branch has primary responsibility for certain functions such as legislative, executive, and judicial functions. However, each branch also shares these functions with the other branches.

Checks and Balances. Different agencies or branches of government have adequate power to check the powers of other branches. Checks and balances may include the power of judicial review i.e. the power of courts to declare actions of other branches of government to be contrary to the constitution and therefore null and void.
Due Process of Law. Individual rights to life, liberty, and property are protected by the guarantee of due process of law.
Leadership Succession through Elections. Elections insure that key positions in government will be contested at periodic intervals and that the transfer of governmental authority is accomplished in a peaceful and orderly process.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The fundamental values of a democracy reflect a paramount concern with human dignity and the worth and value of each individual. These include; Basic Rights, protection of certain basic or fundamental rights is the primary goal of government. These rights may be limited to life, liberty, and property, or they may be extended to include such economic and social rights as employment, health care and education. Documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights enumerate and explain these rights. Freedom of Conscience and Expression, a democracy includes among its highest purposes the protection of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. These freedoms have value both for the healthy functioning and preservation of constitutional democracy and for the full development of the human personality. Privacy and Civil Society, democracies recognize and protect the integrity of a private and social realm comprised of family, personal, religious, and other associations and activities. This space of uncoerced human association is the basis of a civil society free from unfair and unreasonable intrusions by government. Justice, a democracy promotes

Distributive Justice - the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of society.
Corrective Justice - fair and proper responses to wrongs and injuries.
Procedural Justice - the use of fair procedures in the gathering of information and the making of decisions by all agencies of government and, most particularly, by law enforcement agencies and the courts.

Equality, a democracy promotes

Political Equality - all citizens are equally entitled to participate in the political system.
Equality Before The Law - the law does not discriminate on the basis of unreasonable and unfair criteria such as gender, age, race, ethnicity, religious or political beliefs and affiliations, class or economic status. The law applies to the governors as well as the governed.
Economic Equality - constitutional democracies have differing conceptions of the meaning and importance of economic equality. At the very least, they agree that all citizens should have the right to an equal opportunity to improve their material well being. Some constitutional democracies also attempt to eliminate gross disparities in wealth through such means as progressive taxation and social welfare programs.

Openness, democracies are based on a political philosophy of openness or the free marketplace of ideas, the availability of information through a free press, and free expression in all fields of human endeavor.

This democratic style of governance has both its advantages and its disadvantages. The advantages of a democracy include the fact that since it is government of the people is more likely to govern for the people. This type of government is best able to safeguard liberties - freer competition for power provides a check against undemocratic rule. A democratic environment will lead to better citizens - self-governing, confident, inquiring, intelligent - possible because force is replace by reasoned debate. Another advantage is the room which democracies allow for pluralism which allows all citizens, interest groups, the media and political parties to educate and exert influence in a competitive fashion over each other and elected representatives. This helps to strengthen democracy.

On the other hand, rule by majority can end in abuse of minority rights e.g. white majority in the US approved of slavery - known as tyranny of the majority. Representatives are now dealing with problems that are beyond their understanding; democracy is too slow and inefficient even in a representative form. Pluralism may weaken democracy, turning power over to lobby or special interest groups and powerful media forces; the citizens are removed one step further from making the laws directly. Not all people have the time, money nor interest (apathy) in becoming involved in an interest group or politics.

Now let’s take a look at referendums and their impact on the democratic process. Referendums are defined as being the submission of a political question to the direct vote of the electorate, whereas elections are defined as public choice of governmental representatives under a democratic system. Although both require the electorate to vote in a similar way using a ballot box in a polling station, they are in fact quite different. Elections require the voter to choose which MP and which political party they would prefer to form the government and run the country. Referendums, however, happen when the government in power decides to put a question to the public to find out their views on the issue.

An important issue on referendums is related to elite theories of power. Such theories claim that power in a state is in the hands of a few people at the top. This may be connected to the idea of who sets referendums and on what issues. These elites being in a privileged decision-making position can determine what is to end on the political agenda. Bachrach and Baratz termed this power to create and reinforce social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public considerations of those issues which are comparatively innocuous to them as mobilisation of bias or non-decision making. Such a power may damage heavily the democratic value of holding a referendum.

Referendums have been used much more widely in recent years all over the world, especially in liberal democracies where the government believes it is important to increase direct democracy. In Liberal democracies such as America, Canada, France and Australia referendums have become a common device for enhancing citizen democracy. Referendums helped people feel that they are participating in politics. For example, in Texas, the introduction of television voting was supposed to enhance democracy by widening the franchise and make people feel like they were being a good citizen. However, referendums may not always be seen as positive, such as the Marxist belief that referendums are purely a sham and a cover up to government manipulation, i.e. people are conned into thinking it’s democratic when it’s actually the opposite way round.

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. In order to see that referendums follow a lawful and democratic way, a set of rules governing the use of referendums are devised.

Referendums shouldn’t be used to simply side-step parliamentary protocol, and they should not be a substitute for parliamentary democracy; they should be used whenever the public shows that they have strong views on and issue, either through petitions or pressure groups. For example, the issue of whether or not Malta should join the European Union was extremely controversial, and a referendum was held in order to obtain a clear outcome.

Overall, referendums definitely have been used much more frequently over the past few years, and this is due to many reasons, both for the government’s and the public’s favor.

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.

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’, emphasizing the ability to make a final decision on various issues.

Using the promise of referendums has proved to play a part in attracting support for political parties in general elections. A possible example could have been the Nationalist Party before the 1998 election. They promised a referendum on the European Union issue.

Regarding the democratic relevance of referendums, in theory, our system emphasizes the importance of the supremacy of Parliament, but in practice many people feel that our machinery does not work as well as it should, and ploys such as referendums and electoral reform might improve the health and vitality of the political progress.

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.

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.

One of the main criticisms of the use of referendums is the fact that the democratic accountability is paradoxically under threat from the Government’s regular use of them. The word ‘paradoxically’ has been used because referendums are often seen as the most democratic way of taking government decisions, but in reality, they are not. Often, the questions put to the public are very ambiguous, and both sides of the argument do not fairly put their case to the voters. Michael Ancram once described referendums as ‘dangerous weapons of national self-delusion and cosmetic democracy’, which clearly shows that the government’s use of referendums can manipulate the public opinion towards a particular issue.

Marxists would agree that by using referendums, the public sees it as a chance to be involved in politics and be educated by their nature. In the public’s eyes, the chance for direct democracy is a positive thing as it helps the government to be more accountable, however, the public don’t always take a fully extended interest in what is actually going on. Only the people who research it and find out that referendums are sometimes being used to quickly carry through radical changes in our constitutional system without any rules realize that the ‘direct democracy’ is often a cover-up.

To overcome these criticisms of referendums being accused as ‘a Bonapartist device for manipulating the public’, 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.

Other important elements that have to be kept in mind are the influence of mass media and culture to the democratic process. Mass media nowadays through television, radio, and Internet has acquired the power to influence heavily the agenda setting process. In a direct democracy system where each man is equal to one vote, the influence exerted by the media has become of utmost importance. This quest by the political parties to be able to influence the media can be clearly illustrated by looking at Malta. In our two party systems, each party has a television and a radio station and a newspaper. An example of the need of the parties to influence the media may be seen when some members of the Malta Labour Party have pointed out the need for a newspaper in English so as to be able to reach a wider segment of the population.

The cultural aspect is also of great importance. Whether the rate of political participation depends a lot on the culture of the society. The historic setting is perhaps one of the most influential factors. Malta has always been in the past in the hands of the foreign power, thus it is quite comprehensive that once the Maltese citizen got hold of his right to participate in the governing of his country, he would do so in a more passionate way. As Hofstede mentioned in his five-value dimension the degree of power distance that exists in a society is also very important. It is the degree to which influence and control are unequally distributed among individuals and institutions within a particular culture. Even the degree of uncertainty avoidance is important as it illustrates whether the society wants to avoid risk and ambiguous decisions or whether it is likely to go for them.

After this discussion, I have concluded that a referendum is a very powerful tool in the hands of government. It may be used as a political barometer over some issues of great controversy and importance. There are a lot of factors, which influence the proceedings of a referendum such as the need for pushing forward the aims of governments, the agenda-setting role of media and the culture. On the whole a referendum is to be considered a democratic tool since in itself if practised properly it serves for democratic purposes.