Referendum usage has soared in this century. However, not everyone believes this is a good trend. Earlier this year, a Washington Post op-ed by syndicated columnist George Will said as much. He cited BREXIT as an example of what can go wrong with direct democracy—the use of referendums as a normal part of governance. But is the problem with referendums or with the way that particular referendum was executed?
Clearly there are challenges with using referendums, and BREXIT provides a case study. It exposed a population willing to vote for something it didn’t understand. It revealed politicians that would use referendum as a political tool only to have it go haywire. It failed to recognize that the United Kingdom is composed of four different societies. It allowed public manipulation through social media. All of this might make the case that referendums are hopelessly problematic.
On the other hand, one might be wise not to dismiss them so quickly. Switzerland has used them effectively since it became a nation-state in the 19th century. Also, every change in governance requires a growth period and BREXIT may simply be a step along the path. And as with all new forms of governance, new tools, technology, and procedures are needed to make it work robustly. In this case, new tools are needed to make it easier to vote, to make complex issues more understandable to the populace, and to counter the more spurious assertions of wayward politicians. As tools develop, referendum usage will become more consistent and effective.
Of course, representative government will never go away: leaders are intrinsic to humankind and representation is the best way to choose leaders. However, some blending of representative government with direct democracy may ultimately deliver the goal of all governance: to act in the best interest of the people being governed and to reflect their will.
References:
George Will, “Britain’s lesson in direct democracy,” Washington Post op-ed, 13 Jan 2019, A21.
No responses yet