Month: May 2020

We take a look at other arguments against direct democracy that International IDEA mentions.

But first I want to say a few words about direct democracy.

Most people around the World do not know much about direct democracy.

Totalitarian or authoritarian regimes are not interested in democracy, direct or otherwise, for obvious reasons. Representative democracies are not too keen on discussing direct democracy either.

A country is a direct or semi direct democracy if people have direct control overt all levels of government.

It is not a direct democracy if, for example, voters decide issues at the local level but not at the national level, or vice versa.

In direct democracy, voters decide on concrete issues and laws at the local, regional and national level.

A country is not a direct democracy because the government holds a referendum on this or that issue.

For example, Switzerland is a direct democracy because voters decide at all levels. They do so with mandatory referendums, discretionary referendums and citizen initiatives.

But Switzerland is not a full direct democracy because still has politicians and political parties.

Mandatory referendums. These are called because, by law, some decisions of the national, cantonal (a canton is like a state in a federal state) and local parliaments must be approved by the people.

Such parliaments must hold referendums if their decisions affect the Constitution. They must also hold referendums on important financial decisions and decisions to join international organizations.

There are also discretionary referendums in Switzerland. The voters trigger them. Voters can call such referendums on laws voted by any level of government. In this way, Swiss voters have more power than their elected representatives. Surprising and neat, is it not?

Swiss voters can also use another instrument to exercise their power, the popular initiatives.

Popular initiatives give Swiss voters the power to change the Swiss national constitution. Often, the changes deal with healthcare, taxes, welfare, drugs, transport, immigration, asylum, and education.

Let us continue with the criticisms of direct democracy that International IDEA mentions.

“Voter irrationality”.

In a direct democracy voters are not likely to vote irrationally. This is because voters know they have to put up with the consequences of their decisions.

In representative democracy they can always “blame the politicians” because voters do not decide on issues.

In a stable direct democracy most voters are rational voters. In stable representative democracy most voters are rational also. Rational voters are what makes such democracies stable.

Voter rationality is essential to any democracy. Swiss voters probably have the most rational voting track record of any nation.

Besides, I am not sure elected politicians are more rational than the average voter. History has many examples of the opposite.

Another criticism is: “Direct democracy lets people speak, but it is not always clear what they are trying to say”.

In representative democracies it is much less clear what people try to say. All they say with their vote is: “I vote for this person because I believe he or she will do a good job”.

“In direct democracy the people do not always vote with the specific issue put to referendum in mind”.

In representative democracy people also vote with many things in mind. The advantage of direct democracy is that, even if the voters have many things in mind, they must decide one concrete thing.

“Voter fatigue”.

This is not a serious argument. Some say that if people have to vote “too often” many will not participate and only a minority will vote.

As example, they give Switzerland because Swiss voters often turn out to vote in low numbers. But this also happens in representative democracies. Some representative democracies make voting mandatory. I suppose if they do so it is because they do not have much confidence that voters will turn up to vote in large numbers on their own.

But one could also argue that many Swiss voters, and other voters, may not turn up to vote because they trust the process, or because the issue is of no concern to them. Why should they vote if the issue is not important to those voters?

“Those without strong views on the issue may not vote”.

If they abstain it is reasonable to think they do it because the issue is not so important to them, nothing wrong with that.

“Politicians may use referendums to avoid making decisions, especially on issues in which the governing party or coalition is internally divided”.

I see nothing wrong with that either.

The politicians may believe the country is as divided as they are. In such cases it is prudent to let the people decide.

But let us remember that this is not direct democracy. In direct democracy it is the people who decide if they want to be consulted, or the law forces the politicians to consult the people. The politicians do not decide when the people should be consulted.

“In a referendum people express their opinion on an issue at a particular time; they are not required to consider the issue as part of a whole. They will not consider the long term”.

When voters cast their ballots in a referendum they always have in mind many considerations. This is so because they know the result of a referendum has many consequences.

As for long term considerations, I believe Informed and competent voters keep in mind their long term interests. They think of the country, their children, their business, their jobs, etc.

That is often not the case with elected representatives. We know politicians are driven by their desire to win the next election. Not much long term thinking there… We all know of situations where politicians practically buy votes with all sorts of promises right before voting day.

The authors mention California as a place where voters chose to spend, spend, increasing public debt and not thinking long term.

First of all, California is not a direct democracy. Californian voters do not have anywhere near the power AND responsibility of Swiss voters at the national, cantonal (state) or local level.

California has some of the elements of direct democracy but it is not a direct democracy. This means that California voters are not “trained” in direct democracy.

It is also possible that Californian voters are not as well informed as Swiss voters, or are not as competent as Swiss voters for other reasons.

I do not think direct democracy is at the root of California’s key problems. Many voters in California say one key problem is not enough direct democracy.

There could be other reasons for California’s voter behaviour regarding spending. Perhaps the way issues are discussed does not inform well. For example if the media are partisan and highly polarized.

It is also possible the California educational system does not prepare voters as well as the Swiss system.

“Referendums and citizen’s initiatives may sometimes be proposed by the rich and powerful to promote their interests at the expense of the common good”.

I believe the rich and powerful have far less influence in direct democracy than in representative democracy. This is because they know the people can stop a law if they feel it goes against their interests. This means lobbies in direct democracy are less likely to push for laws that annoy the people. For the same reason, politicians are less likely to pass such laws.

I see nothing wrong if large companies or unions persuade the elected politicians to pass this or that law, as long as there is open and fair debate, and as long the citizens have the power stop such laws.

We are not done yet. In the next blog we will continue and finish with the criticisms of direct democracy.

I see that the criticisms are easily turned into arguments for direct democracy. I love such criticisms!

Please feel free to comment.

Cheers!

Victor Lopez

 

I will look first at the criticisms put forward by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). They are reasonable arguments but they can be dealt with. I am certain many people agree with them. I have also heard them often.

I do not know if IDEA shares these criticisms of direct democracy. But that is not the important issue. What is important is to deal with the objections. I hope to do so.

If are successful, more people will be receptive to direct democracy.

Let us start.

IDEA states as a disadvantage that direct democracy requires “citizen information and competence”.

If ill informed and incompetent voters are a problem, the answer is not to throw away direct democracy but to inform and educate voters.

Besides, better informed and more competent voters will produce a better society, not just make direct democracy possible.

IDEA states that direct democracy demands understanding complex issues. I agree, but most voters can grasp grasp complex issues.

To grasp complex issues it is not necessary to be an expert. Most politicians are not experts in many of the issues they face.

To solve this problem, experts explain the issues to the politicians. We can also bring experts to explain the issues to voters.

Experts can do that in TV, radio, articles, debates, question-and-answer sessions, etc.

Experts also often disagree with each other. This is normal and good. The public, like the politicians, needs to know what different experts think.

For example, experts disagree on what is the best approach to “The Virus” pandemic. After listening to the experts, most voters will understand the issue and vote competently.

But neither the politicians nor the voters must delegate decision making to the experts, except in some narrow technical issues. This is important because experts have a narrower expert vision. That is why they are experts; they know a lot about a narrow field.

We should not underestimate ability of voters to make very tough decisions and the right decisions on complex issues.

For example, let us look at trial by jury. A jury of lay persons can understand the legal issues and the evidence provided by various experts. They are then capable of deciding if the accused are guilty or not guilty.

Most of us accept ordinary citizens can decide if a person is guilty or not. Likewise, we can be confident ordinary citizens are able to make competent decisions on issues such as virus lockdown, increasing or reducing taxes, institute free (taxpayer paid) university education, universal health care, etc.

In the next blog I will continue dealing with other interesting arguments against direct democracy.

Cheers!

Víctor López

I am convinced direct democracy is the next step in human social development.

It is too bad that if we establish direct democracy, all we will do is catch up with the ancient Greeks. Even Switzerland, the only country we can say practices direct democracy, has not caught up with the Greeks.

But it is a good we are advancing and direct democracy is gaining supporters. Perhaps you will be one of them.

Many countries have now organizations to promote direct democracy.  Your country might have one or  ore. Some countries already have political parties to do just that.

But for direct democracy to happen it is essential that reasonable people persuade themselves direct democracy provides all the benefits of solid representative democracy. I have no doubt that in solid democracies most voters are reasonable people.

But reasonable people would not change just for what they already have. Fortunately, direct democracy addresses some key issues  of representative democracy that we know concern most voters.

I have glanced at what others write about the advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy. Two writings are good summaries. The first is published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), the second one by Democracy International.

It is worthwhile to see what t they say, and also who they are. By looking at their nature we might be able to understand better their criticism of direct democracy.

International IDEA is an official organization based in Sweden. Its member states are: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Luxemburg, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Tunisia.

International IDEA in 2019 ranked Spain the 13th best democracy in the World. IDEA gives Spain a score on par with the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium, and higher than Canada, France and Austria.

Looking at some of IDEA’s member states, and at this ranking of Spain, I have doubts about IDEA’s ranking system. I say this because I know Spain and Canada well. Spain is a democracy, but there is no way Spain can rank higher than Canada in quality of democracy.

On paper, Spain may very well be more democratic than Canada. For example, in Spain, the head of state is not the head of the Church, in Canada it is, but no one notices it in their lives because of the pragmatic political culture of “Anglo-Saxon” countries. Other facts show Canada is a more solid democracy than Spain.

Canada has more judicial independence, more trust between citizens and government, more renovation of political parties, far less corruption, etc.

I am also a bit concerned about the evaluation of direct democracy by an organization with only one member, Switzerland, who practices direct democracy. But perhaps that is good. I like it because their representatives will argue against direct democracy. They will also do it well because they are competent people.

On the other hand, the Swiss representative in IDEA is unlikely to argue against direct democracy, but perhaps I am wrong. He might have played devil’s advocate. That would be good; it is essential that direct democracy attract people, in spite of the arguments against it.

The other organization, Democracy International, is a private US-based organization promoting democracy around the World. Democracy international does not seem to be for or against direct democracy.

There is another organization with a very similar name to Democracy International, Democracy International eV. This organization is a promoter of direct democracy. I only mention it to prevent confusing the two.

I do not know if Democracy International eV promotes direct democracy because it believes it is the best system for democracy, or the best system to advance its political agenda.

There are other organizations who promote democracy, direct and otherwise. Unfortunately, most of them have a political agenda. They seem to look at democracy as the tool to promote their grand “solutions to everything”.

Some of them push to the “left”, some to the “right”. I am not interested in that. I am interested in direct decision making by the people regardless of the direction in which they decide.

For example, if the people vote to nationalize everything, or privatize everything, it is fine with direct democracy. It is also OK if the people decide that everyone will have an income paid with taxes. Years later they may decide to reverse the decision. That is OK too with direct democracy.

Direct democracy is that the people have the power, not the elected representatives. The elected politicians could be the ones to carry out the decision.

However, in Ancient Greek democracy, there were no elected politicians and no political parties; the citizens run the whole show. No need for parties or politicians. In Switzerland they still have parties and politicians.

In Ancient Greece, citizens were selected by lot, or were elected to represent their fellow citizens, and also to run the government. They served for one or for a few years. Once their time was up they went back to their regular jobs. They were barred from serving again. Sometimes they could serve again but only after many years had passed.

One appealing idea of direct democracy is that the issue is the focus, not how the left, right or center will deal with it.

Direct democracy is not about how a political party, representing an ideology, will deal with the issue as per their electoral program. Direct democracy is not about a political belief, religion or whatever, either. It is a tool, a way to run society. In direct democracy when people vote, their beliefs play a role, but we also know people can vote in one way on one issue and in the opposite way on another one.

I think it is good if most voters do not define themselves as “progressives”, “liberals”, “conservatives”, “leftists” or “rightists”. I prefer we look at the issues and feel free of “being” on the left, the right or the center.

To some extent political beliefs limit our ability to deal with the issues, diminishes our capacity to reach consensus, create too much of an “us” vs. “them” frame of mind, etc. I believe it is better to focus on the issue without “filtering” it through our ideology.

Tomorrow I will look at the arguments for and against direct democracy.

Víctor López

In countries that are not democracies, they do not consult the people. The blog is not about them. Unstable “representative” democracies are not ready for direct democracy either. This blog is not about them either.

In solid representative democracies it is realistic to discuss direct democracy.

In representative democracies, the government decides without consulting the people. The people elect the government and the government decides what to do to control the virus. We see that now.

In representative democracies, between elections, there is no mechanism for the majority to exercise its will.

In most societies everybody agrees on the general ideas; “the virus is bad”, “we must protect people”, etc.

The problem is: What decisions to make? What rules to apply? To whom? etc.

We all know that people hold different opinions on many things. Because of that, when the government decides, many disagree.

Government tries to make a decision that most citizens will find reasonable. The motivations of governments are fairness and the next election too. Both criteria are very dependent on what the particular government considers fair and right and its electoral interests.

The way we do things, governments also lack a reliable way of knowing what the majority wants. Polls can indicate, but polls can be unreliable. Sometimes they have serious bias and become propaganda.

Most governments do not use polls to decide either, particularly if the decision has to me made in a hurry. In such cases the only polls are those after the decision.

In a direct democracy, the government could propose and ask people to vote on the proposals. Government could also make the initial decision, and ask the people to vote on it, or an alternative.

Some people will say that asking the people to decide is wrong because “the people are not well informed”.

I disagree. With today’s technology, people can be very well informed. It is possible to set up debates and presentations with different experts.

To educate voters on the virus, we can bring experts in medicine, economics, finance, business, labour, etc.

In a matter of days, even hours, the debates and presentations can take place. We would hold them in internet, radio, TV and newspapers.

Voters will also research the issue on internet by themselves.

As a result, the people will be ready to vote on the measures they want.

There is another critical difference between direct and representative democracy; if we the people decide, it becomes “our” decision. It removes a lot of the political fireworks.

With the debates and presentations on the virus, the people will be far better informed than they are now when they vote for a politician.

This is because political debates are hypothetical and general. The debates and presentations about the virus are very specific; what to do here and now about this? This pushes forward facts and data, not a hypothesis.

The debates can take place in one day or in a few days. People could then vote the next day or a few days afterwards.

As for security, we have the answer. If we can securely buy online with our credit card, we should be able to vote online with a “voting card”.

The decision by the people would be known right away. This is another plus.

People could vote by town, city, region, state, province or the whole nation.

Once we know the results of voting the government knows what it must do and we all can focus on the task. This is much better than arguing about the government’s decision.

Switzerland, again! One of the effects of direct democracy is very interesting. In Switzerland they have political parties but they have no opposition party. They fight it out at election time. Afterwards, the major parties govern together in coalition.

Swiss politicians have learned to legislate and execute by consensus. This way they avoid that people stop what the politicians want to do.

Besides removing the political fireworks,direct democracy also makes lobbies less important. This is important.

But let us not be foolish. Solid representative democracies are not ready to switch overnight wholesale to direct democracy. But they are ready to start the change.

We could start with referendums to decide if we want direct democracy in our town, city, school, country, etc.

Getting back to the virus. Most voters have learned a lot about the lock down. They are ready to decide on how to phase out the lock down and other measures. The decision by the people will prevent much of the divisiveness we see in various places about the lockdown.

Direct democracy is not easy. But most important things are not easy. It requires a clear majority of us with the maturity and common sense necessary. In solid representative democracies we have that. That is why they are solid.

I hope you will help give direct democracy a chance; “rule by the people”, nothing can be better.

Your comments are welcomed.

Cheers!

 

On May 18, 2019 The Japan Times published an interesting story. The story makes very clear what direct democracy should be, and sometimes is not.

The story also illustrates how, even in Switzerland, sometimes the system can not resist the pull to give authorities power over the people.

Here we can see how an educated person could not accept people power when it went against her. I suspect she would have been happy if people power supported her.

It happened in Gipf-Oferbrick, a small town of 3,500 people in the Canton of Aargau in North-Central Switzerland.

Nancy Holden is a Dutch-born woman in her 40s. She has lived in Switzerland since age 8. She has Swiss children, and she feels she is Swiss.

She likes Switzerland so much she decided to become a Swiss citizen. “Switzerland is my home” she says.

The common language in the town is Swiss-German and Ms. Holden speaks it fluently.

In 2015 she tried to become a Swiss national.

In Switzerland, the municipality often has the authority to decide if a foreign resident is fit to be a citizen. Besides, the officials or politicians do not decide, the people decide.

The people of Gipf-Ofebrik voted. She lost; the town assembly decided to reject her application.

Why did they do that?

Ms. Holden is an animal rights activist. She had been campaigning against some of the town’s more established traditions. Three of them are: putting bells on cows, piglet racing and church bells ringing at night giving the hour.

Her campaigning annoyed the town’s folk. To them, she did not respect their traditions. She was also very strident. The locals believe cow bells and piglet racing do no harm to the animals. They also like the sound of their church bells.

She was rejected again in 2017.

Some say that allowing the town’s people to decide if someone can become a citizen is not right.

They say things like “it allows for more emotionally charged and more discriminatory decisions”. To me it is like saying: “we do not trust the judgment of the people”, “we do not trust democracy”.

Nobody is more qualified than other neighbours to say if someone is a good neighbour. We all know that if on a street most people say: “the people in house number 27 are a nuisance”. There is no doubt they are nuisance, at least to the majority.

If the people of the town believed she was not fit to become a citizen, in a democracy, they are right. That is what democracy is about, the will of the majority of the people.

As long as they vote freely and are of sound mind, nobody should be able to override their decision, except a bigger majority.

Democracy is majority rule. Democracy is based on the idea that the majority of people are of sound mind. The alternative is rule by absolute kings, political parties, religious authorities, oligarchs, etc. Representative democracy is also rule by the majority, except that in between elections representative democracy only allows people the right to complain.

The lady appealed to the Cantonal authorities. They asked the town to vote again. The second time, even more people voted against her.

Unfortunately, even Switzerland is far from a perfect direct democracy; Ms. Holden took her case again to the authorities of the Canton of Aargau. This time the authorities sided with her and she is a Swiss citizen now.

To me, the position of those who opposed her application is reasonable.

Ms. Holden could have expressed her opinions about cow bells, piglet racing and church bells at the town’s assembly in a manner that did annoy people so much.

She could also have formed a party and persuade the villagers to change their ways.

In representative democracy people can not do much between elections, other than complain or become aggressive “activists” with demonstrations, etc.  I do not go for the “activist stuff”; people must have the right to change laws and introduce new laws. Activism is a way of forcing changes without the explicit support of the majority. Such changes should not happen. It is bad for democracy.

It is possible that a community may reject someone’s application for citizenship for what others consider unjust motives.

Let us say they rejected Ms Holden for being a woman, or for being Dutch. If the majority of the citizens of the Canton, or of Switzerland, believe the law is wrong, they can change it by referendum. They could even vote on the decision, to resolve the case and establish the rule.

What we can not have is the “authorities” overrule the will of the people and expect democracy to survive. The people must be the ultimate authority.

This is why in Switzerland, while not perfect direct democracy, the people make the key decisions. The highest courts or the national government do not.

Ms. Holden said she cried when she felt so rejected by her neighbours. Unfortunately, she was unable to understand their emotions.

Was she also unable to understand their emotions after having their decision overruled by the “authorities”?

A democratic resolution might have been if the Cantonal authorities told Ms. Holden:

“You have to work with your neighbours and gain their acceptance”.

Direct democracy is not about the political or judicial authorities letting the people decide, as long as the people decide the “right way”. Direct democracy is about the people deciding because they are the authority.

For or against, your comments are appreciated.

In the next blog more interesting stuff to advance direct democracy.

Cheers!