Referendums represent democracy in its purest form. The voice of the people is the ultimate determinant of a verdict. Last month’s referendum on Catalonian independence resulted in thousands flocking to the streets, hundreds being injured, and no clear result or answers. Whilst other factors affecting this chaos were aplenty, it is symbolic of the strengths and weaknesses of referenda in general. On one side, it encapsulated the passion and re-engagement amongst the public that direct democracy can generate, whilst also showing indecisive voting results. Closer to home, last year’s Brexit referendum was a prime example of when voters can be misled, or don’t perhaps have the necessary information available on the issue. A certain red bus springs to mind. This essay will explore the strengths and weaknesses of referenda as a form of decision making – including those aforementioned – and will assess these strengths and weaknesses in further detail by looking at real world examples.
Referendums are a form of direct democracy and guarantee a series of connected benefits, including for example, education participation and precision (Watts, 2008). These benefits include higher levels of legitimacy, as opposed to government making these major decisions. This is accentuated by the fact that in some cases the Government may not even have a majority in support. The current conservative government holds a vote share less than 43% (BBC News, 2015). There has been a surge in the number of referendums undertaken in recent British times. In the last twenty years, there have been eight. This amounts to more than have ever been held before that (UK Parliament, 2017), emphasising its importance as a function in our society. With a continuing rise in the perception of dishonest politicians, referendums can serve as an antidote to this theory. They have been used in the past to fulfil pledges made by the party in the run up to a national election. For example, in 1997, Tony Blair’s Labour party promised a referendum on the introduction of a Mayor for London (Frankel, 1999). They provide legitimacy in other ways as well, especially in the case of major constitutional changes. For example, devolved powers from Westminster to Scotland triggering the creation of a Scottish Parliament in 1997, and the parallel case involving the Welsh Assembly some years later. They are a useful tool for settling long standing disputes, for instance the 2011 referendum on alternative voting has all but ended the recent pressures for electoral reform. Referendums are the only fair method of finding a solution to these quarrels, as it embraces public opinion fully. Moreover, they can be used to solve disputes and disagreements within a party. The national referendum in 1975 over EU membership is an example of this – where Harold Wilson gave permission to his cabinet members to campaign according to their ethics and conscience (Walsh, 2016). Although the referendum was not legally binding it was public knowledge that the result would be the final decider in the Governments eyes. However, it was believed that this was not so much an issue of the public opinion on European Committees membership, but more of a solution to a dispute within the Labour party itself (Butler, 1996). Referendums are not only a useful tool on a global scale. A major strength of Referendums is their impact at local levels. In this context, they are an invaluable means of involving the local community and demonstrating that the average person can still have influence in solving issues. At local level, referendums can be held for a variety of reasons including voting on planning proposals, schooling and transport (Wainwright, 2011). Importantly, these referendums can be prompted by petitions amongst the community. This aligns to the Localism act 2011 which in summary devolves greater powers to councils and neighborhoods (Pipe, 2013).
The UK’s recent referendum on EU membership was almost a relic of the very roots of direct democracy, reminiscent of ancient Athens when civilians gathered in their masses to decide on major issues such as war (McNaughton, 2017). It was perhaps one of the most influential political exercises that the UK has undertaken in its History. The referendum boasted an impressive and encouraging turnout of 72.2% (BBC News, 2016), underlining that this was an accurate reflection of the public opinion. This backs up the idea that Direct democracy encourages the public to take more of an interest in politics. This can be for several reasons, for example, the increase in competitive campaigning. This is demonstrated not only by Brexit, but also by the notable increase in turnouts in comparison to representative national elections in other recent referendums. In the 2014 Scottish independence vote, turnouts reached a record high of 84.59%, whereas in the following years general election turnout slumped to just over 70% in Scotland (BBC News, 2015). One reason for these figures was the surge in voting amongst the younger eligible citizens – it should be noted that in the Scottish independence referendum 16 year olds were qualified to vote – thus creating the argument that direct democracy appeals to them more than its substitute – representative politics. On the other side of the argument, some dispute that in fact direct democracy is a vehicle that encourages the already politically active, but is an ill-fitted concept to attract the politically disengaged (Leninger, 2015). They surrender the power of specialists to the wider public, this can be a dangerous game. In most cases the issue at heart is far too complex to be fully grasped by most voters. Many may be voting out of unawareness and ignorance. In the case of Brexit, even the so-called experts could not predict the potential ramifications of a vote to leave, hence creating the argument that people did not know what they were voting for. The economic significances of either result were unclear to say the least. Is this a fair burden to place on the public?
Brexit can be used to express several other issues questioning the functionality of referendums as a form of decision making. Voters are rational – and act on self-interest –almost in their entirety, it allows politicians to easily sway them. For example, the palaver surrounding the “Let’s fund our NHS instead!” printed in large on the side of a campaign bus was a demonstration of voters being easily persuaded by populist leaders. It also shows that there is no system in place to prevent authoritative figures bending the facts, and they are seldom held to account. Critically, Brexit did not provide unification, but in fact the opposite. Namely, the divide between Scotland and England. Statistics showed that only 38% of Scots voted to leave. This provides evidence that referendums can instill conflict and detachment, with some Scottish politicians even making calls for a second vote on independence. In addition to often causing conflict, referendums come at other costs – time and money. The costs associated to the alternative voting referendum in 2011 – a staggering 75 million pounds of taxpayers’ money (Watchdog, 2012) – was a waste in a time of economic recession. The cost to the taxpayer is aggravated further by the popular belief that referendums are held to benefit political parties, not the public. The 1975 referendum called by Harold Wilson was an easy way for him to determine a solution to schisms within his party. Using it as a tool repeatedly in this way is irresponsible, and causes the danger of creating apathy amongst voters (McNaughton, 2017).
Synthesizing all these elements previously mentioned determines that the referendum is a useful tool. Hypothetically it should unite opposition and be a sole determinant of a disputed argument. It’s positive influence on a smaller scale in different regions across the UK is exponential, and occasionally it can revive people who have grown disinterested in politics. However, politics is rarely that simple. It is exceptionally uncommon that the issue at heart of a referendum should be simplified to ‘binary’. Using Brexit as an example, it was not black and white. In some cases, referendums are unsuitable and irresponsible, often creating apathy. In other cases, they are an unneeded expense. However, it is the only legitimate option available to solve long standing disputes. When you question the referendums functionality as a form of decision making, you must consider all the above. In sum, it serves as an irreplaceable instrument at local levels, but on a larger scale it has imperfections that are practically impossible to reform.