Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...

On the contrary, it is the parliamentary system that is highly
exposed to the temptation of compartmentalisation. Interesting
examples of this are precisely the farmyard manure
action plan or the prohibition of tobacco advertising in Belgium.
Economic interest groups can, via their contacts with
a small group of ‘specialised’ members of parliament, exercise
unprecedented pressure on the decision-making. Directdemocratic
decision-making would make it much more difficult
for such interest groups to play a winning hand.
The quorum in the parliament
Sometimes the participation quorum for referendums is defended
by making a comparison with the quorum that applies
in many parliaments. Votes in the parliament are often
only valid provided at least 50% of the members of parliament
cast their vote. In the analogy, a popular vote could only
be valid provided at least 50% of the people cast their votes.
The analogy is false, however. We have seen that the parliament
is logically equivalent to those who vote in a referendum, not
with the total number of people entitled to vote. A member of
parliament has a current contract with the citizens: he or she
has entered into this contract for a specific period to undertake
the social decision-making insofar as the citizens themselves do
not want to decide. The Member of Parliament (MP) must theoretically
always be present at the votes in the parliament, therefore.
If he or she intentionally stays away, this is a breach of the
contract with the voters. The 50% quorum in the parliament is a
weak reflection of this obligation. It is not a happy arrangement,
because it works in favour of the polarisation between majority
and minority in the parliament. In its turn, this polarisation is
irreconcilable with the contract that exists between members of
parliament from the minority, and their voters. If these members
of parliament are part of the minority, they can justifiably
claim that their presence in the parliament is pointless: they
can never affect the decisions. These members of parliament
are, therefore, unable to honour their contracts with the voters,
which is not their own fault, but a result of blocking by their colleagues
from the majority. It would be better to replace the 50%
quorum in the parliament by a rule in which the absence of a
member of parliament would be sanctioned by dismissal and
replacement by an unelected candidate from a different party.
The referendum’s area of authority
It must be possible to hold a referendum on all the issues for
which a representative decision is also possible. It is in conflict
with the right of initiative to deny the citizens the right
to direct decision-making on certain issues. However, direct
decision-making must be subject to the restrictions that also
apply to representative decision-making. Three points are especially
important in this context:
• The decision-making must occur at the proper level. For
example, one cannot reform the social security system at
provincial level, or abolish the generation of nuclear power
at municipal level.
• The proposals to be voted on must be in accordance with the
basic rights and freedoms as established in the constitution
and the international treaties concerning human rights.
• However, the people must have the right to change the constitution
by referendum and must also be given direct-democratic
control over entering into treaties. Treaties must always
be subject to a time limit and be terminable. In any
other case, the people’s sovereignty would be restricted in
an unacceptable manner.
1
The political elite has a strong tendency, prompted by distrust,
to exclude direct-democratic decision-making for certain
subjects. One finds this attitude not only among political
leaders, but also among academics and professors. An example
is the ‘Recommendation issued by the scientific committee
of the commission for political renewal’ (2000) for the
committee of Belgian members of parliament who are concerned
with political renewal. In this we can read: “Tax matters
are excluded from a popular vote in most countries; the
reason is based on the justified fear that in the referendum
or the popular consensus the people will almost always opt
for a lowering of the expenses they bear, whereas at the same
time they demand that the government provide the same or
even better services”. Following on from this, the professors
advocate the exclusion of issues that exclusively or mainly
concern tax or budgetary topics. Their argument is not only
anti-democratic; it is also false to the extent that they do not
mention the clearly contradictory example of Switzerland.
Here there are no restrictions on referendums on tax issues,
without this adversely affecting the national budget (see also
chapters 5 and 6).
Right of petition
Smaller groups of citizens (e.g. 0.1% of the electorate, about
45,000 signatures in Great Britain) must be able to put something
onto the parliamentary agenda (right of petition), even
if insufficient signatures were collected to obtain a referendum.
This is a direct result of the nature of the parliament
itself: it is the institution where decisions are made about
socially relevant issues on which the citizens themselves do
not want to decide. The fact that several thousand citizens
submit a petition already makes the subject into a socially
relevant issue.
The right of petition and the citizens’ initiative referendum
are linked in a multi-stage direct-democratic procedure. A
citizens’ initiative starts as a petition group. If, for example,
43,800 signatures are collected, the citizens’ proposal enters
parliament as a petition. If the parliament adopts the
proposal, the initiative ends. In the other case, the citizens’
initiative can force a referendum if it has a higher number
of signatures (e.g. 2% of the electorate, around 900,000 in
Great Britain). The voters must then also be informed of the
parliament’s recommendations or considerations, which will
certainly form a significant part of the social debate. The parliament
can also be granted the right to submit an alternative
proposal in addition to the people’s proposal. Then, in the
referendum, the voters have the choice between three alternatives:
the status quo, the people’s proposal, or the parliamentary
alternative (this type of system exists in Switzerland
and Bavaria). This kind of measure can ensure that there is a
closer bond between the parliament and the people (see also
chapter 6, point e).