Direct Democracy in Iceland

You may recall the referendum pushed through by the people of Iceland about one year ago They voted against permitting their governors to subsidize the pay-out of their defaulting banks. At the time this was thought by most of their leaders to be jeopardizing the continuation of Icelandic economic stability. Now just one year later Iceland is experiencing a real boom. It has shaken off that mess somehow. According to a speech by the president of Iceland recorded on CBC Radio on Dec. 11, Iceland is expected to experience 3% growth in the coming year. This is just another example of the common-sense of the public overriding the opinions of the elite. It emphasizes the effectiveness of Direct Democracy. It should not be a mark against democracy to say that one cannot trust the masses to think straight. Democracy with all its possible warts and bruises is still the best manner of governing - and we should not forget that, when permitting votes, not just for representatives, but upon difficult issues.

No true Referendums in Britain - yet.

The Economist Magazine of Oct. 29 had a lengthy discussion about the British people wanting to vote in a referendum about joining the European Union. Speaker after speaker in the House asked the government to put the issue to a vote of the people - but the leaders have demurred. They were presumably afraid of what the answer might be. This obviously is hardly democratic, especially since the speakers were all elected representatives of their communities. But, in Britain they do not have real Direct Democracy. If it did, the public could have required that the issue be put to a vote, if enough of them signed a petition requesting such. The new, Conservative, Lib-Dem coalition actually had instituted a method of requiring a parliamentary debate - if 100,000 voters signed up requesting that that occur; and though it had also just instituted laws permitting local councils to hold referendums about taxes and planning, and had even requested the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum about its alleged desire of independent autonomy (believing that it would not yet win such a vote) holding nation-wide votes on ideas that the leaders feared answer to is not law there, yet.

Swedes prove Direct Democracy words there!

Just came across a very interesting use of a citizen-initiated referendum in Sweden. Back in 2003, according to the Economist magazine of Dec. 3, 56% of the Swedish people voted against the proposed conversion of their money (the Krona) over to the Euro. This was contra the wishes of most of their business and political leaders.

The yields on the current Swedish ten-year bonds have fallen below even that of the Germans. Who is smiling now? Once again it might be said that the common sense of the people has superceded that of the elites. An alleged flaw of using citizens to vote upon issues is that they do not know enough to be trusted that way. Well, how often has it been discovered that leaders are too easily misled, or are too enmeshed within their own powerful egos to be second-guessed?

In a democracy it is supposed to be the opinions of the majority of the voters who are to be listened to, when enough of them want such a vote. Sweden has proven once again that that is a good route to follow.

Democracy in British Columbia!

Just in case you did not notice it - the strenuous efforts in British Columbia to require that provinces' authorities to follow their citizens' wishes in their Direct Democracy campaign have succeeded. Despite expensive court interventions by some commercial interests to extinguish the whole idea, and delays by the province, the actual vote went on as proposed - and the result was that the very undemocratically implemented and objectionable HST charges imposed by the province were knocked out. About 55% of the vote was in opposition.

This is one of the very few such referendums that have occurred in a province in Canada in many years. The sanctions put in place to inhibit such a referendum are extremely onerous in BC, but the people prevailed and the principle of democracy has manifested itself amazingly well, there. Better rules should become emplaced and of course more provinces should get on board.

But, congratulations to British Columbians for showing their democratic credentials!

Direct Democracy in Greece?

Having missed adding to my blog for several months I have obviously not mentioned many matters re: Direct Democracy, or the use (or non-use) of referendums that have occurred during that time. I will therefore try to catch up somewhat. Let's backtrack to early October.

The most intriguing one must be the effort by the embattled president of Greece - Papanderou to have his people vote upon his economic suggestions. These were supposedly to overcome the animosity of many public demonstrators who did not feel the restraints he was proposing were fair to them. He was stopped in his tracks by the attitude of his major European leader detractors. They felt that he had delayed serious decisions for too long, and that possibly the people would vote against their allegedly more intelligent views. Ultimately, he backed down, resigned, and a new man seems, at the moment, to have things under some better control.

However, what if it had gone to a vote (earlier)? Would the majority of Greek citizens have voted the "wrong" way? Well, Pat Carney, Canada's esteemed head banker, who just recently assumed a major position with the World bank indicated that a referendum would be a good idea - to get the Greek people onside. Unfortunately, democracy, if that means heeding the majority of peoples' views, has not spoken thus far re; the solving of Europe's huge debt problems. Will it be allowed to show its face there again? Keep tuned!

Direct Democracy Is just waiting to break out!

Nov. 27 2011; Finally, I am back at the blog, again.

By far the most interesting new aspect of Direct Democracy has been the "occupy" movement that we have heard about all over the world. Of course, with respect, the methods they have pursued have been ridiculous, to the extreme. But their aspirations - for a more functioning democracy can hardly be criticized. Probably almost all of us would like to see that happen. Why then, not pursue the direct democracy methods of the few jurisdictions that do utilize it - well ? Such as Oregon, one of some 20 states in the US which has the process; or best - why not follow Switzerland, where most municipalities and all cantons and the country itself permit the people, if enough sign a petition, to question effectively the decisions of their elected government? And those jurisdictions function very effectively!

They have tried and true procedures, worked upon over many generations which could be imported almost anywhere, anywhere that the people are educated enough that most can read.

Surely the time has come that that process should be implemented within the laws of our country. I will follow this up with more details shortly.

BC Referendum going ahead

The citizens of B.C. are having their say! In June there will be distributed, by mail, to all citizens, ballots along with the pros and cons about the controversial HST tax instituted behind their backs by the current B.C. government. This has been a long time in coming, but due to stupendous efforts by former premier Bill Van der Zalm. He and a huge bunch of helpers were required to gather up signed petitions from ten% of citizens in all the 90 or so ridings of B.C. to fulfill the daunting requirements of the Direct Democracy law passed in the late '90s. Under that law the government was supposed to put an issue upon a province-wide referendum, if such a petition was submitted to it. Somehow, over 600,000 names were obtained, well beyond the required threshold. But, the government was very slow to react. A court case, which was unsuccessful, was even brought by unhappy businesses. VanderZalm had to threaten to commence actions of his own to decertify a sitting member or two - before the government caved in to the wishes of their citizens. It will be interesting now to see the results of such a referendum. No other province has such laws yet, permitting a say on issues by their citizens.

Malta Referendum

In this day of mounting, international discussions and even revolutions about Democracy, it is refreshing to see true Direct Democracy being employed more and more often, that is - via citizen approved referendums.
Even in tiny Malta is it about to consider an important issue by a referendum.
This is over the rather important question of - Divorce.
It is currently only one of two countries that does not allow divorce. The other is apparently The Philippines.
Both are strong Roman Catholic countries which have resisted this now unfortunately common manner of concluding a marriage.
The referendum was introduced by the government - not petitioned by the people, but the principle does follow - the people are being asked to decide an issue.
Is divorce to be allowable after a four year separation? That seems to be the form of the question, according to a recent article in the National Post newspaper.


.

B.C. Referendum update - Motivation for it

More info from former Premier Bill Vander Zalm about British Columbia's Referendum law:
It seems that this legislation (to see whether referendums were something that the people in B.C. would want) was developed originally over concerns about Prime Minister Mulroney's efforts to force upon the Canadian people the ideas emanating from the 1987 Meech Lake Accord.
It seems that an otherwise required unanimous premier approval for the constitutional changes being proposed could not be obtained, because in B.C. the then NDP premier, Mike Harcourt, would not legally give such approval without first "taking it to the people". And so Mulroney decided to over-ride such requirement by taking it to all Canadians. This was via a national referendum - called the Charlottetown accord. That was in early 1991.
That national referendum, basically the first one since 1917, failed however, virtually all across the country.
Vander Zalm did not want this sort of Canada-wide potential dictatorship to ever occur again and proposed the B.C. provincial referendum law. However, before he could see to its adoption, he was ousted and a new leader took over.
This was Rita Johnston. She was apparently convinced by the bureaucracy to first put the idea for greater and more direct democracy to the electorate - a referendum to approve referendums. As Bill V. said to me -"the bureaucracies and most politicians are not fond of direct democracy". After much bickering from the two other parties this proposal was finally put to a vote. It passed - by an over 85% margin. B.C. people clearly wanted to be better consulted sometimes.
Still, the then NDP government had to write the rules. After two years of niggling, they came out with such which were much too daunting to really work. In 1995 their law required ten % of the voters from every one of the 89 provincial constituencies to approve the idea of a specific referendum question within 90 days before such proposed referendum would need be put to a vote. Until the recent , very much objected HST tax law, about which Vander Zalm and others were able to mount a successful campaign, no other B.C. citizen initiative has been able to obtain that too difficult ten% threshold. But, they did, and now the government must withdraw their hated HST law, or put it, as requested, to a referendum. The people's democratic will may yet be victorious.

B.C. Referendum History

Information recently obtained from former B.C. Prime Minister Bill Vander Zalm has brought me up to date on just how it obtained Direct Democracy rights there.
It seems that back in 1990 the Socred Party government promised to introduce Direct Democracy in B.C.. They invited two experts from California to their annual convention to describe the method. Such method of referendums had been used in California since the early 1900's.
And so, the Party decided to ask their people whether they wanted such. Two questions were designed; one about the right to recall sitting members, and the other the right to propose questions to the government which it must submit to voters by referendum. (a referendum to see whether they wanted referendums).
The total cost of the questions was 1.7 million dollars. The cost included information pamphlets, advertising, toll-free information phone lines, and costs for actually running the questions.
Over 80% of the people said - yes to both questions, with turnout being just a bit less than in a general election.
Bill V. said that to get it implemented in Ontario we must get a political party to include it within its written party policy. How can we do that? Well, somehow one must influence the party members to persuade their elected members.
That is no easy task - but with effort and time it is surely a worthwhile endeavor. Hope you can help.
I will describe the motivation towards the whole idea in B.C. in another blog.

Daylight Saving Time in Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan remains one of the few areas on the continent which did not see fit to change to Daylight Saving Time time in early March - again.
This despite the government promising to bring the point up in a referendum.
Isn't it odd? Even when the government suggests they will decide a question via a citizen's vote on the subject, it still refuses to do so.
It claimed that it would cost too much - $100,000.
But to have brought up such a vote during an election, or such time, would have cost very little extra to implement.
And though such process is not exactly what I have in mind when I espouse the merits of Direct Democracy, it still would have been an effort to confirm citizen's wishes.
In Direct Democracy regimes - such as in 24 of the US states, Switzerland, Germany, and elsewhere, the citizens themselves can require referendums when enough of them to sign a petition towards such ideas. And, if passed, the governments are bound to the results. That is real democracy in action.
But Saskatchewan leaders obviously do not trust their people. A group which has influence on the leadership persuaded it - that it should not do what it said it would do. Too bad. Saskatchewan remains outside the mainstream. Does the majority of it really want that result? Well, we just cannot tell.

Queen's University Rector?

A young man who somehow became elected as a "rector" by his peers at Queen's University recently, presumed that he could speak for all of them upon any subject. And so he did. He said that Israel was just like South Africa had been in its apartheid policies. And that "apartheid week", an occasion to bash Jewish concepts should be in full swing there at the campus.
Of course many previous "rectors" who heard about this affront spoke out against such liberty by the current rector. They mentioned that though the position did grant some authority, it did not go so far as the current incumbent tried to maintain.
What this does, in my opinion, is to disclose just how power can corrupt. No effort was taken to clarify if such views were of majority opinion. The leader felt he could speak for everyone, regardless as to whether they had permitted him to.
That is a problem we often have with" leaders". They think that they can do or say anything, and that that should bind those whom they believe they can lead.
In a system where more people have a say in what goes on - as with Direct Democracy areas, the people so governed do not pass on more aspects of leadership than minimal. For example, in Switzerland, they do not even have a president or Prime Minister.
Leaders can be very important, of course, - in charting visions and forging towards them. But, Queens students had not expected their "rector" to be so outspoken on their behalf. Maybe they should not be electing such persons. It is not a concept common to many other universities. One wonders whether the practice there may become discontinued - or whether Queen's University will obtain more black marks from similar outbursts from other rectors in the future.