Referendums and the people’s power to mismanage
by Jen Lexmond
4/06/09
Abuses of centralized power – most recently illustrated through the MP expenses scandal – should remind us that power should, as far as possible, reside with the people. It should originate there and should only be transferred upwards – to regions, to national governments, or international institutions – with strong justification. Political parties across the spectrum are embracing this principle, but the interesting discussion is about the conditions for the ‘strong justification’ to transfer it. Sometimes the state is the right place for power to be vested.
Giving the right of referendum is a powerful way to increase public involvement in politics. It’s a direct say in whether a law passes or not – the most straightforward form of democracy. In the Tories’ recent green paper on local government, Cameron calls for giving local people the power of referendum on local issues – particularly tax rises: “If there's a local consensus that a tax increase is unnecessary, people will be able to club together and vote it down”.
If Governor Arnie’s current plight is anything to go by, this is a disaster waiting to happen. California – the only state which grants its citizens carte blanche to govern through referendums or ‘ballot initiatives’ – is essentially bankrupt after citizens consistently voted down tax rises while voting for a host of expensive public services, with out any genuine understanding – or arguably interest – in the complicated financial maneuvers involved in balancing the books. And why should they? That’s what public servants are employed for. The result is that thousands of people will be laid off – firefighters, teachers, police, doctors – and funding will be slashed across welfare services, of course hitting the worst off the hardest.
Sometimes governing really should be left to those we elected to do it.
Simon
Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised that referendums seldom equal the common good. After all, there's plenty of evidence that individuals often act against their own long term interest, so why should they be any different during a plebiscite?
The issue for me is about deliberation - people need to have a forum in which to test and refine their preferences, so that when they take a decision they've got full information about its impact on themselves and others.
I think I'm agreeing with Faizal - California should forget referenda and have a citizen's convention instead.
Faizal Farook
I'm unclear as to how the Proposition system works, so can't comment on that directly but I part of the issue is the formulation of the correct question. I think part of the problem is that the questions aren't put into any kind of strategic context. Rather than a vote being cast for higher/lower taxes without context, the vote should be a bit like those tricky multiple choice questions with no obvious answer i.e. do you want a tax freeze and a 15% reduction in social care or do you want to maintain current social care provision and raise taxes by 5%?
The problem of referendum culture, as California appears to demonstrate, is that it mitigates against making strategic decisions. There is a role for more direct democracy I think but it has to be a bit more sophisticated such as participatory budgeting for example.