[Pedant watch: Referendums is the
correct plural when the word is used as a gerund. The plural is
referenda when the word is used as a gerundive – in other words,
hardly ever.]
I wrote this post in 2014, well before the referendum about membership of the EU. It argues pretty strongly that referendums are bad democracy. There are many better ways of organising democracy. Nothing that has happened in relation to the Brexit affair has changed my mind at all. However, there has recently been a referendum in Ireland about abortion that has been widely praised as a success. In the Irish case I was pleased by the result, and of course referendums always seem all right if you happen to like the result; but that does not make them good democracy. However, I will temper my disapproval of referendums a little by admitting a few positive points.
1. Is the result pretty overwhelming? The recent Irish one was 66.4% against 33.6%. As a way of forcing a smallish minority to accept change they have their uses. Though I do think it would be better if politicians accepted the responsibility for making necessary reforms without referendums. In the case of the Brexit referendum one of the silliest and nastiest things is the way many politicians, and some journalists talk about "the will of the people", when a narrow victory establishes no such thing. In fact even a largish victory like the Irish one does not establish that. A study of history leaves no doubt that "the will of the people" is a very dangerous concept used by demagogues to crush opposition - often because they cannot win an argument.
2. Is the only alternative to a referendum civil war and violence? Then there might be something to be said for one.
But really what we need is politicians who put party before self and country before party.
1. Is the result pretty overwhelming? The recent Irish one was 66.4% against 33.6%. As a way of forcing a smallish minority to accept change they have their uses. Though I do think it would be better if politicians accepted the responsibility for making necessary reforms without referendums. In the case of the Brexit referendum one of the silliest and nastiest things is the way many politicians, and some journalists talk about "the will of the people", when a narrow victory establishes no such thing. In fact even a largish victory like the Irish one does not establish that. A study of history leaves no doubt that "the will of the people" is a very dangerous concept used by demagogues to crush opposition - often because they cannot win an argument.
2. Is the only alternative to a referendum civil war and violence? Then there might be something to be said for one.
But really what we need is politicians who put party before self and country before party.
* * * * *
This post had better start with a
health warning. If you are a school pupil working towards an exam –
Higher Modern Studies or AS Politics – then this post would not be
a good answer, because it is going to lack balance; and balance is a
key component of the mark-schemes in those subjects. But I am too old
to sit exams any more (I used to teach Modern Studies and Politics)
so I do not have to write in a balanced way. I can tell the truth.
And the truth about referendums is that they are bad things and
democratic government works better without them.
Yes, they are democratic in some ways,
and I am an enthusiast for democracy. But they are a thoroughly
unsatisfactory way of translating the wishes of voters into action. I
was thinking about writing this post before the recent shenanigans in
eastern Ukraine, but they surely strengthen my argument. The Putins
of this world like referendums. Enough said!
In the first place, they have a very
dark history of dishonesty, intrigue and tyranny. All through the
nineteenth and early twentieth century they were used by tyrants and
dictators to prop up their rule. Napoleon I had one. Hitler had one.
Cavour used them. Napoleon's was rigged by his brother. Cavour, in
Sicily, used ballot papers with “Si” [Yes] already printed on
them. There is a famous scene in the novel “The Leopard” by
Giuseppe di Lampedusa that depicts the dishonest count in one
Sicilian village – behind closed doors, by a supporter of the new
regime, who announces a 100% “Si”. Well, that is a fictionalised
version of events, but I have never read of it being challenged.
Hitler's took place after the Nazis were well established, with a
reputation for murdering opponents. It took courage to vote “Nein”,
and over 90% did vote “Ja”.
One trick used by these crafty
manipulators of democracy was to offer no alternative to the answer
they wanted. Do you want Victor Emanuel to be King – Yes or No? Do
you accept Hitler as Fuhrer? - Yes or No? That was not a democratic
choice. Democratic choices are what we have at election-time, with a
range of alternatives: Labour or Conservative or Lib Dem or Green or
SNP. (I live in Scotland).
In the UK we have been using
referendums with increasing frequency since the 1970s. No mainstream
UK politician, as far as I know, has been anything other than a
believer in liberal democracy, and there has been no intention, yet,
of making them the excuse for the removal of liberties. However, it
appears to me (and I am not naturally cynical, despite a life-time
studying history) that our leaders have only used them for base
political purposes; never for good democratic reasons.
For example, Harold Wilson faced the
prospect of a split Labour Party over the issue of Europe – the
Common Market as it was called in those days. So he held a referendum
so that his opponents could campaign heartily against him but then,
when they lost the referendum, be able to fall back into line with
their honour intact. You will have noticed how many referendums on
European issues are discussed and promised these days. This is
because both the Labour and the Conservative parties are deeply spit
over Europe and promising a referendum in certain circumstances (and
then, if possible, finding an excuse not to have one) is one way of
papering over the cracks.
This is despite the fact that the
matters in dispute – the European constitution, human rights,
currency arrangements, trade regulations – are mind-bogglingly
complex. Hardly any of the voters will understand them (I do not
claim to myself) and they are quite unsuited to simple Yes/No or
In/Out decisions. The Conservatives are promising to promise an
In/Out Referendum after the next election. If we get to that point
imagine the simplistic newspaper headlines, the late-night discussion
programmes that hardly anyone watches, the cosmopolitan smoke-screens
and the Little England ranting. No voters will study, or understand,
the terms of the treaties in detail.
The way parliamentary democracy works
is that we elect people who have the time and the energy and the
interest to become expert enough on matters of complexity to make our
decisions for us. If we think they are doing it wrong we can chuck
them out, but that is quite different from thinking that we could do
their job for them. A reputable Mori poll just the other day found
that people's perception, and the facts, on matters that affect
public policy are wildly diffferent. For example: Perception - £24
of every £100 paid in benefits is fraudulently claimed; Fact -
£0.70p For example: Perception - 15% of girls under 16 become
pregnant; Fact – 0.6%. In referendums vital decisions are made by
voters with that level of ignorance. (I am not being patronising
here. I include myself in this, I could no more give an informed
opinion on matters of high finance than I could on pig-breeding.) In
the heat of a referendum campaign the media cannot be trusted to give
full, balanced coverage (Many journalists will, but how can those
ones be identified?) and politicians certainly can't.
To make matters worse, the simple
yes/no format of referendums is all too likely to give rise to TV
head-to-head debates between party leaders. These have about as much
validity in the democratic process as trial by combat to the judicial
system. If the issues are important they must not be decided on which
leader has the best TV appearance, which leader has the best debating
skills, or which leader has the best back-up team to provide training
for the debate.
Another feature of referendums that
runs counter to liberal democracy at its best is that they lead to a
tyranny of the majority over the minority. Perhaps that is better
than the other way round, but it does not have to happen at all.
When decisions are taken by a parliamentary process they can be
discussed and adjusted at massive length as they are being taken, they can be reviewed by second chamber, and
they can be fairly easily repealed if they turn out to have been a
mistake. But with referendums, the winner takes all, and for ever.
51% of those who vote can over-rule the wishes of the 49% who lose,
with no subtleties or adjustments allowed.
This is made worse by the fact that
referendums often involve low turn-outs. When Wales was told in 1997
that it had to vote on whether to have an Assembly or not, roughly
50% did not vote and roughly 49% of those who did vote voted no. As a
result Wales got an Assembly even though nearly three-quarters of
their electorate had not voted for one.
Enthusiasts will say that non-voters
don't count, that their apathy excludes them from the democratic
process and so on. This may be true in practice, but it is a bad
thing, and bad democracy. The non-voters may not be apathetic. They
may not like either of the stark choices on the ballot paper. They
may feel reluctant to play the party-political games of politicians.
They may feel unqualified to judge on the matter. But if the subject
is one of great importance there ought to be a mechanism for taking
their views into account; referendums offer none.
Sometimes politicians to hold
referendums to avoid a party split. Sometimes they hold them when the
couldn't care less about the result. (In the 1990s several cities in
England were asked whether they wanted elected mayors or not.)
Sometimes they use them to pretend that they are making concessions
when actually they aren't. (Do you remember that referendum on
whether we should have a rather feeble and ineffective type of
Proportional Representation?). Sometimes they use them because their
opponents have backed them into a corner where to say “We won't
have a referendum” sounds undemocratic and feeble. Sometimes they
have them because they are pretty certain to get the result they
want. Sometimes they have them to abdicate their responsibility for
making tough decisions.
Our governing classes are, thank
goodness, usually able to dig their heels in and say “No. We won't
have a referendum. We will do what we were elected to do and take
responsibility for policy”. (One can mention the issue of capital
punishment as an example). When they do offer a referendum, beware.
