International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)Back
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) is an inter-governmental organization established in 1995 with member states from all continents. As explained in its website, IDEA's objective is "to help improve the design of key democratic institutions and processes through improved knowledge and understanding of issues that condition democratic progress". As of November 2004, IDEA has 23 member-states: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Mauritius, Mexico, Namibia, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay. Switzerland was preparing to join and Japan has taken up Observer Status. For more information about IDEA please go to http://www.idea.int.
|
|
In September 2004, IDEA produced three working papers related to direct democracy in a global context, namely,
|
|
The following passages are abstracted from the first paper with some slight revisions. They should be quite relevant to the discussion of referendums in Hong Kong.
|
|
International IDEA's work on referendums and direct democracy
|
|
In February 2004, International IDEA launched a project focusing on the use of direct democracy in a global context. The project is focusing on the three main direct democracy mechanisms:
|
|
Referendums - Allowing the electorate a direct vote on a specific political, constitutional or legislative issue.
|
|
Citizen initiatives - Allowing the electorate to vote on a constitutional or legislative measure proposed by the people if the proponents of the measure gather enough signatures in support of it.
|
|
Recall - Allowing the electorate a recall vote on whether to end the term of office of an elected official if enough signatures in support of a recall vote are collected.
|
|
IDEA's interest in direct democracy concerns whether, when and how the use of direct democracy mechanisms is appropriate to enhance democratic systems. By involving voters directly in decision making processes, does the use of direct democracy increase voter participation? Does allowing voters the opportunity to initiate their own laws and to vote on others increase their satisfaction that political outcomes more accurately reflect their preferences? Does direct democracy reduce dissatisfaction with elected representatives, and does the existence of direct democracy mechanisms act as a discipline on the behaviour of elected officials? Criteria by which the success of direct democracy as a component of a democratic system might be judged include: levels of participation and engagement, or levels of satisfaction with the democratic system.
|
|
IDEA's project aims to produce a series of tools outlining options for the design of direct democracy institutions. In doing so, the project is pulling together comparative experience of direct democracy from Europe, Latin America and the rest of the world. Following a meeting in London in March 2004, five smaller working groups have now been established to focus on key areas of work relating to direct democracy. A global conference bringing together the work of the working groups is expected to be held during 2005.
|
|
Use of direct democracy
|
|
The use of direct democracy is usually contrasted with the wider use of representative democracy. Under representative democracy, voters choose which candidates and parties they want to elect to make decisions on their behalf. Conversely, when direct democracy is used, citizens are able to decide themselves about specific issues and do not delegate the decision making process to their representatives. For example, in referendums voters rather than their elected representatives make decisions about constitutional or policy issues; when using citizen initiatives, voters can actually seek to introduce constitutional or legislative measures themselves. Finally, the recall tool provides voters with a mechanism by which they can replace their elected representatives if they are not satisfied with their performance (i.e. with the decisions that have been taken on their behalf).
|
|
Impact on representative democracy
|
|
Critics of direct democracy argue that it weakens representative democracy by undermining the role and importance of elected representatives. Since it is unlikely that any democratic system will ever be purely direct, weakening elected representatives has a negative effect on the democratic system. However, supporters of the use of referendums argue that, in the context of increasing voter apathy and disenchantment with traditional forms of democracy, direct democracy can help to re-engage voters with politics and democracy. It is also argued that direct democracy acts as a useful discipline on the behaviour of elected representatives, ensuring that they fully consider the likely views of voters when taking decisions on their behalf.
|
|
Arguments for and against referendums
|
|
Supporters of the use of referendums argue that, in the context of increasing voter apathy and disenchantment with traditional forms of democracy, direct democracy can help to re-engage voters with politics and democracy. Another argument advanced in favour of referendums is that they can be used to resolve political problems, particularly for incumbent governments; where a governing party is divided over an issue, for example, holding a referendum can help reach a solution on the issue without splitting the party (examples of this are the 1975 UK referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EC, over which the ruling Labour government was deeply divided, and Sweden's 1980 referendum on nuclear power, where partner parties in the government coalition supported different options).
|
|
There are also a number of arguments made against the use of referendums. One is that it weakens representative government by undermining the role and importance of elected representatives. Another is that voters do not always have the capacity or information to make informed decisions about the issue at stake, and instead may make ill-informed decisions based on partial knowledge or on the basis or unrelated factors such as the economy or support for the government. This trend may be exacerbated in the case of referendums on complex issues such as constitutional change or international treaties, with which voters are likely to be unfamiliar.
|
|
Opponents of referendums also argue that, if the executive has the power to determine when referendums are held, they can be used as a political tool to suit the needs of the governing party rather than in the interests of democracy. They also claim that, since in many countries turnout at referendums is lower than at national elections, the argument that referendums increase the legitimacy of political decisions does not stand up. However, in Switzerland, where several referendums take place each year, the average turnout at referendums of 45% appears to mask a considerably greater willingness by the electorate to participate in direct democracy, with different people participating in the different votes that interest them.
|
|
Types of referendum
|
|
Mandatory referendum
|
|
A mandatory referendum is a referendum that must be held in certain circumstances, or in relation to certain issues. The outcome of a mandatory referendum is usually binding. Mandatory referendums may be required in relation to predetermined issues. Typically, these are issues of major national significance, for example joining a supra-national organisation (as in Switzerland). In addition, in many countries, proposed amendments to the constitution must be affirmed by a referendum. Alternatively, mandatory referendums may be required in predetermined situations. One example is in a presidential system, where in the case of disagreement between the president and the legislature, a referendum may be required to resolve the dispute. The requirement for mandatory referendums is usually specified in a country's constitution or other law.
|
|
Optional referendum
|
|
The second category of referendum is the optional referendum. These are referendums which do not by law have to be held, but can be initiated by the government, and in some cases by other parties. Optional referendums may or may not be binding. A government can decide to initiate a referendum on a major political issue. It might do so because public pressure for a referendum forces it to hold one, or it might choose to hold a referendum because it is divided on the issue at hand. Optional referendums initiated by the government have been held frequently in Europe on the issue of European Union integration (although in some cases, such referendums have been mandatory because they involve an amendment to a country's constitution). These referendums may not be legally binding, although it may be politically difficult for a government to ignore the outcome. In addition, in some countries, the legislature, or a legislative minority, may also be able to call a referendum.
|
|
A further type of optional referendum is the abrogative referendum. Abrogative referendums are held when citizens force a vote on a piece of new law passed by the legislature, usually by collecting a certain number of signatures in support of a vote. In some countries, abrogative referendums can also be used in relation to existing legislation. If the law is defeated in a vote on the issue, it may be required to be repealed or amended.
|
|
Will the referendum be binding or advisory?
|
|
In holding a referendum, it must be clear from the outset what the status of the referendum is. Are the President and government bound by the result of the referendum, or is it purely advisory? To avoid uncertainty, which can reduce the legitimacy and validity of the referendum, the answer to this question must be clearly stated within the referendum law. It may not be in a government's interest for the referendum law to state that the outcome of a referendum is binding, since this means that it has no room for manoeuvre in the event that the outcome of the referendum is not the outcome that it supports. However, it may be difficult for a government to ignore the outcome of a referendum in practice, even if the referendum is technically only advisory. Politically, it might be very unwise for a government to be seen to go against the wishes of the majority of the electorate even if it wants to. These issues should be given full consideration when designing the referendum mechanism.
|
|
Key issues in referendum design
|
|
When will the referendum be used?
|
|
It is important that the relevant legislation makes it clear when referendums can be held and who can initiate them. In some countries, for example the United Kingdom, referendums are held only when the government chooses to initiate a referendum on a given subject. This can lead to accusations that the referendum is a political tool for the government, rather than a voice of the people. In other countries, the circumstances in which a referendum can be held are clearly prescribed in the constitution or relevant legislation. Ireland, Switzerland, Uruguay, Taiwan and Australia are examples. Referendums may be held in relation to specifically defined subjects or situations: certain subjects and situations may also be specifically excluded from being the subject of a referendum.
|
|
Subjects and situations in which a referendum may be held
|
|
The legislation designing the framework for the referendum should specify which, if any, topics will be subject to the referendum mechanism. In Ireland and Australia, for example, constitutional change is automatically put to a referendum vote, because the constitution cannot be amended without an affirmative referendum vote. In others, issues such as international treaties or supranational organisations are legally required to be the subject of a referendum. The subjects on which referendums are held broadly varies in different parts of the world. In most of Europe and in Australia, referendums are generally held in relation to issues of major political or constitutional significance (e.g., European integration), and referendums on more day to day policy issues are rarer. In contrast, in Latin America and the Unites States, referendums are more commonly held in relation to internal political issues. Referendums have been held in Latin America on subjects as diverse as: the constitutional system; constitutional reform; political amnesty; and the privatisation of state industries. Referendums may also be held in certain specified circumstances. In a presidential system, the referendum may be a useful tool if there is deadlock between the President and Congress; allowing the people a vote in a referendum may provide a less controversial way of resolving the dispute. In other countries, such as Italy, Uruguay and Switzerland, referendums are held if signatures are collected from enough voters to force a vote on a particular issue. This procedure may be used in relation to existing or recently passed legislation, in which case it effectively allows voters the opportunity to veto a piece of legislation they do not agree with.
|
|
Exclusions
|
|
Certain subjects may be constitutionally or legally excluded from being the subject of a referendum. In Uruguay, the referendum cannot be used in relation to laws concerning fiscal policy or laws applicable to the executive power (e.g. pension laws for civil servants). In countries where there has been a recent political transition, certain sensitive subjects might also be excluded from the referendum mechanism. In Colombia, for example, the issue of amnesty (as well as the issue of taxation) is excluded from being the subject of referendums. When preparing referendum laws, it is important that, if restrictions on the use of the referendum are to be imposed, policy makers drafting the law should be able to justify the basis for the exclusions.
|
|
Is a simple majority enough?
|
|
It is important that the design process gives due consideration to the threshold of support and/or participation that is required for a referendum to pass. One option is that achieving a simple majority of the voters who turn out to vote is enough for a referendum to pass. Alternatives include imposing minimum participation thresholds or requirements for double or super majorities.
|
|
Participation thresholds
|
|
Imposing a participation threshold requires means that the outcome of a referendum is only valid if there is a minimum specified turnout. Therefore, if a referendum is required to achieve a turnout of 40% in order for the outcome to be valid, but only achieves turnout of 33%, the result of the referendum is not implemented, and it will not be binding either way. An argument in favour of participation thresholds is that they prevent a small minority of voters from imposing their will on the democratic process. If, for example, a referendum achieves a 52% yes vote on a turnout of 50%, this means that around only a quarter of voters have actually registered their support for the referendum; yet in the absence of a turnout quorum, the views of this quarter will determine the outcome of the referendum. Imposing a turnout requirement of, say 75%, of the electorate would ensure that a yes vote achieve the support of at least a third of registered voters. However, opponents of participation thresholds argue that they are inherently unfair, in that they effectively categorise abstention as a no vote. In addition, imposing such imposing thresholds is only workable if the register of voters is accurate and up to date. Using a participation threshold in a country where the register is inaccurate would mean that the participation threshold is wrong relative to the number of voters who actually exist. If, for example, a country's electoral register includes the names of 10 million people, 5% of whom are 'missing' voters who do not actually exist, and a participation threshold of 40% is in place, it will be harder to achieve the 4m votes required, since there are only actually 9.5m voters. The use of the referendum in Colombia is subject to a participation threshold of 25%. Fifteen questions concerning government spending and wages and measures to reduce corruption were put to voters in October 2003. However, all fifteen measures were defeated because none achieved the level of turnout required for the referendum to be valid. Some experts have suggested this is because many of the people on the Colombian electoral register are either no longer alive, or are migrants who have left the country and are no longer resident to vote.
|
|
Extra majority requirements
|
|
Another possibility, whether combined with a turnout quorum or not, is to impose extra majority requirements for a referendum to pass. Instead of a referendum passing if a simply majority vote yes, extra majority requirements might impose additional requirements for a majority to be achieved in a certain proportion of regions, or requirements for a majority of a certain percentage of turnout. In Australia, for example, not only must a referendum achieve an overall majority, it must also achieve a majority in at least four of the six Australian states.
|
