The following is a submission I made to the British Columbia government in 1993. Since that time, I have modified my thinking to embrace the concepts of the Citizens' Veto, explained here.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
A Verbal Submission to
The Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform
Submitted by
Paul MiniatoJanuary 23, 1993
Introduction
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am appearing before this committee as an individual, a citizen of Canada and a resident of British Columbia. However, perhaps more than any other political issue, I believe I also speak for most of my family, my neighbours and my co-workers. Almost everyone I know has strong opinions in favour of direct democracy; in fact, although they have declined to appear before the committee, several of my co-workers encouraged me to speak on their behalf. The overwhelming 1991 vote in favour of referendums and recall was apparently no transitory occurrence.
Why Direct Democracy
Here are some of the reasons why I voted in favour of referendums and recall. I believe these convictions are held by many British Columbians.
1. Improving Representative Democracy
Representative government is increasingly out of touch with the voters. Voters have become cynical about their representatives and about their own ability to influence the course of government. A notable recent example was the Charlottetown Accord, but this attitude is not limited to federal politics.
There are many reasons for this lack of faith. Often the ruling party does not even represent a majority of voters. With today’s multi-party system, a small change in the vote totals can and does cause radical swings from one government to another. As a result, winning parties seem to spend more and more of their time undoing the results of the previous government.
With a growing and increasingly mobile population, it is also becoming harder and harder for our representatives to be aware of the opinions of the voters they represent. In this vacuum, politicians sometimes pay more attention to the minority that campaigned for them than to the citizenry as a whole.
Direct democracy will enhance the operation of representative government, not replace it. It provides a reality check on the political process. Whenever the government gets too far out of line with the aspirations of the people, the referendum process provides a method to restore that alignment. Furthermore, minorities (or even majorities) that have little representation in the legislature can place questions before the voters that might otherwise be ignored. Under direct democracy, our representative government will more easily remain true to the convictions of the voters, limiting the need for referendums and initiatives.
2. Encouraging Responsible Debate
One outcome of the apparent powerlessness of the voters to influence their government has been a general increase in voter ignorance and apathy. By empowering the people to make the important decisions by which their lives are governed, direct democracy will, I believe, restore and enhance the responsibility with which people participate in debate on the issues.
3. Loosening the Grip of Party and Pressure Group
One drawback of representative government is that it is often vulnerable to manipulation by lobby groups and special interests. When a particular issue is examined, it is natural to listen to the contentions of those who argue most vociferously. Sometimes these are merely self-proclaimed experts who take an undue interest in certain matters. Or they are groups that stand to profit heavily from the passage of particular legislation. With the ever-present threat of a referendum, however, any special interest group knows that ultimately it will have to convince a majority of the electorate that their prescribed course of action is the best one.
4. Separating Policies from Personalities
One significant feature of modern politics is that people often vote against one leader rather than for another. I would challenge any recent premier or prime minister in Canada to claim that his election represented an overwhelming endorsement by the voters. As a result, issues often take second place to concerns of personality, style, and image. Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult for anyone to predict what any given party will do once in power. Direct democracy offers the promise of a return to a concern with issues and principles.
5. Increasing the Legitimacy of the Law
Governments and societies today face many hard choices. People are angry over rising taxes, rising deficits, and government debt out of control. At the same time, we are unwilling to reduce our expectations of what the government can or should provide us with. The public purse and public patience seem destined to run out at the same time. Any government that intends to address these problems will need the knowledge that its hardest decisions are acceptable to the majority.
What are the Essential Features of Referendum Legislation
A poorly framed law on referendums and initiatives could render the entire process unusable, and would only further alienate the voters from the political system. Let us consider some essential features of a functioning direct democracy.
1. The Widest Possible Scope
If direct democracy is to have full legitimacy, its scope of application must not be unduly limited. At a minimum, all laws and inter-provincial agreements must be subject to referendum if enough voters so petition. I would further propose that provincial and municipal regulations be subject to the same provisions. Initiatives should be limited to proposing new laws or constitutional amendments.
2. Reasonable Timing
In order to minimize the enforcement of laws and regulations which are subsequently overturned, no new legislation should receive Royal Assent for a substantial period after its passage, at least three months. If, during this time, enough voters sign a petition to force a vote, enactment should be deferred pending a positive outcome.
3. Moderate Signature Requirements
Signature requirements should be just high enough to minimize the costs of nuisance petitions. Experience in other countries and at other times has shown that high signature requirements quickly choke off the whole procedure. Two percent of eligible voters should probably be a sufficient number to force a referendum on proposed legislation; the total number of signatures required should also be limited, say to 50,000. For initiatives which propose new laws, a higher percentage might be in order, perhaps three or four percent to a maximum of 100,000 signatures.
4. Sufficient Time for Petitioning and Campaigning
It seems also prudent to have a reasonably long period for signature gathering and campaigning. A stringent requirement for filing a petition will merely give undue influence to those with the resources to finance and mobilize signature collectors. A reasonable time period must be allowed for the campaign itself, in order to allow the debate to develop and all sides to be heard. For a referendum on proposed legislation, one month might be sufficient, but new initiatives would require two months or more.
5. Referendums Must be Binding
The results of referendums must be binding: no law which is voted down in a referendum should receive Royal Assent. In fact, there are good arguments that the passage of any similar law by the legislature should be prohibited for a period of several years following a negative vote. In the case where an initiative overrides existing laws or regulations, the legislature shall move to repeal or amend the offending legislation.
6. Full Provisions for Informed Voting
The full text of the proposed law must accompany all petitions and be generally available. In addition, a summary in non-legal language should be included. Certain jurisdictions also make available a set of arguments by citizen groups for and against the proposal. In the case of initiatives, the legislature might also be permitted to place an alternative measure on the ballot to be voted on independently.
7. Limited Costs
Given current voting systems, initiatives should be limited to set intervals, for instance at general elections and every year or two in between. However, referendums on proposed legislation would have to take place within a certain period after passage by the legislature.
In the future, through the use of better technology, votes could be held more frequently and with greater efficiency.
8. Recall
Similar conditions should hold for recall, which is much like a referendum applied to a particular political officeholder.
9. Adequate Safeguards for Minorities and Individuals
Under no circumstances do I advocate granting unlimited power to the voters, a tyranny of the majority as it is sometimes called. Referendums, initiatives, and recall must always be subject to the protection of common law, as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Conclusion
We in British Columbia have the opportunity to take the next step for democracy in Canada. For the sake of our children and their children, let us put in place a system which empowers the people to create a government that nurtures justice, security, and freedom for all.
References
Geoffrey de Q. Walker:
Questions
[THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME COMMON QUESTIONS AND BRIEF ANSWERS THERETO.]
[THIS ARTICLE ON THE CITIZENS' VETO NOW MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS MY THINKING ON THESE TOPICS.]
Feedback from the Committee
Taking their remarks at face value, I must conclude that at least some of the members of the committee are sincere in their efforts to discover a way to implement a form of direct democracy that would be in keeping with the October 1991 vote. It would appear that they have taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the conduct of referendums in other jurisdictions, including Switzerland and a number of American states. They see themselves as investigating the form that BC’s legislation should take, rather than whether direct democracy should be instituted at all. On this latter question, they seem to be willing to go along with the more than 80 percent who voted in favour of referendums and recall.
According to Chairperson Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver-Kensington), the committee expects to continue to hold hearings through June, and to present its final recommendations to the legislature by the end of 1993. (The committee is apparently taking a lot of flak for the duration of this process.)
Some of their outstanding concerns are outlined below.
Dennis Streifel (Mission-Kent) referred to the fact that voter turnout in Swiss cantonal referendums was often very low, sometimes below 25 percent. He asked whether this was not resulting in rule by a minority. I was not entirely satisfied with my own answer; I suggested that the voters obviously had no strong opinions on the issues involved, but that they still had the opportunity to vote if they weren’t happy with the way things were going. Later it occurred to me that these particular referendums are held automatically every quarter (I believe), and that this would be a recipe for low voter turnout.
Another member (I think it was Allan Warnke, Richmond-Steveston) suggested that referendums in the States had not solved the problem of lobby groups. He mentioned California and New Jersey in particular. According to his research, lobby groups would often propose the same issue in one referendum after another, even though it was repeatedly voted down. This the voters found expensive and tiresome, and eventually these lobby groups would "get their way anyway". I asked him whether he knew of any jurisdictions where this was not a problem. He did not know of any, although to my knowledge, the Swiss do not complain of this problem.
Several committee members commented on the fact that respect for politicians seemed at an all-time low. One referred to the public’s perception of himself as the "low man on the totem pole". There seemed to be a conscious awareness of the voters’ overwhelming desire for reform of the political system. They are also aware that this discontent is widespread across many jurisdictions, within Canada and around the world.
One member wanted to know whether there was any place in the political system for the politicians’ own professional judgment, or whether they should simply follow their constituents’ wishes on every issue. As he put it, "would the village idiot with a computer poll do just as well as an MLA?"
MLA’s complained that input from their constituents was minimal. One complained that the largest turnout she had ever had at a public meeting was twelve voters. A question that kept coming up was: "how do we politicians find out what our constituents want?" They feel it is impossible to poll forty or fifty thousand constituents every time a new issue comes up, or even more often, as they are sure that the voters change their minds frequently. (Deputy Chairperson Sue Hammell (Surrey-Green Timbers) claimed that initially her constituents were telling her they were in favour of the Charlottetown Accord and only near polling time did they turn against it.) It occurred to me that in today’s climate of pragmatic pressure-group politics, knowing what the voters want will be very difficult. Only a return to general and universal principles can ultimately resolve this dilemma.
On the issue of recall, there seem to be more serious concerns. Several people appeared before the committee to argue against recall. One was worried about the abuse of recall to remove politicians with unpopular opinions, particularly during wartime or other emotional periods. Another was concerned that recall might be used to remove a member who upset the balance of power by crossing the floor. In this context, one member of the committee asked whether outsiders should be able to campaign for recall in a particular constituency, or to pay people to gather signatures.
Most of these comments came up during other presentations, so I wasn’t able to respond to them. I am considering making another appearance to address some of these specific concerns.
At the hearings I was approached by an organization that was also making a presentation in favour of direct democracy. I intend to contact them to see whether they can shed some additional light on the committee’s thinking. The group, calling themselves "Canadians for Political Renewal" is a descendant of last fall’s "Loyal Canadians Voting No". They can be reached care of Bud and Monica Smith, 5830 Grant St, Burnaby. (604) 299-5134. Other members include Judy Georgetti (Ken’s sister) and Sharon Bull, who made the presentation.
- - - - -
The above was a submission I made to the British Columbia government in 1993. Since that time, I have modified my thinking to embrace the concepts of the Citizens' Veto, explained here.
(For a number of liberty-oriented organizations, see Liberty Links.)
Last Updated: 30-Nov-1997