Direct democracy is a variation of democracy that significantly differs from representative democracy. By definition, direct democracy is the attempt to engage mass participation to vote or give their say on an issue being debated in government. 1 The term “direct democracy” typically refers to citizens of a nation making decisions in person through a firsthand vote as opposed to expressing their views through elected representatives. Direct democracy, or at least certain aspects of it, has been used in countries throughout the world. In Canada there have been several national and provincial referendums held and in the United States, the election of every President is in the form of direct democracy. There are three distinct facets to direct democracy and they are referendum, initiative, and recall. A referendum provides citizens with the opportunity to have a true voice and vote on a particular issue. Initiative refers to when voters publicly and powerfully circulate a petition which eventually forces the government to act. Finally, through a recall, citizens are able to remove an elected representative from office. In Canada alone there have been many provincial and national referendums as the referendum on prohibition in 1898, the referendum for conscription in 1942, and the provincial referendum that took place in Quebec on sovereignty in 1995.
Although direct democracy promotes citizen engagement and is arguably even democracy expressed in its purest form, it simply is not practical for any developed nation to put into practice. Direct democracy is a lengthy, expensive, misleading and ineffective form of democracy which negatively enhances political decision making. An examination of the history of notable referendums in Canada will reveal that the process of direct democracy is and fiscally irresponsible, citizens are unfortunately often uneducated in most political matters, and there is widespread and emotional rhetoric used by politicians and media outlets that can mislead the population into voting outside of their best interests.
Citizens undoubtedly appreciate having a direct voice in provincial and national decision making, however holding a referendum is excessively costly and time consuming. In theory, a referendum sounds like an ideal solution to gauge public opinion, but a referendum is only possible after lengthy preparations. The referendum process consists of several stages: the debate over the referendum question and its wording, the planning of the timing of the referendum, and post referendum planning if it does indeed pass. It is these stages which make a referendum such an expensive and lengthy procedure
The Quebec referendum on sovereignty in 1995 is an ideal example of direct democracy to highlight drawbacks of holding a referendum at all. The issue at hand was whether Quebec should separate from Canada and become a sovereign nation distinct from the other provinces. The question posed towards the voters in Quebec was: “Do you agree that Quebec becomes sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada of a new economic and political partnership within the context of the Bill on the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995”.2 Remarkably, the cost of asking this question was roughly $70 million.3 This obscene cost does not yet include the money spent on campaigning by the two opposing parties. Sadly, the money spent on planning and executing a referendum could be spent on directly solving the problem at hand. The very idea of putting such high amounts of money towards a referendum is in itself undemocratic. If a referendum were to be held in Canada on whether to partially privatize health care, which could very well happen, the costs would be staggering. Even if looking at the cost of $70 million for a referendum held in only one province, that money could be put towards fixing the health care system.
Arguably Canada’s most significant referendum, the 1992 Charlottetown Accord was an instance of direct democracy on a national level. The Charlottetown Accord was a package brought forth by the provincial and federal governments which proposed Constitutional. The question Canadians were being asked was: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?”4 This question was submitted to a national public referendum in 1992 and was defeated by a slim margin. Elections Canada “dispensed some $142 million; by far the biggest component of this was the preparation and revision of the voters’ list.”5 The spending did not stop there as campaigns “raised and spent millions of dollars”.6 Constitutional amendments have been made an average of once every five years however never has it been so costly to simply propose a change.7 Furthermore, because the proposal was denied, all of that money went towards maintaining the status quo, which could have been accomplished for free.
The money required to hold a referendum and the time it takes both sides to campaign their arguments renders the process ineffective. There is no way of justifying the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain the status quo. If change is truly wanted by voters then their elected representatives are accountable to make that change happen. Forcing the decision upon the public and wasting exponential amounts of money is no way to invoke democratic decision making.
A referendum leaves the citizen in complete power to make crucial political, economic, and social decisions that they otherwise have left in the hands of elected representatives. A harsh reality of any nation, is that the citizens are not educated enough in domestic affairs, nor are they privy to all government information. Often voters “seem like curmudgeons, unwilling to countenance change even when the status quo is no longer sustainable.”8 There is another side to the problem as well where “the mirror image is voters as dupes, too easily led, even to the point of voting for a dictatorship.”9 There is no preliminary test evaluation one needs to pass in order to vote on the referendum. According to the election act, the only requirements to vote in the 1995 referendum were that the person voting be 18 years of age, a Canadian citizen, and a resident of Quebec for the past twelve months. In essence, matters of supreme importance, such as proposed sovereignty and constitutional amendments cannot be left to uninformed citizens to address.
A popular argument is that direct democracy is democracy at its roots with the people holding the power to decide. However, it is also a democratic ideal to elect officials who act as a representation of citizen wants and needs. If the citizen is completely bypassing their elected representative by voting in a referendum, they are also shifting accountability from the government to the public. For instance, should a proposed referendum successfully change the constitution, and that change is perceived negatively, it is not the fault of politicians, but rather the fault of registered voters.
The opposing side to the argument is that citizens are capable of making educated decisions and elitist politicians are not trustworthy. Former politician and party leader Preston Manning believed in a model of democratic choice that makes two critical assumptions: that voters are well equipped to decide for themselves; and that elites are not to be trusted.10 However the complete opposite is true, as politicians are more informed to make appropriate decisions and through the act of being elected have earned the trust of the voters. An over simplistic analogy of a referendum would be to visit the doctor, reject his diagnosis, and then self-diagnose. If the public elects a representative it is only democratic to have that elected official actually represent the voters.
There were many in the political world that did not view the 1992 referendum in a positive light and suggested it was troublesome to propose questions to the public in using this method. “The experience promises to be unnerving and markedly un-Canadian,” claimed Paul C. Newman, “we have always shied away from traumatic public confrontations, resorting to compromise....”11 He envisioned the referendum and its cultural divide as the “civil war Canada never had”.12 No longer could voters divide over issues through voting for different political parties, but rather were literally in an ideological battle with their countrymen. The book Direct Democracy in Canada asks in regards to the 1992 referendum, “Is it a loss, not a vindication, in the faith of democracy?”13 Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that taking the power out of government and dividing the nation to make a single decision is not democratic nor is it traditionally Canadian.
Due to the influence of the media, politicians, and political groups, the common citizen can easily be swayed to vote for or support a cause upon false pretences. Effective rhetoric has undeniable power over the voting masses, and political parties have excellent resources in regards to influencing public opinion. Referendums take the form of an election but instead of voting for a party, citizens are voting to answer a yes or no question. Because of its election like atmosphere, there is a plethora of campaigning, advertising, and speech-making on all sides of the question being asked.
In 1994, just one year before the Quebec referendum, polling of Quebec’s registered voters showed that support for “sovereignty” was approximately 45%. 14 Jacques Parizeau, the separatist premier of Quebec at the time, devised a strategy to increase that approval percent. He wisely altered the question very slightly, phrasing the proposal as not a complete separation but merely a “sovereignty-partnership”.15 This change made the issue at the heart of the referendum seem less extreme than it really was which naturally appealed to voters. Those who were not completely sold on the idea of Quebec separating were more open to some form of partnership. Luckily for the “no” side, charismatic Prime Minister Jean Chretien was determined to keep the country together. He had a universal appeal to Canada, most importantly to Francophone Quebec. A native of Quebec, Chretien speaks French fluently and could relate to people across Canada. As Prime Minister it was Chretien’s intention to keep Canada together and united which heavily benefitted the “yes” side. Had he not been in power, the “no” side would have had a far easier time swaying public opinion whilst facing a less charismatic opponent.
The “no” side in the 1995 referendum used some very controversial tactics during the months leading up to the official vote. The federal government headed by Jean Chretien initiated a sudden anti-smoking campaign in Montreal. The campaign consisted of many billboards being placed across Quebec with the slogan “Say No to Cigarettes`, with the word ``no`` enlarged.16 The opposing side, which was hoping voters would vote in favour of the referendum, felt that this anti smoking campaign was really meant to subliminally convey the message of `no`. Of course, the federal government denied the accusations, but whether they are true does not even matter. The fact that voters were exposed to the possible subliminal messages and the consequent public accusations had an impact on voters.
Even common sources of news and information were politically motivated and began to influence public opinion. Due to Prime Minister Mulroney`s low approval ratings leading up to the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord there were worries that people would vote “yes” just to vote against Mulroney. Voting for the referendum was a way of personally defying Prime Minister Mulroney, and voters jumped at the opportunity to do so. So to prevent this from happening, the Toronto Star editors urged their readers to look past Mulroney and vote based on the issues.17
The theory behind a referendum ignores outside influences and assumes that citizens will make individual decisions. In reality, no citizen is reading over the proposal by themselves, making an informed decision, and then voting accordingly. The methods used by the opposing sides of a referendum play far too large a factor in the outcome of a supposed democratic process.
There are two common interpretations offered by the 1992 referendum. One interpretation is that the referendum was a “profound blunder”18, which should have been expected based on the question and Canada being so culturally diverse. The other interpretation and is that voters bypassed politicians and made educated decisions based on what they felt was best for the country. However, when studying the cost and length of the referendum and consider the motives behind the votes being cast, the first interpretation is the only logical one. The high cost associated with holding provincial and national referendums means that money that could be spent on solving issues are spent on merely presenting a question. Citizens voting for or against the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the separation of Quebec in 1995 were not as informed as politicians to make decisions. Furthermore, propaganda and campaigning that was done was not meant for educating the people but simply aimed to sway public opinion. The branches of Canadian government could not do what they were elected and paid to do as all accountability was removed from the government and placed upon registered voters.
The ideas behind holding a referendum are admirable. It is important that citizens are able to voice their opinions on matters of national importance. However, if citizens are so out of touch with their elected officials that they have to cast a vote to make policy decisions, the democratic process becomes ineffective. Preston Manning argues that direct democracy is a challenge to the elites in government.19 Unfortunately the only challenge elites face in direct democracy is how to campaign and effectively shape the voters’ opinion to vote the right way. Canadian voters and their elected representatives must have strong communication in order for democracy to prevail, and a referendum is nothing more than a cop out. Looking forward, hopefully Canada and other developed nations focus on close government-voter relations and less upon the expensive, tedious and ineffective process of direct democracy.
1 Flanagan, Thomas. Dickerson, Mark. An Introduction To Government And Politics. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006
4 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Walnut Creek, CA: McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.
5 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
8 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.
9 Ibid
10 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.
11 Ibid
12 Ibid
13 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.
14 Robinson, Gertrude J, and Martel, Marcel (Reviewer). "[Constructing the Quebec referendum: French & English media voices]." Review of [Constructing the Quebec referendum], University of Toronto Quarterly 70, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 565-566
15 Robinson, Gertrude J, and Martel, Marcel (Reviewer). "[Constructing the Quebec referendum: French & English media voices]." Review of [Constructing the Quebec referendum], University of Toronto Quarterly 70, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 565-566
16 September 7, 1995. CBC. “A tale of two strategies”
http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/federal_politics/topics/1891/
17 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.
18 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.
19 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment