Evaluate the case for using referenda to decide important issues in the UK

A referendum is a popular vote in which the people, rather than the elected representatives, resolve a political issue. Since the electorate is asked to vote directly on a particular issue, holding a referendum is a way of exercising direct democracy within a system of representative democracy. It is normally on one single issue with a straight yes or no answer on the implementation or continuance of a reform.

There are a number of advantages to holding a referendum. They encourage political participation as people are actively asked to take an interest in one issue and vote for what they think is best. Referendums are often asked when parliament can not resolve an issue so by asking the electorate to vote they are provided, hopefully, with one clear answer. Referendums can effectively end a deadlock when discussing a political issue. They can increase the legitimacy of major reforms or measures that the government is planning to implement and are a good way of determining the public mood and can provide justification for introducing a certain reform. Referendums should give a clear answer to a question however there are often problems with this. Referendums are also the most direct form of democracy as the people’s views are clearly represented and help to make political decisions more legitimate. This leads to a better chance of the people accepting the decision if they feel that they have had a direct input in the decision making. Referendums could also prevent governments from enacting unpopular decisions if they receive a ‘no’ vote, such as in the 2004 referendum for regional governments in North-East England. They can also protect constitutional changes from attacks from future governments who may want to change certain acts. As the Scots voted for their own parliament in 1997 only the Scots could absolve this parliament now.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In the UK national referendums are usually used sparingly. However, there have been several important referendums held over important issues since 1973. In 1973 there was a referendum in Northern Ireland to decide whether it should remain part of the UK or join the Republic of Ireland. There was a large majority in favour of remaining part of the UK. However the voting figures became rather meaningless because it was boycotted by nationalists and government intentions were undermined. In 1975 a referendum was held over the issue of the UK remaining part of the EEC. There was a large majority in favour of remaining part of the EEC. This referendum was far more effective because there was one clear answer. The third occasion on which referendums were held in the UK came in 1979 when the people of Scotland and Wales voted on whether or not they wished to accept the devolution proposals passed by parliament in the Scotland and Wales Acts. The referendum showed that 51.6% of voters wanted there to be devolution in Scotland. However the turnout was quite low so they did not get 40% of the electorate as a whole voting in favour of devolution. For this reason the referendum was indecisive. However it was more effective in Wales where there was a strong majority against devolution and the Act was repealed. A second referendum on the issue of devolution was taken in 1997. There was a strong vote in favour of devolution in Scotland and a much closer vote in favour in Wales. Devolution was adopted in both countries even though the turnout was low in Scotland and even then the majority was won by a very small margin.

One disadvantage of referendums is that the UK is not a true democracy, but a representative democracy. By taking referendums too often there would be a loss of respect for the elected representatives. If the politicians that the people elect can not reach a decision and rely on holding referendums too often there will be a loss of confidence which would lead to the collapse of the UK’s political system. There is also a danger that some political issues may be too complex to understand and pope may vote for a certain decision for superficial reasons without fully understanding the consequences, especially when he comes to issues of the EU and the possibility of changing the currency. Some people may have a tendency to vote passionately without the understanding of the true politics involved with the issue. It is clear from the examples that referendums are not always as conclusive as would be hoped. This is because there are often rules set on the majority that must be won such as the 40% vote in favour of the whole electorate, not just those who did vote, that was set in the 1979 devolution referendums. Government may set these conditions in order to receive the outcome that they would like to get. If the government itself supports one side of the argument this may give that side an advantage. People may also be influenced by newspapers opinions and extensive campaigns. Referendum campaigns can be expensive and there is therefore a danger that the side with more money will succeed. This was shown in the extensive ‘Yes, Yes’ campaign in Scotland in the run up to the 1997 referendum and the ‘Yes’ campaign in the 1975 European Community referendum. Most of the UK’s big businesses were in favour of membership with the EEC and so used their wealth to promote a yes vote at the referendum. With referendums there is a certain danger that people may vote against the government’s preferred option in order to express any dissatisfaction with the current government. One of the most serious objections to the holding of referendums is the danger of a ‘tyranny of the majority’. With a representative democracy there is a certain hope that the government will try and protect the minorities in a country. However, referendums are effectively government by the majority. Referendums leave minorities defenceless instead of the normal political system in the UK which should take minorities into account.

Referendums can be extremely useful especially if there is a deadlock in decision making and they are used by governments if there is an unpopular decision to be made. They are pretty essential if there is an important decision to be made in relation to the constitution. These decisions need to be legitimised by the people as they affect the way that the people are governed. Referendums also entrench constitutional changes and so protect them from future governments. In this way the only way to repeal these changes are by holding another referendum. In conclusion, in some circumstances referendums are essential in the UK’s political system. However they must be used with caution in order to protect minorities and not undermine political sovereignty to a dangerous extent. For this reason referendums should only be used rarely and in order to make constitutional changes so that confidence is not lost in those that we elect to represent us.

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

ecaudate

22nd of Feb 2012

Quality of writing

Quality of Writing The candidate's spelling and grammar are excellent, and the quality of written communication of a high standard. I feel that some of the language used is too 'casual' for an academic purpose ('pretty essential', 'deadlock'), and this reduces the overall impression of the essay. However, this would almost certainly be overlooked at GCSE level.

Level of analysis

Level of Analysis The level of analysis in this essay is its Achille's heel; the 'argument for' paragraph, in particular, feels more like a list of bulletpoints in favour of the use of referendums. However, there is development in the 'against' paragraph (the discussion of extra-political influences on the electorate, for example). The paragraph of case studies, mostly using Scottish and Welsh devolution is a fairly detailed description, and does present some arguments for/against referendums, but I feel that it would be better to work these into the rest of the essay and use them to develop the points made. The conclusion shows some more development, and it is made clear why the candidate has come to his/her conclusions but overall, there is a lack of detail in the essay, or explanation of why the points made support or contest referendums.

Response to question

Response to Question The candidate has given a broad, but fairly shallow answer to the question. Many of the issues raised by the use referendums are discussed, demonstrating knowledge of the debate, but there is little or no development of the points the candidate makes, which is the flaw of this essay. Making fewer, more detailed points would improve the essay.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn