Referendums offer balance against elitism

While New Zealand may indeed be one of the most democratic nations in the world, there is always room for improvement. Surely, as a society, we must strive to improve our democracy and encourage more involvement in the decisionmaking process from as many as possible.

In a country like New Zealand, where citizens are far better informed and better educated than ever, but where trust and confidence in the political elite is continually waning, referendums are one of the few tools available to voters to balance political elitism.

And, if we have any doubts about the referendum system, we need look no further than Switzerland which, by and large, has used the referendum process wisely and successfully for well over 160 years. Some might suggest, as does Jonathan Boston (For and against referendums, Feb 14), that referendums are a hit-or-miss option for issues that are mostly too complex and multifaceted, yet the Swiss have embraced direct democracy and have very few issues with it.

What is interesting, and hugely important to understand, is that the Swiss government, unlike ours, does not have the power to call a referendum. A referendum can be triggered only by a constitutional requirement or at the instigation of the Swiss people themselves, by collecting enough signatures to trigger such a referendum.

One point that is extremely important to note is that the Swiss people also have the power to strike down any new law (or change to an existing law) introduced by government. That means the government must be careful when making new laws, knowing that if they are too contentious, the people may reject it. Surprisingly, the Swiss reject very few new laws introduced by the government, probably because the government ensures it has consensus before making those laws.

Representative democracy may have its advantages, in that someone has to do all the donkey work of politics. Very few of us would want to do that day in and day out in a society run via referendums.

But the weakness in our political system is that it’s a package deal, all or nothing; voters can’t pick and choose the best policies from all political parties – they have to take what the government of the day offers.

One aspect I do agree upon with opponents of referendums is that the rules around them are way overdue for an overhaul. But the referendum system must be strengthened, not weakened or repealed, as former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has called for in the past.

The wording of several past citizen-initiated referendums has been ambiguous, misleading, biased and confusing at times. But all that means is that the rules need to be changed.

And even if the people make a bad decision in a referendum, that does not mean the system is bad. After all, governments often make bad decisions, but that does not mean we stop using representative democracy and employ a dictator to run the show.

The question we need to ask ourselves as a nation is: what sort of a democracy do we actually want? A democracy based on elitism and a tyranny of the minority (Cabinet members), or a democracy in which New Zealanders occasionally decide for themselves, on contentious issues that affect us all, via a referendum.

A well-constructed system of direct democracy – constitutional, veto, citizen-initiated and recall referendums – can be a potent tool to balance elitism in our democracy.

My trust is in the collective wisdom of three million New Zealand voters over the collective wisdom of just 120 hubristic members of Parliament or a few anti-democratic academics.

It’s a brutal game and these guys do not have any respect for their carcasses.