open Democracy News Analysis - Referenda: democracy vs elites, Gisela Stuart - Comments

Not logged in on "Referenda: democracy vs elites"

Not logged in — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:58:37 +0100

Thank you Gisela for taking up the need for a response.
However, I think the debate so far doesn't go far enough. What about preferenda? Matrix voting? Very little in life or politics is two dimensional! I refer to the article posted by Peter Emerson on 13/2/08 called Consensus Voting and Conflict Resolution. Obviously the mix of issues in the treaty referendum drew different supporters and different rejectors of the different themes but, in the midst of the generalised "no" vote", what are the messages from the people? What are the relative strengths of the different "no" themes? Yes, we desperately need much more participation in an informed debate that doesn't engage just the "political professionals" and is intelligible to the general citizen. We also need a methodology that then allows for evolving consensus and multi-option decision making that arrives at best fit for current circumstances. This might also address the thorny issue of who words the proposition and how!
Noeleen,
Northern Ireland

Babur on "Referenda: democracy vs elites"

Babur — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:48:04 +0100

While some of Ms. Stuart's arguments may be effective in the specific case of the Lisbon treaty or the EU constitution, she seems to me to have failed to address (or, rather, ignored) the broader issue of referendums and their usefullness in different contexts. She has not answered the key questions: what kinds of issues lend themselves to the referendum? Who makes this decision? In what context should decisions be made directly by the demos (extant or not) and in what context by their elected representatives?

srigotti on "Referenda: democracy vs elites"

srigotti — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:43:04 +0100

The author has put together some really comprehensive logic to repudiate Mr Schöpflin's contentions on the weaknesses of referenda. The only "off the point" issue I would argue in terms of the outcomes of the referendum on Europe is that the appetite for European Integration is waning: I think that for some of the nations that have been involved (the islanders specifically) it was never there so they may as well stop pretending and using it for their own convenience and let the serious players get on with it.

hermogen on "Referenda: democracy vs elites"

hermogen — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:03:36 +0100

I can agree that elites should be criticized for their tactical use of referenda, which are taken into account only when they confirm the pre-existing agenda of the elites but the author does not go far enough. The way european integration has been going along is reminiscent to the notion of "refeudalization" that Jürgen Habermas developed in his most pessimistic book: it referrs to the state where political decisions are made behind closed doors, without being put to the test by a resonating public of citizens, and are presented to the citizens, who are merely asked for their consent but not participation in the decision making process itself. European integration has from the beginning been a project of elites and now that "the people" are being asked what they think, it should come as no surprise that their reaction is not too enthusiastic.

Referenda: democracy vs elites, Gisela Stuart

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:56:26 +0100

In his article in openDemocracy following the vote in the Republic of Ireland on the European Union's Lisbon treaty, George Schöpflin makes a confusing case against the use of referendums (see "The referendum: populism vs democracy", 16 January 2008).
Gisela Stuart is a member of parliament for the constituency of Birmingham Edgbaston, England, representing the Labour Party

Also by Gisela Stuart in openDemocracy:

"The body of democracy" (15 November 2005)

Gisela Stuart is responding to the article by George Schöpflin:

"The referendum: populism vs democracy" (16 January 2008)

He says that those who support referenda have fallen victim to the "seduction of direct democracy". There is no such thing as "the people"; it's not democracy but populism, which in turn leads to the tyranny of the majority. Worse, it's power without responsibility and the focus on a single issue leads to unholy alliances. The basic problem is the failure to hold national elites to account because the connection with European Union institutions is weak.

Let's turn this on its head. Would George Schöpflin have made the same case if there had been twenty-seven referenda and in each and every single country the vote had been an overwhelming "yes"?

I doubt it. I think he would have been much more likely to have penned a glowing piece praising the virtues of participatory democracy. The people of Europe had spoken; some in defiance of their purportedly Eurosceptic governments. I hazard a guess that he even would have urged national governments to take heed and listen to their people - who had so clearly expressed their collective will.

We are writing articles about the EU and the use of referenda because when given the chance to have a say, three out of four broadly pro-European countries (France, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Ireland) came up with a largely unexpected "no".

This came as a shock and governments which had originally promised one didn't dare to ask to their people. In the United Kingdom all three political parties entered the 2005 general election with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. They all in different forms got cold feet and reneged.

So let's look at George Schöpflin's argument again. He's right to say that not all things lend themselves to being decided by a referendum.

But it is not the complexity of the question which matters, but whether it is about conferring power; power which emanates from the people.The third edition of the openDemocracy Quarterly contains a selection of our articles since 2001 on Europe's politics, identity, and future. For details and how to buy, click here

General-election manifestos are complex documents. Few have read them, even fewer have understood them - but when it comes to the general election people decide which package they prefer. The voters don't say "yes" or "no" but tick a box labelled Labour, Conservative or LibDem.

I am puzzled by Schöpflin's denouncement of "ad hoc coalitions". Some may call this "tactical voting". In the 1997 general election there was many a constituency where LibDem supporters voted Labour or vice-versa because it was the best way of getting the Conservatives out. I can't see much wrong with that.

More worrying is the line that referenda are bad because they introduce new political actors. I'd say "hallelujah" to that. Anything that stops political elites from becoming complacent seems a good thing to me.Among openDemocracy's articles on the European Union and referenda:

Daniel Keohane & Dan O'Brien, "Why Europe needs referenda" (13 June 2003)

Bruno Kaufmann, "Referenda: Europe's democracy finds its voice" (2 October 2003)

Matthias Benz, "Democratic vote or deliberative poll?" (13 October 2007)

Joseph Curtin & Johnny Ryan, "The Lisbon treaty and the Irish voter: democratic deficits" (13 June 2008)

After the demos

So let's try again.

There is a case for direct democracy when the people decide who should govern. When the government passes power onto a third party, then the people have a right to express their consent or otherwise.

As the great constitutionalist AV Dicey put it: "the referendum is the people's veto; the nation is sovereign and may well decree that the constitution shall not be changed without the direct sanction of the nation."

George Schöpflin is right when he says the European demos is weak. I would go further and say it does not exist. But the national demos - "we the British", the Germans, the French or the Hungarians - is strong. To argue that "the people" is an antediluvian concept and we have progressed to some higher plane, may sound trendy and modern. But in my constituency in Birmingham they know who "we the people" are. Maybe it's clearer to call them "the taxpayers".

Schöpflin assumes that European Union integration operates within three different sectors - the EU and its institutions, the national elites and the supposed European demos.

I'd argue that the appetite for European integration is waning; there is no discernible European demos and the real problem is that the European elites in particular and the national elites to a lesser extent seem to be unable to comprehend or understand this.

So stop condemning referenda just because we don't like the answers they produce and begin a proper debate about what kind of allocation of powers and responsibilities "the people" across Europe would be willing to support.

Average rating

(5 votes)