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."