Democracy law - a model for Britain?
Wallace-Macpherson
BASIC (CONSTITUTIONAL) LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
In 1998 the social democratic and green/alliance 90 political parties
agreed in their "red-green" coalition negotiations to include a
statement of intention to introduce a law allowing citizen-lawmaking at
the "country" level. (This is already possible in most Lands, and in
many towns and districts). A bill was introduced rather late in the
parliamentary session. There was a vote in the Bundestag which showed a
majority in favour but the bill was not passed because a constitutional
majority was not achieved. Too many opposition party MPs were against.
Again in 2002 the red-green government in its second consecutive term
has a similar statement in the coalition agreement. Presumably the bill
or a similar one will be presented again. There is a chance that enough
opposition MPs will support so that the bill can become law.
There follows a translation showing the proposed reform, which would
allow the practice of some elements of direct democracy (some short
modifications are italicised).
Accuracy of this translation is NOT guaranteed.
--------------------------------------------
German Bundestag (parliament) 14th election period - Document 14/8503
Draft law to introduce Citizens' Initiative, Referendum-demand and
Referendum into the Basic Law
Parliament (Bundestag) with agreement of the Council of Lands
(Bundesrat) has passed the following law:
Article 1
Changes to the (constitutional) Basic Law (introduction of Citizens'
Initiative, Referendum-demand and Referendum)
1. Article 76 Paragraph 1 (Introduction of draft laws) will be changed
as follows:
"(1) Draft laws may be introduced by the Bundesregierung (federal
government), from the Bundestag or by citizens' initiative."
2. Article 79 Paragraph 2 (Changes to the Basic Law) will be changed as
follows: "Such a law requires the votes of two thirds of the members of
Parliament and two thirds of the votes of the Bundesrat or approval in a
referendum."
3. After Article 82 the following Section will be inserted: "VII a.
Citizens' Initiative, Referendum-demand and Referendum
Article 82a (Citizens' Initiative)
(1) Four hundred thousand (citizens) eligible voters can oblige the
parliament to deal with a draft law backed up by the reasons for its
introduction. Representatives of the Citizens' Initiative (hereafter:
the Speakers) have the right to be heard in Parliament.
(2) Citizens' Initiatives with financial effects are permitted. Excluded
are Citizens' Initiatives on the budget law, on tax law, public service
and pension law, law concerning members of the German Parliament as well
as law to re-introduce the death penalty.
Article 82b (Volksbegehren - Citizens' referendum-demand)
(1) If after eight months the draft law has not been passed by
parliament, the Speakers may introduce a Citizens' referendum-demand.
(2) If the Government, a Land Government or a third of parliamentary
members consider the draft law to be against the constitution, the
Constitutional Court will be called to decide.
(3) The Citizens' referendum-demand comes into effect if within six
months five out of a hundred citizens (eligible voters) give their
agreement.
Article 82c (Volksentscheid - Referendum)
(1) If a Citizens' Referendum-demand succeeds, a referendum will take
place within six months, unless in the meantime the law has been passed.
(2) Parliament may under Article 77 put a draft law to referendum
{comment: presumably this means that as an alternative to the citizens'
referendum-demand parliament may put to referendum an alternative
proposal in the same matter}
(3) A draft law is passed if a majority of voters has agreed and at
least twenty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in the
referendum.
(4) A constitutional draft law is passed if two thirds of voters have
agreed and at least forty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in
the referendum.
(5) For laws which require agreement of the Bundesrat (Council of Lands,
second chamber of parliament) and for constitutional law the result of
the referendum within a Land (state of the federation) counts instead of
its Bundesrat vote.
Article 82d
(coming into effect of new law) This law comes into effect six months
after pronouncement of its passing.
Berlin, 13th March 2002
Dr. Peter Struck und Fraktion
Kerstin Müller (Köln), Rezzo Schlauch und Fraktion
Translation copyright © 2002 Dr. Michael J. Macpherson
Regards
Wallace-Macpherson
Dr. Michael Macpherson
PSAMRA/Integral Studies
e-mail: m...@TAKEOUTiniref.org
Adam McKenna
"Wallace-Macpherson" <m...@WITHOUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:3DDD3050...@WITHOUTiniref.org...
> DRAFT LAW TO INTRODUCE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM INTO THE
> BASIC (CONSTITUTIONAL) LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
> (3) A draft law is passed if a majority of voters has agreed and at
> least twenty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in the
> referendum.
> (4) A constitutional draft law is passed if two thirds of voters have
> agreed and at least forty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in
> the referendum.
This idea is very interesting.
Using the iniative 10% of the electorate plus one vote could pass a law? I
suppose on each proposal it may better reflect the public will than what the
federal parliament thought of it. One would have to compare the
representativeness of the electoral system, election turnouts, length of
parliaments etc to this bill. But worrying to me is the idea that 26 2/3% of
citizens could amend the Basic Law. I don't know what the existing amending
procedure is but I would contend that if a fraction of the population that
small could alter the workings of government and to some degree entrench the
change we should consider its legitimacy to have a big question mark over
it.
Like with the Irish case I would want to avoid a majority-of-the-minority
being able to effect a change binding on all. Do you know where these
thresholds (a majority of 20%, 2/3 of 40%) came from? Was it something that
had to be negotiated between the coalition partners or is it based on the
existing amendment method?
Wallace-Macpherson
About your concern with the "Irish case". Could you please outline problems
which might arise by introducing citizens' initiative and referendum, first
assuming that the jurisdictions remain as they are (e.g. the relationship of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland is unchanged).
--------------------------------
Taking the german case. It seems to me that a balance has been attempted
between the risk of hindering direct democratic participation with hurdles
which may prevent any initiative from coming to debate in parliament and to
referendum, and the risk that only a minority of the total electorate may turn
out for a given referendum. If you (almost) suffocate the innovation "at birth"
then it will probably never grow, i.e. people will not learn how to use the
system, become frustrated by repeated failures, hopelessness increases, so that
these potential improvements in democratic ("self-") representation and
political culture cannot develop.
There is nothing to prevent a (large) majority of the electorate from turning
out to vote. On the contrary, all are invited. And, if it looks like a minority
is trying to sneak through a proposal which abuses another minority, then it is
would be arguably in the interest of the majority to turn out, for reasons of
justice, fairness etc.. And, in FRG, there is constitutional protection of many
basic rights.
A minimum of ten percent might pass a law. But a minimum total of twenty
percent must vote, or the referendum is invalid. That would be a very large
sample of the population (millions), it may be regarded as an ad hoc parliament
of the people, the others having abstained from using their right to vote.
You may have overlooked Step Two of the FRG's 3-step model. This means that,
after an initiative-proposal has been considered and rejected in parliament,
before going to referendum, it must jump a further hurdle, the Volksbegehren
(people's wish or referendum-demand). This requires a country-wide mobilisation
of active proponents, so that many more people must hear about the proposal, in
the mass media and on the streets. Five in a hundred have to endorse before it
goes to referendum. A successful campaign increases the salience of the issue
so that people become more likely to vote. Then all citizens are invited to
take part in the referendum.
In considerations of representativeness of referendum we must compare with what
we have now, in Britain, Germany or Ireland. There is, almost entirely, only
indirect representation of the will of only part of the electorate. At e.g.
Westminster in a parliament with a huge majority of seats based on minority of
votes, a simple majority of *attending* MPs may pass (or nod through) law of
constitutional import. How small the fraction of voters represented by this
majority? More importantly, what is the quality of this indirect
representation? The electorate has had no chance to deliberate on the vast
majority of laws passed by parliament, election promises have been broken,
unannounced legislation has been brought in during a parliament etc.. etc.. We
have no effective ways to check the actions of our elected parliament, no
effective way to correct inaction, no effective way to enhance governance on
issues of great concern. Having the option of citizens' initiative and
referendum compensates for these deficiencies.
For more detail about the german proposal you could usefully contact:
Green/Alliance90 party
Gerald Haeffner (recent MP)
Lukas Beckmann (manager, parliamentary group)
Social Democratic Party
Herta Daeubler-Gmelin (current MP)
Specialists via
http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/ (view with e.g. M$ explorer, not Netscape)
Otmar Jung
Michael Efler
Tim Weber
-------------------------------------------------------
Regards
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach
wrote:
>
>"Wallace-Macpherson" <m...@WITHOUTiniref.org> wrote in message
>news:3DDD3050...@WITHOUTiniref.org...
>> DRAFT LAW TO INTRODUCE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM INTO THE
>> BASIC (CONSTITUTIONAL) LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
><....>
>> (3) A draft law is passed if a majority of voters has agreed and at
>> least twenty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in the
>> referendum.
>> (4) A constitutional draft law is passed if two thirds of voters have
>> agreed and at least forty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in
>> the referendum.
>
>This idea is very interesting.
But sticky. Democracy is very close to mob rule. A republic offers some distinct
advantages.
>Using the iniative 10% of the electorate plus one vote could pass a law? I
>suppose on each proposal it may better reflect the public will than what the
>federal parliament thought of it. One would have to compare the
>representativeness of the electoral system, election turnouts, length of
>parliaments etc to this bill. But worrying to me is the idea that 26 2/3% of
>citizens could amend the Basic Law. I don't know what the existing amending
>procedure is but I would contend that if a fraction of the population that
>small could alter the workings of government and to some degree entrench the
>change we should consider its legitimacy to have a big question mark over
>it.
Who will monitor these citizen assemblies?
>Like with the Irish case I would want to avoid a majority-of-the-minority
>being able to effect a change binding on all. Do you know where these
>thresholds (a majority of 20%, 2/3 of 40%) came from? Was it something that
>had to be negotiated between the coalition partners or is it based on the
>existing amendment method?
>
All coalition governments are a majority of minorities.
LLX
> BASIC (CONSTITUTIONAL) LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
It's a very interesting proposal, but I think that the UK should watch
what happens if it's introduced in Germany for a few years before
deciding whether it's a good idea here. There are two main worries I
have with it:
1. Radical minority groups would be able to dictate the country's
political agenda. Neo-Nazis, Animal Rights activists, the Countryside
allience, etc. Would be able to find 400,000 people who agree with
them enough to sign a petition to get them off their doorstep, and
they could repeatedly demand referendums (referendi?) to keep their
issues in the news.
2. Short term public opinion could over-rule long term public
interest. Just think what crazy stuff we would have been prepared to
agree to in September last year which we'd feel horrified by today!
Simon
LLXSDG
Wallace-Macpherson
> Wallace-Macpherson <m...@WITHOUTiniref.org> wrote in message news:<3DDD3050...@WITHOUTiniref.org>...
> > DRAFT LAW TO INTRODUCE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM INTO THE
> > BASIC (CONSTITUTIONAL) LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
>
> It's a very interesting proposal, but I think that the UK should watch
> what happens if it's introduced in Germany for a few years before
> deciding whether it's a good idea here.
Whatever happened to Blighty's pioneering spirit? Aren't we a womb of fair play, democracy, coronation
street and other wonderful ideas? ;-)
> There are two main worries I
> have with it:
>
> 1. Radical minority groups would be able to dictate the country's
> political agenda. Neo-Nazis, Animal Rights activists, the Countryside
> allience, etc. Would be able to find 400,000 people who agree with
> them enough to sign a petition to get them off their doorstep, and
> they could repeatedly demand referendums (referendi?) to keep their
> issues in the news.
There are built in safeguards against abuses. The procedure proposed is that a bit over half a percent can
put forward a proposal which goes to parliament for consideration. (There are already, in Britain and FRG,
many petitions with far fewer signatures.) The proposal (initiative) does not go directly to the people in
a referendum. Parliament is allowed to comment, and to suggest an alternative or compromise, which may be
accepted by the proposers. If there is no agreement, a referendum may be called, but only after a whole
lot more signatures have been collected, to show that there is real public interest (suggested number in
the german bill is five percent, around three million).
If, after experience has been gathered, "too many" initiatives are succeeding, then the hurdles may be
(democratically) raised. In Switzerland a few years ago the hurdle for initiative was raised from
(roughly) half to one percent.
> 2. Short term public opinion could over-rule long term public
> interest. Just think what crazy stuff we would have been prepared to
> agree to in September last year which we'd feel horrified by today!
>
> Simon
> LLXSDG
Delays for "cooling off" and for information and deliberation of the issues are built in, as mentioned
above. The whole procedure, at the "country" (state) level, would take about two years.
Cheers,
Wallace-Macpherson
Unbekannt
<m...@WITHOUTiniref.org> wrote:
>About your concern with the "Irish case". Could you please outline problems
>which might arise by introducing citizens' initiative and referendum, first
>assuming that the jurisdictions remain as they are (e.g. the relationship of
>Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland is unchanged).
I don't know what you mean I'm afraid. We went through the problems in
the Nice thread.
>--------------------------------
>
>Taking the german case. It seems to me that a balance has been attempted
>between the risk of hindering direct democratic participation with hurdles
>which may prevent any initiative from coming to debate in parliament and to
>referendum, and the risk that only a minority of the total electorate may turn
>out for a given referendum. If you (almost) suffocate the innovation "at birth"
>then it will probably never grow, i.e. people will not learn how to use the
>system, become frustrated by repeated failures, hopelessness increases, so that
>these potential improvements in democratic ("self-") representation and
>political culture cannot develop.
Indeed. I was wanting to know what the reasoning was to get those
particular rules, I expected there would be some hedging for the
reasons you give. Also were the numbers affected by political
considerations of those parties.
>There is nothing to prevent a (large) majority of the electorate from turning
>out to vote. On the contrary, all are invited. And, if it looks like a minority
>is trying to sneak through a proposal which abuses another minority, then it is
>would be arguably in the interest of the majority to turn out, for reasons of
>justice, fairness etc.. And, in FRG, there is constitutional protection of many
>basic rights.
Indeed, plus some provisions of the Basic Law can't be amended. I
would still disagree with a minority of voters being able to impose a
constitutional change on the majority, even if the majority is silent
and no matter what the change is about.
>A minimum of ten percent might pass a law. But a minimum total of twenty
>percent must vote, or the referendum is invalid. That would be a very large
>sample of the population (millions), it may be regarded as an ad hoc parliament
>of the people, the others having abstained from using their right to vote.
Yes t may well be reckoned to be more representative than the
parliament ('s opinion on the proposal). I would still maintain we
can't read anything, yes or no, into votes that haven't been cast.
Decisions made by a smaller fraction of the electorate should be
considered to have a smaller mandate imo.
>You may have overlooked Step Two of the FRG's 3-step model. This means that,
>after an initiative-proposal has been considered and rejected in parliament,
>before going to referendum, it must jump a further hurdle, the Volksbegehren
>(people's wish or referendum-demand). This requires a country-wide mobilisation
>of active proponents, so that many more people must hear about the proposal, in
>the mass media and on the streets. Five in a hundred have to endorse before it
>goes to referendum. A successful campaign increases the salience of the issue
>so that people become more likely to vote. Then all citizens are invited to
>take part in the referendum.
Yes I think you would have to be in a coma not to know there was
going to be a national referendum. My concern isn't that some
neo-Nazis or others will sneakily get and win a referendum, only that
a minority of the electorate may win one. It would be undemocratic in
the same way 100 MPs winning a vote against 99 is when there are 659
MPs in total -- only a minority of people have made a decision binding
on all.
>In considerations of representativeness of referendum we must compare with what
>we have now, in Britain, Germany or Ireland. There is, almost entirely, only
>indirect representation of the will of only part of the electorate. < ... >
I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism of the Westminster model. A
majority of MPs not even representing a majority of general election
votes can rule the country. But I take the yardstick I've outlined
before, *if* the will of the majority of the electorate is supposed to
rule *then* we should make sure a minority of the electorate cannot
amend the Basic Law. Even with the safeguards this is still possible.
I certainly don't think the idea of an iniative should be abandoned if
it isn't somehow perfectly democratic. This proposal may well yield
decisions on constitutional amendment that are more representative of
the public will than votes on proposals in the Bundestag. Democracy is
a matter of degree, we are more democratic since having women's
suffrage. We will be more democratic when parliamentary majorities
correspond to majorities of the electorate and when referendums that
use a majority vote must be won by a majority of the electorate.
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:23:14 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson
> <m...@WITHOUTiniref.org> wrote:
>
> >About your concern with the "Irish case". Could you please outline problems
> >which might arise by introducing citizens' initiative and referendum, first
> >assuming that the jurisdictions remain as they are (e.g. the relationship of
> >Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland is unchanged).
>
> I don't know what you mean I'm afraid. We went through the problems in
> the Nice thread.
I thought that you might be concerned about a so-called "majority dictatorship" by
referendum, e.g. in Northern Ireland, by the majority of protestants "dictating" to
the catholics. Or, in GB + NI, the majority "dictating" to the people of N.
Ireland.
> >Taking the german case. It seems to me that a balance has been attempted
> >between the risk of hindering direct democratic participation with hurdles
> >which may prevent any initiative from coming to debate in parliament and to
> >referendum, and the risk that only a minority of the total electorate may turn
> >out for a given referendum. If you (almost) suffocate the innovation "at birth"
> >then it will probably never grow, i.e. people will not learn how to use the
> >system, become frustrated by repeated failures, hopelessness increases, so that
> >these potential improvements in democratic ("self-") representation and
> >political culture cannot develop.
>
> Indeed. I was wanting to know what the reasoning was to get those
> particular rules, I expected there would be some hedging for the
> reasons you give. Also were the numbers affected by political
> considerations of those parties.
Afraid that I don't have insider knowledge. I can say that support for and
opposition to the "plebicitary elements" can be found in all political parties.
(The social democrats and I suspect some greens were not enthusiastic enough so
introduced the bill only at the last minute. The opposition christian democrats had
previously indicated more support but they changed their mind perhaps in order to
avoid giving the government a big success just before the September election.)
>
> >There is nothing to prevent a (large) majority of the electorate from turning
> >out to vote. On the contrary, all are invited. And, if it looks like a minority
> >is trying to sneak through a proposal which abuses another minority, then it is
> >would be arguably in the interest of the majority to turn out, for reasons of
> >justice, fairness etc.. And, in FRG, there is constitutional protection of many
> >basic rights.
>
> Indeed, plus some provisions of the Basic Law can't be amended. I
> would still disagree with a minority of voters being able to impose a
> constitutional change on the majority, even if the majority is silent
> and no matter what the change is about.
I agree that a minority of voters ideally should not be able to impose a
constitutional change on the majority. As I implied elsewhere, I do not see a
referendum result, under the rules proposed, as an imposition. If people have
knowingly abstained, then they have implicitly agreed to accept the result.
Even if I were to fully accept your argument here, then I would not see the
objection as a sufficient barrier to going ahead with installing I and R in
combination with representative governance in the proposed way, because it is an
urgently needed reform, which could then be refined by the "users".
> >A minimum of ten percent might pass a law. But a minimum total of twenty
> >percent must vote, or the referendum is invalid. That would be a very large
> >sample of the population (millions), it may be regarded as an ad hoc parliament
> >of the people, the others having abstained from using their right to vote.
>
> Yes t may well be reckoned to be more representative than the
> parliament ('s opinion on the proposal). I would still maintain we
> can't read anything, yes or no, into votes that haven't been cast.
> Decisions made by a smaller fraction of the electorate should be
> considered to have a smaller mandate imo.
How could that smaller mandate be expressed in practice?
SNIP
> I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism of the Westminster model. A
> majority of MPs not even representing a majority of general election
> votes can rule the country. But I take the yardstick I've outlined
> before, *if* the will of the majority of the electorate is supposed to
> rule *then* we should make sure a minority of the electorate cannot
> amend the Basic Law. Even with the safeguards this is still possible.
> I certainly don't think the idea of an iniative should be abandoned if
> it isn't somehow perfectly democratic. This proposal may well yield
> decisions on constitutional amendment that are more representative of
> the public will than votes on proposals in the Bundestag. Democracy is
> a matter of degree, we are more democratic since having women's
> suffrage. We will be more democratic when parliamentary majorities
> correspond to majorities of the electorate and when referendums that
> use a majority vote must be won by a majority of the electorate.
Hmm. It looks as though - say for Britain or Ireland, or indeed for FRG - you would
want to modify the FRG's proposal to make it more difficult for citizens to change
the Basic Law (constitution) and maybe increase the hurdles for the ordinary
law-initiative. How would your proposal look? I'd forward it to
Ger...@bundestag.de ;-)
What about offering the people(s) a choice of systems by Preferendum?
Regards,
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: in...@iniref.org
I want to add to my reply (at *** below).
Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
> Adam McKenna wrote:
SNIP
>
> > >Taking the german case. It seems to me that a balance has been attempted
> > >between the risk of hindering direct democratic participation with hurdles
> > >which may prevent any initiative from coming to debate in parliament and to
> > >referendum, and the risk that only a minority of the total electorate may turn
> > >out for a given referendum. If you (almost) suffocate the innovation "at birth"
> > >then it will probably never grow, i.e. people will not learn how to use the
> > >system, become frustrated by repeated failures, hopelessness increases, so that
> > >these potential improvements in democratic ("self-") representation and
> > >political culture cannot develop.
> >
> > Indeed. I was wanting to know what the reasoning was to get those
> > particular rules, I expected there would be some hedging for the
> > reasons you give. Also were the numbers affected by political
> > considerations of those parties.
>
> Afraid that I don't have insider knowledge. I can say that support for and
> opposition to the "plebicitary elements" can be found in all political parties.
***
Background considerations of the FRG proposal certainly would have included the
experience of direct democracy in their own federal Lands. I recall that, after WWII,
the new constitutions of six Lands allowed I and R. After 1989, a further ten or so
Lands introduced I and R. The rules vary a lot from Land to Land but all have hurdles
(which do not apply to elections of candidates).
The following passage from http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/bu/dd/laender.htm may be
helpful:
QUOTE
Twelve federal Lands have never held a people's referendum.
By the end of 2001 about 130 referendum-demands were made but a referendum was held
only in 10 (ten) cases. In twelve Lands there has never been a people's referendum,
even though the relevant (translator: enabling) regulations have existed for over
fifty years. This shows that the hurdles for direct democracy - in general determined
by the Land-parliaments - are much too high. The road to a functional direct democracy
remains long.
UNQUOTE
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
Unbekannt
wrote:
trim
>I thought that you might be concerned about a so-called "majority dictatorship" by
>referendum, e.g. in Northern Ireland, by the majority of protestants "dictating" to
>the catholics. Or, in GB + NI, the majority "dictating" to the people of N.
>Ireland.
I am, since under majority rule the minority don't need to be given
anything. I don't think the weighted voting given to nationalist
members in the Assembly is good enough, it only increases their
chances of clinching a vote. I think there is such thing as a 'tyranny
of the majority' but minority rule is even worse and that was my
objection to the German prosposal (however better than the present
situation and worth adopting it may be).
trim
>Afraid that I don't have insider knowledge. I can say that support for and
>opposition to the "plebicitary elements" can be found in all political parties.
>(The social democrats and I suspect some greens were not enthusiastic enough so
>introduced the bill only at the last minute. The opposition christian democrats had
>previously indicated more support but they changed their mind perhaps in order to
>avoid giving the government a big success just before the September election.)
>
Thought the parties might have made some posturing in the press, etc.
>> >There is nothing to prevent a (large) majority of the electorate from turning
>> >out to vote. On the contrary, all are invited. And, if it looks like a minority
>> >is trying to sneak through a proposal which abuses another minority, then it is
>> >would be arguably in the interest of the majority to turn out, for reasons of
>> >justice, fairness etc.. And, in FRG, there is constitutional protection of many
>> >basic rights.
>>
>> Indeed, plus some provisions of the Basic Law can't be amended. I
>> would still disagree with a minority of voters being able to impose a
>> constitutional change on the majority, even if the majority is silent
>> and no matter what the change is about.
>
>I agree that a minority of voters ideally should not be able to impose a
>constitutional change on the majority. As I implied elsewhere, I do not see a
>referendum result, under the rules proposed, as an imposition. If people have
>knowingly abstained, then they have implicitly agreed to accept the result.
Then why is there any stipulated minimum percentage of the electorate
to pass a measure? That *isn't* to prevent an imposition?
>Even if I were to fully accept your argument here, then I would not see the
>objection as a sufficient barrier to going ahead with installing I and R in
>combination with representative governance in the proposed way, because it is an
>urgently needed reform, which could then be refined by the "users".
And I do agree I and R should be introduced, as in the Irish Republic.
Just like I think parliamentary systems should be made more
representative. But I wouldn't be against this bill or, say, PR-STV at
Westminster just because I don't agree with them 100%.
>> >A minimum of ten percent might pass a law. But a minimum total of twenty
>> >percent must vote, or the referendum is invalid. That would be a very large
>> >sample of the population (millions), it may be regarded as an ad hoc parliament
>> >of the people, the others having abstained from using their right to vote.
>>
>> Yes t may well be reckoned to be more representative than the
>> parliament ('s opinion on the proposal). I would still maintain we
>> can't read anything, yes or no, into votes that haven't been cast.
>> Decisions made by a smaller fraction of the electorate should be
>> considered to have a smaller mandate imo.
>
>How could that smaller mandate be expressed in practice?
Well using majoritarianism any mandate less than 50% of the electorate
is not good enough to the proposal is defeated, anything over 50% is
fine so it is carried. We could apply this to the Bundestag, rather
than decisions being passed by 50% plus one member of those present
and voting, it would have to be more than 50% of the total membership.
Of course, this doesn't reflect the smaller mandate of a proposal
supported by 51% of voters compared to one getting 99%. I think we can
(at least attempt) to give each vote (cast or not) an equal effect on
the result, in a parliament or a referendum but using the De Borda
preferendum. This takes us far away from the German bill so I won't
take it up in this thread.
> < ... >
>Hmm. It looks as though - say for Britain or Ireland, or indeed for FRG - you would
>want to modify the FRG's proposal to make it more difficult for citizens to change
>the Basic Law (constitution) and maybe increase the hurdles for the ordinary
>law-initiative. How would your proposal look? I'd forward it to
>Ger...@bundestag.de ;-)
It would presumably make it more difficult than needing only 27% or
whatever it was. I think this would bring about a situation where the
Basic Law said less but what it did say more faithfully reflected what
German society thought it should could contain, what is important
enough to need to be entrenched in a constitution.
Since like Bunreacht na hÉireann it was written without an iniative
process built in and wasn't ratified according to my
majority-of-the-electorate rule, parts modified under the iniative
could be considered more normative than the original portions. But it
would need a lot of iniatives to rewrite the rest to get a Basic Law
'the people themselves' have agreed to (by my rules). The odds of this
happening seem pretty slim unless I and R really took off despite the
tougher rules. The unalterable provisions are even more of a problem
-- I and R is supposed to place the Basic Law more under the control
of the population so the state would be admitting the amendment
procesures until now weren't as good. But some provisions written in
the absence of I and R would forever be out of the control of the
population.
Unbekannt
wrote:
> < .... >
>***
>Background considerations of the FRG proposal certainly would have included the
>experience of direct democracy in their own federal Lands. I recall that, after WWII,
>the new constitutions of six Lands allowed I and R. After 1989, a further ten or so
>Lands introduced I and R. The rules vary a lot from Land to Land but all have hurdles
>(which do not apply to elections of candidates).
>
>The following passage from http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/bu/dd/laender.htm may be
>helpful:
>
>QUOTE
>
>Twelve federal Lands have never held a people's referendum.
>
>By the end of 2001 about 130 referendum-demands were made but a referendum was held
>only in 10 (ten) cases. In twelve Lands there has never been a people's referendum,
>even though the relevant (translator: enabling) regulations have existed for over
>fifty years. This shows that the hurdles for direct democracy - in general determined
>by the Land-parliaments - are much too high. The road to a functional direct democracy
>remains long.
>
>UNQUOTE
We aren't talking about total direct democracy, rather a
representative democracy under an entrenched Basic Law which we want
to supplement with a procedure for constitutional amendment which uses
direct democracy. In these Lander, is I and R used for statutes,
(Land) constitutional amendment, or both? Because we might expect
different results for each. It may show the populations are happy with
how representative their state lawmakers and their outputs are.
Statutes are made all the time but constitutions amended less often.
Comparing how frequent amendment of the Basic Law has been so far
under the existing rules with the performance once I and R is
introduced may be helpful.
Again I must say my objections, on grounds of majoritarian principles
and popular sovereignty, are not a reason to avoid introducing I and R
under the rules in the bill. It would likely be am improvement over
the legitimacy of amendment under the existing rules but does carry
some risk of an illegitimate amendment made by an unrepresentative
minority. Some statute law may be illegitimate as well because state
or federal parliaments are not representative enough. I don't think it
makes any sense from a strategic point of view to hold out for some
kind of perfect I and R or perfect electoral law when we can have some
improvement now. I only want to comment on the risks of this bill
compared to an alternative.
Besides, my idea for the most democratic constitution would go far
beyond just applying majority rule more consistently. But that goes
out of the scope of this thread
Wallace-Macpherson
SNIP
> >The following passage from http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/bu/dd/laender.htm may be
> >helpful:
> >
> >QUOTE
> >
> >Twelve federal Lands have never held a people's referendum.
> >
> >By the end of 2001 about 130 referendum-demands were made but a referendum was held
> >only in 10 (ten) cases. In twelve Lands there has never been a people's referendum,
> >even though the relevant (translator: enabling) regulations have existed for over
> >fifty years. This shows that the hurdles for direct democracy - in general determined
> >by the Land-parliaments - are much too high. The road to a functional direct democracy
> >remains long.
> >
> >UNQUOTE
>
> We aren't talking about total direct democracy, rather a
> representative democracy under an entrenched Basic Law which we want
> to supplement with a procedure for constitutional amendment which uses
> direct democracy.
It's not clear above but that is indeed what is meant. The Mehr Demokratie people propose
to combine "functional direct democracy" with representative governance.
> In these Lander, is I and R used for statutes,
> (Land) constitutional amendment, or both?
Both. (Not sure if that applies to all Laender).
> Because we might expect
> different results for each. It may show the populations are happy with
> how representative their state lawmakers and their outputs are.
> Statutes are made all the time but constitutions amended less often.
> Comparing how frequent amendment of the Basic Law has been so far
> under the existing rules with the performance once I and R is
> introduced may be helpful.
I do not know the content of all the ten citizen-proposals which went to referendum. I
know of two constitutional reforms which went through in this way, both in the Land of
Bavaria. The first, in 1995 installed the right to citizens' initiative and referendum in
the cities, towns and districts (kommunen). (Since then there have been hundreds of
completed I&R procedures.) The second reform resulted from an initiative to abolish the
allegedly expensive, inactive and corrupt second chamber of the Landesparlament, the
Senat. Really, the people abolished the senate! (Source: C2D, Uni. Geneva)
> Again I must say my objections, on grounds of majoritarian principles
> and popular sovereignty, are not a reason to avoid introducing I and R
> under the rules in the bill. It would likely be am improvement over
> the legitimacy of amendment under the existing rules but does carry
> some risk of an illegitimate amendment made by an unrepresentative
> minority.
I agree that we should be very careful with matters of constitution. However, practising
reform is also a learning process, and that applies to I&R itself too. If reforms prove to
be unsatisfactory then, e.g using I&R, they can be corrected. A peculiarity could arise if
a minority opposed to direct democracy managed to substantially raise the hurdles for I&R.
Then future reform could become very difficult.
> Some statute law may be illegitimate as well because state
> or federal parliaments are not representative enough. I don't think it
> makes any sense from a strategic point of view to hold out for some
> kind of perfect I and R or perfect electoral law when we can have some
> improvement now. I only want to comment on the risks of this bill
> compared to an alternative.
>
> Besides, my idea for the most democratic constitution would go far
> beyond just applying majority rule more consistently. But that goes
> out of the scope of this thread
Quite a lot of work would be needed, I think, to get going a debate about "most democratic
constitution".
The uk.politics.constitution Usenet group could usefully offer a reference library (posted
periodically in the list) which could contain e.g. a FAQ about direct democracy and a
selection of proposals for constitutional reform.
Regards,
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:45:26 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson <m...@snafu.de>
> wrote:
>
> trim
> >I thought that you might be concerned about a so-called "majority dictatorship" by
> >referendum, e.g. in Northern Ireland, by the majority of protestants "dictating" to
> >the catholics. Or, in GB + NI, the majority "dictating" to the people of N.
> >Ireland.
>
> I am, since under majority rule the minority don't need to be given
> anything. I don't think the weighted voting given to nationalist
> members in the Assembly is good enough, it only increases their
> chances of clinching a vote. I think there is such thing as a 'tyranny
> of the majority' but minority rule is even worse and that was my
> objection to the German prosposal (however better than the present
> situation and worth adopting it may be).
Even assuming that the majority principle of decision making is applied (say with yes
or no, as opposed to multiple choice) there are some observed features of the
initiative and referendum process which allow improved airing, debate and deliberation
of an issue and which may allow the emergence of more consensual policy. For instance,
an initiative can put up onto the public agenda a proposal which may be abandoned along
the way or may fail to win a majority. But the content may be multifacetted, or its
time "may not have come", so it can lead to further consideration, possible compromises
may emerge etc.. Also, if the citizenry say "no" to a government proposal, or seriously
threatens to do so (using "facultative referendum"), then an alternative may be found
in a case where gov. had claimed that there had been "NO alternative". Further, in a
civil society and ideal world, if a minority protests enough, then its case should be
taken into account (agreed, that may not always work).
SNIP
> >I agree that a minority of voters ideally should not be able to impose a
> >constitutional change on the majority. As I implied elsewhere, I do not see a
> >referendum result, under the rules proposed, as an imposition. If people have
> >knowingly abstained, then they have implicitly agreed to accept the result.
>
> Then why is there any stipulated minimum percentage of the electorate
> to pass a measure? That *isn't* to prevent an imposition?
I think that it's an attempt to ensure reasonable representativity of the voting group
(millions of citizens are needed) and so to guarantee some legitimacy of the result,
also to prevent a too small minority from exercising power, while at the same time
avoiding the installation of a hurdles which would prevent initiative and referendum
from ever being used. In order to achieve the super-majority needed to take the I and R
bill through the Bundestag, the red-green coalition may have to raise some hurdles in
your favoured direction.
SNIP
> >Hmm. It looks as though - say for Britain or Ireland, or indeed for FRG - you would
> >want to modify the FRG's proposal to make it more difficult for citizens to change
> >the Basic Law (constitution) and maybe increase the hurdles for the ordinary
> >law-initiative. How would your proposal look? I'd forward it to
> >Ger...@bundestag.de ;-)
>
> It would presumably make it more difficult than needing only 27% or
> whatever it was. I think this would bring about a situation where the
> Basic Law said less but what it did say more faithfully reflected what
> German society thought it should could contain, what is important
> enough to need to be entrenched in a constitution.
>
> Since like Bunreacht na hÉireann it was written without an iniative
> process built in and wasn't ratified according to my
> majority-of-the-electorate rule, parts modified under the iniative
> could be considered more normative than the original portions. But it
> would need a lot of iniatives to rewrite the rest to get a Basic Law
> 'the people themselves' have agreed to (by my rules). The odds of this
> happening seem pretty slim unless I and R really took off despite the
> tougher rules.
Just a note. The Swiss until now can change their constitution by I and R but not make
"ordinary" law at the country level. (They could decide by direct democracy to bring in
the latter procedure.) Also, the Swiss have the option to make a "total revision" of
their constitution using I and R.
> The unalterable provisions are even more of a problem
> -- I and R is supposed to place the Basic Law more under the control
> of the population so the state would be admitting the amendment
> procesures until now weren't as good. But some provisions written in
> the absence of I and R would forever be out of the control of the
> population.
I glanced at the "immutable" parts of the FRG constitution a while ago - I think it
will be a long time before they cause any trouble. Even with this oddity the FRG
constitution contains far less peculiarities than ours ;-) (GB+NI)
Regards
Wallace-Macpherson
p.s. I replied to your message in the thread (This "Nice" thread is tending to
disappear from view so perhaps we should abandon it and move on) :::
Democracy and the second Irish referendum on the european treaty of Nice.
Wallace-Macpherson <m...@TAKEOUTiniref.org>
Newsgroups:
uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc, alt.uk.law,
soc.culture.europe
Subject:
Re: Democracy and the second Irish referendum on the
european treaty of Nice.
Date:
Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:23:39 +0100
Organization:
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Message-ID:
<3DECDA81...@TAKEOUTiniref.org>
vonroach
>The uk.politics.constitution Usenet group could usefully offer a reference library (posted
>periodically in the list) which could contain e.g. a FAQ about direct democracy and a
>selection of proposals for constitutional reform.
`Direct democracy' is mob rule and anarchy. If democracy means the rule of the
people judged to be adults rather than some subset of people, then the Republic
where the people are represented by elected representatives is the only
practical form. Great care must be taken in forming a Republic. It is a
difficult form of government to keep due to the human tendency to greed and
power.
vonroach
> Further, in a
>civil society and ideal world, if a minority protests enough, then its case should be
>taken into account (agreed, that may not always work).
_NO_ society is civil and ideal very often for very long, and any proposal based
on this premise is doomed to failure. This judgement applies to all factions in
society. It is better to plan for reality rather than some unachievable ideal.
Societal organization is very messy business. The goals should be balance of
powers.
Wallace-Macpherson
Civil currents provide support for human rights and dignity and help to oppose
unfairness, discrimination, repression. This "active civility" is needed whether you have
representative or direct governance or (as proposed in this thread) some combination of
the two varieties.
I suggest that having access to procedures of direct democracy INcreases civility in
societies.
Discuss?
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:33:23 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson <m...@iniref.org> wrote:
>
> >The uk.politics.constitution Usenet group could usefully offer a reference library (posted
> >periodically in the list) which could contain e.g. a FAQ about direct democracy and a
> >selection of proposals for constitutional reform.
>
> `Direct democracy' is mob rule and anarchy.
What has been discussed extensively in this thread (did you notice?) is the addition of
elements of direct democracy, such as citizens' initiative and citizen-triggered referendum (I
and R) , to representative governance. The procedures already work well, but do not exist in
GB+NI. The proposed changes would increase rule by the people, which is what democracy means.
Anarchy means something else.
> If democracy means the rule of the
> people judged to be adults rather than some subset of people, then the Republic
> where the people are represented by elected representatives is the only
> practical form. Great care must be taken in forming a Republic. It is a
> difficult form of government to keep due to the human tendency to greed and
> power.
In your strived republic, will citizens be allowed to elect candidates to parliament? If so,
then why may they not also decide directly on some public matters, those which they select, as
with I and R ?
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach
>Civil currents provide support for human rights and dignity and help to oppose
>unfairness, discrimination, repression. This "active civility" is needed whether you have
>representative or direct governance or (as proposed in this thread) some combination of
>the two varieties.
Don't know what `civil currents' you speak about? `Human rights' and `civil
rights' are issues used by politicians to advance their own welfare. They
seldom reach those for whom they `plead'. Such propaganda does encourage some
who feel abused to become uncivil to compensate for their imagined slights.
Do you perceive an increase in civil behavior in South Africa since their recent
`emancipation'? On the contrary, it now appears to be just another African
hotbed of murder and crime. In reality, uncivil people act uncivil when given
the liberty to do so. Palestinian arabs are another example. Do Catholics in
Northern Ireland act uncivilly (bombs, murder,...) because they are `denied
rights' or because they are at heart an uncivil breed?
>I suggest that having access to procedures of direct democracy INcreases civility in
>societies.
>
I point out that you imagine the ideal and ignore reality and history.
>Discuss?
No, I'd say disgusting. Reality is not altered by discussion which originates in
the unreal caves of our cranial cavities.
vonroach
>> `Direct democracy' is mob rule and anarchy.
>
>What has been discussed extensively in this thread (did you notice?) is the addition of
>elements of direct democracy, such as citizens' initiative and citizen-triggered referendum (I
>and R) , to representative governance. The procedures already work well, but do not exist in
>GB+NI. The proposed changes would increase rule by the people, which is what democracy means.
>Anarchy means something else.
>
Because `citizen initiatives' and `citizen demanded referendum' are both
misnomers for laws proposed and supported by special interests who cannot elect
sufficient members to the legislature to get their law the usual way. When
successful they still have the barrier of the judiciary to cross. The State of
California is an example of a hotbed of `citizens initiatives, Occasionally one
survives, but most are defeated for the obvious oddball or special interest
legislation that they represent. A better way to increase the rule of the
people, is to increase public awareness of who they elect to represent them and
increase public participation in elections. Direct election of members of
Parliament would be preferable - not a `ticket' offered by a party but direct
election of candidates in a primary election in each district, followed by a
general election for choosing among the successful primary candidates.
`Direct democracy' doesn't work too well even in tiny Switzerland, though it is
hardly bigger than many counties. Direct referendum at the county level is
feasible, so long as they can be overturned by the judiciary if
unconstitutional.
>> If democracy means the rule of the
>> people judged to be adults rather than some subset of people, then the Republic
>> where the people are represented by elected representatives is the only
>> practical form. Great care must be taken in forming a Republic. It is a
>> difficult form of government to keep due to the human tendency to greed and
>> power.
>
>In your strived republic, will citizens be allowed to elect candidates to parliament? If so,
>then why may they not also decide directly on some public matters, those which they select, as
>with I and R ?
>
That is feasible only in a limited geographic area, because elections are
managed by such areas, and a mechanism for a nationwide nationally supervised
election does not exist and would be very costly to implement for such a handbag
of trivial special interest causes. If any expenditure of money is mandated by
the `initiative', then the power to tax would have to be included. A special
interest minority would likely vote as a block and thus over rule the other
people more likely to `split' their vote. In other words, leading to minority
rule which is unacceptable to the majority of the people. To be blunt, it is
unworkable and unfair.
>Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:19:13 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson <m...@iniref.org> wrote:
>
> >Civil currents provide support for human rights and dignity and help to oppose
> >unfairness, discrimination, repression. This "active civility" is needed whether you have
> >representative or direct governance or (as proposed in this thread) some combination of
> >the two varieties.
>
> Don't know what `civil currents' you speak about?
For reasons which I will not go into here I do not like much the term "civil society".
Roughly, I mean reasonable people who act in humanitarian ways when necessary, plus ideas and
habits associated with such people.
> `Human rights' and `civil
> rights' are issues used by politicians to advance their own welfare. They
> seldom reach those for whom they `plead'. Such propaganda does encourage some
> who feel abused to become uncivil to compensate for their imagined slights.
> Do you perceive an increase in civil behavior in South Africa since their recent
> `emancipation'? On the contrary, it now appears to be just another African
> hotbed of murder and crime. In reality, uncivil people act uncivil when given
> the liberty to do so. Palestinian arabs are another example. Do Catholics in
> Northern Ireland act uncivilly (bombs, murder,...) because they are `denied
> rights' or because they are at heart an uncivil breed?
Way beyond the thread, assuming that we do not intend to write several books here. I only
point out that S. Africa is a highly traumatised society and young democracy in a troubled
continent. Palestinians have enjoyed little political stability or democracy. In GB + NI we
have weak democracy.
> >I suggest that having access to procedures of direct democracy INcreases civility in
> >societies.
> >
> I point out that you imagine the ideal and ignore reality and history.
Those who have followed this thread would probably disagree. For more reality and history of
citizens' initiative and direct democracy please explore the resources at INIREF.ORG
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
Sincerely
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:21:10 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson <m...@iniref.org> wrote:
>
> >> `Direct democracy' is mob rule and anarchy.
> >
> >What has been discussed extensively in this thread (did you notice?) is the addition of
> >elements of direct democracy, such as citizens' initiative and citizen-triggered referendum (I
> >and R) , to representative governance. The procedures already work well, but do not exist in
> >GB+NI. The proposed changes would increase rule by the people, which is what democracy means.
> >Anarchy means something else.
> >
> Because `citizen initiatives' and `citizen demanded referendum' are both
> misnomers for laws proposed and supported by special interests who cannot elect
> sufficient members to the legislature to get their law the usual way. When
> successful they still have the barrier of the judiciary to cross. The State of
> California is an example of a hotbed of `citizens initiatives, Occasionally one
> survives, but most are defeated for the obvious oddball or special interest
> legislation that they represent.
I and R does allow people and groups, including those who would otherwise have no public voice, to
put issues onto the public agenda. But that does not mean that a law will be passed. For that a
referendum in which *all* may vote (not just your "special interests") would be required. Or, a
compromise may be reached without referendum.
> A better way to increase the rule of the
> people, is to increase public awareness of who they elect to represent them and
> increase public participation in elections. Direct election of members of
> Parliament would be preferable - not a `ticket' offered by a party but direct
> election of candidates in a primary election in each district, followed by a
> general election for choosing among the successful primary candidates.
I'm all in favour of improving governance. How to do this could be discussed in another thread.
> `Direct democracy' doesn't work too well even in tiny Switzerland, though it is
> hardly bigger than many counties.
Huh? What are you talking about?
> Direct referendum at the county level is
> feasible, so long as they can be overturned by the judiciary if
> unconstitutional.
Do you mean that in GB and NI we should introduce "direct referendum"? Is that citizen-initiated
referendum? In the recent proposal to introduce* I and R in the Fed. Republic there is an option
of judicial assessment of the initiative. That is, before you go through all the trouble of
"people's demand" (volksbegehren) and referendum, you find out if the thing is going to be in
accord with the constitution or not and the initiative would have be scrapped or re-written.
* This thread: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:13:40 +0100 Message-ID: <3DDD3050...@WITHOUTiniref.org>
> >> If democracy means the rule of the
> >> people judged to be adults rather than some subset of people, then the Republic
> >> where the people are represented by elected representatives is the only
> >> practical form. Great care must be taken in forming a Republic. It is a
> >> difficult form of government to keep due to the human tendency to greed and
> >> power.
> >
> >In your strived republic, will citizens be allowed to elect candidates to parliament? If so,
> >then why may they not also decide directly on some public matters, those which they select, as
> >with I and R ?
> >
> That is feasible only in a limited geographic area, because elections are
> managed by such areas, and a mechanism for a nationwide nationally supervised
> election does not exist and would be very costly to implement for such a handbag
> of trivial special interest causes.
The Netherlands has introduced countrywide citizen-referendum (limited to veto of parliamentary
law) and there is citizen-initiated referendum which can alter existing law, also countrywide, in
Italy. California (33 million people) does it and FRG (80 million) is proposing it. So why could
we not manage an occasional I and R in Britain? To reduce costs referendums can often be timed
with elections. Using internet etc. can reduce costs (e.g. to distribute info. about proposals and
to collect non-confidential endorsements). And is better democracy not *worth* something?
> If any expenditure of money is mandated by
> the `initiative', then the power to tax would have to be included. A special
> interest minority would likely vote as a block and thus over rule the other
> people more likely to `split' their vote. In other words, leading to minority
> rule which is unacceptable to the majority of the people. To be blunt, it is
> unworkable and unfair.
>
> >Wallace-Macpherson
Every law, whether from initiative or parliament, does not necessarily require a change in
taxation. The question of whether to exclude certain powers from citizen-lawmaking must be
discussed. In general I am against exclusions. However, the FRG proposal to which I referred does
contains exclusions.
Above in this thread we discussed the question of "minority dictatorship" at length. The small
risk of this was not seen as prohibitory to introducing I and R. If the majority expresses
opposition to a proposal then your "special interest" will lose. If too may opponents stay at home
... well, serve 'em right! Also, an electorate can learn from mistakes and correct them. (A hurdle
may be introduced to prevent a low turnout vote from being valid).
Regards
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach
>Way beyond the thread, assuming that we do not intend to write several books here. I only
>point out that S. Africa is a highly traumatised society and young democracy in a troubled
>continent. Palestinians have enjoyed little political stability or democracy. In GB + NI we
>have weak democracy.
Humm... rationalizing away every failing of your `civil current' is not an apt
way to reach your idealistic goal. Just where do you find your `civil current'
bubbling along? Europe? Asia? America? or perhaps only in your imagination?
vonroach
>> Because `citizen initiatives' and `citizen demanded referendum' are both
>> misnomers for laws proposed and supported by special interests who cannot elect
>> sufficient members to the legislature to get their law the usual way. When
>> successful they still have the barrier of the judiciary to cross. The State of
>> California is an example of a hotbed of `citizens initiatives, Occasionally one
>> survives, but most are defeated for the obvious oddball or special interest
>> legislation that they represent.
>
>I and R does allow people and groups, including those who would otherwise have no public voice, to
>put issues onto the public agenda. But that does not mean that a law will be passed. For that a
>referendum in which *all* may vote (not just your "special interests") would be required. Or, a
>compromise may be reached without referendum.
Allow me to introduce practical political considerations into this discussion of
Initiative/Referendum. Special interests can always find proxies to drum up a
demand for an issue on their agenda. People with a similar agenda tend to vote
as a block. Others tend to vote based on their judgement on the proposition.
Many with no interest may not vote at all. Thus a small block vote may enact the
proposal, which is tantamount to rule of the minority just as in a coalition
government where a small group holds the balance of power. Also initiatives may
be worded in deceptive ways. They may be `attached' to general elections where
voter interest is low and turn out is low. Then we get into the area of `vote
rigging' or illegal practices such as buying votes.. Then finally after all the
expense of a referendum, a court may summarily veto the results as not in accord
with the Constitution.
Referendums may also be held by a legislative body on a Constitutional
amendment, issuance of general obligation bonds, changes in law. Most successful
ones deal with limitation of tax and limitation of governmental regulation. Most
unsuccessful ones deal with `social reforms' in areas of sexuality, drugs, guns.
All eligible voters can vote in any election, so that point is irrelevant. For
`all' to vote without some means of determining eligibility is to invite fraud,
such as dead people voting, one person voting many times, etc.
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:13:24 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson <m...@iniref.org> wrote:
> SNIP
> >I and R does allow people and groups, including those who would otherwise have no public voice, to
> >put issues onto the public agenda. But that does not mean that a law will be passed. For that a
> >referendum in which *all* may vote (not just your "special interests") would be required. Or, a
> >compromise may be reached without referendum.
>
> Allow me to introduce practical political considerations into this discussion of
> Initiative/Referendum. Special interests can always find proxies to drum up a
> demand for an issue on their agenda. People with a similar agenda tend to vote
> as a block. Others tend to vote based on their judgement on the proposition.
> Many with no interest may not vote at all. Thus a small block vote may enact the
> proposal, which is tantamount to rule of the minority just as in a coalition
> government where a small group holds the balance of power. Also initiatives may
> be worded in deceptive ways. They may be `attached' to general elections where
> voter interest is low and turn out is low. Then we get into the area of `vote
> rigging' or illegal practices such as buying votes..
We are proposing to introduce I and R in order to correct some
deficiencies of indirect
(representative) government. Basically, these allow citizens'
suggestions and corrections to be put forward for public debate,
rigorous examination and selection. As you have said, relatively few
proposals go all the way to referendum. You point out various things
which you say *may* go wrong. I'll reply to a couple of your points.
"Special interests" sometimes speak. E.g. company managers have said
that it's easier to nobble government ministers than it is to sway a
whole electorate (enfranchised for referendum). And, despite the alleged
problems of I and R, the citizens of countries which have these would
prefer to keep them, in order to keep tabs on government and to
participate effectively.
> Then finally after all the
> expense of a referendum, a court may summarily veto the results as not in accord
> with the Constitution.
In a recent direct reply to you, professor Vonroach, I showed that this
problem may be avoided by
early constitutional review of initiatives.
As with many other of your arguments counter to I and R, this one
applies also to indirect government. After the whole process of green,
white etc. papers, commissions, debates in two chambers, flying in MPs
from Bermuda, etc.ŁŁŁ etc. a government bill can be thrown out on
constitutional grounds.
> Referendums may also be held by a legislative body on a Constitutional
> amendment, issuance of general obligation bonds, changes in law. Most successful
> ones deal with limitation of tax and limitation of governmental regulation. Most
> unsuccessful ones deal with `social reforms' in areas of sexuality, drugs, guns.
> All eligible voters can vote in any election, so that point is irrelevant.
Not irrelevant. You had claimed that minorities can determine the
results of I and R.
> For
> `all' to vote without some means of determining eligibility is to invite fraud,
> such as dead people voting, one person voting many times, etc.
No more risk of fraud with I and R than in elections of candidates. In
fact, the initiative stage is more fool-proof because the endorsements
of proposals are open, public and may be viewed by any
citizen. These could be collected by internet.
Note. Really-existing citizens' initiative and referendum provide the
only convincing examples to date of the much touted ELECTRONIC
DEMOCRACY. The internet can be used to show which initiative proposals
have been put forward, how many endorsements they have earned, who has
signed (not yet used I think), which proposals are under consideration
by parliament, what if any alternatives parliament has suggested, which
proposals are going forward for "referendum demand", which have been set
up for referendum, when referendum will be held, results of recent and
other I and R procedures. All of this can easily be linked (compare here
the recent Irish referendum on the treaty of Nice) to information (gov
and other) about the issues and to forums of debate in real life and
on-line. Compare the Swiss administration website, the I and R institute
(USA) and California Voters' Foundation.
Truly
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach
By whom?
>As with many other of your arguments counter to I and R, this one
>applies also to indirect government. After the whole process of green,
>white etc. papers, commissions, debates in two chambers, flying in MPs
>from Bermuda, etc.??? etc. a government bill can be thrown out on
>constitutional grounds.
Are you referring to a democratic republic an `indirect government'?
>> Referendums may also be held by a legislative body on a Constitutional
>> amendment, issuance of general obligation bonds, changes in law. Most successful
>> ones deal with limitation of tax and limitation of governmental regulation. Most
>> unsuccessful ones deal with `social reforms' in areas of sexuality, drugs, guns.
>> All eligible voters can vote in any election, so that point is irrelevant.
>
>Not irrelevant. You had claimed that minorities can determine the
>results of I and R.
Entirely relevant.
>> For
>> `all' to vote without some means of determining eligibility is to invite fraud,
>> such as dead people voting, one person voting many times, etc.
>
>No more risk of fraud with I and R than in elections of candidates. In
>fact, the initiative stage is more fool-proof because the endorsements
>of proposals are open, public and may be viewed by any
>citizen. These could be collected by internet.
>
>Note. Really-existing citizens' initiative and referendum provide the
>only convincing examples to date of the much touted ELECTRONIC
>DEMOCRACY. The internet can be used to show which initiative proposals
>have been put forward, how many endorsements they have earned, who has
>signed (not yet used I think), which proposals are under consideration
>by parliament, what if any alternatives parliament has suggested, which
>proposals are going forward for "referendum demand", which have been set
>up for referendum, when referendum will be held, results of recent and
>other I and R procedures. All of this can easily be linked (compare here
>the recent Irish referendum on the treaty of Nice) to information (gov
>and other) about the issues and to forums of debate in real life and
>on-line. Compare the Swiss administration website, the I and R institute
>(USA) and California Voters' Foundation.
You progress from the unlikely to the absurd.
Wallace-Macpherson
> >> Then finally after all the
> >> expense of a referendum, a court may summarily veto the results as not in accord
> >> with the Constitution.
> >
> >In a recent direct reply to you, professor Vonroach, I showed that this
> >problem may be avoided by
> >early constitutional review of initiatives.
>
> By whom?
For instance by the body which hitherto judged upon the constitutionality of law.
Please refer again to the first message of this thread - excerpt -
Article 82b (Volksbegehren - Citizens' referendum-demand)
(2) If the Government, a Land Government or a third of parliamentary
members consider the draft law to be against the constitution, the
Constitutional Court will be called to decide.
Exactly how this "constitutional review" will be done in GB+NI, if at all, (plus other details of how we
govern ourselves) should IMO be decided by the citizens using initiative and referendum.
> >As with many other of your arguments counter to I and R, this one
> >applies also to indirect government. After the whole process of green,
> >white etc. papers, commissions, debates in two chambers, flying in MPs
> >from Bermuda, etc.??? etc. a government bill can be thrown out on
> >constitutional grounds.
>
> Are you referring to a democratic republic an `indirect government'?
I was contrasting citizens' initiative and referendum, which are forms of so-called direct democracy,
with the type of governance which involves giving one's vote to a candidate or delegate and having no
further right to co-decide on any public issues. The letter is indirect, also dubbed "representative". A
republic may be more, or less democratic. Switzerland is moderately to strongly democratic. Britain is
weakly democratic. See the comparison of 35 european democracies prepared by the I and R institute,
Amsterdam.
>
> >> For
> >> `all' to vote without some means of determining eligibility is to invite fraud,
> >> such as dead people voting, one person voting many times, etc.
> >
> >No more risk of fraud with I and R than in elections of candidates. In
> >fact, the initiative stage is more fool-proof because the endorsements
> >of proposals are open, public and may be viewed by any
> >citizen. These could be collected by internet.
> >
> >Note. Really-existing citizens' initiative and referendum provide the
> >only convincing examples to date of the much touted ELECTRONIC
> >DEMOCRACY. The internet can be used to show which initiative proposals
> >have been put forward, how many endorsements they have earned, who has
> >signed (not yet used I think), which proposals are under consideration
> >by parliament, what if any alternatives parliament has suggested, which
> >proposals are going forward for "referendum demand", which have been set
> >up for referendum, when referendum will be held, results of recent and
> >other I and R procedures. All of this can easily be linked (compare here
> >the recent Irish referendum on the treaty of Nice) to information (gov
> >and other) about the issues and to forums of debate in real life and
> >on-line. Compare the Swiss administration website, the I and R institute
> >(USA) and California Voters' Foundation.
>
> You progress from the unlikely to the absurd.
I had hoped that you might progress to a little reality testing.
Forlorn hope!
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach
>> >In a recent direct reply to you, professor Vonroach, I showed that this
>> >problem may be avoided by
>> >early constitutional review of initiatives.
>>
>> By whom?
>
>For instance by the body which hitherto judged upon the constitutionality of law.
Opinions of the Supreme Court are only rendered on the results of trials, not on
proposed referendums or legislation.
It would have to be adopted and challenged in Court to get the judgement.
>Please refer again to the first message of this thread - excerpt -
>Article 82b (Volksbegehren - Citizens' referendum-demand)
>(2) If the Government, a Land Government or a third of parliamentary
>members consider the draft law to be against the constitution, the
>Constitutional Court will be called to decide.
It doesn't work in that direction. There must be a challenge before a judgement
can be obtained if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal. They would need
clairvoyance to know in advance exactly what challenge would be raised.
>Exactly how this "constitutional review" will be done in GB+NI, if at all, (plus other details of how we
>govern ourselves) should IMO be decided by the citizens using initiative and referendum.
>
Wrong again if you have a Constitution, the powers and duties of the Court will
be set forth in that document and not available to citizen's initiatives.
>> >As with many other of your arguments counter to I and R, this one
>> >applies also to indirect government. After the whole process of green,
>> >white etc. papers, commissions, debates in two chambers, flying in MPs
>> >from Bermuda, etc.??? etc. a government bill can be thrown out on
>> >constitutional grounds.
>>
>> Are you referring to a democratic republic an `indirect government'?
>
>I was contrasting citizens' initiative and referendum, which are forms of so-called direct democracy,
>with the type of governance which involves giving one's vote to a candidate or delegate and having no
>further right to co-decide on any public issues. The letter is indirect, also dubbed "representative". A
>republic may be more, or less democratic. Switzerland is moderately to strongly democratic. Britain is
>weakly democratic. See the comparison of 35 european democracies prepared by the I and R institute,
>Amsterdam.
Citizen's petitions or initiatives and other means of amending Constitutions are
available in almost any Republic except a phony tyrannical one. If too much of
what you choose to call direct democracy' is available it tends to become
anarchy and mob rule as the situation after revolutions (ex. French Revolution)
clearly demonstrate. This is not a tolerable situation.
>>
>> >> For
>> >> `all' to vote without some means of determining eligibility is to invite fraud,
>> >> such as dead people voting, one person voting many times, etc.
>> >
>> >No more risk of fraud with I and R than in elections of candidates. In
>> >fact, the initiative stage is more fool-proof because the endorsements
>> >of proposals are open, public and may be viewed by any
>> >citizen. These could be collected by internet.
>> >
>> >Note. Really-existing citizens' initiative and referendum provide the
>> >only convincing examples to date of the much touted ELECTRONIC
>> >DEMOCRACY. The internet can be used to show which initiative proposals
>> >have been put forward, how many endorsements they have earned, who has
>> >signed (not yet used I think), which proposals are under consideration
>> >by parliament, what if any alternatives parliament has suggested, which
>> >proposals are going forward for "referendum demand", which have been set
>> >up for referendum, when referendum will be held, results of recent and
>> >other I and R procedures. All of this can easily be linked (compare here
>> >the recent Irish referendum on the treaty of Nice) to information (gov
>> >and other) about the issues and to forums of debate in real life and
>> >on-line. Compare the Swiss administration website, the I and R institute
>> >(USA) and California Voters' Foundation.
>>
>> You progress from the unlikely to the absurd.
>
>I had hoped that you might progress to a little reality testing.
>
>Forlorn hope!
No, I would deeply distrust any substitution of a computer for a ballot box. I'm
highly suspicious of the `results' of all public polling. There are too many
statistical snags in the method from question framing, sample selection,
analysis, to highly questionable results. There are many errors in legal
election polls but they can be better controlled and the results are fairly
reliable except for criminality.
>Wallace-Macpherson
>
>Stat: 1
>Num: 37093
>UID: 8
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:22:22 +0100, Wallace-Macpherson <m...@iniref.org> wrote:
>
> >> >In a recent direct reply to you, professor Vonroach, I showed that this
> >> >problem may be avoided by
> >> >early constitutional review of initiatives.
> >>
> >> By whom?
> >
> >For instance by the body which hitherto judged upon the constitutionality of law.
>
> Opinions of the Supreme Court are only rendered on the results of trials, not on
> proposed referendums or legislation.
> It would have to be adopted and challenged in Court to get the judgement.
>
> >Please refer again to the first message of this thread - excerpt -
> >Article 82b (Volksbegehren - Citizens' referendum-demand)
> >(2) If the Government, a Land Government or a third of parliamentary
> >members consider the draft law to be against the constitution, the
> >Constitutional Court will be called to decide.
>
> It doesn't work in that direction. There must be a challenge before a judgement
> can be obtained if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal. They would need
> clairvoyance to know in advance exactly what challenge would be raised.
Of course it does not work in that direction *at present*. This is a proposal. The proposal to change
Article 82b was made by the governing coalition parties. You should immediately offer your services. They
will be grateful to hear that their bill is rubbish.
> >Exactly how this "constitutional review" will be done in GB+NI, if at all, (plus other details of how we
> >govern ourselves) should IMO be decided by the citizens using initiative and referendum.
> >
> Wrong again if you have a Constitution, the powers and duties of the Court will
> be set forth in that document and not available to citizen's initiatives.
On the contrary, the people using citizens' initiative and referendum can make and change constitution as
well as ordinary law.
> >> >As with many other of your arguments counter to I and R, this one
> >> >applies also to indirect government. After the whole process of green,
> >> >white etc. papers, commissions, debates in two chambers, flying in MPs
> >> >from Bermuda, etc.??? etc. a government bill can be thrown out on
> >> >constitutional grounds.
> >>
> >> Are you referring to a democratic republic an `indirect government'?
> >
> >I was contrasting citizens' initiative and referendum, which are forms of so-called direct democracy,
> >with the type of governance which involves giving one's vote to a candidate or delegate and having no
> >further right to co-decide on any public issues. The letter is indirect, also dubbed "representative". A
> >republic may be more, or less democratic. Switzerland is moderately to strongly democratic. Britain is
> >weakly democratic. See the comparison of 35 european democracies prepared by the I and R institute,
> >Amsterdam.
>
> Citizen's petitions or initiatives and other means of amending Constitutions are
> available in almost any Republic except a phony tyrannical one.
Citizen-initiated referendum, by which the people can make and change constitutional and other law, exists
in some countries but not in "almost any republic". In Britain we exercise NO rights of this sort.
> If too much of what you choose to call direct democracy' is available it tends to become
> anarchy and mob rule as the situation after revolutions (ex. French Revolution)
> clearly demonstrate. This is not a tolerable situation.
But we are *not* proposing too much democracy. Our suggestions are moderate. We propose to integrate
well-tried elements of participation, with the right to make and change law, into the representative system
of governance. Your repeated cries of "anarchy and mob rule" are very misleading. By enhancing democracy and
true representation of the people with I and R we will reduce the risk that social and political order may
break down while improving the way in which we govern ourselves.
Again you did not read or retain. I referred to a whole bunch of functions which promote and assist
*deliberation* of and decision-making on public issues in our democracy. I did not mention "substitution of
a computer for a ballot box" or telematic voting in elections or referendums.
Wallace-Macpherson