On the one hand, I would be in favour of a referendum being binding (if it was called for) on whether or not to adopt the Euro, or whether or not to introduce road user charging, but I wouldn’t be in favour of a referendum to set interest rates at X% or to cut 2p from the basic rate of income tax.

On reflection, I would also not be in favour of a ‘balanced budget’ proposal as suggested by Andy – all policies have budgetary implications and I don’t think this in itself should prevent a ballot result from being binding. In other words, if there was a successful vote to scrap the ban on fox hunting, I don’t think it should then be ignored on the grounds that the proposal didn’t factor in the subsequent impact on police funding.

One slight qualification: although I do indeed acknowledge that turnout in places like California and Switzerland where Citizens’ Initiatives are used extensively is low, turnout in places that have such systems in place but rely on them less frequently actually have increased turnout. Give people a reason to take more interest in politics and – guess what? – people take more interest in politics.

Boldness in politics has been, in the main, replaced by ineffectual hand-wringing and patronising management speak: and this can only increase as control is garnered to the centre. This government appears to use official inquiries as a means of delaying action rather than taking it! An air of ‘we know what’s best for you – just take your medicine like good children’ emanates from the Palace… Is this because fewer and fewer representatives of the people have any experience outside that of politics? That they have not worked within organisations such as the NHS, in small businesses or multinational corporations, as an artist or an actor, or managed significant projects and operations that impact on people’s lives, thus having some understanding of the effects that constant interference has on morale, respect, and productivity? That, basically, Parliament and other elected bodies are themselves unrepresentative (or appear so to outsiders)?

In the political world, there is, to me, an aura of timidity – a fear that any bold or innovative action may offend business or individuals and may result in a loss of office. Thankfully, despite its democratic deficit, the awkward squad in the House of Lords has retained its ability to surprise its neighbours from time to time!

Why do people vote in a system that offers them promises, delivers something else, and hesitates in the face of real threats to their future? A system that does not trust the people they represent? Of course, this may be an illusion (delusion?) brought about by ten years of Labour’s Orwellian approach (speaking CCTV – just as predicted in 1984). But I don’t think so.

Moving on: politicians complain that only an identifiable minority turn up at local Citizen’s Panels. Should we instead regard this as a failure to engage a majority of people who cannot attend meetings (either owing work, caring responsibilities, etc) or who have no faith in the process? Access is more than a physical presence – the forbidding aura of many council offices, and the mysteries of how they operate, are deterrents to citizen interaction. And local council meetings (of any type) are hardly the sort of event to set one’s pulse racing. Perhaps online interactive meetings are the way of the future? Where you can contribute directly, in real-time, and without giving notice of your questions in advance – but could this possibly be too much of a challenge to a representative democracy?

James refers to falling turnouts in countries and states where citizens’ initiatives are present. However, the levels of turnout here in the UK have been declining over recent years – so have we anything to lose but our lack of legitimacy?

Of concern too is how difficult the mainstream political parties are finding it to recruit members and candidates: evidenced by a significant number of walkover seats in the forthcoming local elections. Perhaps the idea of a common philosophy or ideology (wot? nuLabour?) is unattractive to an electorate faced with so many life opportunities? They may support our stance on Iraq but disagree with our views on another subject. Maybe this is why single issue parties (I use the term loosely) appeal – their key message, however disagreeable to some, is more clearly identifiable?

I’m not suggesting abandonment of core philosophy – rather, I’m supporting the idea that direct democracy delivered through the medium of Citizens’ Initiatives and wider access would allow the people to vote on issues that specifically concern and interest them. In turn, this would be empowering: and might tackle the disempowerment that is experienced through the delegation of power in a representative democracy. And in many instances, citizens can be way ahead of the curve in tackling controversial issues.

One may quote from philosophers of the past – however we must remind ourselves that they inhabited a different world from that in which we now live. Yes, we do need to be aware of the tyranny of the majority – but remind ourselves too that populism is not necessarily an evil. It’s like the definition of politics really – people say they’re not interested but ask them about Council Tax and suddenly… well, you know what I mean!

One thing I’ve learnt from working in this field is that everyone’s view of the ideal form of democracy is different.

Your point about spending has already been covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, although there are numerous examples of referendums being lost by the highest spender.

I make it quite clear that I don’t see us going quite as far down the road as California or Switzerland in the article. An indirect, two-stage model of citizen’s initiatives is what I’m advocating.

Colin: I dealt with the danger that the majority might use it to oppress minorities in the article – in short, initiatives of course must be subject to human rights, just as all legislation should be. I don’t see how this is more under threat than it is with just representatives deciding everything from on high. The Labour Government has been quite tyrannical without needing recourse for holding plebiscites and, as I pointed out, a system of citizens’ initiative would have slowed the pace of authoritarian legislation that we’ve seen in recent years.

Attempts to educate voters in the run up to ballots often become nothing more than wars to find out who can spend the most on advertising (California 2006), or mud slinging in which personal reputations both rightly and wrongly are destroyed (Colorado 2006). The only useful example I can think of from citizen ballots are when Denver made the rather smart decision to say that the Olympic costs had become too expensive, and handed them back to the IOC. That was in the 70s. The average voter is hopelessly badly informed – nobody should be allowed to vote until they can prove they know what the parties stand for, and what office they’re running for.

Try reading J S Mill sometime.

Matt Qvortrup barely mentions Switzerland in his CPS pamphlet, presumably in recognition of the fact that it gets cited a bit too often as the model we should be aiming for. I fairly explicitly state in the article that I don’t feel that Switzerland IS the model we should be looking at, even giving reasons why not. The ‘best fit’ in the real world for my preferred version are the 9 US states with indirect forms of initiative.

As for likely opposition to the idea, there may well be some but twas ever thus. I do think however that the public would embrace it as an issue a lot more than they do electoral reform. And I don’t think it is FPPers who are likely to oppose it – direct democracy is a growing issue in Conservative circles as well and the closest thing the Lib Dems have to a PR sceptic – Simon Hughes – has stated his support for citizens’ initatives.

The impression I get is, by contrast, that a lot of electoral reformers see it as a threat. I want to ease their pain!

I don’t think I was claiming that rightism is synonymous with populism, rather that a concern within a (broadly) centre-left party tends to be more about rightwing populism than leftwing populism.

Issues like same sex partnerships, stem cell research and abortion – all of which have been passed by referendums around the world – tend not to be populist, whether left or right.

We have, through indirect democracy a left-wing populist as Mayor of London and many Liberal Democrat MPs, could reasonably be described as populists, both left and right-leaning when it comes to their local campaigning.

Populism is an element of all democratic structures, direct democracy like the Citizen’s initative, I agree with you at least allows the possibility of reversing the worse examples of pork barrel politics or strike down silly taxes like stamp duty, or encourage spending on specific local initatives like keeping open emergency mental health facilities.

Where I would constrain direct democracy is in that any proposals must be balanced budget. I.e. you cannot petition for free personal care for the elderly or the Olympic Games without a clear explanation of how it would be financed. Similarly you couldn’t cancel a tax without an assessment of what spending would be cut as a result. Otherwise such referendum could not be binding, the government or local authority has a duty to be fiscally responsible.

That constraint though would also reduce the likelihood of the system being dominated by motherhood and apple-pie populism of any stripe.

Best,

Andy

To reiterate, the idea of Citizens’ Initiatives is a very valid one. But this makes me wonder: What about the practical obstacles for implimenting this? I can see those who favour of FPP over PR violently reacting to this. And I can see a lot of other people not really caring.