Unconsidered or unwanted democratic reforms?
Michael Macpherson
chances to improve real participation in public decision making,
democracy and governance.
Imagine there would be a people's referendum for the citizen's right to
take part in public affairs. This could be a new way to revive
democracy,
and the debate about it, in Britain (maybe elsewhere, too). "Taking
part"
means, for instance, being able to put a new law before parliament and
the
people, to cancel an existing law or to dismiss an M.P. who has
represented
her or his constituents badly.
Below is a suggestion for the text of a people's referendum (called
"Proposal"). If enough citizens want the referendum to go ahead,
volunteers will be needed to organise the proceedings and collect the
signed ballot papers. The latter could be done both "on paper" and
"on-line".
In brief, the suggestion is "Have a referendum for the right to
referenda!"
Those who wish to help promote the ideas in this message please make
suggestions about ways to proceed.
_________________________________________________________________
PEOPLE'S PROPOSAL TO RENEW DEMOCRACY (with Rider, below)
We the undersigned propose that a law be passed in parliament which
enables
and provides finance for the following forms of democracy at all levels
of
government from local to national, these forms of democracy to be
initiated
by a fair and reasonable percentage of the population, with decisions
being
made by an appropriate majority of voters:
1) Initiation of laws to be voted upon by the legislative body be it
parliament, assembly or council (Citizens' Initiative).
2) Referendum: The people decide, for instance if the legislative has
decided _against_ the citizens' initiatives in 1) or 3).
3) Cancellation or modification of existing laws by citizens'
initiative or
referendum.
4) Recall of elected public delegates, representatives and officials at
any
time during the usual period of office: The people decide.
A "green paper" outlining the hereto relevant practices of democracy in
other countries and describing different reform options and the reasons
for these shall be rapidly published and made freely available (gratis)
via wide-area computer networks such as Internet.
Signed
.......
.......
.......
___________________________
Rider
By signing the foregoing proposal I mandate my Member of Parliament to
help
introduce and support an appropriate Bill in Parliament. In future my
vote will go ONLY to those candidates for parliamentary office who
promise to support the proposal.
Signed
.......
.......
.......
End of proposal.
_________________________________________________________________
SOME BACKGROUND THOUGHTS AND ARGUMENTS
In an almost purely representative democracy such as the United Kingdom
most people can contribute only by voting for an MP once every few
years. Recently there have been moves to mitigate this lack of
citizens' involvement in their own affairs by introducing consultative
procedures such as panels, usually of a dozen or so people from
different backgrounds, asked to consider matters such as an aspect of
health care. Also, the changes involving proportional election systems,
and the whole devolution process appear to be intended to improve the
quality of representation of the will of constituents.
There are other, arguably more effective ways to improve representation
in public affairs, namely those in which citizens represent themselves
directly. Obviously, parliamentary systems, governments and
administrations will not become redundant but, using already
established methods, citizens can be enabled to intervene when they
(that is, a reasonable quorum) so wish. Some of these methods of
decision making are known as citizens' (law) initiative, referendum and
recall (IRR -- see note below*). Passive procedures, such as when the
people of a European country are asked by their government if they want
to join or leave the European Community, are _not_ meant here. I am
referring to procedures which are _actively_ introduced by a large
number of constituents, and to legislative proposals on which a
majority of them decide.
IRR offer some ways in which tried, effective "checks and balances" can
be introduced into public affairs and decision making, involving public
administration and parliamentary democracy. My proposal to introduce
IRR does not of course suggest that parliament should be abolished or
weakened. I suggest that on the contrary the whole system of governance
would be strengthened. These reforms would give the voters a way to
have more say in their own affairs if and when enough of them want it,
without having to wait until the next election in order "to throw the
blighters out" (a clumsy way to express creative wishes or discontent,
often too late for many problem-issues). With IRR there can be a more
refined, developed and focussed discourse of the people with their
representatives and delegates. Further, it has been suggested that
politicians and ministers tend to respect the wishes of their
constituents more, merely because the possibility of citizen
intervention in parliamentary process exists.
Information and Deliberation
It is often asserted that the directer forms of democracy such as IRR
do not allow adequate consideration of the issue at stake. Agreed, a
rapid process conducted like an opinion survey might gather many
unreflected replies. But that is not what is proposed here. There are
very good ways to build in plenty of information, discussion, and
debating time (summed up as "deliberation") into the processes of
citizen-initiated lawmaking. For instance:
The time from launching initiative to decision is several months at
least.
The two or three (depending on method) phases of the citizens'
initiative are accompanied by dissemination of information and public
debate. An agreed percentage of citizen votes must be collected to
start the initiative in order to put a law before parliament. If it is
rejected, then many more votes must be collected in order to start and
carry through a public referendum. Proponents of the initiative must
engage the public in debate, or they will not succeed in mobilising
enough support to take the process further. Similarly, opponents of the
initiative will try to mobilise dissent by disseminating counter
arguments, thus creating further debate.
Information about the issue at stake must be freely available to any
citizen who wants it.
Public debate and information can nowadays be aided by information and
communication technology such as e-mail, WWW, on-line discussion; not
forgetting television, radio and print.
Electronic collection of signatures and electronic voting in referenda,
for instance using the bank teller system or Internet, would speed up
matters. But this not essential.
*Note. The abbreviation IRR refers to Citizens' Law Initiative,
Referendum and Recall of elected representatives.
_________________________________________________________________
Dr. Michael Macpherson, July 1999.
Distribution: The above People's Proposal to Renew Democracy, with or
without the preamble and "background thoughts and arguments", may be
copied and circulated electronically or in print.
Comments, endorsements and statements of support may be sent to me by
e-mail.
A discussion space for People's proposal to renew democracy (request
for comments 2) has been set up in Democr@cy Forum
http://www.democracyforum.net
You can read the original text of the proposal by going to our new
front page http://www.democracyforum.net and clicking on a button in
the top right hand corner, or go directly to
http://www.peoplesproposal.democracyforum.net/
ahos
Michael Macpherson <m...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:7pmj54$5c4$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net...
> I want to gather people's opinions and encourage discussion about the
> chances to improve real participation in public decision making,
> democracy and governance.
>
> Imagine there would be a people's referendum for the citizen's right to
> take part in public affairs. This could be a new way to revive
> democracy,
I'm sorry, did you say REVIVE democracy? and for whom may I ask?
> and the debate about it, in Britain (maybe elsewhere, too). "Taking
> part"
> means, for instance, being able to put a new law before parliament and
> the
> people, to cancel an existing law or to dismiss an M.P. who has
> represented her or his constituents badly.
Yeh, we could pass a law banning nuclear weapons and they would dismantle
them, and we could ask those US bases to piss off and they would all go
home, we could stop arms sales to Indonesia and ask the "world community"
not to bomb people. We could house the homeless and find people jobs. We
could find a cure for all known diseases create a world of peace, love and
the pursuit of happiness!!!
>
> Below is a suggestion for the text of a people's referendum (called
> "Proposal"). If enough citizens want the referendum to go ahead,
> volunteers will be needed to organise the proceedings and collect the
> signed ballot papers. The latter could be done both "on paper" and
> "on-line".
>
Right on man.
> In brief, the suggestion is "Have a referendum for the right to
> referenda!"
>
I'm all excited..this is sooooo revvvvooluutioonaarrry.
> Those who wish to help promote the ideas in this message please make
> suggestions about ways to proceed.
>
Shouldn't we get permission first?
oh yeh man...but can't we have a blue paper - I don't like green.
> Signed
>
> .......
> .......
> .......
>
> ___________________________
>
> Rider
>
> By signing the foregoing proposal I mandate my Member of Parliament to
> help
> introduce and support an appropriate Bill in Parliament. In future my
> vote will go ONLY to those candidates for parliamentary office who
> promise to support the proposal.
>
> Signed
>
> .......
> .......
> .......
>
> End of proposal.
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> SOME BACKGROUND THOUGHTS AND ARGUMENTS
>
> In an almost purely representative democracy such as the United Kingdom...
What???
> ...most people can contribute only by voting for an MP once every few
> years. Recently there have been moves to mitigate this lack of
> citizens' involvement in their own affairs by introducing consultative
> procedures such as panels, usually of a dozen or so people from
> different backgrounds, asked to consider matters such as an aspect of
> health care. Also, the changes involving proportional election systems,
> and the whole devolution process appear to be intended to improve the
> quality of representation of the will of constituents.
You think this is the purpose of devolution???
>
> There are other, arguably more effective ways to improve representation
> in public affairs, namely those in which citizens represent themselves
> directly. Obviously, parliamentary systems, governments and
> administrations will not become redundant but, using already
> established methods, citizens can be enabled to intervene when they
> (that is, a reasonable quorum) so wish. Some of these methods of
> decision making are known as citizens' (law) initiative, referendum and
> recall (IRR -- see note below*). Passive procedures, such as when the
> people of a European country are asked by their government if they want
> to join or leave the European Community, are _not_ meant here. I am
> referring to procedures which are _actively_ introduced by a large
> number of constituents, and to legislative proposals on which a
> majority of them decide.
Ho hum
>
> IRR offer some ways in which tried, effective "checks and balances" can
> be introduced into public affairs and decision making, involving public
> administration and parliamentary democracy. My proposal to introduce
> IRR does not of course suggest that parliament should be abolished or
> weakened....
Why?
>... I suggest that on the contrary the whole system of governance
> would be strengthened....
Ah, so you have a right wing agenda.
>... These reforms would give the voters a way to
> have more say in their own affairs if and when enough of them want it,
> without having to wait until the next election in order "to throw the
> blighters out" (a clumsy way to express creative wishes or discontent,
> often too late for many problem-issues). With IRR there can be a more
> refined, developed and focussed discourse of the people with their
> representatives and delegates. Further, it has been suggested that
> politicians and ministers tend to respect the wishes of their
> constituents more, merely because the possibility of citizen
> intervention in parliamentary process exists.
Yeh tie the pesky blighters hands.
>
> Information and Deliberation
>
> It is often asserted that the directer forms of democracy such as IRR
> do not allow adequate consideration of the issue at stake. Agreed, a
> rapid process conducted like an opinion survey might gather many
> unreflected replies. But that is not what is proposed here. There are
> very good ways to build in plenty of information, discussion, and
> debating time (summed up as "deliberation") into the processes of
> citizen-initiated lawmaking. For instance:
Hang on a minute...what about the ideological state machine, the reactionary
press etc' etc;
>
> The time from launching initiative to decision is several months at
> least.
Yes we must give those unknown men in grey suits time to crush any
progressive movement.
>
> The two or three (depending on method) phases of the citizens'
> initiative are accompanied by dissemination of information and public
> debate. An agreed percentage of citizen votes must be collected to
> start the initiative in order to put a law before parliament. If it is
> rejected, then many more votes must be collected in order to start and
> carry through a public referendum. Proponents of the initiative must
> engage the public in debate, or they will not succeed in mobilising
> enough support to take the process further. Similarly, opponents of the
> initiative will try to mobilise dissent by disseminating counter
> arguments, thus creating further debate.
>
> Information about the issue at stake must be freely available to any
> citizen who wants it.
Mind staggeringly naive.
>
> Public debate and information can nowadays be aided by information and
> communication technology such as e-mail, WWW, on-line discussion; not
> forgetting television, radio and print.
Well you're right about the internet (for now) - but TV ? Radio?
This is a joke right? You are not really that far removed from reality are
you?
Ahos :-)
(snip)
Michael Macpherson
"ahos" <ah...@breathemail.net> 21 Aug 1999 20:14:33 +0100
Message-ID: <37be...@news1.vip.uk.com> wrote
(democracy)
>> and the debate about it, in Britain (maybe elsewhere, too). "Taking
>> part"
>> means, for instance, being able to put a new law before parliament and
>> the
>> people, to cancel an existing law or to dismiss an M.P. who has
>> represented her or his constituents badly.
ahos
>Yeh, we could pass a law banning nuclear weapons and they would dismantle
>them, and we could ask those US bases to piss off and they would all go
>home, we could stop arms sales to Indonesia and ask the "world community"
>not to bomb people. We could house the homeless and find people jobs. We
>could find a cure for all known diseases create a world of peace, love and
>the pursuit of happiness!!!
The "initiative" is good for introducing issues which have been
neglected or "forgotten" by parliament and government. It can also be
used to cancel existing laws. Sometimes decisions can be made which
parliaments would never have taken or even considered. Of course, only
those proposals which can attract support of enough citizens will be
able to jump the various hurdles and come to referendum. Faculatative
referendum may be used to veto legislation passed by parliament.
>> In brief, the suggestion is "Have a referendum for the right to
>> referenda!"
>>
ahos
>I'm all excited..this is sooooo revvvvooluutioonaarrry.
>
My suggestion to stage a symbolic referendum may or may not be a good
way to proceed. I suggest that it could help to focus attention on the
absence of citizens' initiative and referendum in Britain, and provide
a vehicle to inform and promote discussion about this.
>> Those who wish to help promote the ideas in this message please make
>> suggestions about ways to proceed.
>>
ahos
>Shouldn't we get permission first?
Indeed an important question. I would appreciate responses from expert
readers about some constitutional and legal aspects:
a) Is there any legal obstruction to citizens' initiative and
referendum at any level of government (local, regional, country)? Is
there law which allows them?
b) If a first step could be to introduce a law enabling and financing
Initiative and Referendum into parliament, then this should be
possible, given that (if I recall correctly) a single citizen may
introduce a law. How do you see this?
c) Do you see any constitutional or legal barriers to the introduction
and practice of IR±R* in the UK?
>> IRR offer some ways in which tried, effective "checks and balances" can
>> be introduced into public affairs and decision making, involving public
>> administration and parliamentary democracy. My proposal to introduce
>> IRR does not of course suggest that parliament should be abolished or>> weakened....
ahos
>Why?
What is it that you want to ask here?
>>... I suggest that on the contrary the whole system of governance
>> would be strengthened....
>
>Ah, so you have a right wing agenda.
I am not trying to promote any political agenda by linking it to
proposals for citizens' initiative, referendum and recall. I am aware
that some proponents of IRR do make this type of link and in some cases
their agenda may be "hidden". Some of my motivation may be discerned
from Citizen participation in politics and the new communication media.
http://www.snafu.de/~mjm/CP/cp.html
>> Information and Deliberation
>>
>> It is often asserted that the directer forms of democracy such as IRR
>> do not allow adequate consideration of the issue at stake. Agreed, a
>> rapid process conducted like an opinion survey might gather many
>> unreflected replies. But that is not what is proposed here. There are
>> very good ways to build in plenty of information, discussion, and
>> debating time (summed up as "deliberation") into the processes of
>> citizen-initiated lawmaking. For instance:
>
ahos
>Hang on a minute...what about the ideological state machine, the reactionary
>press etc' etc;
I have never heard about these. Are they games played in cyberspace ;-)
??
Thanks for (some of) your comments.
Michael Macpherson
Douglas Allan
of the faces of ordinary people. We can label any system "democratic" or
whatever, but fundamentally all systems on their own just encourage them to
dubious ends.
The ideal system incorporates all three possible forms of government
(democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy), balancing each form against the
others, so that a nation has the advantage of political stalemate. We can
then afford to let the politicians get as corrupt as they want, whilst
knowing that the sods can't actually do any damage to the country. This is
the fundamental concept of the British Constitution, but unfortunately the
lying b*****rds that have been in Parliament over the years have convinced
people (wrongly) that Parliament can do just what it wants. If the Monarch
doesn't have the Divine Right of Kings (Absolute Authority), then Parliament
sure as eggs hasn't either. The Bill of Rights 1688 states clearly enough
that it is illegal for Parliament to do many things, and perhaps the best
arguments against Absol;ute Authority are those put by John Locke (the
philosopher behind William of Orange) in his Second Treatise on Government
(incidentally, it was also the work that invented scientific analytical
procedure).
Politicians only mess things up, unfortunately, we can't totally abolish
them. B(
Of course, if politicians are as ham strung as they are supposed to be, then
they obey the laws that bind their powers, and we don't need any referenda
anyway.
For what it's worth.
Bob
Richard Lung
American states. Because of the difficulty and cost of organising
initiatives,
they are likely to be more useful to powerful interest groups effecting
outside
parliament what they cannot effect within it.
In this respect, equality of lobbying is needed, as provided by an 'economic
parliament', a second chamber to give democratic representation of all
occupations.
This in itself implies an effective electoral system, not only for electing
political and economic representatives, but for giving people an effective
choice in referenda or initiatives.
For a fuller discussion of effective political and economic democracy,
amongst other things, see my web site:
http://democracyscience.findhere.com/
Yours etc,
Richard Lung.
richar...@lineone.net
______________________________________