Many new referendums are
being noticed by one mainline periodical these days. In The Economist magazine of February 27, reference was made to an
effort in Switzerland to “strip private banks of the power to create money”. Enough signatures were submitted to the
government to “trigger a national referendum on the subject”. The proposed
alternative to the current system, it was claimed, would “nudge lenders into
behaving more prudently”.
As required under
the Swiss system, the government has to respond officially to every issue
proposed to be put to a referendum. It is opposed to the idea for various
reasons, one being that because recent rules on “reserves and capital have all
been tightened” since the recent banking crisis, the referendum idea is not necessary.
However, the campaigners for the referendum think the government’s answer is
disappointing. The referendum will not happen until next year at the earliest,
giving lots of time to more fully inform the voters about both sides of the
ramifications.
But, it is certainly
rather amazing to our eyes on this side of the Atlantic that such an issue
could be considered and decided by
the citizens in a democratic vote.
Another vote is
taking place in Italy in June. A new “populist” group formed there called “Five
Star Movement” is becoming suddenly rather widely acclaimed. Among other
activities, it is supporting a 37-year-old woman as the new mayor for Rome, and
it seems she has a fair chance of success.
However, it is
through its use of the internet to obtain various views that this group is becoming best known. As The Economist of March 12 puts it, “disdainful of conventional
democracy, its leaders believe the internet offers a chance to return to
Athenian-style direct democracy, in which every major political issue would be
submitted to an online referendum.”
It will be very
interesting to see just how far this method goes in the upcoming election
process. Modern, quick
communication methods should enable use of more referendums to clarify voters’
views and dramatically expand democracy.
Then there was the
recent referendum in Holland reported in some depth in The Economist of April 2. After years of negotiations, the European
Union finally thought they had reached an Association Agreement with Ukraine. However,
a campaign in the Netherlands to block this agreement began last summer by a “Eurosceptic”
social-media group. It selected the issue partly as a test of the new
referendum law in the Netherlands which came into force on July 1, 2015. It quickly
gathered 470,000 online signatures (needed were only 300,000) to force a vote
on the subject.
The referendum just
passed on April 6, much to the surprise and dismay of the other 27 EU states
that had already approved the process. How it will alter the proposed Association
Agreement is not certain at the moment. As The Economist reported, the anticipated opposition to the agreement
came as a bit of a surprise because the Netherlands had suffered more than most
to the Russian-backed “war of secession” in the Ukraine. There are many
opposing views now coming out which perhaps re-enforced the decision of the
many who opposed the agreement.
The Economist article, printed before the actual vote occurred,
suggested that the vote, though close, would probably “lose”. It didn’t! The
article also stated that the “defeat (of the agreement) would be felt far
beyond the Netherlands’ borders.”
Referendums
represent the views of the majority of the people, however. And if one believes
in democracy, one must go along with the majority’s decisions, not those of
“oligarchs (brought) into our camp by false promises” as is claimed by those who
support the new referendum law in the Netherlands.
When will we in
Canada ever trust our citizens to vote upon binding referendums? Or are we just basically another
“oligarchy” going through the motions of democratic changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment