| |
|
While referenda have been well established in some countries, the currently ongoing vote on the EU constitution is quite novel in its wide spread use. Apparently it is becoming a well accepted tool. However, are we sure that is a good idea?
A couple of objections that could be raised:
1) The recent EU votes show that referenda quickly get ‘polluted’. They quickly diverge into any direction where a stakeholder sees an opportunity to win votes (i.e. if you don’t like foreigners vote against EU constitution, if you are religious vote against IVF, etc);
2) The idea of a representative democracy is that the subject matter can be quite complex and the parliament is elected to get into the details of all pro’s and con’s. If this is abandoned the result can be paralyzing, i.e. the state budget in California;
3) Results are sensitive to the way questions are posed, in doubt people will say ‘no’ to whatever looks like change. A yes/no vote on a complex subject is inappropriate (i.e. if the voter has doubts on one component of the EU constitution should he reject it and hope it is improved?);
4) Referenda may lead to cowardly behavior in politicians, deferring difficult decisions to a popular vote. What is wrong with a politician saying ‘this is what I stand for and if you don’t like it vote for somebody else’? Cowardly may be too hard a word, but how far do they still feel accountable for any decision taken in this manner?
So let’s have our own referendum: what do you think? |
|
|
