The time seems ripe for a broadly-backed effort to introduce partial direct democracy in the UK and its countries.
Moving our countries, cities, towns and districts towards real "democracy-by-the-people" is not a party-political issue.
Moving our countries, cities, towns and districts towards real "democracy-by-the-people" is not a party-political issue.
The idea that we as citizens should be able to participate in our own public affairs has spread to people from most walks of life. However, when we move on to ask "How?" shall we take part then the answer, despite blustering talk by the "major" political parties about giving power back to the electorate, remains very unsatisfying. The condition of our political power remains much as it was in the oft quoted eighteenth century quip by Jean Jacques Rousseau, "The people of England think they are free. They are gravely mistaken. They are free only during the election of Members of Parliament". We may vote for a politician or party once every few years but in the intervening periods we have no effective ways to influence public policy nor to veto unwanted laws and government actions. Opinion surveys, petitions and mass demonstrations may occasionally have influenced government behaviour but there is no guarantee whatsoever that the will of the electorate shall be respected in public policy.
So what are the effective ways to return some "power to the people"? Several well-tried "tools" of democracy are available including:
– the Citizens' Proposal (also known as "initiative" and "proposition").
– the Referendum.
Some illustrations follow:
a) The Citizens' Proposal tends to act as an "accelerator" or stimulus in public affairs. Governments may fail to act on an important matter of policy, or assign low priority to another. By formulating a proposal and collecting an agreed number of endorsements, members of an electorate can put the proposal on the public agenda, obliging parliament to debate and decide on the proposal, and if need be triggering a decision by the whole electorate in a referendum ("ballot").
b) The Veto-Referendum, the "brake", may be used to strike out part of a law, annul a law or block a government law before it comes into effect. For current government law, usually an agreed number of signatures must be collected within a few months, in order to usher in a referendum on the legislation which has been challenged.
c) The Recall is a form of Citizens' Initiative which can lead to the sacking of an MP (or councillor) in the period between normal elections. A proposal to "recall" the elected representative must be endorsed by a large number of members of her or his constituency. A successful "recall" must usually be followed by a by-election.
These procedures of democracy are of course not meant to replace, nor would they weaken, parliament and government.
It is of interest to note that the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties have repeatedly promised to devolve power to the "lowest possible" level. After gaining power the Conservative/Libdem coalition put forward some surprisingly advanced proposals for improving democracy in Britain. For instance, the coalition agreement among other related ideas promises:
– We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.
– We will give residents the power to veto excessive council tax increases.
– We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall ...
Elsewhere David Cameron promised to introduce "The right to initiate local and national referenda" ('Fixing broken politics' speech May 2009).
*************
It is by no means certain that the Con/Libdem coalition is sincere about the above described reforms nor is it clear that their leaders can realistically hope to deliver in the face of anticipated opposition from their own back benches and elsewhere. They need our help and encouragement!
Those many citizens (more than seven in ten adults according to surveys) who yearn for people-powered democracy in all parts of the UK could rise to take these politicians AT THEIR WORD.
Moving our countries, cities, towns and districts towards real "democracy-by-the-people" is not a party-political issue. Whatever your political views, so long as you want better democracy then please join in yourself or support others who actively campaign.
*************
Further information:
http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
So what are the effective ways to return some "power to the people"? Several well-tried "tools" of democracy are available including:
– the Citizens' Proposal (also known as "initiative" and "proposition").
– the Referendum.
Some illustrations follow:
a) The Citizens' Proposal tends to act as an "accelerator" or stimulus in public affairs. Governments may fail to act on an important matter of policy, or assign low priority to another. By formulating a proposal and collecting an agreed number of endorsements, members of an electorate can put the proposal on the public agenda, obliging parliament to debate and decide on the proposal, and if need be triggering a decision by the whole electorate in a referendum ("ballot").
b) The Veto-Referendum, the "brake", may be used to strike out part of a law, annul a law or block a government law before it comes into effect. For current government law, usually an agreed number of signatures must be collected within a few months, in order to usher in a referendum on the legislation which has been challenged.
c) The Recall is a form of Citizens' Initiative which can lead to the sacking of an MP (or councillor) in the period between normal elections. A proposal to "recall" the elected representative must be endorsed by a large number of members of her or his constituency. A successful "recall" must usually be followed by a by-election.
These procedures of democracy are of course not meant to replace, nor would they weaken, parliament and government.
It is of interest to note that the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties have repeatedly promised to devolve power to the "lowest possible" level. After gaining power the Conservative/Libdem coalition put forward some surprisingly advanced proposals for improving democracy in Britain. For instance, the coalition agreement among other related ideas promises:
– We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.
– We will give residents the power to veto excessive council tax increases.
– We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall ...
Elsewhere David Cameron promised to introduce "The right to initiate local and national referenda" ('Fixing broken politics' speech May 2009).
*************
It is by no means certain that the Con/Libdem coalition is sincere about the above described reforms nor is it clear that their leaders can realistically hope to deliver in the face of anticipated opposition from their own back benches and elsewhere. They need our help and encouragement!
Those many citizens (more than seven in ten adults according to surveys) who yearn for people-powered democracy in all parts of the UK could rise to take these politicians AT THEIR WORD.
Moving our countries, cities, towns and districts towards real "democracy-by-the-people" is not a party-political issue. Whatever your political views, so long as you want better democracy then please join in yourself or support others who actively campaign.
*************
Further information:
http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/ http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/ I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/ 
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 13 comments
Tinkering
31.10.2010 12:20
So in what way would they make any difference? You want to 'return some "power to the people"' - where is this power being retuned from? Power, in this context, is relative. You cannot give people more power without reducing government power (i.e. weakening it).
How will you prevent 'the tyranny of the majority?' The mechanisms that you propose seem to suggest that:
a) The democratic thing to do is the thing that most people want done. What about the people that disagree - are they ignored? How do you prevent the tyranny of the majority? What mechanisms will be in place to protect the most vulnerable people in society?
b) One of the most aspects of any group or society is the ability to set the agenda - to say what discussions will be had, and what topics will have decisions on them. How do your proposals address the current status quo whereby politicians have the power to set the agenda? Your proposal seems to say that we, the people, can tell them to think again about a decision, but offers no possibility to say that the wrong topic is being discussed in the first place.
I'm sure you have good motivations, but your proposals do not seem to get to the core of the issue. Democracy should be based on the consent of everybody, not just the majority. And this will not happen until power is distributed evenly. These proposals only try to reign in the power of government. They do not return power to all of the people. This return of power will not be achieved by technocratic adjustments to our system. Far deeper changes are needed. Tinkering with a broken system is not a 'super campaign' - a campaign address more fundamental aspects of how we organise and distribute power would be.
(A)
Super-campaign for people power / more democracy
31.10.2010 13:11
But the citizens' initiative IS an agenda-setting tool. In this regard it is even more valuable if the procedure of "indirect initiative" is adopted. This means that citizens' proposals do not go directly to referendum but first must be debated and decided upon by local council or parliament. This helps to start public information and discussion of the issue, so that people can later make a better informed choice.
Also, reaching consensus in a society of many millions, even in a village, is not practical. This applies to actions of governments in "representative" democracy. By introducing some tools of direct democracy we citizens can (a) set agenda (b) block unwanted government policy (c) approach nearer to consensus by improving public involvement in decision-making, levels of information and quality of debate.
"Super-Campaign" is meant to grasp the idea of a campaign "for campaigners". These tools of democracy can be used to address all sorts of issues in many fields of activity, problem-solving and struggle.
iniref
e-mail:
info@iniref.org
Homepage:
http://www.iniref.org/
violent democracy or anarchy
31.10.2010 15:22
You want to control the gun ?
You don't want disarm ?
It dos not matter to me how people chose to organize their affairs,
only that they don't use the violence of statism.
anarchist
Still don't get it
31.10.2010 17:13
"do not go directly to referendum but first must be debated and decided upon by local council or parliament. This helps to start public information and discussion of the issue, so that people can later make a better informed choice."
So I can put an item on the political agenda, and then we the people can decide if we agree or not on what they in power have deemed suitable for us to vote on. And if we don't agree, the process starts again. All I can imagine happening is politicos filibustering. And do you really think that politicians discussing something is how the public get involved in things? Or that we, the public, are better informed by what they say compared by discussing it within our own communities?
"Also, reaching consensus in a society of many millions, even in a village, is not practical."
Reaching consensus in villages as a successful and sustainable way of organising has a far longer history than liberal democracies have. If you do not accept consensus as the basis for decision making, I don't see how you can get around the issue of tyranny, which you didn't address in your reply.
"Super-Campaign" is meant to grasp the idea of a campaign "for campaigners"
I don't know what this means.
But I don't really want to get into a big debate about these issues. I want to hear about how these reforms will fundamentally alter the power imbalance that are inherent in any hierarchical system.
I think anarchist said it better than I have. It's not about how controls the levers of power, it's about questioning why we need those levers in the first place.
(A)
Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy
31.10.2010 21:06
So I can put an item on the political agenda, and then we the people can decide if we agree or not on what they in power have deemed suitable for us to vote on. And if we don't agree, the process starts again. All I can imagine happening is politicos filibustering. And do you really think that politicians discussing something is how the public get involved in things? Or that we, the public, are better informed by what they say compared by discussing it within our own communities?"
With direct democracy we "can put an item on the political agenda" and push it through to ballot (referendum) in a decision which has the power of law. It is not the case that we must consider "what they in power have deemed suitable for us to vote on". The people hold ultimate political power and can propose and decide as they choose. Just because a parliament may discuss a citizens' proposal does not mean that parliament can block or delay the matter. What I have just described here is not fantasy or new design. The practice already exists in a number of places but not in UK.
To see how it works view the Alpine Initiative film via
iniref
e-mail:
info@iniref.org
Homepage:
http://www.iniref.org/
More democracy.
01.11.2010 18:13
'Liberals' care deeply about the common people but know they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.
Pete
Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy
01.11.2010 20:53
Where there is capital punishment then it was usually maintained or introduced by "representative" governments from right to left of political spectrum.
In modern times the tide seems to be turning against cruel punishments.
In recent years in referenda (decision of the people) the death penalty in parts of Europe has been abolished.
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
iniref
e-mail:
info@iniref.org
Homepage:
http://www.iniref.org/
Prisoners vote
02.11.2010 12:20
I'd fancy one on EU membership too.
I supect many UK people would have welcomed a referendum on whether to admit, with full rights to work, people from the new EU countries such as Poland a few years ago. No other large EU countries let them in.
We could have local referendums on whether asylum seekers should be deported or not or on whether halal and kosher slaughtered meat should be allowed to be sold in the city.
We could be asked if we really do want our council to hire so many diversity and equal opportunity staff on large wages and small workloads.
Urbis would probably never have opened if we'd been asked about it first. We'd have samed millions.
Yes, I'm beginning to like this proposal for increasing democracy.
Pete
Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy
02.11.2010 16:33
Having stronger democracy and better participation does not mean that a village can take over tasks or law-making of central government. A local referendum can address only those areas of responsibility held by the local council. If you want to change things at country level then you have to organise initiative (citizens' proposal) and referendum at that level. That's much more difficult and time consuming, there are hurdles which prevent trivial or dangerous proposals from getting through.
Why throw out the democracy "baby with the bathwater"? All political and social themes of progressives, creative movements, even anarchists can be helped along with citizen-led democracy of the sort which we propose.
iniref
e-mail:
info@iniref.org
Homepage:
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
Only some democracy then.
02.11.2010 17:56
'"local referendums on whether asylum seekers should be deported or not" could not be legally held in the UK. '
Perhaps he is right.
But if his peoples democracy really does catch on perhaps they will be allowed one day. And why would iniref mind? He loves local democracy with decisions being devolved down to the people as much as possible.
Or does he? Maybe he's like many 'liberals'. Does he only want the little people to decide on little things like how often they want their bins emptied while they are still told what to do when it comes to important matters like capital punishment and whether to let immigrants in or not.
So, iniref, please tell us which matters do you want more democracy on, and which you don't.
Pete
Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy
02.11.2010 20:29
Here is our campaign "platform". On the page
Pete's suspicions are grounded. There are some, conservative types, who would like to see citizens' democracy limited to low budget, local issues. For different reasons, it may be wise to first introduce direct democracy in towns and cities, then extend to country after experience has been obtained.
iniref
e-mail:
info@iniref.org
Homepage:
http://www.iniref.org/crew.html
Yes or No
03.11.2010 11:47
would you welcome national referendums on
1. Capital punishment
2. EU membership
3. Immigration from the new EU countries
4. The UK's admission of asylum seekers
5. any proposed 'green' taxes
Yes or no?
I'm a big fan of democracy and would like to see referendums on all sorts of things. Look at how useful the one about the Manchester congestion charge was. Many councillors, private green pressure groups and handsomely paid (from our taxes) PR people told us it would be just wonderful. It was rejected by the people by a huge majority.
Let's have some more refendums on the topics above. Let the people speak!
Pete
Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy
03.11.2010 15:07
Hi Pete, the campaign for more democracy described at iniref.org does not promote single issues (apart from better democracy) and is independent of political parties. I am writing for the campaign here, so must stick to the rules.
There is a problem with suggestions for ballots about your priority issues. In UK, its countries and smaller political units, with very minor exceptions, there is no recognised way for citizens to obtain a referendum. That is what our campaign is trying to change. We want regulations to be introduced so that citizens can formally put forward a proposal and collect supporting endorsements. If an agreed number of electors (voters) sign up then a referendum must be held, whether the government agrees or not. The decision of the people has the power of law.
At present, all we citizens can do is to beg politicians to hold a referendum for us. Often an "authorities" referendum like this is unsatisfactory because the government of the day can decide on wording and timing of the proposal. The whole thing has often become a tactical game of the political parties and government.
So, first we need the right to referendum. We demand a referendum on this! See
iniref
e-mail:
info@iniref.org
Homepage:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb