Referendum democracy

This article on Open Democracy is a bit beyond the normal remit of the blog here, but as we are increasingly relying on (and demanding unsuccessfully on certain issues) referenda to directly gauge the opinion of the electorate, I think it is timely to examine closer their pros and cons. Besides, the article also gives us a useful glimpse at how many of the EU Elite view “the people” (i.e. you and me).

George Schőpflin, a Hungarian MEP, believes that the referendum is an unsafe tool in any democratic system for four main reasons:

1."First, in complex modern societies there is no such thing as "the people"

"In too many cases - European integration among them - referenda function as an instrument not of democracy, but of populism."

Following that logic, then we don’t even need elections, never mind referenda full-stop any more- "the people"... sorry, the electorate can’t obviously be trusted to make a rational decision on such matters as the Lisbon Treaty.

2."Second, referenda are profoundly unsuitable ways of addressing complex issues, because they offer the illusion of a simple answer to complexity."

By its very nature, a referendum tends only to address one subject at a time- that should make it easier for those on both sides of the argument to present their case in a more detail. If they don’t, then that is not the fault of the concept of the referendum per se- but of the media and the electorate who should be challenging rigorously those who are trying to "sell" their point of view

3."Third, referenda reintroduce the tyranny of the majority, the very thing that modern democracies have sought to dilute by, for example, upgrading the role of civil society."

Ah, that "Tyranny of the majority"... isn't "the tyranny of the majority" the very basis of Western democracy? Should we instead be leaving decisions on such matters as Lisbon and the constitutional future of Scotland to some hand-picked minority or elite?

4."Fourth, referenda offer power without responsibility, in that voters can confront elites without having to face the consequences of their action"

What a bizarre comment! If the Scottish electorate votes for separation in 2010, they won’t face "the consequences of their action"? The electorate of the Irish Republic voted against ratifying the Lisbon Treaty; yes, they have confronted the EU-Elite, but they also will have to face up to whatever punishment Brussels imposes on them for their disobedience.

Referenda are not applicable in every case, they should be a tool of last resort; I’m content to leave it up to my local councilor to decide what’s the best day for collecting the bins. The truth, however, is that on matters of constitutional significance, we cannot trust our politicians to reflect the majority opinion of the people, or even to act on how their conscience as opposed to their party tells them.

Finally, and rather ironically, as I mentioned before, George Schőpflin is a Hungarian MEP representing the Fidesz (“Young Democrats”) party. Ironic, because earlier this year a Fidesz-sponsored referendum was successful- the Hungarian electorate basically voted on the rather populist question:
”Do you want to be forced to pay for your medical care and further education?”
Not surprisingly they voted “No”, and not surprisingly, to date, Fidesz haven’t come up with an alternative means of financing both systems. But presumably Mr Schőpflin was happy enough to bend with the rest of his party to the “tyranny of the majority” on that particular occasion.