David May wrote:

> 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 studies and yardsticks to which I referred (you omit all except the simplest and least
focused "yardstick")  focus on so-called "direct" democracy, especially citizens'
initiative and citizen-triggered referendum. These systems have been working for over a
hundred years. How can attempts to assess and compare them be unpragmatic? This work is
very helpful in improving our understanding of democracy and governance. I have not
rejected division of labour, on the contrary have proposed combining direct and indirect
forms of governance (taking Swiss example).

> The decisive weakness of the referendum - to stick to the issue in the subject - is

The subject is democracy and ..  referendum

> 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.

You perpetuate the common false assertion that the process of direct democracy is  a
"simplistic reduction
to a yes-no-question". If the system is working well - and in the second Irish referendum
on Nice there was improvement over the first as I showed in my introductory message -
there's  lot of input from public, civil society and stake holders feeding into the
formulation of questions. If citizens' initiative to propose constitutional change or laws
is allowed, then the public input is more powerful and better articulated. Some
initiatives take years to mature, not because they move slowly but because the issue and
the deliberation of it are complex.

And, in any policy decision, whether in parliament or in referendum, there usually has to
be a vote. Multiple choice may be applied but it's rather difficult to use in either
process.

You say that it would be inefficient if not impossible for the people to have influenced
the referendum question. Recently the Swiss held a referendum on negotiating entry into
EU. This was a result of a citizens' initiative.

>
> >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

But it's better to have ballot initiative than no direct democracy at all. And, as I
wrote, we should improve on the US american model.

> > 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).

There's nothing to be said against these various components of governance.

> 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

No, the decision "yes or no" is taken by the electorate. That is a major difference,
illustrated by the following statement

"If the people decide differently, than the [federal] government and
parliament, then my role is to accept this, not to be sorry about it. ... In
our system, people have the right to decide as they please, of course also
contrary to the [federal] government's position. Such people's decisions
[are 'business as usual' and] therefore there is no need for anyone in the
government, nor for the government itself, to resign [just the need to work
better]."

Kaspar Villiger, Swiss federal president (for the year 2002), on people's
rejection of one of the federal bills presented in referendum on 22
September 2002.
------------------
However, I do agree, or suggest, that referendum imposed "from above", with a question
formulated by government, is  a weak form of democracy often used by politicians for their
own power games.

Sincerely,

Michael Macpherson