Outline a case for and against referendum use in Britain
Since World War Two, Britian has only had one national referendum. This was on whether Britain should join what was then the EEC (European Economic Community). This national referendum was held in 1975. However, there have been other examples of referendum use. Between 1973 and 2000 there have been six other referendums. However, these were for local issues. Two have been on Northern Ireland, four have been on devolution, and one has been on the issue of the Lord Mayor of London. When you compare our referendum use to Switzerland, who have had over four hundred referendums in the same time period, the conclusion that Britain does not employ the use of referendums very much is a safe one to draw.
A multitude of people, including active politicians would say that this is very much a flaw in our democracy. For example, Daniel Hannan, a conservative MEP for south east England since 1999, openly criticises the governments lack of referendum use, claiming it makes Britain ‘less democratic, and less free’. There are a multitude of arguments that would support this view. For example, A.R. Chapman, in his book, ‘Is there a crisis of participation?’ concludes that there is a respectable argument behind this school of thought. Election turnout has been in decline since the 1970’s, particularly in 1997, 2001 and 2005, the three lowest since World War Two, and 2001 and 2005 were the lowest since 1918, 2001 having just a 59.4% turnout. There is also a decline in party membership from two million in the 1950’s and 1960’s, to 515,000 in 2008. However, if referendums were employed, many people think that they would stimulate active citizenship, and less political apathy, due to the fact that the electorate could make the decisions themselves, as opposed to have others make it for them. Referendums will help to create the sense of a participatory democracy, giving people real power and influence on important social and political issues.
Additionally, referendums are the most direct form of democracy. The word democracy, after all, originates from the Ancient Greek words, ‘Demos’ and ‘Kratos’ which translates as ‘power to the people’. Direct democracy and the introductions of referendums can therefore be seen as the purest, most fitting version of democracy. This is most prominently due to the fact that people’s views on the question are clearly indicated. This factors in with another important point. Due to the fact that the electorate made the decision themselves, government can claim to have consent and an indisputable mandate. In essence, it makes the introduction of the respective policies more legitimate, and confirms the principle of government by consent.
Referendums can also prevent the government from making unpopular decisions. For example, the proposed Welsh devolution referendum in 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly was voted against and defeated. Similarly, the proposed Northern English devolution referendums, 2004, on elected regional assemblies for North East England were also voted against and defeated. The constant threat of having proposals defeated does not just give voters a mouthpiece, it may also stop politicians taking voters and citizens for granted. Whilst it is occasionally embarrassing for the government, perhaps this is a small price to pay for ultimately seeing what the citizens they are there to represent do, and do not like.
Another advantage of referendums is their ability to settle conflict-ridden issues within government. For example, in 1975, the Labour government, as well as the Conservative opposition, were divided on whether Britain should remain in the European Community. The Prime Minister at the time, Harold Wilson, held a referendum which was heavily supported, winning 66% of the referendum vote. This helped to prevent such a controversial issue from becoming divisive and preventing the government from being productive. In fact, quite recently, in 2010, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were negotiating a coalition government. During these negotiations the Conservatives opposed a voting reform, whilst the Liberal Democrats wanted one. They decided to hold a referendum, and let the people decide, shifting the decision away from government, into the hands of the people. Therefore, referendums are particularly helpful in combating adversary politics.
Penultimately, referendums entrench constitutional change. Whilst in theory there is no policy that can prevent parliament repealing the changes, they are effectively entrenched. This is because it would be seen as undemocratic to repeal a law or policy determined by a referendum. It is widely accepted that to repeal a policy, a fresh referendum would have to be held. This is due to the fact that if the people have been at the heart of a decision, then they should also be at the heart of repealing it. For example, as the Scots voted for their own parliament in 1997, it would seem extremely contentious if the Conservative party decided to abolish it. In reality, only the Scots would be able to undo what they did in 1997.
Finally, is the libertarian argument, that, quite simply, you can not have too much democracy. Democracy should protect our freedoms, liberties and rights, and by extending the opportunity of participation, it will be more inclined to doing this.
Conversely, there is a multitude of politicians who would reject this argument. For example, our Prime Minister, David Cameron claims ‘representative democracy fits Britain best’. Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to either autocracy or direct democracy. It is less likely to hear an MP claim they dislike referendums, because it is a highly unpopular opinion among voters. However, political analyst, Oussama Cherribe, claims that referendums could be our ‘downfall’. It is important to remember that the Dutch coalition government recently collapsed when one party tried and failed to push through a plan to make greater use of referendums.
In Ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato argued against direct democracy. His argument was that actually, people won’t respect decisions mad by themselves. People prefer to be led, especially if they believe that the elected representative has a better judgement than themselves. Plato also pointed to the problem that if people make their own laws, they will become accustomed not to obeying them, but to repealing and altering the laws to suit themselves. Essentially, the regular use of referendums would lead to a loss of respect for government, elected representatives and institutions. Referendums undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Britain is the birthplace of democracy and the whole point of parliament is to make decisions that its citizens don’t have to.
There is also the issue that some situations may be to complex for people to understand. Whilst this point can be seen as elitist, arrogant and condescending, it is important to consider some examples. If there was a referendum on migration, or the adoption of the Euro as the UK currency, the outcome would not be determined by pragmatism and logic, but instead by prejudice, discrimination and petty nationalism. Additionally, on controversial, divisive issues that people feel very strongly about, they may produce an emotional rather than rational response to a referendum. Also, complex and difficult issues can become oversimplified and the electorate may suffer from fundamental problem of lack of information. The result may reflect snapshot of opinions that can change over time.
There is also, as yet, no established mechanism for the implementation and execution of a referendum in Britain. This is because Britain rarely employs referendums as a political tool. For a referendum to work efficiently and effectively, there must be a specific, calculated and delicate process, especially within the practicality of their operation.
Furthermore, Governments are unlikely to hold referendums unless they are fairly confident they will win the vote, the obvious example of this is the likelihood of a referendum on the Single European Currency. The governments desire to have their new proposed policies passed means they are unlikely to be neutral participants and the phrasing of the questions can distort the results. For example, in 1997, When Tony Blair’s new Labour government proposed the Scottish devolution referendum. Blair asked two questions, firstly; whether there should be a Scottish Parliament and secondly; whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers. The relevant electorate could vote only yes or no, they could not offer different answers to the different questions.
There is also the possibility that people will use a referendum as an opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the government and ignore the actual question being asked. For example, the rather decisive defeat of the proposal of devolution for the North East of England in 2004 may have been the consequence for the electorate’s frustration with the Labour government. Some political analysts say that this occurs in Switzerland, a country renowned for its regular use of referendums. It would be irrational to base important political decisions on displeasure for a certain government.
Penultimately, referendums would not be executed in a level playing field. Both sides of the debate would often not have the same gravity and publicity due to a difference in resources. Referendum campaigns are expensive operations, thus there is a considerable danger that one side will succeed simply because they have more money. For example, in 1975, in the referendum for entering the European Community, the side that won spent far more money then the side that lost. Even if direct democracy is seen as more democratic, this inevitable flaw is irrefutably undemocratic, and would therefore be a step backwards.
My final point is one that John Stuart Mills would state is the most serious and severe rejection of referendum use. It is Mills’ idea of the tyranny of the majority. In a referendum, the majority wins, thus referendums are a clear example of government by the majority. The minority that loses is not accounted for and elected representatives therefore have a solid platform to weigh up the interests of the majority against the interest of the minorities. However, democracy is supposed to protect our freedoms, liberties and rights. Furthermore, it is simply undemocratic for minorities to feel discriminated against and unaccounted for. When voting for a referendum, you simply state ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There is no place for comment. However, our representatives have a forum for debate and discussion and, when making decisions, can take minorities into account in a way that referendum verdicts simply cannot. For example, it would be naïve to sat that a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response would be a sufficient response when discussing euthanasia, taxation or abortion.