Referendums Around the World

With a Foreword by Sir David Butler

Matt Qvortrup

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9783319577975
• eBook ISBN: 9783319577982
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of all the nationwide referendums since 1793. Referendums are ubiquitous and they are increasingly becoming vehicles for political change – or sometimes vehicles of conservatism. In 2016, for example, the voters in the United Kingdom caused a major upheaval when they voted for leaving the European Union. Later in the same year, a majority of the voters in Colombia rejected a peace plan carefully negotiated by the political elites to end decades of civil war. Were these decisions prudent? Why were these issues submitted to referendums? Why did the majority of voters vote against the governments' recommendations? Have 'the people' had grown tired of the old political class? Was this a new tendency? These are some of the questions addressed in this new edition, which will be compulsory reading for anyone interested in or concerned about populism and democracy.

© The Author(s) 2018

Matt Qvortrup (ed.)Referendums Around the Worldhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57798-2_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: Theory, Practice and History

Matt Qvortrup¹

(1)

Coventry University, Coventry, UK

Matt Qvortrup

Email: [email protected]

Matt Qvortrup

is Professor of Political Science at Coventry University. He obtained his doctorate in politics from Brasenose College, Oxford and holds a Diploma of Law from the College of Law, London. Professor Qvortrup is a joint editor-in-chief of European Political Science Review. His most recent publications include Referendums and Ethnic Conflict (University of Pennsylvania Press 2014) and Angela Merkel: Europe’s Most Influential Leader (Duckworth 2016). In addition to his academic work, Professor Qvortrup is an advisor to the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee and a regular contributor to Newsweek, Bloomberg and BBC World.

End Abstract

Referendums are increasingly becoming vehicles for political change—or sometimes vehicles of conservatism. In 2016, for example, the voters in the United Kingdom caused a major upheaval when they voted for leaving the European Union . Later in the same year, a majority of the voters in Colombia followed suit when they rejected a peace plan carefully negotiated by the political elites to end decades of civil war. Were these decisions prudent? Were they signs that ‘the people’ had grown tired of the old political class or was it just an indication that they did not like what was on offer? Or, were these sign of growing populism? Not exactly, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban failed to win the approval for his anti-immigration referendum when only 44% of the voters turned out. And just to cheer up self-professed progressives, the Irish voters’ approval of gay marriage in a constitutional referendum in 2015 suggests that the voters in some countries were willing to stand up for and endorse liberal values. Whatever has caused the many referendums and why they have been won or lost, one thing is certain. There is a greater tendency to submit issues to the voters.

This growing use of referendums (here defined as popular votes on bills before they become law) and legislative initiatives (defined as popular votes on laws proposed by the citizens) has led to a demand for comparative analysis. Questions include what determines their outcome, and which issues are submitted to a vote. But the use of referendums has also led to a renewed interest in the questions of democratic and normative political theory pertaining to their use.

This book is a successor to David Butler and Austin Ranney’s seminal book Referendums Around the World (1993), which, in turn, was an updated version of their book Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory (1978). Like its predecessors, this book takes an empirical approach and does not subscribe to any particular theoretical model. But, unlike its much-praised forerunner, the present volume covers all continents on the planet. Instead of looking at a number of countries that have frequently used referendums, the authors in this volume analyze all the nationwide referendums from each of the following continents and regions: Africa, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, North America (including the Caribbean), and Oceania and Asia. Needless to say, not all referendums receive the same level of attention. Some votes are more pivotal than others. But the intention has been to present the most comprehensive update of the worldwide use of the referendums that have been held from the French Revolution to the present day.

In this introductory chapter, the undersigned presents an overview of the history and political theory of the referendum. In Chap. 2 , the present author surveys the experience with direct democracy in Western Europe—but leaves out Switzerland . In so many ways sui generis, the latter country has held roughly half of all nationwide referendums in history, hence, Switzerland deserves its own chapter. Uwe Serdült surveys the experiences in Switzerland. This chapter is followed by Ron Hill and Stephen White’s analysis of direct democracy in the former Soviet Union and the former Communist countries in Central—and Eastern Europe. This chapter, in turn, is followed by an analysis of referendums North America and the Caribbean by Todd Donovan and by David Altman’s analysis of referendums in Latin America. Next, Norbert Kersting analyses referendums in Africa, and lastly Morris, Qvortrup and Kobori present an overview of the emerging experiences with referendums in Asia and the established practices with direct democracy mechanisms in Oceania. The book is concluded by a chapter summarizing the overall tendencies around the world with a special emphasis on the relationship between referendums and democratization.

Referendums or referenda?

There has always been debate as to whether one should refer to public votes as referendums or referenda. It is generally agreed that the former is grammatically more correct than the latter. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘referendum’ comes from the Latin neuter of referendus, gerundive of referre, ‘to refer back’. Grammatically speaking, as the Latin gerundive referendum has no plural, the plural gerundive referenda, meaning ‘things to be referred’, necessarily connotes a plurality of issues, which would be misleading. Hence, ‘referendums’ would be more correct. However, those who are not convinced by this argument might be persuaded by the debate in the House of Commons on 3 June 1998. The Conservative MP Alan Clark —the author of the very readable Diaries (Clark 1993 )—asked the Speaker Betty Boothroyd to make a ruling to the effect that the plural ‘referenda’ should be used. His point was that he had ‘heard on many occasions colleagues refer to referendums—which is an exceedingly ugly term’. He wanted to know whether Madam Speaker would ‘prefer us to continue to use the Latin word, or whether you have no objection to the continued Anglicization of this term’. Betty Boothroyd answered that she—though she did not rule on the subject—preferred the Anglicized term: ‘I think the plural is a matter of taste but I’ve always preferred the use of the English language to any Latin form if that is of some guidance’ (H.C. Debs 3 June 1998: Col. 282). So referendums it is!

Fundamentally, referendums challenge the basic assumptions of the tried and tested system of representative democracy. As Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully noted, ‘a referendum takes power of decision over a specific question back from the elected representatives and returns it to the people who decide a matter directly’ (Jones and Scully 2012: 4–5).

Whether this re-delegation of power from elected representatives and back to their electors is a good idea or not is a hotly debated issue. Not infrequently, politicians who have experienced defeats in referendums have denounced them. In the wake of the Brexit referendum it was a common complaint that the voters in Britain had been seduced by ‘fake news’. Not surprisingly, this was mainly a proposition put forward by those who lost, such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair . But the contention is far from new, let alone unique. In 2005 José Manuel Barroso (the then President of the European Commission) criticized the use of referendums in the wake of the defeat of the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands . Referendums, he said, should be avoided because they “undermine the Europe we are trying to build by simplifying important and complex subjects” (Barroso quoted in Hobolt 2009: 23). Barroso , if he had been that way inclined, could have cited Plato ’s tale in The Republic about the wise sea captain who was undermined by his incompetent sailors (Plato 1968: 488). And, if the former President of the European Commission had wanted to further undermine the legitimacy of the institution, he could also have pointed out that the device has a less than unblemished pedigree; in the words of David Altman, ‘the list of nondemocratic regimes that abuse plebiscites is pathetically high’ (Altman 2011: 29).

It is, in the light of this, almost incomprehensible that deliberative democrats and advocates of consensus democracy have espoused more referendums. These idealists tend to regard the referendum as “a successful constitutional instrument”, which can “protect a deliberative environment within which citizen participation can be fostered” (Tierney 2012: 285).

Referendums are—it seems—either hated or loved. The objections against referendums raised after Brexit is an echo of earlier complaints. In the 1970s, Derrick Bell, an American legal scholar, wrote,

The emotionally charged atmosphere often surrounding referenda and initiatives…can reduce the care with which voters consider the matters before them. Tumultuous, media oriented campaigns such as the ones successfully used to repeal ordinances recognizing the rights of homosexuals in Dade County, Florida , St Paul, Minnesota, and Eugene, Oregon , are not conducive to careful thinking and voting. Appeals to prejudice, oversimplification of the issues, and exploitation of legitimate concerns by promising simplistic solutions to complex problems often characterize referendum and initiative campaigns. (Bell 1978: 18–19)

Yet, as a respondent to this criticism observed,

Apart from Open Housing referendums and low income housing referendums, all he [Derrick Bell] cites in support of his proposition are two pre-civil war referenda…Moreover ballots that lose are not much of an argument against initiatives. Thus the only state-wide measures that Prof. Bell cites (apart from the Open Housing ones) to demonstrate the growing threat that direct democracy poses for individual rights are Washington’s [vote] to control obscenity, Maine ’s desire to perpetuate a traditional method of financing schools, and California ’s tax -reduction proposition. Those measures collectively do not constitute much of an assault on on individual rights. (Allen 1979: 1026)

Middle positions are rare. Some see referendums as ‘the most majoritarian of policy making device[s]’ (Shugart and Carey 1992: 66). Yet other believe they facilitate ‘the fundamental shift that dominates our politics…a shift from representative to direct democracy’ (Bernard 2012: 199). As we shall see in this book’s chapters, the dichotomous positions are not always warranted. The truth is most often somewhere in the middle; there is reason to criticize some referendums for disinformation and one-sided campaign spending —yet it is difficult to claim they are incompatible with representative democracy.

Further, many of the criticisms of referendums are could equally be leveled against candidate election...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Introduction: Theory, Practice and History
• 2. Western Europe
• 3. Switzerland
• 4. Russia, the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
• 5. North America and the Caribbean
• 6. Latin America
• 7. Africa
• 8. Australasia
• 9. Two Hundred Years of Referendums
• Backmatter