|
1. 2,500 YEARS OF DIRECT
DEMOCRACY – A 5 MINUTE HISTORY
The term 'democracy' is from the Greek, and means
literally, 'peoples rule'. Ever since Athenian democratic
rule triumphed over Sparta's totalitarian military rule
2,500 years ago, democracy has been evolving, from the
Greeks to the Romans, then to Europe and the New World, and
beyond.
The modern version of democracy gained credence with The
Great Charter in which King John devolved the divine
right of sovereign rule existing at the time to the
people, albeit reluctantly, and only to the aristocracy of
the time. Over subsequent centuries devolution included
landowners, freemen, women and finally all citizens in the
form of Representative Democracy (i.e. indirect
parliamentary democracy) with universal suffrage. Democratic
movements, as always, drew their power from dissatisfaction
with political, social and economic conditions experienced
by large sections of the population.
Representative Democracy is what we have in NZ today, where
assemblies of elected citizen representatives, and
officials appointed by those elected representatives,
execute the business of government in the greater public
interest within the ideal of modern democracy where all
citizens are free and equal.
Direct Democracy, where citizens vote directly on the
business of Government as in the Athenian pre-modern
assembly model, has continued evolving at a lesser pace.
Representative Democracy, still controlled by society's
privileged classes, was often sufficient to placate the
majority of citizens and there was little opportunity, to
exercise the right to 'peoples rule' by Direct Democracy.
However as society evolved, population increased, and
technology advanced, a growing plutocracy - rule by the
privileged - created a new order of exploitation and Direct
Democracy returned to the fore.
It was in revolutionary America where people had fled from
the ever-growing European plutocracy, that the ideals of
freedom and equality for all would be incorporated into the
new constitutions of fledgling states. The first
constitutional referenda vote took place in the independent
colony of Connecticut in 1639. In 1778-80 the constitutional
referenda efforts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire were of
particular importance to democratic ideals. These ideals
were re-exported to Europe and in 1793 the Revolutionary
French National Assembly decided to put a democratic
constitution to the peoples' vote in a referendum. Ninety
percent voted in favour, and that included the right of 10%
of voters to demand referenda as needed. Direct democracy
spread to Switzerland where it continues to this day( it did
not survive in France under Napoleon) and then returned to
the Americas in the late 19th century to the NW
states of the USA and to Uruguay. After the Second World War
instruments of direct democracy became important in many
other countries, Italy, Australia, South Africa and Ecuador,
for example
Direct Democracy, as a complement to our indirect
Representative (Parliamentary) Democracy, is not idealistic
nonsense from the past. It is an extremely practical
idea...not least at provincial and local level. It is used,
and continues to grow, throughout the world. Over the last
200 years there have been 1,430 national referendums held
worldwide, most in the last 15 years. In 2006 in the USA
over 9,000 referendums (propositions) were held; in the
state of Bavaria (Germany) there have been 1,200 popular
ballots since 1995. In the European Union the citizens of 22
of the 27 member states have had the chance to vote directly
on the EU. New Zealand lags far behind on the path to 'real
democracy'.
2. THE TOOLS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Direct Democracy is the right of a citizen to be
directly involved in making political decisions about
substantive issues. It achieves a more even distribution of
political power and empowers citizens. Political power is
not initiated and controlled from 'top down' but 'bottom
up'. It returns the sovereign right of free people to govern
themselves via their vote. Referendum take place only when
the constitution stipulates, or a group of voters demand it.
The three pillars of Direct Democracy are:
·
The Mandatory Referendum incorporated into
laws of parliamentary governance. Where change to
Parliamentary governance law, or Constitution if applicable,
is proposed by government, a binding referendum vote must be
held to confirm or reject any proposal.
·
The Optional Referendum. New laws, or
changes to existing laws passed by parliament, are subject
to final approval by the electorate in a binding referendum,
providing citizens call for a referendum and sufficient
voters support the call for such a vote. (Referenda may be
initiated by Government as in the proposed referendum on NZ
voting systems at the next general election).
·
The Citizen Initiated Referendum (the
'popular initiative' or 'popular ballot'). Where citizens
have the right to place before the electorate matters which
government may wish to avoid, or neglect to address.
Providing statutory requirements are met, an initiative will
proceed to a binding referendum vote, irrespective of the
wishes of Government or Parliament.
3.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY
First we
need to examine indirect (i.e. NZ Parliamentary) democracy
which itself is constantly evolving in response to changing
political, social and economic factors. In 2011, along with
the election, Government is holding a binding referendum on
potential changes to our voting system. It is termed a
referendum but is actually a plebiscite, or
national poll and should not be confused with a direct
democracy referendum because government has decided when,
and on what issue, the people are being consulted. NZ law,
under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, provides
only for non-binding citizen initiative referenda. The
results of the few actually held, have been ignored by
government.
Indirect
parliamentary democracy is more than simple majorities;
there are wide variations of political systems throughout
the world. It can vary from republicanism to socialism,
bi-cameral and uni-cameral . In NZ it might include FPP, MMP,
STV, list and party MP's, a variety of vote thresholds, and
varying terms, all in any combination as it continues to
evolve. However, what is consistent and common to all
indirect democratic systems, is that empowerment does not
reside with the citizens who vote; it resides with
politicians who enjoy a monopoly over important sources of
power, especially the right to determine the political
agenda. They often see themselves as an elite, and the
voter as an 'ordinary' citizen. Divisions are created and
confirmed. Indirect democracy institutionalises an
imbalance of power. There are no legitimate grounds
today for maintaining that one category of people are better
equipped to decide public affairs than another.
Direct
Democracy also assumes different forms, and, like
Representative (Parliamentary) Democracy, is constantly
evolving in response to external factors and public
perceptions. In all cases though, direct democracy is
complementary to parliamentary or presidential systems
of government. It provides oversight of political systems
that determine the future and condition of the people; it
does not replace government, but complements it.
Variations include the number of petition signatures
required to trigger a referendum, the time and manner of
collection, voter turn-out quorums, majorities required to
pass laws, limitations on referenda subjects and funding,
and differing binding/non-binding criteria.
In some
cases Parliament has the right to make a counter-proposal to
a referendum, and, following negotiations, petitioners may
withdraw a proposed referendum if negotiations are able to
achieve a compromise. Other variations include the number
of signature required to validate a Citizen Initiative
proposal. In the Swiss canton of Aargau it is is 0.9% of
registered voters for local referenda, but 2% for Swiss
national initiatives. In the German state of Bavaria 10% of
the electorate are required to sign, as it is under New
Zealand's non binding system. In the USA the state of
Wyoming needs 15% and North Dakota only 2% . In Italy
500,000 signatures nationally secure a referendum to change
a law.
The time
allowed to collect signatures varies widely between
countries, often depending on whether it is a national,
provincial, or local council initiative. In Aargau, local
Citizen Initiated Referenda have 12 months to gather
signatures, but Optional Referendums initiated by government
have 90 days. Voter turn-out quorums, where required to
validate an initiative or referendum, can vary between no
minimum to 50% or more.
What is
plain is that each community negotiates within its political
system as much democratic freedom as local conditions
permit, established politicians are prepared to concede, or
the populace wins by force of public demand. We must
negotiate our own version of Direct Democracy. We have
benefited from the sacrifices of those who founded the
democracy we know today. In a world of rapid globalisation
we must continue to expand democracy thus ensuring the
freedoms we enjoy today are protected, and a legacy is
passed to our descendants that equips them to preserve and
grow those freedoms.
4.
LIKE A SWISS WATCH.........
Switzerland is an accepted example of a highly successful
democratic state. Its population of 7.8 million, in a
country of few natural resources, enjoys an excellent
standard of living founded on a high-tech economy, large
service sector, and stable political system.
For
over 140 years Switzerland's government, at local,
provincial, and federal level, has operated Direct Democracy
Referenda procedures. Switzerland leads the world in
advancing democracy. It is manifestly obvious the
interconnection and interdependence of citizens and
politicians within Direct Democracy works! Opinion polls
show 90% of Swiss citizens will not countenance any
curtailment of their statutory Direct Democratic rights. New
Zealand, on the other hand, is sliding down the scale of
contented societies and successful economies since its peak
in the mid-fifties. It is time for change; New Zealand can
become a 'South Seas Switzerland'. New Zealand need not
adopt the Swiss example in its entirety, with its
multi-lingual, cantonal and Federal factors, but utilise
what is applicable to our history, culture, and aspirations.
The following minimum requirements will achieve that
ambition:
·
Citizens must have the right to launch a
popular initiative and referenda process themselves.
·
Popular referendums must be binding and
decided by a simple Yes/No response to proposals.
·
Referendums should not be held at the same
time as General Elections where party politics might be used
to confuse issue based politics.
·
The role of Government and of public debate in
referendum campaigns must be clearly defined.
·
There shall be no minimum voter turnout
quorums. Quorums permit non-voting to be used tactically to
distort referenda results.
·
There shall be realistic time available to
gather petition signatures.
·
Not less than six months between validated
referendum proposal and voting day to allow adequate public
debate.
·
An elected body, independent of parliament,
must set and oversee referenda procedure.
·
All referenda campaign funding must be
declared in the interests of transparency.
·
Equal access and media time for those involved
in referenda campaigns.
5. WHAT
CAN KIWIS LOOK FORWARD TO?
With
implementation of Direct Democracy;
·
Regular popular ballots on specific issues
will promote a political culture of participation. Citizens
become more politically confident and responsible, with a
greater degree of mutual trust and social cohesion.
·
Citizens will have more effective control of
Parliament and allows independent influence, both
restraining and innovating. Politicians are tied more
closely to society and must share their power. Citizens
must have the ability to decide on the same range of issues
as their elected representatives.
·
Greater public debate gives minorities the
right to a public hearing and the opportunity to exercise
that right thus furthering social integration. The number
of voices and minorities heard will be far greater, allowing
compromises to be more readily agreed.
·
The media, instead of promoting election
manifestos, will focus on specific proposals for resolving
specific problems. There would be a greater demand for, and
greater supply of, quality political information.
·
Politicians will take voters seriously all the
time, not just before elections; they are interconnected and
interdependent with citizens. Parliamentary behaviour will
be modified to take into account as wide a political
spectrum as possible before proposing legislation.
(Citizens and legislators cannot be seen as two opposing
tenets, for it is the citizens who are the sovereign power.)
·
Well developed democratic procedures will
allow citizens to go beyond simple resistance to
parliamentary proposals, and offer constructive challenge
and innovation in a more participatory role in their own
government. .
These
points are by no means exhaustive but indicate the general
social and political advantages of a truly democratic
system.
6. THE
BOTTOM LINE
Business
often opposes Direct Democracy as it fears its influence on
political parties is negated by the popular vote. This is an
erroneous assumption. Empirical studies by mainstream
economists in Switzerland, Germany, and the US, show
striking increases in economic performance where Direct
Democratic procedures are utilised.
·
In Swiss cantons with stronger rights of
participation on financial issues, economic performance is
15% higher in terms of GDP per head.
·
In Swiss cantons where citizens vote on the
budget, there is 30% less tax avoidance; citizens are more
prepared to support public expenditure when they have input
on spending.
·
In municipalities where the budget must be
approved by referendum, public expenditure is 10% lower per
head; citizens are more careful with tax money than
politicians are.
·
Municipalities which have a finance referendum
have 25% lower public debt because of the two previous
factors.
In the
United States, a 2004 study analysed to what extent public
services (roads, education, utilities etc.) are provided,
and whether there is a difference between states with
referenda procedures, and those without. The data used was
from 48 states between 1969 and 1986... prosperous years for
the US. States without referendum initiatives were only 82%
as effective as those with referenda provision, i.e.
approximately 20% more government expenditure resulted where
referenda were not available to the citizen.
The world
is changing; our Westminster system of parliamentary
democracy cannot keep up with social and economic change in
our society. It is not evolving fast enough, we must move to
the next level. Political and economic power is centralising
and citizens are being marginalised. The ideals of freedom
and equality can only be preserved by citizens direct
involvement in the governance of society. It is then and
only then, we will truly get 'the government we deserve'.
Contributed by G.M Waring
A Supporter of For Real
Democracy NZ Inc.
18 July,
2010
|
