By Nerijus Cerniauskas
In most countries, whether a referendum is necessary or not is either explicitly stated in a constitution, or decided upon by the cabinet. Since the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, the decision whether to hold a referendum on an alternative voting system is strictly a cabinet decision. At first, it may seem a smart idea to call for a referendum. Voting is, after all, the most direct way in which citizens can express their opinions by choosing the candidate who will represent their interest or by punishing those which have previously…misbehaved. Once a vote it cast, it must go through a system which will transfer votes into parliament seats. Since the people choose the representatives and the voting system is the way representatives are elected, it seems democratic to allow the people choose the system as well. However, is the decision really so simple? If it were, why have electoral system been so widely discussed by politicians and scholars (Rae, 1971; Lakeman, 1974; Bogdanor and Butler 1983; Groffman and Lijphart, 1986; Taagepera and Shugart, 1989; Reeve and Ware, 1992; Nohlen, 1996; Norris, 1997 and so on). In University of Birmingham alone a lecture on voting systems is presented in at least two modules: Comparative Governments and British Politics.
The election system does more than just turn votes into seats in the parliament. The website on electoral referendum lists 6 cases influenced by a system of votes :
· Will MPs have the support of majority?
· Will there be constituency-MP link?
· Will extreme parties be included or purposely excluded?
· Will there be tactical voting?
· Will there be negative campaigning?
· Will broad policies, undertaken by several parties at once, be rewarded?
This list is by no means exhaustive and subordinate to the questions of accountability and representation which, many argue, are 2 of the key elements of any representative government. The point here is that there are many factors which a change in the voting system implies. Each factor, it should be said, carries different weights for society: some may believe accountability is the most important, while others favour representation. Furthermore, each voting system also implies tradeoffs: it is impossible to be fully representative of a country without a single relatively extreme MP. Similarly, there is a trade-off between representation and efficiency, for a single party majority is likely to pass a law quicker than having to convince the whole coalition that a certain policy, such as the no-fly zone over Libya, is a good thing. Taking all this into account, it does become quite clear why so many scholars persist with the debate in the first place. It also becomes questionable, whether an ordinary citizen does take the time or the effort to think about these broad consequences.
England is known to have a relatively passive population majority when it comes to democratic decision making. Decision can either be made by the people directly in what is known as participatory (or the more extreme version: direct) democracy or by giving someone the right to do the work on your behalf (representative democracy). A usual example of modern participatory democracy is Switzerland, which sometimes has 4 referendums a year, with some of the referenda covering a few issues at once. This requires a population which is interested in different matters and seeks to form its own opinion, otherwise, the required number of voters would not turn up and the referendums would be void. The United Kingdom on the other hand had only 9 (non-local government) referendums since the first in 1973 and only one of those covered the whole of United Kingdom. As such, the United Kingdom does not have a well developed tradition of direct democracy. Furthermore, even representative democracy has been declining in the last decades. In 2011 UK General elections 65,1% of the population turned out to vote, which fell from 77,83% in 1992. This compares with to 80,5% in Italy, 75,32% in Spain and 77,65% in Germany[1]. While Parliamentary elections are even less popular in France and the United States, 83,97% and 89,75% of their populations turn out at presidential elections respectively . During the European Parliament election of 2009, only 34,7% of the United Kingdom’s population voted - the least out of all Western states ( 43% was the overall European Average).[2] The data indicates a general lack of interest in the population on political matters.
There are many possible answers to the question. One of them is that the British tradition of strong central government goes back all the way to the glorious revolution, were only select few, usually from higher classes, could participate in politics, who had the responsibility of representing the citizens. Since then, the government has grown. The government is now responsible for the provision of services (such as the NHS) and there are many different organizations and institutions influencing outcomes. However, the idea still remains the same. Each individual chooses someone else be it a president of an association or a member of parliament, who he believes can do the work for him. Another is a lack of education (Miligan 2004), or possibly a narrow-minded education. Third – poverty, which leaves little time for thinking. There are possibly many others, but the general outcome is the fact that people show less and less interest in politics in general (National Centre for Social Research, 2010).
Interestingly, current government decided to do what usually British government seldom does: let the people decide on policy directly and encourage direct democracy. By launching a referendum on the election system the government seems to put the work load back on the electorate. This way, the electorate has to vote once for the party, and then separately on party’s policies. Such behaviour can be explained in two ways:
First, the party wants to involve the population not on a general issue (which party to elect), but also give a direct say on which policies to take, thus promoting civil participation and spreading awareness. But then we have a problem. If the population is not used to direct democracy and is little interested in politics in general, why should people come and vote on a highly complicated and technical matter? Why not start on more touching issues first or try to approach the matter in a more local and engaging way? A tradition of mass participation does not spring in one night. For the referendum to go ahead, 40% of the population should attend, which is more than some of the past technical referendums, such as The Greater London Authority referendum in 1998, where only 34,1% voted. Even if the referendum will be on the same day as regional elections there is a chance that not enough people will turn up or vote without thinking too much. Then there would be even less enthusiasm to vote in the following referenda and participation as well as awareness would fall. Second, it could also show that the formed coalition is either uncertain as to what kind of democracy it presides over, not sure what the population wants, or wants to evade some kind of internal conflict and believes that the general population should deal with the issue, because they cannot.
Overall, a few things are clear. The choice of which election system to use is a difficult matter, requiring a lot of thought and research. Within United Kingdom the participation in elections has fallen and referendums on technical matters also receive low turnout, which seems to show a decline of interest in political matters. Until now, the United Kingdom has been and is likely to remain a representative democracy, but the current referendum can be seen as a way that will implant elements of direct participation. While it is questionable if United Kingdom should be satisfied with a relatively passive population, it is unlikely that such a referendum will rectify the situation and therefore it would bebetter to leave for the experts to decide. Either way, the referendum indivertibly touches on the most fundamental of political issues of who and to which extent governs: the people or their elected officials. If we want the people to govern in significantly larger extent, we have a long way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment