2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?
Having the right to initiate Citizens legislation and also to have the right of veto of laws passed by Parliament through a Citizens initiative triggering a binding referendum would dramatically rebalance power to where it should lie - with citizens. Government should Govern on behalf of the people - bit just Govern the people as currently happens. It could be used in any of the core areas that Compass campaigns on.
3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?
It increases economic robustness of the nation – public money is spent more efficiently when how it is spent is determined more locally, ie by
citizens.
We face a massive democratic deficit and this process will re-engage people in democracy.
Civic participation would be massively increased with people working together both locally and nationally to launch and campaign for citizens initiatives.
4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?
The cost of holding a referendum or local or national veto could be combined with the cost of a normal election that takes place at either local or national level if possible, or if a more urgent referenda or veto it should be paid for by central Government as part of enhancing democracy. Democracy should not be prohibited by cost. Public money should be spent to enhance engagement. Top down society and Govt is inefficient - Bottom up policy making and law making is cost saving and more efficient in the long term.
5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?
All political currents would support this, both left and right, building a coalition of people and organisations stretching from Oliver Letwin to Tony Benn. From small business owners to Trades Unions, from the Mothers Union to FOE, from the Sun through to the Morning Star. No polling evidence - however the Sustainable Communities Act campaign was a complete success and built a coalition that put the Sustainable Communities Bill into law and engaged tens of thousands of people in every corner of the country. This would be scaled up like nothing seen before. An winnable epoch defining campaign.
6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.
Switzerland has a successful culture of direct democracy. Tons of evidence and literature on this. Citizen led processes in Canada have also been world leading. As was the constitutional reform process in New Zealand and the Human Rights Bill process in NI. In the US many states vote on constitutional amendments at election time with great success and very high levels of participation. The UK has also previosuly held National referenda. Local referenda and initiatives on directly elected Mayors is already in place in the UK.
7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?
FOR: Bottom Up grassroots politics is more progressive, democratic and efficient.
FOR: The process would massively engage people both locally and nationally revitalizing democracy and enhancing engagement at a time of very low participation and engagement. It would help address the democratic deficit.
FOR: It would create huge progressive coalitions for civic, democratic, environmental, and societal change that were empowered to make the change they campaign for.
AGAINST: MP’s/Govt hate to give away power to the people.
-
Good proposal, an idea whose time is overdue!
Starting up a reform campaign looks like a daunting task but we can be encouraged by potential support from “ordinary” people. Surveys done in the mid-1990s by MORI showed that more than seven out of ten approved the principle that a large number of citizens’ should be able to demand a referendum. More recently a study of people “estranged” from politicians and parties — determined voting abstainers — expressed strong desire to make use of initiative and referendum procedures.
Samuel’s prediction that more direct democracy “would create huge progressive coalitions for civic, democratic, environmental, and societal change that were empowered to make the change they campaign for” is a powerful call for a concerted reform effort. It won’t suffice to convince a few MPs, although that would help. We need a campaign to inform and educate people, young and older, about I and R etc., so that citizens and groups become active across the countries!
Michael.
I&R ~ GB
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/ -
Arguments used against Direct Democracy:
People don’t understand the issues: Essentially an argument against democracy itself - used against votes for women and the working class. “If you don’t agree with me you clearly don’t understand and have no right to decide!” But note that Members of Parliament come to a variety of views on each issue, so there is no inherently “right” or “wrong” decision.Low turnout: If people are not interested they won’t vote, but contentious issues will generate a high turnout. If I have no particular view for or against a particular decision, I will abstain by not voting, but the important point is that I have the opportunity to vote if I choose. Also, note the low turnout of Members of Parliament - most of them leave the chamber as soon as Prime Minister’s Questions finishes.
Media power: The media have immense influence on people, so referenda would not be free and fair. Impartial information can be made available for referenda, and they often cross-party lines. Media power is also a difficulty in General Elections and the effect on representatives in their decision-making. The only impartial procedure for restraining media power would be by referenda.

The default "Block" is always the title block for the post, that is where general comments are posted:

To comment on any "Block" within a post, click on the comments bar next to that block:

To view comments about a "Block" within a post, click on the yellow comment indicator next to that block:

January 10th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Good proposal, an idea whose time is overdue!
Starting up a reform campaign looks like a daunting task but we can be encouraged by potential support from “ordinary” people. Surveys done in the mid-1990s by MORI showed that more than seven out of ten approved the principle that a large number of citizens’ should be able to demand a referendum. More recently a study of people “estranged” from politicians and parties — determined voting abstainers — expressed strong desire to make use of initiative and referendum procedures.
Samuel’s prediction that more direct democracy “would create huge progressive coalitions for civic, democratic, environmental, and societal change that were empowered to make the change they campaign for” is a powerful call for a concerted reform effort. It won’t suffice to convince a few MPs, although that would help. We need a campaign to inform and educate people, young and older, about I and R etc., so that citizens and groups become active across the countries!
Michael.
I&R ~ GB
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/