Direct Democracy
THE £ECHLADE GROUP
The Lechlade Group is comprised of members of the UK Independence Party who aim to evolve UKIP from being perceived as a pressure group to a party with a broad range of policies acceptable to the electorate.
The group will be issuing a series of papers outlining their recommendations to achieve this aim.
DiscussionPaper No 1Sept ‘05
Democratising Democracy.
Why do we support Direct Democracy?
• Direct democracy implies a more even distribution of political power, brings politicians and citizens closer together and lends a new quality to their relationship.
• Direct democracy gives minorities the right to a public hearing and the opportunity to exercise that right.
• The exercise of direct democratic rights reinforces democratic attitudes and the dispositions of the citizens. Respect for fundamental human rights is one of the basic premises of any democracy.
• Direct democracy gives citizens more effective control of governments and parliaments, allowing them independent influence – both restraining and innovating – on politics in its three fundamental dimensions (the institutions, political processes and substantive political issues). Direct democracy is a dynamic factor that counters the drift towards oligarchy and helps to prevent the political institutions from shutting themselves off from the “outside world”.
• Direct democracy makes politics more communicative, and political decisions more transparent, and improves the quality of the public sphere – as an entity to which all the dealings of the representative state are accountable. • Well-developed direct democracy puts procedures and rights in the hands of citizens that allow them to go beyond mere resistance, to offer constructive challenge and innovation.
“A country does not need to be fit for democracy: it becomes fit through democracy”.
UKIP needs to gain the support of the non-voters who are disenchanted with politicians and the political process, at both national and local level. More importantly we need to turn them into voters or rather UKIP voters.
Tom Nairn in his report, “Britain’s Tipping Point Election”, (1), published by opendemocracy.net), has this to say:-
“In the aftermath of the British general election of 5 May 2005, something quite unexpected is happening. Everyone knows that Tony Blair’s “New” Labour Party won. But it’s becoming clearer that something else won too – not a set of candidates or policy ideas, but something arguably more significant than anything people directly voted for.
Beneath the familiar show time of Westminster politics, a tipping-point may have been reached. And if that’s the case, everything will soon be changed. There has been a deep shift of attitude within the British electorate.
Commentators recognise it, but most dismiss it as a transient mood or fashion. Far from reveling in complacency, a growing number of New Labour representatives and party workers are joining frustrated voters and the less party-biased commentators in a troubled surmise. Just how and why did they win on 5 May? Can such a farce ever be repeated?
For sound reasons, people are worried about whether such a system can continue at all without serious reforms. Tony Blair’s party won a solid, 63-seat majority in a House of Commons of 646 members, on the basis of 35.3% of the votes cast on a turnout of 61.3% – little over 20% of the registered British electorate. New Labour was delivered five more years of near-absolute power by an even smaller percentage of votes than at the previous election in 2001.
If this trend continues, 2009 or 2010 could witness a third triumph of what has become the dominant force in British politics, the non-voting party (38.7% in this election), and a government resting upon less than a fifth of the public’s support.”
£££££
If all we intend to offer the electorate at the next General Election is a reformed UKIP with, apart from EU withdrawal, the same manifesto as the other parties just with the words in a different order, then, without a doubt, we will not win a seat.
It is crucial that we gain the support of the party who gained 15% more votes than Labour – the 38.7% party.
Currently UKIP offers a home for the protest vote but this cannot be relied upon to last forever. Certainly rebranding the party and having a broad palette of policies will help but how do we engage this 38.7% of the electorate who are disenchanted with the existing system?
One thing I found wrong with the General Election was that The Greens, Pro-life and Independent candidates have in their manifestos many just causes that the electorate might have strongly agreed with. But, because the vote is for a change of government those that would otherwise support the ‘proposers’ do not vote for them.
What is definitely needed is “non-elective” elections; i.e. referendums.
If we make this a cornerstone of our manifesto then we have half a chance of picking up votes from supporters of these other parties. You may dispute this, but do the Greens actually want to form a government? Would they be happy putting in place the means, by way of the referendum system, of creating legislation?
I use the Greens as an example as they embrace the European Union because they see the governmental structure – National, (that is the nation of Europe), regional, local, parish as a means of empowering the people at the bottom.
What they are blind to is that the power only goes one way – from the Commission downwards. There is no upward flow. Referendums reverse this current.
We have to start by giving Direct Democracy more prominence in UKIP’s manifesto. The basis is already there; it just needs bringing to the forefront where it will sit comfortably alongside EU withdrawal because it can only be achieved from outside the EU structure.
What we are proposing is the expansion of UKIP’s existing policy on “British Governance” (2).
UKIP’s manifesto calls for the use of referendums to “provide some protection from the misuse of office by professional politicians and to restore some confidence in our democratic process”.
If, during a period of 6 months, 5% of the national electorate signs a petition demanding a referendum on any matter of policy, then the government is obliged to hold such a referendum and be bound by its result.
Under the heading “public consultation” the manifesto lays out ground rules for the holding of local referenda. I won’t detail them here, (the links are listed in footnote 2 below), as the Lechlade Group’s proposals go much farther.
So what is the problem?
UKIP needs to gain the support of the non-voters who are disenchanted with politicians and the political process, at both national and local level. More importantly we need to turn them into voters or rather UKIP voters.
Tom Nairn in his report, “Britain’s Tipping Point Election”, (1), published by opendemocracy.net), has this to say:-
“In the aftermath of the British general election of 5 May 2005, something quite unexpected is happening. Everyone knows that Tony Blair’s “New” Labour Party won. But it’s becoming clearer that something else won too – not a set of candidates or policy ideas, but something arguably more significant than anything people directly voted for.
Beneath the familiar show time of Westminster politics, a tipping-point may have been reached. And if that’s the case, everything will soon be changed. There has been a deep shift of attitude within the British electorate.
Commentators recognise it, but most dismiss it as a transient mood or fashion. Far from reveling in complacency, a growing number of New Labour representatives and party workers are joining frustrated voters and the less party-biased commentators in a troubled surmise. Just how and why did they win on 5 May? Can such a farce ever be repeated?
For sound reasons, people are worried about whether such a system can continue at all without serious reforms. Tony Blair’s party won a solid, 63-seat majority in a House of Commons of 646 members, on the basis of 35.3% of the votes cast on a turnout of 61.3% – little over 20% of the registered British electorate. New Labour was delivered five more years of near-absolute power by an even smaller percentage of votes than at the previous election in 2001.
If this trend continues, 2009 or 2010 could witness a third triumph of what has become the dominant force in British politics, the non-voting party (38.7% in this election), and a government resting upon less than a fifth of the public’s support.”
£££££
If all we intend to offer the electorate at the next General Election is a reformed UKIP with, apart from EU withdrawal, the same manifesto as the other parties just with the words in a different order, then, without a doubt, we will not win a seat.
It is crucial that we gain the support of the party who gained 15% more votes than Labour – the 38.7% party.
Currently UKIP offers a home for the protest vote but this cannot be relied upon to last forever. Certainly rebranding the party and having a broad palette of policies will help but how do we engage this 38.7% of the electorate who are disenchanted with the existing system?
One thing I found wrong with the General Election was that The Greens, Pro-life and Independent candidates have in their manifestos many just causes that the electorate might have strongly agreed with. But, because the vote is for a change of government those that would otherwise support the ‘proposers’ do not vote for them.
What is definitely needed is “non-elective” elections; i.e. referendums.
If we make this a cornerstone of our manifesto then we have half a chance of picking up votes from supporters of these other parties. You may dispute this, but do the Greens actually want to form a government? Would they be happy putting in place the means, by way of the referendum system, of creating legislation?
I use the Greens as an example as they embrace the European Union because they see the governmental structure – National, (that is the nation of Europe), regional, local, parish as a means of empowering the people at the bottom.
What they are blind to is that the power only goes one way – from the Commission downwards. There is no upward flow. Referendums reverse this current.
We have to start by giving Direct Democracy more prominence in UKIP’s manifesto. The basis is already there; it just needs bringing to the forefront where it will sit comfortably alongside EU withdrawal because it can only be achieved from outside the EU structure.
What we are proposing is the expansion of UKIP’s existing policy on “British Governance” (2).
UKIP’s manifesto calls for the use of referendums to “provide some protection from the misuse of office by professional politicians and to restore some confidence in our democratic process”.
If, during a period of 6 months, 5% of the national electorate signs a petition demanding a referendum on any matter of policy, then the government is obliged to hold such a referendum and be bound by its result.
Under the heading “public consultation” the manifesto lays out ground rules for the holding of local referenda. I won’t detail them here, (the links are listed in footnote 2 below), as the Lechlade Group’s proposals go much farther.
So what is the problem?
What we have at the moment is EXECUTIVE DEMOCRACY, which has also been described as rule by a ‘sofa cabinet’. This was given birth to by Margaret Thatcher, nurtured by her successors and perfected by Tony Blair.
Lord Hailsham described it as ‘elective dictatorship’ and it was redubbed by Jack Straw as ‘executive democracy’.
Executive Democracy In Action
When Blair was toying with the idea, in 2001, of taking us into the Euro without a referendum he was criticised by a trade union leader who said that not only had Blair not discussed Euro membership with the unions/TUC; he had not allowed debate within the party at its’ conference, he had not allowed debate amongst the Labour MPs and had not even discussed it within the cabinet.
Whenever the subject was raised he always set it aside with the comment “we will discuss the subject at the appropriate time”. Meanwhile he had formulated his decision in private discussions with his inner circle on his study sofa in No 10.
‘Nanny knows best’ so why bother with the formalities of debate and voting; surely as the action about to be taken is so patently obvious the correct one why trouble the ‘people’ with it? This attitude has permeated all the way through government from the cabinet offices down to town council level.
The electorate only get in the way of policy implementation so to expedite the implementation of governance let’s just do it.
Out of this executive vanity comes disenfranchisement of the electorate who understandably become even more disenchanted with the democratic process of exercising their right to vote – “why bother if it doesn’t make any difference”.
When Executive Democracy goes wrong.
In their Democratic Audit published in 2002 The Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex, (3), reported that :-
“Two obsolete features of our constitutional arrangements combine to create the UK’s overweening political executive – the partnership of the elected majority party and the Whitehall bureaucracy.
First, the executive’s powers – and especially those ministers hold under the “royal prerogative” – are neither defined nor governed by a constitution or in law; their flexibility and official secrecy secure executive dominion at the centre.
Second, the electoral system generally places one or other main party in power with a swollen disproportionate majority in the Commons, thus giving its leaders broadly unchallengeable legislative as well as executive power.
The decision to join the US invasion of Iraq revealed other aspects of the executive’s power over Parliament. The government’s sole right of recall of Parliament allowed it to manage and muddy public debate, at a time of unprecedented popular interest, unchallenged by MPs in the House, denying people the mature and open discussion that their interest demanded and giving MPs their say when it was too late to alter the substantial decision.
The crucial issue of the legality of the invasion was justified solely by an unseen legal opinion by the Attorney General, a peer who is a personal appointee of the Prime Minister. Parliament itself has no Legal Counsel nor the right to commission its own legal opinion
The invasion highlights the Jekyll and Hyde nature of Labour government since 1997. On the one hand, this has been a reforming government. On the other hand, it has jealously guarded the ancient and flexible powers that make the executive all-powerful and deny open, accountable and representative government to British citizens.
At the same time, the war against Iraq raises a second major question about the quality of British democracy. Democracy under Blair (Politico’s, £12.99) examines how far the United Kingdom acts democratically abroad and question show free our rulers are from subordination to the United States.
The principal justification for invading Iraq was the danger to the west and the world posed by Iraq’s undeclared possession of weapons of mass destruction. But as US General Wesley Clark has said in terms: “The fight was never just about weapons of mass destruction, whatever the rhetoric. Rather the war was the inauguration of a new US strategy for the region” (The Times, 1 May 2003).
Arguably in this cause the UK has broken international law and undermined the authority of the United Nations”
£££££
In interviewing David Marquand, (see ‘c’ below for the full text), Anthony Barnett poses the question:-
“But isn’t there a broader failure of the institutions – or rather aren’t we looking at an assault upon them that means the prime minister can remain unchecked? Let me try and list them.
First, there is the parliamentary Labour party – the MPs whose power you say is decisive. Patronage has cut off much of what willpower they had.
Second, the House of Commons itself has been hollowed out; its self-belief has collapsed, aided by the decomposition of the Conservative party now Blair has stolen the better part of its wardrobe. All this is reinforced by the way the Blair government has turned the House of Lords into a crony -style second chamber depleting it of legitimacy. At the same time the Labour Party has become a shell of its former size, lacking conviction and losing membership and this feeds back into the spirit of MP’s.
Third, the independence of the civil service is under attack and is being exposed to corporate interests as Blair seeks to make it possible for senior civil servants to be recruited directly into corporations – an issue which only Private Eye has covered in any detail. We have seen a similarly motivated attack on the BBC.
Now Blair has appointed John Scarlett to be the head of the intelligence services, a man who officially is described as being “unconsciously influenced” by the desires of the leader. We have even got to the position where leading members of the judiciary are calling for a written constitution because they see the independence of the law itself being undermined.
New Labour inherited the royalist, prerogative powers of the constitution. It had a contempt for the old regime, which in my view was justified. But Blair also has an equal if not greater contempt for democracy.
This makes his willingness to use those now unchecked central powers all the more dangerous, as the old regime is spread-eagled before him and the authoritarianism that you talked about kicks in. The Iraq war decision has shown that the inherited, informal constitution and all its institutions are depleted of their capacity to check and resist abuses of power.”
This absence of effective democratic checks and balances allows Blair, like Mrs Thatcherand other predecessors before him, to force his own personal policies through. The situation must be corrected; no executive should be allowed to act this way in the future. We must protect democracy from those with presidential pretensions who would seek to promote a benevolent dictatorship system.
What is the solution? DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
To quote Orsen Welles’ character in the film, “The Third Man”:
Harry Lime: Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella’ says: in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock! So long Holly.
This is more than a little unfair on the Swiss as they have given the world a shining example of the use of Direct Democracy.
In this section remember that the Swiss political structure is Federal/Canton/Commune, which we can equate to our National/County and local government. Also, the population of Switzerland is about 7.5 million so about one eighth that of the UK.
Switzerland has the most extensive system and the longest tradition of direct democracy. The procedures of citizen lawmaking are designed in a genuinely user-friendly way.
They give citizens real power to make political decisions, something with which elected politicians and others wielding power in the country have to reckon. But even in Switzerland, the procedures for citizen participation in decision-making are, of course, not perfect. (4)
£££££
The following section is a condensation of extracts from the excellent “Guidebook To Direct Democracy” which I recommend as essential reading for anybody interested in the subject. Acknowledgement and details in annex 3, (5)
Direct Democracy is the right of citizens to be involved in political decision making and is a way that representative democracy can become truly representative
Direct democracy, as a complement to indirect democracy, became established in Switzerland as early as in the 19th century and has been developed further since then. In hundreds of referendums over more than one hundred years, Swiss citizens have learned to make decisions on substantive political issues, whether at the national (federal) level, in the cantons or in the local communities
In Switzerland, direct democracy means that a referendum process takes place either because a group of voters demands it, or because it is stipulated in the constitution. The government cannot call a referendum: direct democracy implies the existence and use of tools for the sharing of political power which are in the hands of the citizens and serve their interests; direct democracy cannot be controlled for party-political or other vested interests by the government or parliament
There are three main procedures in Swiss direct democracy.
Firstly there is the obligatory referendum: if parliament wishes to add something to the constitution, or amend it, the constitution itself lays down that the draft amendment or supplement has to be approved (or rejected) in a national referendum vote.
Secondly there is the facultative, or optional, referendum: new laws or changes to laws, which have been passed by parliament, are subject to the facultative referendum, which means that they also have to receive final approval or rejection in a referendum vote – if 50,000 voters support a demand for this.
Thirdly there is the citizens’ initiative: citizens have the right to make legislative proposals which must be decided in a referendum vote if the proposal gains the support of 100,000 voters.
This allows a part of the electorate to place before the whole electorate issues which parliament does not wish to deal with, or which have not even occurred to parliament and thus empowers the citizens.
Consensus Democracy.
The use of referendum has made a decisive contribution to the transformation of Swiss majority democracy into a consensus democracy. The right to force a referendum (by collecting signatures) on a law passed by parliament puts constant pressure on those in power to take into account the interests of as wide a spectrum of political forces as possible when they are making their decisions.
They give citizens real power to make political decisions, something with which elected politicians and others wielding power in the country have to reckon. But even in Switzerland, the procedures for citizen participation in decision-making are, of course, not perfect. (4)
£££££
The following section is a condensation of extracts from the excellent “Guidebook To Direct Democracy” which I recommend as essential reading for anybody interested in the subject. Acknowledgement and details in annex 3, (5)
Direct Democracy is the right of citizens to be involved in political decision making and is a way that representative democracy can become truly representative
Direct democracy, as a complement to indirect democracy, became established in Switzerland as early as in the 19th century and has been developed further since then. In hundreds of referendums over more than one hundred years, Swiss citizens have learned to make decisions on substantive political issues, whether at the national (federal) level, in the cantons or in the local communities
In Switzerland, direct democracy means that a referendum process takes place either because a group of voters demands it, or because it is stipulated in the constitution. The government cannot call a referendum: direct democracy implies the existence and use of tools for the sharing of political power which are in the hands of the citizens and serve their interests; direct democracy cannot be controlled for party-political or other vested interests by the government or parliament
There are three main procedures in Swiss direct democracy.
Firstly there is the obligatory referendum: if parliament wishes to add something to the constitution, or amend it, the constitution itself lays down that the draft amendment or supplement has to be approved (or rejected) in a national referendum vote.
Secondly there is the facultative, or optional, referendum: new laws or changes to laws, which have been passed by parliament, are subject to the facultative referendum, which means that they also have to receive final approval or rejection in a referendum vote – if 50,000 voters support a demand for this.
Thirdly there is the citizens’ initiative: citizens have the right to make legislative proposals which must be decided in a referendum vote if the proposal gains the support of 100,000 voters.
This allows a part of the electorate to place before the whole electorate issues which parliament does not wish to deal with, or which have not even occurred to parliament and thus empowers the citizens.
Consensus Democracy.
The use of referendum has made a decisive contribution to the transformation of Swiss majority democracy into a consensus democracy. The right to force a referendum (by collecting signatures) on a law passed by parliament puts constant pressure on those in power to take into account the interests of as wide a spectrum of political forces as possible when they are making their decisions.
The dominance of power by politicians in purely parliamentary democracies shapes the relationship between rulers and ruled, even to the very way they conceive of democracy.
Direct democracy shatters that imbalance of power, with the result that the quality of the relationship between rulers and ruled is fundamentally altered. There is a corresponding alteration in the way both elected representatives and citizens see themselves – the image they have of their respective roles in political life.
All in all, citizens’ rights reinforce both self-esteem and political competence of the voters and counter feelings of alienation and powerlessness.
In a direct democracy, both media and authorities have to make a special effort to provide accurate and full information to the citizens and to enter into a continuing dialogue with them.
Empirical, comparative studies show how the widespread use of direct-democratic procedures actually strengthens the economy, reduces tax avoidance and lowers the level of public debt.”
The popular initiative gives citizens the chance of “stepping on the gas pedal of reform.” In these instances, it is usually the government or parliament, which puts the brakes on.
It’s just the other way around with the “facultative (optional) referendum”, a second central instrument of Swiss direct democracy. The signatures of 50,000 citizens who are eligible to vote can force a referendum on any new law passed by parliament, if the law is challenged within 100 days of being officially announced.
This has led to an increase in trust of parliament by the Swiss people, as they know that the electorate can challenge any new legislation.
The direct success rate for optional referendums is much higher than that for popular initiatives: in 78 out of the 151 votes in these “popular referendums” (52% of the total: up to 26.9.2004), voters agreed with the referendum committee and blocked a law which had already been approved in parliament.
However, more than 93% of all parliamentary decisions pass into law unchallenged. Nonetheless, the fact that a challenge is possible means that both chambers of the Swiss Parliament are careful to take into account the interests of minorities when they are elaborating a new law.”
In the canton with the largest surface area, Graubünden, any non-recurring expenditure in excess of 10 million Swiss francs, (£ 4.6 million), has to be approved by the voters in a ballot. Any expenditure from 1–10 million Swiss francs can be challenged by the voters in a optional referendum if they can gather at least 1,500 signatures (about 1.2% of the total cantonal electorate).
Similarly, for recurrent new expenditure – an annual subsidy to an opera house or arts festival, for example – there is an obligatory finance referendum where the sum exceeds one million francs. Once again, 1,500 voters can choose to call a vote if the sum exceeds 300,000 Swiss francs for regularly recurrent new expenditure.
£££££
Another important instrument of direct democracy in the cantons is the obligatory legislative referendum, and in the communes the administrative referendum. In other words: the lower the political level, the more opportunities citizens have to be directly involved in decision-making.
The people are no longer willing to be governed from above; they demand their share in the making of laws and the exercise of power. They demand that self-government finally means what it says and that it be as centralised as necessary, as decentralised as possible.
“The potentially most dangerous instrument (from the point of view of the authorities) and at the same time the most successful one (from the point of view of the campaign committees) is the optional referendum, which gives a minimum of 50,000 voters or eight cantons the right to challenge a federal law within 100 days of it having been passed, and force a referendum on it.
Parliament’s decision has been overturned on 78 occasions out of the 151 optional referendums (up to 31.12.2004) so far held. In the past, the referendum has been used to oppose the bilateral agreements with the EU, the deployment of Swiss soldiers in other countries, reform of the army and the privatisation of the energy market, among other issues.
For a better understanding of these differences the political organisation of democracy and the relationship between politicians and citizens can be usefully seen in terms of relations between those who are established and those who are outsiders.”
“At the heart of every established-outsiders relationship is, according to Norbert Elias, an imbalance of power, with its resultant social tensions. This is the decisive factor, which allows an established group to stigmatise an outsider group. The freedom to stigmatise persists as long as the established retain the monopoly of power. As soon as the balance of power shifts towards the outsiders, the established group’s freedom to stigmatise begins to be lost.”
Even the ancient Greeks understood something of this difference. Writing 2500 years ago, Pericles observed: “In a democracy, public debate does not serve as a brake on politics, but is rather the indispensable prerequisite for all wise decisions.”
£££££
The Swiss currently hold four referendum polls a year. Each poll is a vote on several issues, in excess of 20 on some occasions, a mixture of national, canton and local issues. Besides discussions in the media each voter receives a referendum booklet. The modest little guide is mailed out to all registered voters, together with the voting slips and the certificate of entitlement to vote, three to four weeks before every referendum ballot.
In addition to the federal booklet there are often cantonal and communal referendum booklets, which might contain the regional or local authorities’ annual budget proposals or the design sketches for a new local hospital.
The booklet has been in use since the late 1960s. For the first two decades in the life of this new medium of information it was the government that summarised the arguments both for and against a proposal. In practice since 1983, and in law since 1994, initiative and referendum committees have been able to draft their own arguments and have them included in the booklet.
The government can intervene only if the text is defamatory or too long.
The practice of direct democracy presents not only a didactic challenge for government, but also tests the ability of politicians to communicate successfully and persuade voters to agree with them. In the run-up to referendum votes, the elected representatives often form themselves into cross-party committees, write newspaper articles and appear as panel members in public debates on the referendum issues.
The political parties organise public debates in restaurants and sports centres. The print and electronic media go out of their way to shed light on the most varied aspects of the referendum proposals in as professional, open and balanced a way as possible – not least for quite selfish reasons, since they want to hold on to their customer base, whatever the outcome of the vote.
£££££
For years, direct democracy was accused of putting a brake on economic progress. So the Swiss were amazed when, in 2002, “economiesuisse”, the umbrella organisation for Swiss business, produced a position paper on public finance in which stated clearly and simply: “Direct democracy should be promoted at all levels of the state.”
This followed a survey and statistical analysis of the influence of direct democracy on economic growth. The results were striking:
1. In cantons with stronger rights of participation on financial issues, economic performance is 15% higher (in terms of GDP per head).
2. In cantons where citizens can vote on the budget, there is 30% less tax avoidance – on average 1,500 Swiss francs per taxpayer. Cantonal debt is correspondingly lower. The possible explanation: people are more prepared to support public expenditure when they are involved in deciding how their money is spent.
3. In communities where the budget has to be approved by referendum, public expenditure is 10% lower per head than in places where residents have no such rights. It appears that citizens are more careful with the money taken from them in taxes than the politicians are.
4. Communities which have the finance referendum have 25% lower public debt (5,800 Swiss francs per taxpayer) – the direct result of lower expenditure and greater tax income.
5. Public services cost less in towns and cities with direct democracy: refuse disposal is almost 20% cheaper.
From an economic point of view, therefore, there are virtually no arguments against direct democracy.
£££££
However; Design determines the quality and some ways of organising Direct Democracy are better than others. Compare the criteria listed in Annex 1 below with what was imposed on the UK in 1975, The Dutch & French in 2005 and the proposed UK referendum on the EU constitution.
£££££
In a recent report the United Nations made it clear that “True democratisation means more than elections. People’s dignity requires that they be free – and able – to participate in the formation and stewardship of the rules and institutions that govern them.”
“Direct democracy as a complement to indirect democracy is neither a silly idealistic notion from the past, nor the hobby-horse of a small group of out-of- touch fantasists. It has shown itself to be, on the contrary, an extremely practical idea – not least at the local level.
£££££
The founding fathers of the EU didn’t think much of the idea of involving citizens directly in decision-making at the European political level. It was less the experience of the 1939–45 war than the growing threat from the Cold War which meant that the ideas for a democratic European federation developed in the 1940s were initially consigned to the waste-paper bin. The process of integration during the 1950s was dominated by questions of economy and bureaucracy: the Monnet system did not provide for the direct involvement of the citizen.
For Brian Beedham, editor at “The Economist” in London, the worldwide trend to more direct democracy means nothing less than that “the next big step for mankind” lies just ahead. The 21st century will see the “part-time democracy” of the past replaced by a “full democracy”, in which citizens will have the right to have their say on substantive issues at any time. This is the only way for representative democracy to become truly representative. Citizens’ rights can turn the utopia of yesterday into the reality of tomorrow.
£££££
Between 1979 and 2000 37% of all popular demands were initiated by political parties, (60% from the Green/Left camp; 40% from the ‘bourgeois’ camp). Subjects covered included the system of state organisation, finances/taxation, and social welfare/health.
Ad-hoc initiative committees initiate 30% of all popular demands with an emphasis on Transport and democracy.
Combined sponsorship and interest groups initiated 10% of all popular demands the most active groups being environmentalists, trade unions; tenants groups, employers and homeowners. The subjects covered included financial, environment and education issues.
What has been noted this century is that the most successful initiatives do not originate in the left or right wing political circles but in the centre ground who, recently, have not been doing particularly well in parliamentary elections. Established groups launch an increasing number of initiatives.
£££££
So whats in it for UK Independence Party?
Power, An Independent enquiry into Britains democracy conducted a survey, (Annex 5) after the May 2005 election, amongst registered voters who hadn’t voted.
Question 10 of their survey asked:-
How likely would you be to participate if one of these conditions applied:
A referendum with a simple yes/no vote on an important debate.....71 %
The ability to force your MP to face an election if enough members of the public
demanded it.......... 63 %
Meetings where members of the public agree how and where local money will be spent with local councillors...........70 %
An issue is put to a referendum if enough people demand it.............71 %
There are 44,180,243 people in the UK of voting age,
Meetings where members of the public agree how and where local money will be spent with local councillors...........70 %
An issue is put to a referendum if enough people demand it.............71 %
There are 44,180,243 people in the UK of voting age,
(the ONS don’t know how many exactly are actually registered to vote – believe it or not).
None voters @ 38.7% = 17,097,754
If UKIP can ‘turn on’ 70% of those non voters, who indicated in the survey above, that they would vote if MPs were accountable during elections, they had a regular say in how their money is spent and are in favour of the referendums we propose, then our potential market is, from the non-voters alone, an extra :-
11,968,427 votes.
A pipe dream? Attaining nigh on full turn out isn’t possible?
Let us consider Malta, (Annex 6).
Without compulsory voting or the attraction of referendums the turn out in Maltese elections, since 1962 has exceeded 90%.
Since 1987 it has exceeded 95% and in 2003 the turn out was 96.5% which is a higher turn out than that attained in the latest Australian election where there is compulsory voting.
Even in Maltese local elections the turn out exceeds 65%.
I have spoken with the Maltese Electoral commission. They are unable to explain the phenomena except to say that the Maltese people take a great interest in who governs them.
£££££
Advocating the use of referenda to empower the people, to curtail abuse of power by the executive is, we believe, the way to mobilise the 38.7% party.
£££££
It gives UKIP another headline policy to harness to our chariot, a policy which can only be implemented from outside the European Union and thus is complimentary to that of EU withdrawal. It cannot be adopted by any of the three old parties as it would mean they would have to surrender their power.
For further information on the aims of the £echlade Group, to take part in our discussions or to offer your support contact.
David Lamb. Chairman, Lechlade Group.
5, Marfleet Close. Lower Earley. Reading. Berks. RG6 3XL.
e.mail : £echladegroup@thebrainsurgery.co.uk
THE £ECHLADE GROUP IS COMMITTED TO RETURNING THE GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
Annex 1 The design of direct democracy
i) - “The future of direct democracy in Europe and across the world depends on the free expression and fair use of citizens’ rights. The following represent the minimum requirements which must be met:
ii) • Citizens must have the right to launch a popular initiative and referendum process themselves.
iii) • Popular referendums must be binding. Non-binding consultations are often ambiguous; instead of solving problems, they create new ones.
iv) • There must be no minimum turnout quorums: these permit non-voting to be used tactically and increase the likelihood of referendums being declared invalid.
v) • all donations and campaign funds used in the run-up to referendums to be declared in the interests of transparency.
vi) • both sides in a referendum campaign to be given space and time in the media.• the role of government and of public debates in referendum campaigns to be clearly defined.
Many reforms which are “sold” to citizens as “participatory” or “direct” democracy only reveal their true character when they are measured against the six requirements listed above.
In a genuine direct democracy, the constitution and the law clearly define when it is mandatory for the citizens to be consulted, and when they can decide for themselves that they have to be consulted. The quality of the direct-democratic procedures in place is crucially important for the use of direct democracy and for the quality of the decisions reached. When initiative and referendum procedures are being drawn up, a number of factors have to be taken into account:
• Signature thresholds: how many voters’ signatures are required in order to trigger a citizens’ initiative or a referendum?
• Time allowances: how much time is allowed for each stage of the process (collection of signatures, government response, parliamentary debate including a possible counter-proposal, referendum campaign)?
• How the signatures are collected: can signatures be freely collected (on the street, for example) and thereby generate discussions, or are discussions prevented by restrictive collection rules (e.g. that signatures can be given only in designated official centres)?
• How well direct democracy is embedded in the overall political system: what rules exist for the involvement of government and parliament?
• Majority requirements and minimum turnout quorums: is there a prescribed minimum “Yes” vote or turnout quorum (as a percentage of the electorate) in addition to the simple majority rule?
• Information for citizens and public debate: are citizens properly, objectively and adequately informed? How is public debate promoted and supported?
• Restriction of subject matter: what issues are citizens NOT allowed to decide direct-democratically?
• Legal consequences: what are the legal consequences of a valid citizens’ initiative (i.e. one which has satisfied the legal requirements)?
• The process as a whole: do the direct-democratic procedures form a coherent whole which cannot be subverted by the authorities, government or parliament?
Additional thoughts from the excellent paper, “War & Peace: Executive Democracy In Action”,
(6) Came to the following conclusion in drawing up a Democratic Reform Agenda: -
“We fear that short of revolution or major crisis, the necessary reforms will be a long time coming, if ever.
The European Union, or the more dynamic examples of home rule in Scotland and Wales, are otherwise most likely to stimulate further reforms. We have considered the arguments in favour of recognised the growing de facto transition from cabinet government to a primitive presidentialism and introducing major structural reforms to subject our quasi-president to rules of conduct and to make him or her accountable.
But if a more gradual reform process is unlikely to succeed, then a constitutional revolution is even more unlikely. In any event, we believe that presidential systems are inherently less democratic than Prime Ministerial or cabinet systems, being less collective in approach.
Be that as it may, we round off this leaflet with modest proposals for reform:
* Consult the public widely on drafting a written constitution for the UK
* Introduce proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons
* Create a second chamber also elected by proportional representation
* Pass a Civil Service Act with clear legal rules for executive conduct
* Replace royal prerogative powers with clearly defined statutory powers for the Prime Minister and ministers
* Pass a fully comprehensive equality law
* Abolish the Lord Chancellor’s judicial authority
* Set up a Human Rights Commission
* Establish economic and social rights in British law
* Examine in public the case for and against state funding for political parties
* Make policing locally accountable
* Institute independent regulation of standards in both Houses of Parliament
* Extend affirmative action in the political parties and public sector
* Remedy the bias towards business interests in public participation
* Make local government more independent.
* Raise aid spending to the UN target and abolish protection and subsidy regimes”
“We fear that short of revolution or major crisis, the necessary reforms will be a long time coming, if ever.
The European Union, or the more dynamic examples of home rule in Scotland and Wales, are otherwise most likely to stimulate further reforms. We have considered the arguments in favour of recognised the growing de facto transition from cabinet government to a primitive presidentialism and introducing major structural reforms to subject our quasi-president to rules of conduct and to make him or her accountable.
But if a more gradual reform process is unlikely to succeed, then a constitutional revolution is even more unlikely. In any event, we believe that presidential systems are inherently less democratic than Prime Ministerial or cabinet systems, being less collective in approach.
Be that as it may, we round off this leaflet with modest proposals for reform:
* Consult the public widely on drafting a written constitution for the UK
* Introduce proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons
* Create a second chamber also elected by proportional representation
* Pass a Civil Service Act with clear legal rules for executive conduct
* Replace royal prerogative powers with clearly defined statutory powers for the Prime Minister and ministers
* Pass a fully comprehensive equality law
* Abolish the Lord Chancellor’s judicial authority
* Set up a Human Rights Commission
* Establish economic and social rights in British law
* Examine in public the case for and against state funding for political parties
* Make policing locally accountable
* Institute independent regulation of standards in both Houses of Parliament
* Extend affirmative action in the political parties and public sector
* Remedy the bias towards business interests in public participation
* Make local government more independent.
* Raise aid spending to the UN target and abolish protection and subsidy regimes”
Annex 2. Other countries.
In the Free State of Bavaria, nearly 1 million signatures (10% of the electorate) have to be collected within 14 days – and not just anywhere, but only in state offices.
In Austria, anyone wanting to submit an initiative to parliament has only seven days to collect 100,000 signatures (according to §10 of the 1973 law on citizens’ initiatives, those wishing to sign can do so only in specified places and at specified times). In Venezuela, the people who wanted to remove the incumbent President Hugo Chavez in 2004 had only four days to obtain the signatures of 20% of the entire electorate. Under such extreme conditions, it is only very rarely – as in the case of Venezuela – that the instrument of initiative and referendum is able to be used.
The design of direct democracy is somewhat more user-friendly in the states of the USA and in Italy. In the United States signature thresholds vary from a high of 15% of qualified voters based on votes cast in the last general election in Wyoming to a low of 2% of the state’s resident population in North Dakota; in Italy, 500,000 signatures are enough to secure a national referendum to repeal a law. However, such referendums are valid only if at least 50% of the electorate actually turns out to vote.
Annex 3 Credit where credit is due.
(1) “Britains Tipping Point Election”.
This article by Tom Nairn was originally published on openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons Licence. If you enjoyed this article, visit openDemocracy.net http:// opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/2631.pdf
(2) The full articles in the UKIP manifesto relating to National and Local Governance can be found at:-
http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=manifesto2005&page=manifesto2005britishgovernance
http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=manifesto2005&page=manifestolocalgovernance
(3) Extract from “Democracy Under Blair”, (Politico £12.99), available from
DEMOCRATIC AUDIT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. The Human Rights Centre, University of Essex Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ
http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/Findings6LR.pdf
(4) Extract from: - “Initiative & Referendum in Europe” http://www.iri-europe.org/
(5) “The Guidebook To Direct Democracy”, published by The Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe and available from them at: -
Entrepotdok 19A, NL-1018 AD. Amsterdam. Tel: +31 20 427 5091 / Fax +031 20 420 7759 info@iri-europe.org http://www.iri-europe.org/
(6) “War & Peace: Executive Democracy In Action”. Published by DEMOCRATIC AUDIT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Human Rights Centre, University of Essex Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ
http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/Findings6LR.pdf
Annex 4 Additional Reading:-
a)Manifestowatch
http://www.democraticaudit.com/british_democracy/mw-overview.php
b) “Democracy Under Attack After Iraq”.
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=450302005
c) “One Nation Under Blair: An interview with David Marquand”.
http://opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/2131.pdf
d) “ACTIVE DEMOCRACY: Engaging Citizens In Local Democracy”.
http://www.lgmn.org.uk/main_pages/Summary.pdf
e) “The State Of British Democracy”.
http://www.jrrt.org.uk/SoNSummary.pdf
f) “The Collapse Of Institutional Democracy In Britain”.
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000271.php
g) “The political system in switzerland”.
http://www.swissworld.org/dvd_rom/eng/direct_democracy_2004/content/politsystem/politsystem.html
Annex 5 Survey of Non-voters
9th – 17th May 2005 - 1025 people who were registered to vote but didn’t:-
http://www.powerinquiry.org/publications/documents/Non-Voterspoll-Summary_000.pdf
Extracts:-
2001 Turnout by age:-
All: 59% ; 18-24: 39%; 25-34: 46%; 35-44: 46%;
45-54: 65%; 55-64: 69%; 65+ : 70%
Trust in our politicians:
year ....1993 ....1997.... 1999.... 2000.... 2001.... 2002.... 2003.... 2004
trust % .14 ........15 .........23 .........20........ 17 ..........19......... 18......... 22
dont %.. 79........ 78......... 72......... 74 .........77 .........73......... 75 .........71
“People like me have no say in what government does”:
year 1963... 1986... 1987... 1991... 1994... 1996... 1997... 1998... 2001
% ........59....... 71....... 69....... 60....... 66....... 62....... 58....... 60....... 55
Believe they SHOULD have a great deal or fair amount of power between elections compared to those believing they do have a great deal or fair amount power.
year ....................1994 .......1996....... 2000
should %.............. 78.............78........... 70
Already do %...... 16............ 13........... 19
Wanted a say in government decisions ..........75 %
trust % .14 ........15 .........23 .........20........ 17 ..........19......... 18......... 22
dont %.. 79........ 78......... 72......... 74 .........77 .........73......... 75 .........71
“People like me have no say in what government does”:
year 1963... 1986... 1987... 1991... 1994... 1996... 1997... 1998... 2001
% ........59....... 71....... 69....... 60....... 66....... 62....... 58....... 60....... 55
Believe they SHOULD have a great deal or fair amount of power between elections compared to those believing they do have a great deal or fair amount power.
year ....................1994 .......1996....... 2000
should %.............. 78.............78........... 70
Already do %...... 16............ 13........... 19
Wanted a say in government decisions ..........75 %
Ordinary voters should have a GREAT DEAL of influence over gov. policies ........90 %
Consider it a duty to vote ............74 %
Disagree that voting is unimportant ..........90 %
NON-VOTERS SURVEY; (9-17 MAY 2005) [figures in %]
1,025 people surveyed who were registered to vote but didn’t.
How interested do you consider yourself to be in politics:
Very interested..... Interested.... Not particularly.... Not at all
..........8 % ......................26 %................... 32 %................. 34 %
Reason for not voting:
Couldn’t be bothered/didn’t care ................19 %
inconvenient ...................................................15 %
Politicians untrustworthy .............................13 %
Personal reasons, (death in family etc) ......10 %
No choice/difference between parties ..........9 %
Didn’t receive polling card .............................4 %
Politicians don’t care/ in it for themselves ..4 %
Voting doesn’t change anything ....................4 %
Not enough info candidates/parties .............3 %
Didn’t like any of the parties .........................3 %
On holiday ........................................................2 %
Religious reasons ............................................2 %
National outcome was certain .......................1 %
The party I would vote for had no chance ..1 %
I was undecided ..............................................1 %
I was too busy .................................................1 %
I didn’t have enough
NON-VOTERS SURVEY; (9-17 MAY 2005) [figures in %]
1,025 people surveyed who were registered to vote but didn’t.
How interested do you consider yourself to be in politics:
Very interested..... Interested.... Not particularly.... Not at all
..........8 % ......................26 %................... 32 %................. 34 %
Reason for not voting:
Couldn’t be bothered/didn’t care ................19 %
inconvenient ...................................................15 %
Politicians untrustworthy .............................13 %
Personal reasons, (death in family etc) ......10 %
No choice/difference between parties ..........9 %
Didn’t receive polling card .............................4 %
Politicians don’t care/ in it for themselves ..4 %
Voting doesn’t change anything ....................4 %
Not enough info candidates/parties .............3 %
Didn’t like any of the parties .........................3 %
On holiday ........................................................2 %
Religious reasons ............................................2 %
National outcome was certain .......................1 %
The party I would vote for had no chance ..1 %
I was undecided ..............................................1 %
I was too busy .................................................1 %
I didn’t have enough
info on voting arrangements ........................1 %
I was undecided .............................................1 %
I forgot to vote ...............................................1 %
other ................................................................4 %
What might encourage respondents to vote:
..................................................................................Very or likely........... Not particularly or not likely
Made easier, mobile/internet....................................... 44 %................................. 48 %
Incentives ie. Lottery ticket......................................... 24 %.................................. 67 %
Local result less certain .................................................33 %................................. 52 %
National result less certain............................................ 38 %................................. 50 %
More differences between the parties........................ 48 %.................................. 41 %
My preferred party had a real chance........................ 49 %................................. 38 %
Politicians promises could be trusted.......................... 53 %................................ 42 %
Poiticians listened to
I was undecided .............................................1 %
I forgot to vote ...............................................1 %
other ................................................................4 %
What might encourage respondents to vote:
..................................................................................Very or likely........... Not particularly or not likely
Made easier, mobile/internet....................................... 44 %................................. 48 %
Incentives ie. Lottery ticket......................................... 24 %.................................. 67 %
Local result less certain .................................................33 %................................. 52 %
National result less certain............................................ 38 %................................. 50 %
More differences between the parties........................ 48 %.................................. 41 %
My preferred party had a real chance........................ 49 %................................. 38 %
Politicians promises could be trusted.......................... 53 %................................ 42 %
Poiticians listened to
my views between elections......................................... 53 %................................. 38 %
More information on the local candidates.................. 49 %................................. 42 %
One of the candidates or
More information on the local candidates.................. 49 %................................. 42 %
One of the candidates or
their rep had contacted me recently........................... 24 %................................ 64 %
“None of the above” option........................................... 42 %................................ 46 %
More info about voting arrangements........................ 34 %................................ 53 %
How likely would you be to participate if one of these conditions applied:
.................................................................................Very or likely......... Not particularly or not likely
A referendum with a simple
“None of the above” option........................................... 42 %................................ 46 %
More info about voting arrangements........................ 34 %................................ 53 %
How likely would you be to participate if one of these conditions applied:
.................................................................................Very or likely......... Not particularly or not likely
A referendum with a simple
yes/no vote on an important debate........................ 71 %............................. 23 %
The ability to force your MP to face an
The ability to force your MP to face an
election if enough members of the
public demanded it..................................................... 63 %...............................29 %
Meetings where members of the
Meetings where members of the
public hear expert viewpoints on
a controversial issue and then
agree, with politicians, what to do next................... 59 %.............................. 32 %
Meetings where members of the public
Meetings where members of the public
agree how and where local money will
be spent with local councillors.................................. 70 %.............................. 24 %
A large group of the public explore
A large group of the public explore
a controversial issue over the space
of a year and then have their
recommendation put to a referendum................... 62 %.............................. 30 %
An issue is put to a referendum if
An issue is put to a referendum if
enough people demand it.......................................... 71 %.............................. 22 %
See also the Power publication:- Beyond the Ballot - 57 democratic innovations from around the world.
Available for download on :- http://www.powerinquiry.org/publications/documents/BeyondtheBallot_000.pdf
Or order a hard copy :- email info@powerinquiry.org or telephone 0845 345 5307 to request a copy.
See also the Power publication:- Beyond the Ballot - 57 democratic innovations from around the world.
Available for download on :- http://www.powerinquiry.org/publications/documents/BeyondtheBallot_000.pdf
Or order a hard copy :- email info@powerinquiry.org or telephone 0845 345 5307 to request a copy.
1921 75.30 ....1924 89.46.... 1927 78.75.... 1932 92.49 ....1939 75.06.... 1945 41.95.... 1947 75.44
1950 73.92 ....1951 74.59.... 1953 80.37.... 1955 81.16.... 1962 90.77.... 1966 89.71.... 1971 92.93
1976 94.89.... 1981 94.64.... 1987 96.11.... 1992 96.08.... 1996 96.32.... 1998 95.40.... 2003 96.95
posted by David Lamb | 2:33 PM
|
0 comments
