Elections are often repeated, usually after several years, but sometimes also after several months. Some mature democrats strongly oppose a repetition of a referendum. Why? Why do they repeat elections?
It's a very good question Mario, and one particularly germane here in the UK at the moment. Many of those wishing to remain part of the EU now demand a second referendum once the nature of any deal is known. Brexiteers, who voted in the last referendum to leave, say that would be "undemocratic" and we must leave no matter what!
The Conservative government says the first referendum result must stay, unless Parliament rejects the deal the government makes with the EU. Then they may support a new referendum or, more likely, be forced to hold a General Election!
The Labour opposition currently rejects the possibility of a second referendum, but demands a General Election if the government plans are rejected by Parliament! It is being pushed by its members to demand a new referendum in any event!
The third party, the Liberal Democrats, demand a new referendum once the details of any deal are known.
Of course, there remains the prospect of no deal being agreed with the EU. Remainers say that would mean us staying EU members. Brexiteers say we would have to leave anyway!
Confused? Good, so are the British!
All sides in this nonsense claim their views are the genuinely "democratic" ones. Which one actually is, you must decide for yourself!
I take the view that what we're after is more than mere democracy. What we really want is liberal-democracy. We don't want referendums cropping up regularly to undo "recent" past decisions. It happens sometimes--Scottish independence, Quebec independence, Newfoundland joining Canada. But it leads to unrest, disagreement and disturbs the peace that liberal-democracy demands and craves.
General Elections, on the other hand, usually settle matters for a good period of time. Much more suitable to liberal-democracy.
My view? You can argue for ever if one, the other, or both a democratic. Personally, I couldn't care less which is chosen. But I do care about peace in my society. So don't change decisions by referendum too often, it's a path to war....
Christopher NOCK
Why should a referendum be seen as undemocratic? Is it not a means prescribed by the laws, practices and conventions of the state in question to go for referendum on certain questions?
If and only if the rules are strictly adhered to and the processes are duly followed, a referendum should never be regarded as been undemocratic simply because it may have become rampant in a given society.
What is undemocratic is that which is not following the due process of the law and the generally prescribed conditions for such a practice - not the frequency of a referendum.
Christopher Nock on the question of Breixt and the argument for a new referendum, if indeed the majority of the people are calling for a referendum, why not give a chance. After all what is more democratic than the majority of the people calling for effective participation in the whole Brexit process.
The people probably did not really see clearly what the looming Brexit would bring to them until now. That could probably have influenced how they voted. Maybe they have now weighed the pros and cons of Brexit and are determined to make a more informed decision on the whole thing.
There is no guarantee that non-Brexitees will win a new referendum and vice versa.
Democracy must always give the people the chance to make the right decisions - after all that is what it is all about. Or?
Thomas, I'm a little bit worried if we're going to be having referendums to decide if we're to have a referendum! There's also my concerns about peace. There's also my worry that majority decisions might not be correct decisions! EU membership was too big of a decision to leave to a simple majority in a referendum. Especially when no one knew what the consequences would be if the vote was to leave, which it was!
It was a dreadful political error by the people who called the referendum not to insist on a super-majority for something so important. Say 60-40. As it was it was 52-48. And that was just the voters! So, rather less than 4% of the population (around 2.5-3%) have tied us all to probably the worst political decision in Britain since King Harold looked up instead of down in the 1066 Battle of Hastings!!!!
I'm not sure another referendum would settle anything at all. It would just stir up the loathing and hatred each side feels for the other! Should the government's plans fail to pass through Parliament, a General Election would be required. And we might eventually be saved by the fact that no British government can bind its successors!!! God bless the British Constitution. Liberal-democracy at its finest!
NOCK
Christopher Nock Should I say interesting or perhaps perplexing times for the UK?
You have made some very interesting observations which I may not comment on now - I intend to leave that for other researchers to take up.
“Liberal-democracy at its finest!” you said . I guess that should suffice for now.
The question is interesting but I would disagree with two of your assumptions: 1) that holding a new referendum is not democratic; and 2) that referendums and elections are comparable in this respect.
Holding a new referendum is not in itself anti-democratic. In fact, it is a basic democratic principle that no one should be bound by the decisions of others. So, for example, new generations have the right to reverse what has been decided by their parents and grandparents in the past. However, a new referendum has a cost and probably makes sense only if the conditions are significantly changed. I guess this is where Brexit comes in…
But my real point is that there is something a little bit artificial in the comparison that you are trying to make. In democratic systems, leaders and representatives are elected on a limited mandate (of 2, 4, 5 years). It is clear from the start that the mandate will end at some point and a new election will be held. We could of course discuss why it is so and whether or not it is a good thing, but this is not my point. My point is simply that in a referendum, the question seldom is: “Do you want this or that for the next 3, 4 or 5 years?”
Life would be extremely complicated if decisions could be reverse too easily. A bit of stability and predictability is required. And you will have noted that if there is a change of government after an election (because the incumbent government was defeated and a new party came to power), the existing laws and regulations remain into force (until they have been changed of course!).
Julien, you say:
"The question is interesting but I would disagree with two of your assumptions: 1) that holding a new referendum is not democratic; ..."
This is not my assumption; this is what (some) of those who oppose holding a new referendum say.
"... Life would be extremely complicated if decisions could be reverse too easily."
Perhaps; but many decisions have been harmful, and it would have been better if they were "reversed" or abandoned. Look what our decision to support "resistant movement" in Afghanistan (forty years ago) have done to that county and to us. Then came the horror of Iraq; I have called the destruction of Libya "the murder of European Union". This was a disastrous decision indeed. And so forth.
I am not politically active, but I have been perplexed with how bad decisions politicians regularly take. People do not decide anything; they have always been manipulated.
I think your disagreement and the rest of Julien's concerns have been well answered in previous answers offered by Thomas and me. Don't let my focus on Brexit lead you to dismiss what I have to say on the matter as localised and lacking broad consequences!
NOCK
The orthodox view would be... elections create governments. People to rule in sense of creating and administering policy on a vast range of issues. Those people quickly grow weary, trust fades, need to be turned over, etc. You roll the dice periodically to renew that mandate and exercise accountability.
Whereas referendums are specific questions: usually constitutional issues or protracted social values questions, with the purpose of resolving the matter for a generation. You don't keep rolling the dice: an approach that Highest Courts with binding power to rule on constitutional questions also heed.
The problem is that people are manipulated rather than informed. And if they learn (later) that they have made a bad choice, they are not allowed to change the situation "for a generation".
The UK has a parliamentary democracy. Elections have become a fundamental part of a parliamentary democracy in order for the people to select the government of their choice, although elections were not present in the earliest forms of PD. (we can argue about whether the people have a real choice in PDs, especially with our FPTP system). Referendums are a mechanism of plebiscite democracy for making decisions based on black and white choices and as a democratic tool has always sat uncomfortably within a parliamentary democracy. If democracy were seen as a spectrum where one end was considered pure democracy and the other seen as the total absence of democracy, It can be argued that referendums are closer to pure democracy than elections since all votes count and the result has a greater impact over specific legislation and parliamentary decisions.
The problem is, as Mario has mentioned, is that parliamentary democracy has the undesirable effect of keeping the electorate politically illiterate. Coupled with that are the tools used to persuade voters to vote for a party or a particular side of an argument. (Algorithms, misrepresentation of facts within the MSM). It can be presumed that the closer to pure democracy a tool, the more political literacy required by the electorate to use it. (Otherwise it becomes a tool for manipulating the population not for establishing an informed overall consensus). Many voters feel that they were qualified to make the choices they made both in general elections and in referendums after reading newspaper articles, seeing messages on their Facebook and Twitter feeds, in conversation with political parties and statements made by prominent politicians. Recent research done on the electorate's knowledge of the EU's institutions, their functions and their influence on the UK and UK Law demonstrates a disturbing lack of knowledge of the EU and how it works and these were conducted AFTER the referendum.
So, in answer to your original question: within a parliamentary democracy, elections are considered to be the more democratic process, however, in terms of pure democracy, plebiscite democracy is the more valid. The problem is political illiteracy and the approach of the various parties to persuasion. It can be argued that those who did not like the result of the original referendum use their definition of democracy to advocate a second vote. Those who do like the result of the referendum use their definition of democracy to argue against a second referendum. The weaponization of the complex concept of democracy.
The point is, if we are going to use more democratic tools to take political decisions or select governments within a parliamentary democracy, the electorate needs to be fairly and accurately informed of the various positions as well as the established facts (such as 17% of UK laws are in some way affected by the EU or that the net benefit of EU migrants to the UK in 2016 was £19.3bn as opposed to £7.5bn from the rest of the world,) as well as how these facts have been derived, to be able to make properly informed choices, rather than being persuaded by the propaganda of the various stakeholders who have their own, often hidden, agendas.
Should the electorate have the opportunity to change their mind soon after making a decision when it has been established that the electorate has been unethically manipulated? Pure democracy demands that it should. However, it should also be remembered that in a parliamentary democracy, manipulation (by unethical means) is a fundamental part of the political system and has been since elections were first introduced.
Paul, your text about democracy & manipulation is very good. Let me mention two things in this regard.
(1) In one my book I wrote. "There is not much real democracy in the present world, and it is not sure if a real democracy can exist. It is also not sure that in a real democracy a reasonable and benevolent behaviour would prevail over greed, vanity, and madness. Democracy is a collective rite which some people love, and many are frustrated with, but we do not have anything better with which we could replace it. Hence, we are compelled to stick to this colourful festival of noise and vanity in which some protagonists win a fortune, some people find a satisfaction, and the rest of us have no other choice but to endure all this."
(2) I am not particularly enthusiastic about the EU either. Its leaders (the British Prime Minister included) passionately supported the destruction of Libya and Syria, as well as the putsch against the democratically elected government in Ukraine. Those were very wrong things, which have cost the EU a lot and will cost it much more. I have always considered the mentioned attitudes & behaviour of the EU leaders very wrong.
I can certainly agree with your first point that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others, but coming from a liberal pluralist perspective I have less faith that independent nation states are able to provide a fair, equal and truly democratic political system that works for the benefit of all its citizens than a federal system. Certainly nations tied together economically as well as politically have less inclination to war with one another providing better security for its citizen than those working independently.
I believe the 'nation state' has run its course and has outlived its usefulness as a mechanism for delivering democracy. A stable, fair and equal world lies in a more homogenised global system run by all its peoples whose identities are constructed in more individualistic ways rather than through gender, race, religion or national allegiances. We are already seeing signs of the world evolving into a global society. Nationalism is the drag factor preventing a new global system developing that genuinely works for everyone and where war and poverty can be eradicated.
Brexit is part of that nationalistic drag factor. That's not to say that the EU is perfect, but like democracy it's the worst political system, except for all others. There is of course a great deal of misinformation about what the EU is, how it is made up and its purpose. No one can argue though that it behaves any less ethically towards its own citizens or in its actions on the internationally stage than our own UK government, but it certainly can be argued that in many ways the EU has a more democratic system.
But, returning to to the original post, to achieve a fair, equal and truly democratic system we need an active and politically literate electorate creating and delivering policies using relevant, pertinent and unbiased information designed to inform rather than persuade or manipulate. Independent individual sovereign nations within a parliamentary democracy are fundamentally incapable of delivering that 21st century political system. Only nations tied together economically and politically have that potential. As nations desolve so a purer form of democracy can develop. I agree though that it has to be phased and regionlism, which is still the greater force in the international system, is an important stepping stone evolving hand in hand with the political system. Regionalism is the first step toward dissolving nation states, which is why those whose individual identity is rooted in the nation state is so afraid of the EU.
Brexit therefore comes from backward 20th century thinking. (Realist). The evolution of a more homogonised international system with a politically literate population holding the power (of course with the necessary checks and balances) is 21st century thinking (pluralist). The EU offers the framework for that 21st century thinking. National governments do not.
A second referendum asserts the sovereignty of the people over parliament rather than betrays the trust of the people and as such is the more democratic solution to the brexit conundrum not the rather jaundice view of democracy proported by brexiteers, vehemently defending the first vote, allowing TM to steam roller her 'agreement' through parliament reaffirming parliamentary (verging on the democratic dictatorship) sovereignty over the British people. The nation state must be dissolved if we are to create the fairer, equal more democratic world most of us seek.
Paul, I agree with nearly everything you say, but people (political leaders included) and communities are often led by fears, ambitions & illusion rather than by constructive reason(ing). This is present everywhere, not only in politics.
Since I am not a political scientist (I retired recently, but I still teach Computer Networks), let me put forward a paragraph from my last book (Reason and Passions) in which I express my doubts about the rationality of human behaviour.
3.39 - Are people rational or not? At the level of the means and methods they develop and use, people seem rational, but at the level of aims and behaviour they often do not seem so. Let me illustrate this ...
Situation 1: September, conference room, a meeting, temperature is 25 centigrade; we are in short sleeves. Air-conditioning must work, because it is too hot! Temperature is lowered to 20 centigrade. I protest, because air-conditioning makes noise but I am alone against all others.
Situation 2: October, conference room, a meeting, temperature is 20 centigrade; we are in long sleeves. Air-conditioning must work, because it is cold! Temperature is raised to 25 centigrade. I protest, because air-conditioning makes noise but I am alone against all others.
Therefore, when it is 25, people want 20; when it is 20, people want 25. I consider such behaviour stupid but nobody cares for that: air-conditioning must work, and it works constantly. People die and they are not happy, says Camus; hence, they need something - a god or an air-conditioner - to give a meaning to their existence. People use all sorts of machines & noises, trying to console themselves for the fact that they were born and that they must die. I hate air-conditioning because it makes noise and it does not manage to make me less unhappy.
In sum, reasonable and constructive ideas and theories are often not enough.
Taking BREXIT out for a minute a referendum is an aspect of direct democracy, where people can decide on an individual issue. In an election one brings people into power, but has little control, what they do while in power on each and every decision you personally want to take part in. All you can do is to vote for another party int he next election, if you are not happy with what is done in Parliament.
This argument, however, is based on the assumption that issues are important for people's decision whom to vote. However it seems that of bigger importance is which party one is supporting in general. This often is more influenced by structural aspects, but can lead to a change when crucial discrepancies evolve between the voter and the supported party. If such happens in bigger dimensions a critical election can bring landslide changes.....
A referendum is lesser related to such structural voter preferences for a particular party, although this does not mean that it doesn't play a role. I would assume, and now back to BREXIT, that a new referendum will bring considerable changes.
A critical decision already happened with the withdrawal of PM May, but only the future will tell, if this also leads to important changes in people's party preferences.
The problem with referendums is that people are intensely manipulated, even more than in electoral campaigns.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-holding-a-new-election-democratic-and-holding-a-new-referendum-not
A referendum (plural: referendums or less commonly referenda) is a direct vote by the electorate on a proposal, law, or political issue. This is in contrast to an issue being voted on by a representative. This may result in the adoption of a new policy or specific law, or the referendum may be only advisory.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Referendum