Switzerland's newest citizen-generated referendums

Once again Switzerland runs ahead of the rest of the world in pursuing democratic means of governing. For once again, the other day, the Swiss used citizen generated referendums to vote on complex issues not often given such freedom of decision by other countries. That latter includes Canada – where it does not even permit referendums, either nationally or provincially, to be initiated by citizens – upon any subject. .

The newest issues in Switzerland included one where they voted to permit quicker citizenships acquisition by younger people (under the age of 25) if their parents and grandparents had been living in the country. This is similar to fast-tracking citizenship to foreign spouses of Swiss nationals, according to a recent Sun Media story. This may be far-reaching to a country where non-citizens apparently make up one-fourth of the population. Normally to obtain citizenship in Switzerland requires 12 years of residency, mastery of at least one of Switzerland's four national languages, and honouring the “fundamental values” of the Swiss constitution (such as equal rights for women and men, and freedom of conscience).

But, at the same time the Swiss rejected a complex tax reform which would have gotten Switzerland more in line with international standards – according to the report. This would have scrapped a two-track tax system that offers lower rates to foreign firms to lure investment. Proponents of the current laws felt that in a country of few exportable natural resources such laws were needed to keep their country competitive.

 These recent referendums supplement the democratic processes followed by California (see last blog on that subject) and other US states in allowing citizens to vote upon complicated matters where enough of them want to be permitted a say. Both areas do very well in most aspects of freedom and productivity. Why cannot Canada move forward in such a fashion? Does any federal or provincial political party have that far-reaching right as part of their policy? Only one person within the dozen running for federal Conservative Party leadership has that as part of their proposed platform, and that is Kellie Leitch. Personally, I wish her luck!

17 Referendums in California

California has 38 million people, more than the whole of Canada, and is considered to be the 5^th biggest economy in the world. Its median family income is some $61,000, above average within the States. It is also very complex with more Latin Americans than whites living there, according to the Economist Magazine of Oct. 15

And it will be having some 17 referendums to be voted upon by the citizens at the upcoming federal election on Nov. 9. That is apparently about average there for even-numbered years since 1996. All this is readily researched via Google in a setting called “ballotpedia”.

One referendum proposal for a $!5.00 minimum wage was withdrawn by the advocates after the Calif. state legislature passed a law raising such wage to such level by 2022. Support and opposition for all of the ones on the ballot varies considerably, of course, but monies expended for and against are kept track of, as one can see in the following paragraph.

The issues that the California electors will vote on are very varied. They include marijuana permission (of which some $18 million has thus far been raised in support and $2 million contra); gun control; healthcare and drug prices; plastic bags (of which $4million has been raised in support and $6 million contra); repealing or altering the death penalty ($9 million in support against $13 million opposed); increase of tobacco taxes, (for $30 million, against $66 million); new expenditures that cost over $2 billion, (monies in favour - $6 million , opposed $12 million); bilingual education in public schools (of which $4 million has been raised in favour ). This latter question is also fully referred to in the said Economist magazine – and fully supported by it.

Fifteen have been inserted after citizen initiative and acquisition of the required number of supporters, and two were by legislative request.

In California, before being allowed upon the ballot, one needs to obtain 585,000 signatures within 180 days after approval of the ballot wording by the AG's dept. , and that must also be prior to a deadline, which this year is July 8. The 180 days start from when the AG completes a review of the wording – and provides a title, and allows for 30 days of the proposing citizens to review.

The number of supporters required this year (585,000) for insertion upon the ballot is 5% of those who last voted for governor.

Over 100 initiatives were filed altogether, in time to potentially qualify (but only15 “made it”) .

And just how many such democratically driven, citizen approved, or otherwise, referendums will be voted upon during the next few years in any province or indeed the country of Canada – likely, nil. Although some of you may argue that surely if our federal government wants to alter the way we have voted in its general elections for the past 100 years – surely that will be approved or otherwise, only if it submits the question to a citizen referendum process?

Anyhow, it is clear that many difficult issues are being decided in some states of the US by the people – not only by the elected representatives; - a better form of democracy, surely; and it certainly seems to be working in the very successful, complicated state of California. And they do appear more frequently in the news these days, all over the world, don't they?

 However, in Australia recently, a bill which would have referred a decision on gay marriage, to a national referendum was blocked by opposition MP's because they thought it would be costly and incite homophobia. So, - it is not an appealing idea everywhere yet, not just in Canada, is it?

Swiss people support security

The Swiss people have just recently backed their government's actions related to security concerns, according to Reuter's newspaper. In a manner similar to many other countries, the government had proposed to effect more surveillance to overcome possible militant or terrorist attacks. This included the possible use of drones and manners of hacking computer systems.

However some opponents of the law, especially within the young people's wing of the Social Democratic Party obtained enough signatures (50,000) to force the issue to a referendum of the people. They thought the measures were too severe.

But , the people voted to support the provisions. Switzerland had not yet suffered the terrorist-type attacks seen so often elsewhere in Europe. Other countries, such as France and Poland have expanded “spy agency” powers following Islamist attacks there, emphasizing security over privacy. “Newer, better tools” are needed to reduce possibilities of such attacks in Switzerland also, suggested a professor of public policy at the University of St. Gallen.

On the same ballot were an initiative aiming to require businesses to use resources more efficiently, and one boosting retirement pension payments by ten percent. They also were both defeated.

The Swiss certainly do employ aspects of democracy to effective limits. As a result they have become one of the world's most socially and economically effective jurisdictions.

 If only we in Canada could use Direct Democracy to keep our politicians in check! 

British referendum - and others

Britain certainly exhibited a major democratic twist by its Brexit referendum recently. Besides its vitally significant majority opinion to leave the EU, other important decisions from the citizens of other jurisdictions keep happening (except in Ontario, or indeed, Canada).

In Oklahoma in November will be a “ballot measure” aimed to raise some $600 million to pay a $5,000 per year increase in teacher’s salaries. Oklahoma, it seems, happens to have the lowest paid teachers in America. The method to raise that sum is to be by adding a penny in the dollar to state sales taxes.

It is difficult to raise taxes in Oklahoma, according to the Economist Magazine of May 28, because of previous citizen initiatives, which require 75% of legislators to agree before doing so. This “initiative”, if passed, would partly overcome that political difficulty.

Twin Falls Idaho is an “ultra-conservative” community within Idaho, according to the June 4 Economist magazine. Recently a group tried to obtain 3842 signatures for an initiative to close a refugee centre there.

However, the main promoters of the idea were unable to obtain that required number to have the referendum even considered. They obtained only 894 within the legally mandated 6 month period.

Public discussions were held; of course the media had its points about the proposal. But, that local citizens can even pursue such an issue via a method which would be clearly very democratic, shows that some nearby areas do employ complex citizen-initiated referendums. They do pursue issues in a modern, democratic manner.

Getting back to Britain – no matter your viewpoint, one can understand the utility of such a process – clearly a democratic means of determining an important issue. However, it might well have been better if it were only aspects of the union that were voted upon, rather than the whole shebang; - such as immigration quotas, for example. Mr. Cameron the British PM who promoted the stay in the EU referendum must wish he had followed such precedent.

For in most areas employing referendums such issues are initiated by the citizens – not by the head government itself. Indeed in such well organized places such as Switzerland it is only such citizen initiated referendums that are allowable.

However, in Canada we cannot, it seems, even yet persuade our government that to change the manner of electing our supposed representatives, it should only be concluded via a nation-wide, democratically conclusive referendum. It should not simply be determined by the elected representatives themselves.

 Are we that backward in Canada about democracy? Its meaning is – “citizens rule”. Other parts of the world employ it – in usually carefully monitored referendums. Why cannot we do so?  

Recent European Referendums

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000180 EndHTML:0000008616 StartFragment:0000002364 EndFragment:0000008580 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/Dick/Desktop/3%20European%20refs.%20.doc

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.

Reecent Economist Magazine and Referendums

 

-->Even the prestigious Economist Magazine can become “elitist”. In its Jan. 16 edition it criticized the various (and many) places, especially  in Europe which are about to (or recently have) conducted referendums. These referendums were normally instigated by the “leaders” to clarify the feelings of their followers.

         They came from such countries or states, as – the Ukraine, the Dutch, the Danes, Greece, - of course Switzerland (but that one was initiated by the citizens), California, (likewise) , etc. The article even referred to an apparent quote by Margaret Thatcher – who “dismissed referendums as - ”a device of dictators and demagogues”. (Just who was that talking?)

         It refers to “legalistic jiggery-pokery” by EU politicians  to overcome potential triggering of referendums. It does add the comment that – “all (this) smells horribly undemocratic to some”. And it goes on to say “national governments can shoulder some of the blame for not being clear with voters about what their arrangements with the EU imply”.

         However, the article does conclude with a mollifying statement: – “founding father  Jean Monnet,   wrote that he “thought it wrong to consult the peoples of Europe about the structure of a community of  which they had no practical experience” - That may have worked when Eurocrats restricted themselves to tinkering with agricultural subsidies and fisheries policy. Not any more: the age of referendums is here  to stay”.

         At least the writers admit that direct democracy is becoming more often used by citizens than before. And, I would add that it is about time. The “elites” have not done a great job in aligning the various states and peoples into a well-functioning system. Maybe the citizens can emplace more commons sense into what is going on via a few more referendums.

         Particularly if it is the citizens themselves who initiate – in proper manners - such referendums. One must either admit to being in favour of – democracy (the will of the majority of citizens) or to that  of autocratic elites. To which is the Economist mag. supportive? To which are you? 

Albertans Are Seeking Referendums

            Extraordinary efforts are being pursued by some Albertans to try to change the mind of the 8 month  old NDP government in Alberta.  According to reporter Jan Gerson, in the National Post on January 11,  people are actively complaining all over the province.

         They are completely frustrated by some decisions resulting  from the surprising ascent of the new Premier Rachel Notley.  Such  include the idea of instituting  a carbon tax. Some are also wildly opposed to the proposals to improve farm safety. There are regional groups all over including, in Grande prairie and Red Deer  ”incensed by the NDP’s ceaseless rat-a-tat-tat legislation” – according to the report.

         Some are even trying to find a way to “recall” Noxley.  The methods include a serious effort to present a petition  of  80,000 names  to the  Lt. Governor, Lois Mitchell.

         Mob rule has been threatened such that the opposition leader Brian Jean has had to issue a public plea to keep the tone of debate more civil. Considerable, new unemployment   is compounding the problems. But, George Clark, the leader of the group trying to obtain the petition said – “I’m trying  to help those people direct that anger into some form of positive action”.

          As the article suggests – “Western Canadian politics have a long-standing affection for direct democracy by which Alberta’s populace can force its government to hold a plebiscite:” (my comment – they really mean a binding referendum). 

         Although clearly there is no legislation to permit such action now,   Clark, is hoping to find a legal arrow  to “lift the spell of the last election and restore Alberta to its normal state”. One activist named Ben, who would not leave his last name because of receiving threats,  says that he knows that the petition has no legal force; “and that the Lt. Governor is not an instrument of the popular will. But he  is doing it anyhow”. “What else do you do, he asks. Its about accountability”. 

          Formally instituted Direct Democracy in Alberta  could certainly now be very helpful there,  say I. 

Hamburg, Germany Citizens Vote Against Holding the Olympic Games

     The citizens of another city, Hamburg, Germany have just voted via a referendum - to not pursue an Olympic bid for the year 2024. A city in Poland did the same a few months ago.
     Democracy - the rule by the people, is happening in some places, for sure.  But, is it happening in Ontario cities or even the  provinces of Canada? Are we ever going to be able to vote as citizens - on issues of our choosing?  If not, why not? Are we just not deemed to be sensible enough, or be educated enough yet,  to exercise  true democratic principles?
     Twenty-four U.S. states can pursue such - and do so often on all kinds of subjects, often in different manners than their elected legislators may have wished. When will Ontario permit, or encourage such?

New Zealanders to Vote on the Design of a New Flag

      Citizens of New Zealand will certainly have two interesting referendums soon. The subjects will be about their views upon the  design of a new flag. They will have four ideas initially to choose from. 

         The four designs were the “winners” among some 10,000 submitted for consideration. And they all are remarkably similar. All have a silver fern included within the format. It seems that the “fern” is an “element of indigenous flora representing the growth of the nation” according to a recent article  in the National Post.  The multiple points of the fern also apparently represent the New Zealand natives “peaceful multicultural society”.

         Once the favourite of those four is determined later this year, then in March that one, along with the current flag will be given as a final choice, via a second referendum. That determination will then be deemed  the official national flag of the country.

         Rather democratic isn’t it, to let the citizens have a say in what their national flag should look like. 

Florida's Conservationist Referendum - Will the administration listen?

         It is true that sometimes legislators do not want to follow the views of majorities upon important issues. That is clearly an undemocratic reaction, which must be strongly objected to by the citizens involved.  

         Even recently in a supposedly democratic state such as Florida is that reaction apparent. On Nov. 4, 2014, Florida voters passed at a properly initiated referendum by a 75% margin an edict requiring specific action.  The action was intended to reimpose a long-standing conservation programme within that Everglades state.  A fulsome story about it was within the prestigious magazine, Living Bird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, in its spring 2015 edition.

         Florida had for many years been in the forefront in protecting large areas for conservation. Water management districts etc. had managed the areas carefully. However, this changed drastically in 2010 apparently, when the administration altered its focus to more economic development. Some environmental budgets saw decreases by up to 90%. As one conservationist put it, “In one year they undid twenty years of environmental progress.”

         Now there has been a citizen backlash – with a clearly presented referendum.  One is still waiting to see just what changes will occur. If little transpires, it will be a clear defeat of the process and importance of democracy. One must hope that a modern state such as Florida does recognize the significance of this recent, clear position of its majority of citizens.

         The unique geography of Florida, with its wildlife habitats spread throughout so much of that state, and its need to protect the water supply so important for its very existence, for a long time  has been carefully controlled.

         The referendum should reinstitute that importance and need among those who administer its resources. But – will it? Thus far it seems there has been little positive response.  Has Florida become a tyranny of the elite few, or will democracy prevail?  We are waiting.

Greece's Impotent Referendum

        Talking about “referendums”, one should comment upon the newest one from Greece. That did receive much international attention.

         Some 61% of Greeks voted on July 5 against a proposed arrangement by international negotiators to “solve” the financial mess that their country had fallen into. The prime minister of the Greeks, recently elected, Alexis Tsipiras, had urged his people to vote against it, and they did. The idea of having such referendum had been introduced only a few days earlier, its haste necessitated by the urgency of the Greek financial problems. The fact that the proposed “settlement’ had been passed by as useless, in the interim, did not faze the promoters of the vote.

         Almost immediately afterwards, the PM was required to back down to further restrictions. The vote did nothing to alter the needs or requirements of the majority of the other European leaders who were trying to rescue Greece from the financial mess that their previous years’ transgressions had gotten them into. Rather obviously a vote from the Greek people could not legally affect in any way the views and opinions of other states, but at least the PM did clearly gather the views of his citizens.

        The Economist magazine in its July11-17 issue analyzed the results. It showed that the views of males and females were substantially the same – about 40% in favour, 60% opposed. Those aged 18 to 24 were some 20% in favour, with 80% opposed, contrasted to those 65 years and older, where some 55% were in favour, with 45% opposed. 

         It was pretty clearly an opinion which substantiated the ideal of democracy – where the majority opinion is supposed to prevail.

         However, it does not fit within the prescription which I would suggest is the only really proper referendum – one initiated by the people not by the government. That sort of referendum, ultimately binding upon the government jurisdiction about which the issue relates, more effectively translates into majority, democratic views.

         But, at least, the idea of obtaining the views of the people from the country which invented “democracy” is certainly an improvement over the most common manner of establishing laws, that is, by an edict from a leader or approved by the few elected representatives.

         Too bad that in Greece the elected representatives, over the past several years, had let the country fall into such a financial mess from which its citizens could not, even by their recent voting, lead it out.

         

Vancouverites Vote "No" in Their Recent Referendum

         And so, just what was the result of that recent, long-lasting Vancouver Referendum? It was just recently announced.

         The Vancouverites voted quite decisively against the idea of adding a small percentage to local sales taxes to pay for the expensive, proposed new transit system. Over 60% voted –“no”, despite considerable monies being expended in trying to persuade them that the idea was a good one.

           Was it a good example of – democracy in action?  Most would say – yes, definitely.

         The majority is supposed to rule – in a democracy. So often, that does not seem to be happening. The following comments were taken from a recent editorial  upon the whole exercise – from the National Post, July 4, 2015.

         “An enormous reservoir of distrust has built up between the political class and the public in this country, …..  People can sense when they are being patronized, and they tend not to take it well. The notion that such questions are too difficult for the public to understand could as well be said about elections, an infinitely more complex exercise in which the voter is required to sum up, in one vote, his views on the leaders, the parties, the platforms, the local candidates, their stances on local issues and so on. 
        Yet no one says after an election defeat, "well, that was a mistake - we won't hold one of those again." We don't want to claim the people are infallible. But the remedy, … is not to permit them fewer such opportunities to speak their mind, but more. Referendums are unusual events in Canada.  …. More regular consultation on major issues would go a long way to strengthen the sinews of self-government. Not every subject can or should be put to a referendum. But the question of whether to raise taxes is of a particular kind: it was, after all, the same question that first forced kings to consult parliaments. That the public declined to open their wallets this time does not mean they would do the same the next. But whether they would or not, the fact remains: it's their money. If politicians would like them to fork over more of it, it is only fair to ask them. This should not be the last such exercise but the first."

Metro Vancouver citizens to vote whether to add taxes to pay for better transport.

       Very, very interesting Referendum story coming out of the only Canadian  province touting such a democratic process, – British Columbia. It is  about to hear from the citizens of Metro Vancouver to determine whether they would  be prepared to add .5 cents to their sales taxes, in order to pay for a new, large inter-area transportation system. Apparently such is badly needed there, in that fast-growing, but congested city.

         It would add maybe $125.00 to their average, annual taxes. At the moment the polls suggest the mood is fairly evenly matched, between, yes, and no. The National Post on Sat. March 14, however, suggests the people will probably vote against the idea, not wanting more taxes. But, the details do sound well researched, and they have been apparently, widely communicated.

         It certainly is a democratic process, though initiated by the government, not by the citizens – the more proper method to pursue referendums, according to the Swiss and most US states.  It appears that premier Christy Clark promised that there would be such a city-wide vote, when running for her leadership at the last provincial election. The region was given a few months to “whip up a transportation plan” about which the voters could vote. It is a breath of fresh air, it seems to me, to permit the citizens to have a real say in an important, expensive, public works. 

         The vote is  next week. Will keep you posted.

        

         

Swiss Vote upon "Gold" Standard

Just another example of how “wise” the “common man” can be, showed itself in Switzerland on Nov. 30. After a widespread petition garnered enough signatures to require a referendum, the Swiss people  voted upon the most amazing subject. They voted yes or no upon whether to place the Swiss economy back upon the “gold standard”. The specific point was to raise their gold reserves to 20% of central bank assets from the current 7%. Switzerland had utilized gold as a major backer of their currency right up until 1999. Then, (as virtually all other nations of the world had so done several decades prior) they changed their system to become more reliant upon the Euro as a major backer of their currency. They did not adopt the Euro, keeping their Swiss Franc, but they abandoned gold as their main money-value backer. 

         This story was recently fully reported upon by USA’s Forbes Magazine, by the National Post, and by other international media. 

         Many people in Switzerland were apparently quite upset at their currency increasing in great value against the value of the Euro. Their exports were assisted by this, but their own currency became very expensive, allegedly cutting down tourism and making imports very expensive; or at least that is what some held was the reason for their economic troubles.  

         And so they had a vote upon it. The vote was led, not by an individual, but by the efforts of one of the smaller political parties, The Swiss People’s Party.  Despite such interesting people as former American presidential candidate, Ron Paul, supporting their position, the vote was much against the idea, with 78 % voting in opposition.  Prior to the vote, Paul had said, “The Swiss people appreciate the work their forefathers put into building up large gold reserves, a respected currency, and a strong, independent banking system. They do not want to see centuries of struggle squandered by a central bank.”

         However, most financial experts of Switzerland were against placing the economy back on the gold standard, declaring they still had more gold in reserve than most other countries.  These experts were also of the opinion that not being within the gold standard was not the cause of any economic troubles the Swiss may have had.

         But the reasons behind the vote are not, to this writer, what is so interesting. It is the whole exercise. It is the permitting the “lowly citizen” to vote upon such a complex issue. The fact that the vast majority went along with most of the financial experts says a lot about “common-sense”. The people can be counted upon to vote with sense. We in Canada (or Ontario, or within our municipalities) have “wise” common people. Why cannot we vote when we want to, upon issues, via referendums? Would not our commitment to democracy improve if we had more say on some matters? Would not the apparent need for disruptive protests be reduced? Think about it.

          

Many Recent USA Referendums

             Did you know that in the US at their recent October elections, voters in several states were also asked to approve or not  146 ballot initiatives? That was according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute of the University of South California, as reported in the recent Economist magazine.

         Voters in Colorado and Oregon were asked whether labels were required on foods with genetically modified ingredients. California was asked about reducing prison sentences for some non-violent crimes. Two more states voted on whether to legalize marijuana. Washington wanted to know whether there should be background checks for all gun sales. Life begins at conception was an issue in Colorado. Minimum wage questions were asked in three states.

          Some 35 of the initiatives were introduced by citizens themselves, via citizen petitions. The others were introduced by the legislatures.

         Of course, citizen initiatives are harder to muster because they do require a lot of work to get enough voters, usually 10%, to sign them. But that they do pursue the opinions of the citizens in these formal manners is surely the right thing to do in a democracy -where the principle is that the majority is supposed to rule, while the minority has the right to be heard. 

         Just why is it that only in B.C. and in the NWT can you do this in Canada, though sanctions there within each riding regarding the required petition numbers make success very difficult. Is Canada that much slower to utilize modern means for obtaining democratic decisions? Is that why we are not bothering to vote in large numbers? Most citizens have given up, knowing that their vote does not make any difference in the laws that are passed. 

         Why can we not have binding, citizen-initiated referendums in our province or even in our municipality? Get after your members. Ask them. Tell them to introduce the rules that permit such, as so many US states have done. 

Kingston Casino Referendum

       Now there was a referendum recently in Kingston, Ontario, that any municipality could well pursue. The community considered whether or not to allow a casino within its midst. At the recent municipal election was a clear and simple question for the voters:  Are you in favour of a casino being located in the city of Kingston? Yes. No.

         Despite very strong views and media efforts by the casino champions, of the 46% of the citizens who voted, 71% rejected the idea.

         According to the news article on Oct. 30, in the daily newspaper in North Bay, Ontario, this issue had been considered pro and con by the council for more than two years. Other cities, such as Brantford, were cited as places where a casino was apparently successful. Economic benefits were emphasized. The social problems of gambling, however, were argued in opposition. 

         And so, despite the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. favouring Kingston as a site, the citizens had their say. The mayor of Kingston apparently deemed the casino issue now “dead”.

         Is not that the way it ought to be, in a democracy? The majority opinion should stand, with the right of the minority to be heard. Why do we not encourage more binding referendums upon consequential issues within this province? Especially with the vast improvement in communications, and potentially  the ease of voting from home, via computers, should this  idea be pursued more.  Then citizens might feel truly involved in their community’s well-being.  And wouldn’t that be a good thing?

          

Right to vote upon Issues, as in Scotland - a sure platform to power seekers?

          The Scots have had their say; 85% of eligible voters voted!  Upon a simple referendum, with a yes or no answer. They even allowed 16 year olds to vote.

         Is not that an  example of Direct Democracy (voting on issues) at its highest level? And despite many misgivings that the majority would not understand the issues, especially after all sorts of exciting manners of expression, and  outstandingly expressive speakers, (even from the  leading politicians), the “common sense” of the majority  prevailed. Not just prevailed – but by a whopping 55-45 decision.

         Does not this illustrate in the strongest way the value of letting the common people vote upon issues? They were not fooled. They were not dissuaded by fiery rhetoric; nor by lots of money spent by interested parties. They were not intimidated – by wild demonstrations. They had lots of time to think about it all, – or be otherwise persuaded; and they exercised their democratic right to vote in favour – or not. The minority had a full right to be heard, but the majority must prevail, as it did,  – the true meaning of democracy – the power of the people.

         When will we in Canada, or in Ontario,  even in our municipalities, be given rights to petition for a proper, binding, democratic say in an important issue?  Why are we so inclined to let our elected representatives be our only example of  our vaunted democracy? They  must follow the tune of their leader, who in turn follows whatever his henchmen say is the way to permit the party he represents to stay in power. If the leader seems to falter, due to an apparent slipping of consents by his party followers, the media will crucify him – and the party falls in support accordingly. How can we realistically support any representative, under this system? 

         The vote in Scotland shows that people can be trusted to vote appropriately, upon difficult issues, when they have a chance to do so. Other communities in the world also follow that modern manner of democracy.  Why not ask your political spokesman to support direct democracy principles?   Just maybe he will champion it in higher places. It is a sure election platform winner.

Scotland's Referendum - is that process not prideful?

So many references to “initiatives’ (followed by binding referendums) in recent news articles. When will we, in democratic Canada, finally note such in our media?

          Just why is it that many of us hesitate to endorse citizen-initiated referendums upon issues, when we don’t see the dilemmas caused by  our encouragement of those same people voting for   representatives? For, what can be so complex as the character of a person, with his party allegiances, unfulfilling promises, and his unknown to us, back-room influences? And so,  just why do not we see the conflicts about encouraging voting upon such  as Toronto’s mayor – Ford, for example?  Yet, we hesitate to encourage those same  people voting upon relatively simple to explain issues, in this day of easy communication?

         Recently in the international magazine, The Economist, there was a lengthy review of  the upcoming referendum about Scottish independence. It intimated within the article, some embarrassment abroad about   Britain, in the possible outcome. A letter to the editor in a subsequent issue of the magazine from a resident of California, (where   referendums have been common-place since the early 1900’s,) tried to reassure them. To quote him – “whatever the outcome, the parties’ use of a peaceful referendum to settle a complicated political question should be seen as a source of pride”.

         Such a clear point of view. So much better – than, for example, in eastern Ukraine, where there is obvious differing views among very many residents, between staying within the country, and either federating, or separating;  – and where we have a neighbouring power, Russia, intervening, with potential world-wide conflict.

         When will we recognize the ability of our citizens,  so long as proper safeguards are included, to vote upon significant issues? Yes, leadership is very important; but as is so clear, the power that sometimes is manifested through leadership, can be easily provoked into terrible consequences. Politicians just cannot be expected to know the right answers to everything. We, the people should prefer to provide our own binding conclusions to whatever issues we decide are worth our intercession.  Don’t you agree that that is the essence of democracy, - “directly” influencing the decisions? - as in Scotland.

        

         

Corporations Requiring Shareholder Approval of Exec. Remunerations.

This article describes the detail to which citizens (in this case Swiss) can individually control or affect the operations of important institutions within their country – if the country has effective rules within which issues may be determined by referendum votes. You get the gist of it by referring to the extensive, 2014 “report of the Board of Directors on the Revision of the Articles of Association”  - of a very large, international, corporation – Nestle`s; (the chocolate etc. company).

         On March 3, 2013, the citizens of Switzerland approved an initiative of one citizen who had been dismayed by the compensation of which he had become aware  being given, to some   directors, of some Swiss companies.; this, despite some less than admirable financial results of such companies.   As a minor shareholder in such companies he had thought this was wrong -  as it was!

          And so, he determined to overcome that. After many months, drafting and re-drafting proposals, he had managed to get ten percent of the citizens to sign a petition requesting a vote on the subject. And the citizens ultimately approved what is now called – “article 95, para 3, of the Swiss Federal Constitution”. And following that the Swiss Federal Council (sort of the Swiss “executive” – a 7 person board), enacted the details required to put the law into operating effect. This was as of Jan. 1, 2014.

         It required that all Swiss corporations have a form of Compensation Committee, to, among other things, approve the compensation of the top directors and executive of  that corporation.  Nestle’s by-laws had to be extensively amended (with expected,   approval of the shareholders). That will  ensure that such bonuses – or even loans to such officers, will be within effective and proper control – by this separately elected compensation committee; and that such committee is to have a one-year term only – to ensure that its independence is actual, and not demeaned in any way. It can even determine performance criteria, around which such compensation would relate. There are many details within the new   proposed  bylaws  to ensure that it will all actually work.

         Such a good idea – as complex as its development must require! And this initiated by a single citizen!

         It just illustrates how a country can permit involvement of its citizenry in important issues, which otherwise might well not become enacted due to inertia, or lack of sufficient favour by the ruling elite.

         Would that we could empower our citizens in such fashion! But – then again, why not? All it needs is for a sufficient number of us to push a favourite party leader toward that direction. It is called “Direct Democracy”. When are we, in Ontario,  going to uphold our alleged rights as citizens within a democracy – to vote upon issues? Why don’t you be one of them to start the movement

Referendums or Rebellions?

         Revolts in Brazil, over the huge World Cup expenditures, have been in the news.  Considering the huge amounts spent, the uprisings are understandable, aren’t they? 

         Would it not have been better to have had a referendum about the issues?

         They did that in Kracow Poland, recently about a proposal to have the Olympic games held there. Apparently the citizens there voted against the idea – due to the   huge costs anticipated.

         That surely is  the right way to handle such issues, would not all of us who support the principle of democracy, agree? 

         Just why are not more referendums utilized throughout those parts of the world that are not autocratically led? It could be that they are not as democratic as they pretend to be.  Leaders of whatever persuasion seem to believe they have the power and right to do whatever they deem best for the people. And, they do not wish to be second-guessed by the very people they lead. 

         But, areas which have advanced their democratic processes to include the rights to initiatives and thence referendums, do seem to get along very successfully. That includes Switzerland, not just the country , but the cantons and municipalities. There, on March 3, 2013   the people voted not to increase a minimum wage. Citizens in a democracy must be trusted to understand what is best. That is what democracy is all  about.

         Almost half of the United States have frequent referendums  - which do not seem to upset the successful running of those states.

          Could we not expand the trust and understanding of more citizens if we permitted them to have votes on issues? Such vote would of course have to be binding upon the government. Apparently referendums in Italy are often just ignored by their legislators; and the Supreme Court would have to understand their role as interpreters of laws . Although it is extremely difficult to fulfill the strict conditions set out in British Columbia’s referendum laws, the courts there have interpreted at least one such effort with proper sympathy. Will more be forthcoming soon?

         Modern democracy seems to demand it, if we are to be governed by more than protests and rebellions.