Michael Macpherson wrote:
> There are some "yardsticks" for democracy. I think that the simplest
> and most fundamental is the word itself. People rule. Any deviation
> weakens the principle (e.g. people elect others to rule).
Society and democracy are impossible without some kind of division of labour. The
delegation of certain tasks to certain people (read election of others to rule) is
unavoidable. Any ivory tower definition that this deviation is less democratic is
rather unpragmatic.
The decisive weakness of the referendum - to stick to the issue in the subject - is
that it reduces a complex question - here the future structure of the EU - to a
yes-no-decission. It would be considerably more democratic if the people of e.g.
Ireland had had the chance to influence the text of the treaty rather than only voting
yes or no on it. To grant this influence, however, would make the process of
negotiating such a treaty quite inefficient if not impossible. The simplistic reduction
to a yes-no-question opens wide possibilities to campaign for one or the other side
with arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at stake - in Ireland abortion
and the Treaty of Nice. Furthermore, of what use is a referendum if you basically do
not have options to choose from. Leaving the EU would not have been a realistic option
for Ireland. To keep on voting until you get a yes ridicules the principle of a
referendum.
>It's not the "elements of direct democracy" which are disempowering,
Yes, that is correct, my wording was imprecise. It is the implementation of elements of
direct democracy that can be disempowering. And Michael Macpherson himself gives the
example:
> the US american style of direct democracy with many "ballot issues"
> is more open to abuse
> "Resourceful lobby organisations" more frequently influence
> representative democracy than direct democracy. Experts have
> argued that it's easier for, say, a company to change government
> policy than to sway a whole electorate.
I argue that less resourceful lobby organisations are more likely to have the same
influence on elected representatives as the more resourceful lobby organisations than
they are likely to win a media battle over the more resourceful lobby organisations.
This is especially true for marginal issues. To avoid misunderstandings: resources are
not only money, but also voluntary work and the like (or economic, cultural, and social
capital if you wish).
> I am fascinated by your remark about interactions of direct and
> indirect democracy with "civil" society. Would be interested to
> discuss how to research those.
My point is, that influence on policy formulation is decisive for qualitiy of
democracy. Policy formulation is by and large carried out by the administrative system
(which is rather undemocratic). There are many ways to influence the process of policy
formulation. Electing people to control and guide the administrative system is one of
them. Voting on the results of the process either in referenda or in parliament is
another. Petition/intitiative for a referendum is yet another.
Other ways are public discourse in general, work in NGOs (read lobby groups, pressure
groups, parties, etc.), etc. Certain administrative procedures include public hearings
where anybody may come with objections and suggestions. The classic example are
processes related to town planning and regional planning. Then there are less
institutionalised processes such as round table, mediation, Planungszelle,
Bürgergutachen (of which I do not know a meaningful translation).
A referendum at the end of the process of policy formulation is reduced to the symbolic
act of giving democratic legitimisation to a decision that is taken by others. I fail
to see the "glaringly obvious democratic deficit" that would arise out of a parliament
carrying out this symbolic act.
David May
|