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.