Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland Q and A

[INIREF*I&R ~ GB]

Questions and answers from public discussion launched by INIREF / I&R~GB
_I&R ~ GB logo


_
_Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland_

*"... expressing our political sovereignty, we the people could
intervene on important issues which we choose to select"*

CIR = citizens' initiative and referendum, DD = direct democracy, SNP =
Scottish National Party, Dave and Nick = UK prime minister and deputy

*question*

iniref says the Direct Democracy provisions would apply in the
period between elections but I'm intrigued as to why under such a
system as Direct Democracy it is even necessary to have elections or
elected representatives. Surely the will of the people could be
heard and enacted by professional civil servants and legislators and
elections themselves become unnecessary? (even oversight could be
done by judges or appointed commissioners)


*reply*
We are not suggesting a sudden, drastic change and ask you all to
consider the case of Scotland. We propose to integrate a few methods of
direct democracy with our existing system of political parties and
parliament. These can be introduced in a step-wise manner so that the
people, the civil service and politicians can learn to deal with the
innovations in hopefully constructive ways. This model is well known,
tried and tested in a number of other countries.The use of direct
democratic tools, such as the citizens' law-proposal or the
veto-referendum, once they have been formally introduced, we envisage as
being optional. So, if a government "forgets" some manifesto promise, or
proposes some action which nobody wants, or there are unforeseen events,
then an "initiative" which could lead to binding referendum could be
launched. An agreed, large number of voter-endorsements would be needed
to kick-start this process.

Again, most law-making and day-to-day governing would be done by
parliament and government as before. But, in addition, expressing our
political sovereignty, we the people could intervene on important issues
which we choose to select. It would be unwise to abolish "elections or
elected representatives" in the near future. A fully direct democracy
would (arguably, should) take many years to develop, even if the people
wanted it.

Direct democracy cannot be reduced to "referendum" any more than
indirect, "representative" democracy can be reduced to a single vote in
parliament. In both there is long and complex deliberation before a
proposal is put forward, plus debate and examination of evidence before
a decision is taken. The culture of political life is changed.

*question*

Of course D... has argued the case, and i agree with him, that
Direct Democracy would simply delay the introduction of an
independence referendum,


*reply*
You mean that the independence referendum would be delayed beyond 2014?
Would the introduction of optional direct democracy, as we describe it,
cause such delay? If so, how? The SNP has stated that they are in
favour. They could introduce elements of DD while they are in power.
They may not get another chance to make this vital reform, which would
guarantee their place in the history of democracy: from ancient Athens
to Edinburgh!

*question*

however, perhaps the bigger question is whether independence would
either be necessary or desirable if such a system of democracy were
reality, or had the prospect of becoming a reality.

*reply*
For the UK, direct democracy is not in sight. All three "major" parties
are likely to resist. Independence of Scotland is IMO a matter for the
Scots. Direct democracy would improve our quality of life, our politics
and (there is evidence) our economic prosperity.

*question
*

iniref, do you see Direct Democracy ( if enacted UK wide) as an
alternative to devolution and/or independence and ....


*reply*
Again, we are talking about direct democracy for Scotland here. It's
extremely unlikely that Dave and Nick will offer UK-national direct
democracy (although in 2009 Dave did promise to introduce it). Even if
they did, then it would be up to the Scots people to decide about
independence.

*question*

.... if so what checks, balances and safe-guards are necessary
within such a system to control any possible abuse?

*reply*
The changes which are to be expected with "more" democracy are mainly
positive: Better representation of electoral will would give greater
weight to well-being of the people, provide creative input from a much
wider range of citizens, better checks on government e.g. the veto
referendum and on politicians and e.g. the recall (impeachment)
initiative. Modern direct democracy has been analysed and there are
optimal models. These concern such things as hurdles – number of
endorsements to be collect for a proposal, period allowed for collecting
signatures, methods of collection (e.g. in public places, via electronic
communication), involvement of council or parliament say by taking a
vote on a citizens' proposal or presenting an alternative proposal to be
put to referendum.

*question
*

On the matter of Direct Democracy, one of my concerns would be the
trigger point at which parliament would be required to introduce
legislation. There is also the constituency from which that trigger
point would be calculated. I'm assuming that for Uk only/reserved
matters that would be the Uk as as whole, and that for devolved
matters that would be from those registered to vote in the devolved
countries. For the purposes of securing legislation on Scottish
independence, or indeed a variation on the extent of devolved
powers, that would require the participation of voters from all over
the UK.


*reply*
A citizens' proposition would become law after achieving a majority in
plebiscite. We propose to introduce CIR at all levels of governance from
local communities and unitary authorities to Scottish central. You ask
about some details, which could be sorted out quite easily.

A citizen-initiated proposal could address matters of national
independence and devolution but this might well face obstruction by the
UK. Nevertheless, such a proposal, stemming from a country with strong
democracy based on citizen-sovereignty, would send a powerful message to
both the Scottish and the UK governments and thus influence the outcome
of the independence debate.

*question*

Clearly matters like the Sewel convention would become obsolete and
so it follows, as i see it, that devolution as it currently exists
for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would become meaningless
and unworkable.

*reply*
Just introducing CIR in Scotland would not change existing structures or
agreements.
-----------------------------------------------------

More information via http://www.iniref.org/

BALLOT FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Proposal for comparison: maybe we need a version for Scotland!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb/