tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/referendums-37280/articlesReferendums – The Conversation2024-03-12T12:36:10Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2255502024-03-12T12:36:10Z2024-03-12T12:36:10ZIreland referendums: what went wrong for the government and why double defeat draws a line under a decade of constitutional reform<p>Ireland, more than any other EU country, has a long and colourful history of referendums. Another chapter in that history has played out in the form of resounding defeats for two government proposals aimed at modernising the constitution. </p>
<p>One sought to remove a reference to a “woman’s” life “within the home” and recognise the value of “care” provided to others within the home. The other aimed to redefine the “family” as being based on “durable relationships” as well as marriage.</p>
<p>This enthusiasm for referendums – there have been 43 since 1937 – stems partly from an unusual quirk of the Irish constitution. Every amendment to the constitution, no matter how minor or obscure, requires a referendum, as well as an act of the Oireachtas (the national parliament). This is almost unique in Europe.</p>
<p>While a lot of these referendums have been about relatively technical matters, such as the court structure or the approval of new EU treaties, there has been a noticeable change in the way referendums are used in Ireland in recent years.</p>
<p>For a long time, referendums were, most typically, proposed by governments as a sort of means to an end. They were a way of permitting policies and acts which would otherwise have been unconstitutional, like making changes to the political system. Referendums were usually just a procedural requirement, imposed by the constitution, for making certain types of legal changes.</p>
<h2>The ‘post-crash referendums’</h2>
<p>In the years following the financial crisis of 2008 – which hit Ireland particularly badly – the approach to referendums noticeably changed. Amid a national crisis of confidence, <a href="https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/hell-at-the-gates-how-the-financial-crash-hit-ireland/36709945.html">following a crash of historic proportions</a>, a degree of soul-searching was in evidence. </p>
<p>Themes of rebirth and renewal came to prominence within what was historically a conservative (and very stable) political system. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/25895/chapter-abstract/193609555?redirectedFrom=fulltext">There was much talk of a “new republic”</a>, or at least of reforming a political system seen as parochial and clientelist, and as bearing much of the responsibility for the scale of the property crash.</p>
<p>This period also coincided with a spate of revelations about the state’s historical complicity with staggering abuse conducted in religious-run industrial schools, <a href="https://theconversation.com/mother-and-baby-homes-inquiry-now-reveal-the-secrets-of-irelands-psychiatric-hospitals-153608">mother and baby homes</a>, and the notorious Magdalene laundries. A series of high-profile disputes between the church and the state followed over the country’s reckoning with this legacy.</p>
<p>And so, in this light, a new style of referendum arguably emerged. Beginning in around 2012, referendums came to be used as part of a distinctive project of constitutional modernisation. There was an emphasis on removing or updating various parts of the constitution seen as archaic, oppressive or outdated. </p>
<p>This began with a referendum to enshrine children’s rights in 2012, followed by two very high-profile referendums to permit <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-irelands-world-first-popular-vote-on-gay-marriage-42033">marriage equality</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/ireland-votes-to-repeal-the-8th-amendment-in-historic-abortion-referendum-and-marks-a-huge-cultural-shift-97297">abortion</a> in 2015 and 2018. In 2018 and 2019, referendums were used to liberalise divorce law and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07907184.2019.1584846">decriminalise blasphemy</a>.</p>
<p>These referendums were not simply a means of legislating. They were also part of a deeply symbolic and expressive project. They were understood not just as a route to changing the law, but as a way of asserting a new national identity and values. </p>
<p>They became a way of making collective statements about “who we are”. They were also a way both of reckoning with dark aspects of the past and forging a new national “brand” for the future.</p>
<p>It is true, of course that some of these liberalising referendums, which removed controversial aspects of a Catholic-influenced constitution, related to materially significant issues of sometimes existential importance. The referendum repealing notorious abortion restrictions in the constitution was certainly that. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there was, running through these referendums, a noticeable narrative about national image – both Ireland’s self-image, and its image externally. These constitutional changes were a way of making a statement – of crafting a new national identity. </p>
<p>The Irish people were putting distance between themselves and a conservative past, and even making the country a beacon of liberalism and progress in a troubled world. </p>
<p>Some of these liberalising referendums were, indeed, purely symbolic. The <a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c4aa51-the-referendum-relating-to-children/">children’s rights referendums</a> enacted some grandiose-sounding language about the human rights of children, but made almost no material difference to the lives of children in practice. The blasphemy referendum removed an arcane criminal offence which some regarded as having been effectively impossible to prosecute anyway.</p>
<h2>End of an era</h2>
<p>It’s in this context that we must understand the latest referendums. The 39th amendment proposed to reform <a href="https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article41">article 41</a> of the Irish constitution to provide that a “family”, in constitutional law, could be based not only on marriage but also on “durable relationships”. Again, this was understood as liberalising and modernising a constitutional framework where only traditional marital families were given constitutional recognition. </p>
<p>The 40th amendment proposed to remove a controversial gendered provision of article 41, which recognises that, “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”, and goes on to say: “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”</p>
<p>However, the amendment also added a vaguely worded new article on “care”, in which the state was to recognise the care provided “by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them” and pledging to “strive” to support that care.</p>
<p>In the course of the campaign, the opacity and uncertainty both of the phrases “durable relationship” and of “striving” to support care were widely criticised. They were also the subject of sometimes outlandish speculation bordering on disinformation – for example, the idea that recognition of “durable relationships” would enshrine legal rights for “throuples”, or affect inheritance.</p>
<p>Both amendments were roundly defeated, with an historic 73.9% rejecting the “care” proposal in particular. And while no exit polling gave any comprehensive account of why these referendums were defeated, what is clear is that the symbolic aspects of them – the mere signalling of values they represented – failed to resonate with the public.</p>
<p>These referendums showed the limits of the project of constitutional liberalisation that has been conducted since the great recession. It seems unlikely that the problem lay in this liberalisation “going too far”, or in a decisive conservative shift in public opinion. </p>
<p>Rather, the public was unenthused by the promise of mere recognition or of symbolic change, especially in a context of growing, and very concrete social problems that obviously require concrete material solutions. These referendum defeats are therefore likely to draw a line under a recent pattern of symbolic and “expressive” referendum use in Ireland.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225550/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eoin Daly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Leo Varadkar has been criticised for expecting the public to vote in favour of adding vague language to the constitution.Eoin Daly, Lecturer Above The Bar, School of Law, University of GalwayLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2159752023-10-23T11:27:33Z2023-10-23T11:27:33ZI’ve studied the art of losing a referendum: the Australian government could have learned from other countries on these key points<p>It has been billed as Australia’s Brexit – a vote that pitted the so-called elites against the masses. The issue in question was the “voice to parliament”, a consultative body that would have given the roughly 3% of the Australian population that is Indigenous a constitutional right to be consulted before legislation pertaining to them was passed in parliament.</p>
<p>On October 13, the proposition was only backed by 39% of voters. It was a snub to Labor prime minister Anthony Albanese, who was elected last year on a promise to put the issue to a vote. </p>
<p>A bit of background is helpful to understanding how this came about. In 2017 then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, of the centre-right Liberal party, and Bill Shorten of Labor, the then leader of the opposition, appointed a council to come up with proposals for recognition of the indigenous population. In their so-called <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/uluru-statement-heart">Uluru Statement of the Heart</a>, the appointed members – Indigenous elders – called for “a First Nations Voice to be permanently included in the Constitution”. </p>
<p>This was initially rejected by Turnbull but in the 2022 election, Labor committed to holding a referendum.</p>
<p>At the time, support for the “Voice” ran at close to 70%. The opposition Liberal party was largely silent on the matter, and its leader, Peter Dutton, from the right wing of the party, was exceptionally unpopular.</p>
<h2>Lack of bipartisan consensus</h2>
<p>The Labor prime minister decided not to seek a bipartisan agreement with Dutton to find a position on the referendum question. This <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-voice-campaign-showed-labors-strategy-for-countering-right-wing-populism-is-in-disarray-215709">proved to be a mistake</a>. And, moreover, flies in the face of the history of Australian referendums. </p>
<p>Since federation in 1901, only <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/only-eight-of-australias-44-referendums-were-a-yes/7c7o5nfsg">eight out of 45 referendums</a> have passed (including the one just held). Part of the reason for this is the so-called double majority clause, which requires that amendments to the constitution are supported by a majority of the voters, as well as a majority of the states. </p>
<p>The provision was inspired by a <a href="https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-6765.t01-1-00030">similar provision in Switzerland</a>. But it has worked in a very different way in Australia. In Switzerland – a country with a tradition for consensus politics and coalition governments – 75% of all <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526130037/">constitutional referendums</a> have been won.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-australia-has-voted-against-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-heres-what-happened-215155">Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>All the referendums that have succeeded in Australia have had bipartisan support. Not seeking this was a tactical blunder. </p>
<p>But it was not the only one. </p>
<p>In many ways, the Yes-side committed all the mistakes that ensure the defeat in a referendum. One of the most consistent mistakes is to assume that celebrity endorsements help winning a referendum. They do not. </p>
<h2>Shaq says yes</h2>
<p>In August 2022, basketball legend <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/27/shaquille-oneal-meets-with-pm-in-support-of-indigenous-voice-to-parliament">Shaquille O’Neal</a> shook hands with Albanese and promised he would help mobilise support in the run-up to the vote.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hrjREp6UQcw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An unexpected endorsement.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That this was bound to alienate voters should have been known from other campaigns, not least the UK Brexit referendum in 2016. In that ill-fated referendum, soccer star <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Beckham/posts/10153494743056571:0">David Beckham</a> publicly backed the losing Remain side. Physicist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/29/stephen-hawking-brexit-wealth-resources">Stephen Hawking</a> did the same to no avail. I probably don’t need to add that Scottish tennis player <a href="https://www.espn.com.au/tennis/story/_/id/11546562/andy-murray-backs-scottish-independence-day-vote">Andy Murray</a> failed to convince a majority of Scots to vote for independence in the referendum in 2014.</p>
<h2>Big end of town</h2>
<p>The Yes-side in Australia did not appear to have studied overseas referendums to learn from their failures in this respect. And had they done so, they would have found further evidence on what not to do. For it is not just celebrities who can kill the chances of a referendum success. The same applies to businesses. I recall from research I did in Denmark and Sweden before the referendums on joining the euro in 2000 and 2003 that Carlsberg and Ikea wanted to be on the supposedly “right” side of history by voting in support of the change. The voters were not moved. </p>
<p>That Albanese got the support of the national airline Qantas a week before their CEO was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/05/alan-joyce-qantas-ceo-quits-resigns-retires-two-months-early">forced to stand down</a> amid accusations of mismanagement certainly did not help the cause.</p>
<p>Why was this a mistake? Why is it that celebrity and company endorsement fail to convince voters? </p>
<p>Fundamentally, voters have little time or incentive to read about politics. So they <a href="https://juspoliticum.com/article/The-Alternative-Vote-Referendum-in-Britain-A-Comparative-Perspective-381.html">take cues and use short-cuts</a>. They do so by seeking out people with whom they can identify. Celebrities with millionaire lifestyles and, still less, companies with a healthy bank balance are not that, and are therefore unlikely to appeal to the average voter at a time of anti-elite sentiment. </p>
<p>To win a referendum you need to have a credible argument and a credible solution to a pressing problem. The Albanese government did not have this. This referendum was a self-inflicted loss and a masterclass in how not to run a referendum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215975/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Qvortrup does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Endorsements from celebrities and businesses can be the kiss of death in a referendum campaign – as can failing to negotiate a cross-party consensus.Matt Qvortrup, Chair of Applied Political Science, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2124142023-09-20T22:59:46Z2023-09-20T22:59:46ZA month after Ecuador’s historic vote to end oil extraction in Yasuní National Park, its lessons are as vital as ever to Canadians<iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/a-month-after-ecuadors-historic-vote-to-end-oil-extraction-in-yasuni-national-park-its-lessons-are-as-vital-as-ever-to-canadians" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>One month ago, on Aug. 20, Ecuador voted to end all oil extraction in Yasuní National Park, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/21/ecuador-votes-to-halt-oil-drilling-in-amazonian-biodiversity-hotspot">marking a historic decision in the global effort to halt fossil fuel extraction in ecologically important regions</a>. As climate emergencies rise globally, Ecuador has set a global precedent by protecting one of <a href="https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/lac/yasuni">the most ecologically diverse areas on the planet, a UNESCO designated biosphere reserve</a>. </p>
<p>The move is set to end any current and future extractive projects in the region — protecting over <a href="https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/lac/yasuni">204 different mammals, 610 types of birds and just under 20,000 human inhabitants with 200-300 Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation</a>. </p>
<p>This referendum is a testament to the change possible through citizen political involvement. It should signal the world over the possibility for action against extractive corporate interests as well as the policies that support these interests. </p>
<h2>Voting for our future</h2>
<p>As we reach <a href="https://www.unep.org/climate-emergency">a critical ecological tipping point</a> across the globe, our steps to protect the planet’s remaining ecosystem can no longer wait. The Amazon rainforest remains the world’s largest forest reserve. It <a href="https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00508-4/d41586-020-00508-4.pdf">filters billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide</a> for the entire planet. A critical ecosystem service that provides us with the clean air that we breathe and helps stabilize our shared atmosphere on this planet. </p>
<p>The vote is set to remove any current oil projects over the next year and puts a <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/21/historic-ecuador-voters-reject-oil-drilling-in-amazon-protected-area">ban on any future oil extraction in the region indefinitely.</a> The referendum keeps an estimated US$133 billion worth of oil from the park in the ground. </p>
<p>The country’s nationwide referendum was the result of a petition from Indigenous groups and environmental activists within the wider advocacy of <a href="https://www.yasunidos.org">the Yasunidos Collective, a collection of activists advocating for the end to fossil fuel extraction in the Yasuní</a>. </p>
<p>This comes at a pivotal moment as scientists have warned that if the world’s largest rainforest continues to shrink then it will change <a href="https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00508-4/d41586-020-00508-4.pdf">from lush rainforest into a savanna</a>. Not only will this habitat be lost for millions of people, plants and animals but it will also signal the end of the Earth’s largest filtration system. The missing <a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/carbon-sources-and-sinks/">carbon sink</a> and <a href="https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-00508-4/d41586-020-00508-4.pdf">increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have detrimental effects</a> that would lead to potentially even greater unknown climatic events. </p>
<h2>Lessons for Canada</h2>
<p>In Canada, the people of Ontario face an opportunity for direct democracy to protect one of our country’s largest environmental assets. The Greenbelt is more than just a green space, it is <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-biodiversity-why-the-proposed-changes-to-ontarios-greenbelt-matter-211719">a bastion of ecological services providing unseen benefits to Canadians far beyond the Toronto area</a>. </p>
<p>It is also continually under threat as the Ford government seeks to finalize an <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-auditor-general-greenbelt-report-1.6930390">$8 billion deal for developers to build housing on 3,000 hectares</a>. This despite allegations of misconduct so serious that even <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/9938653/doug-ford-housing-ministers-resignation-cabinet-shuffle/">the government has had no choice but to review some of the deals</a>.</p>
<p>The Ontario Greenbelt is one of the most biologically rich and diverse areas in all of Canada and an area that provides protection to many both in and near its ecosystem. It does this through <a href="https://www.greenbelt.ca/learn">absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, draining water during extreme weather events and trapping heat caused by urbanization</a>. These services protect us from climate change and, in the process, also help to prevent the worst impacts of our current global warming.</p>
<p>The story of Yasuní is an inspiration against the face of climate catastrophe. The United Nations says <a href="https://www.unep.org/facts-about-climate-emergency">the planet has reached a climate emergency</a>, noting that the climate science is undeniable and the result of human activities. </p>
<p>In Canada we have witnessed — and had to breathe in — the effects of a huge jump in the number, and severity, of wildfires. The <a href="https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/report/graphs">total number of fires in 2023 exceeded Canada’s 10-year average, with an almost seven-fold jump in the total burned surface area in 2023 compared to Canada’s 10-year average</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-canada-can-leave-83-per-cent-of-its-oil-in-the-ground-and-build-strong-new-economies-169217">How Canada can leave 83 per cent of its oil in the ground and build strong new economies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Against this backdrop it could be easy to forget that in Canada, we are lucky to house one-quarter of the entire world’s <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/nature-legacy/about.html">wetlands, temperate rainforests and boreal forests; 20 per cent of its fresh water; the longest coastline in the world; and precious habitats for birds, fish and mammals</a>. This represents an ecological safeguard that, if nurtured and protected, will help provide a safe haven from increasing climate disaster. </p>
<p>That is, should we choose to begin to make the right decisions about long-term ecological wealth versus shortsighted economic prosperity. </p>
<h2>Building on this example</h2>
<p>The protection of the Yasuní reserve and the power of its people in Ecuador against a national government’s extractive agenda is a signal to citizens here in Canada. We do not have to be complacent with the status quo, or divided by party politics to find unity on important issues that face our reliance on this shared planet. </p>
<p>Direct democracy from the grassroots level can permeate to the top to mitigate climate change. The overall majority can decide whether to move forward with environmental projects that may have irreversible effects. It signifies the importance of Indigenous leaders in countering the fossil fuel industry amid environmental crisis and the power of people to change governmental policies. It is important to show how persistent resistance can make an impact.</p>
<p>To protect the planet for future generations to come, government agendas need to shift and be pushed by direct civil action. This means that protection of ecologically important areas should be seen as a key policy objective of national self-preservation. This is further reinforced by ever-growing <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/factsheet/nature-climate-action">calls from Indigenous leaders, academics and environmental activists demanding the conservation and restoration of natural spaces</a>. </p>
<p>It is time for Canadian citizens to step up and recognize that we can make a difference in our <a href="https://iasc-commons.org/about-commons/">shared commons</a>. The importance of the precedent set in Ecuador cannot be understated. It shows that collective action can work and that we do not need to only wait for governments to do the right thing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212414/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo works with Global Indigenous Development Trust, a Canadian Indigenous social enterprise and registered charity founded in 2014. As well as Inisha Nunka, an Indigenous led not-for profit founded by the Shuar peoples in Ecuador. She has previously received funding from The International Development Research Fund Canada under Grant 109418-021.</span></em></p>The decision of the people of Ecuador to halt oil extraction in the Yasuní is a trend-setting precedent of global importance and a victory that Canadians should build upon.Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Geography and Planning, Queen's University, OntarioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2127732023-09-12T03:04:10Z2023-09-12T03:04:10ZWhat does history tell us about the Coalition’s proposal for a second referendum?<p>Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/peter-dutton-pledges-second-referendum-if-voice-fails/102808598">committed</a> to holding another referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition (without a Voice to Parliament), if the upcoming Voice referendum fails. </p>
<p>What does history tell us about the repeat of referendums on the same or similar subjects?</p>
<h2>Hope springs eternal for a government that wants more power</h2>
<p>In the first half of the 20th century, Commonwealth governments tended to bring referendums that sought to expand Commonwealth legislative power over commercial and industrial matters. </p>
<p>This included holding referendums on:</p>
<ul>
<li>trade and commerce in 1911, 1913 and 1919</li>
<li>corporations in 1911, 1913, 1919, 1926 and 1944</li>
<li>monopolies in 1911, 1913, 1919 and 1944</li>
<li>trusts in 1913, 1919, 1926 and 1944</li>
<li>marketing in 1937, 1944 and 1946</li>
<li>industrial relations in 1911, 1913, 1919 and 1946.</li>
</ul>
<p>In some cases, the referendums were intended to be temporary measures for postwar reconstruction. But regardless of the context, all these referendums failed. They even failed when they had bipartisan support. This was usually because they were opposed by state premiers or affected groups, such as unions, primary producers and business organisations. </p>
<h2>Amendments about political arrangements rarely win</h2>
<p>In the second half of the 20th century, referendums tended to focus more on political and voting arrangements. </p>
<p>For example, there were referendums to require simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives in 1974, 1977, 1984 and 1988. Improving the fairness of elections was also put to referendums in 1974 and 1988. </p>
<p>The constitutional recognition of local government was considered in referendums in 1974 and 1988, and almost went to a third referendum in 2013, before it was pulled by then prime minister Kevin Rudd. </p>
<p>All of these referendums also failed. It seems Australian voters are not only suspicious about giving the Commonwealth parliament greater powers, but are also wary about altering the political and electoral rules set out in the Constitution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-will-vote-in-a-referendum-on-october-14-what-do-you-need-to-know-195352">Australians will vote in a referendum on October 14. What do you need to know?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The rare cases where a second go succeeds</h2>
<p>The one case that bucked the trend was the amendment of the referendum process itself. </p>
<p>In 1901, there were no Commonwealth territories. So when the Constitution was passed, it provided that a referendum had to be put to voters in each state and would succeed when it was approved by a majority of voters nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states. </p>
<p>This meant that when the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory were established, their electors could not vote in federal referendums at all. </p>
<p>In 1974, a referendum proposed to change this, so residents in the territories would be counted in the overall national vote in a referendum. But this referendum question also proposed to alter the majority requirement, so that success was only needed in half of the states (three out of six), rather than a majority of states (four out of six). </p>
<p>The referendum failed. It was most strongly opposed in the least populous states.</p>
<p>In 1977, there was a second attempt, but this time it only proposed giving territorians the right to vote in a referendum and be counted in the overall majority. It succeeded in every state and overall. </p>
<p>So, it is possible to alter the terms of a failed referendum and achieve success – but it is very rare.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1263292175816761345"}"></div></p>
<p>Another example goes back to federation itself. In 1898, referendums were held in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania to approve federation. But while the NSW referendum achieved a majority, it did not meet the threshold requirement of 80,000 “yes” votes that was set out in the legislation for the referendum to succeed. </p>
<p>As there was no compulsory voting in those days, a minimum threshold had been put in place to ensure federation did not occur as a result of the votes of a small minority of those enfranchised.</p>
<p>But the vote was enough to tell the politicians that the voters actually wanted federation. This caused them to meet in a premiers’ conference in January 1899 to make some tweaks to the draft Constitution, including a compromise requiring Australia’s capital to be in NSW, but at least 100 miles from Sydney – which is how we got Canberra. </p>
<p>When a fresh <a href="https://education.aec.gov.au/teacher-resources/federation/the-referendums.html">referendum</a> was held in June 1899, it succeeded, with a “yes” vote of 107,420 against a “no” vote of 82,741. The other states then also approved federation, and the Constitution was enacted by the British Parliament.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-history-of-referendums-in-australia-is-riddled-with-failure-albanese-has-much-at-risk-and-much-to-gain-198799">The history of referendums in Australia is riddled with failure. Albanese has much at risk – and much to gain</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The factors needed for success</h2>
<p>While most “second runs” of referendums fail, it is possible to succeed if the referendum proposal is altered or untethered from an unpopular element. The key factor in success, however, is having no organised group that opposes it. Bipartisan support at the Commonwealth level is therefore extremely important, as is support at the state level. </p>
<p>For example, the 1928 referendum on financial agreements between the Commonwealth and states succeeded, despite containing a radical clause that allowed these agreements to override state and federal laws and the Constitution itself. </p>
<p>It succeeded because the terms of the amendment had already been agreed to by every state parliament, as well as both sides in the Commonwealth parliament, before being put to the people. There had been an awful lot of advance groundwork done, so voters could be reassured by all sides and all levels of government that the amendment was safe and sensible.</p>
<p>But it is also important to capture the support of those who are particularly affected by the referendum, as any concerted campaign of opposition is likely to sow enough doubt to cause defeat. In the past, campaigns by religious organisations, unions, employers and primary producers have sunk referendum proposals. </p>
<p>If a second referendum were to be held on the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, substantial support by Indigenous Australians would be essential for its success.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consultancy work for governments, Parliaments and inter-governmental bodies. She was a member of the Constitutional Expert Group, which advised the Commonwealth Government's Referendum Working Group on the wording of the proposed referendum. She is also a part-time consultant for Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers.</span></em></p>While most repeat referendums fail, it is possible to succeed if the referendum proposal is altered or untethered from an unpopular element.Anne Twomey, Professor emerita, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2128902023-09-11T15:42:20Z2023-09-11T15:42:20ZUkraine war: Russian-held elections seek to normalise illegal occupation and reveal reality of a long war ahead<p>Russia <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-regional-vote-delivers-strong-result-putin-amid-claims-rigging-2023-09-10/">has recently held local elections</a>, including – for the first time since the invasion of Ukraine last February – counting votes in the four territories annexed to Russia after a series of illegal and illegitimate referendums last September. The outcome of these elections – that is, another “triumph” for the Putin regime – was never in doubt. </p>
<p>But the way in which they were conducted – with <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/09/08/vote-fraud-reported-as-russian-local-regional-elections-get-underway-a82399">hundreds of complaints and reports of irregularities</a> – is telling, both about the state of the illegal occupation and about Russia’s plans and expectations for the next stage of the war. </p>
<p>From a Russian perspective, the elections add supposed legitimacy to its claim that these four regions are now and forever Russian territory. But this claim rings hollow, even by Moscow’s standards. </p>
<p>Apart from anything else, Russia doesn’t even occupy significant portions of these regions. And, since their formal annexation in September 2022 – which is <a href="https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/10/05/russias-annexations-in-ukraine-are-a-legal-and-strategic-mess">not even recognised</a> by Russia’s closest allies, including China and Iran – Russia has lost further territory. </p>
<p>And, while it may be progressing only slowly, Ukraine’s counteroffensive has chipped away at both actual Russian control of territory and the sense that the annexed regions are beyond the reach of Ukraine’s armed forces.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing the conflict in Ukraine, Russian-held areas in red." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=847&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=847&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=847&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1064&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1064&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547471/original/file-20230911-17-op4og6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1064&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The conflict in Ukraine according to the Institute for the Study of War, September 10 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Institute for the Study of War</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The elections, as far as Moscow is concerned therefore, also serve the purpose of conveying a degree of normality. These four regions and their residents are seen to apparently participate in Russia’s political system. </p>
<p>This normalisation, in turn, is important to justify the so-called “special military operation” – as the Kremlin prefers to call its illegal invasion of Ukraine – as a worthy cause in the defence of Russia.</p>
<h2>Russification campaign</h2>
<p>Yet, these are <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-elections-ukraine-vladimir-putin-are-a-charade/">not normal elections</a> even by the warped standards that generally prevail in Russia in this regard. </p>
<p>Russia’s efforts to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/03/russia-forcing-ukrainian-passports-us-report">passportise</a>” the occupied territories and confer Russian citizenship on their occupants have made only modest progress. So the Kremlin issued a special decree allowing residents with Ukrainian citizenship but registration in the occupied territories to <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/russia-sham-election-ukraine-occupied-territories-donestsk-luhansk-kremlin/">participate in the vote</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile Russian pressure on these residents continues unabated. People are <a href="https://hub.conflictobservatory.org/portal/sharing/rest/content/items/e280a7eeb7bf4dc588ed50ee655b9858/data">leaned on</a> to “apply” for Russian citizenship and then presented by Moscow as its “new citizens” – accepting, and indeed enthusiastically embracing, the new and welcome reality of their acquisition by Russia. </p>
<p>Allowing non-citizens to vote and converting them to citizens does not, of course, legalise or legitimise the Russian occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory. But it normalises it in the eyes of ordinary Russians living in Russia itself. </p>
<p>The likelihood is that it will, over time, have a similar effect in the occupied territories – especially in those areas that Russia captured back in 2014 and that have been under Russian control now for nine years now. </p>
<p>With elections in these areas now, for the first time, conducted according to the Russian legal system, their predictable results will also extend the Kremlin’s control of the occupied territories. </p>
<p>In the proper Soviet style of elections, <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/russia-sham-election-ukraine-occupied-territories-donestsk-luhansk-kremlin/">all candidates were pre-approved by the government</a>, so there is no political competition and hence no real choice for voters. Meanwhile no free media or civil society group has been able to monitor the election campaign or vote counting. </p>
<p>As a result, Moscow can rest assured that a slew of Kremlin loyalists will prevail in the elections and do its future bidding in administering these occupied territories. This seeks to convey a sense of local participation without the risk of any real dissent. </p>
<h2>Slow road to liberation</h2>
<p>These elections are unlikely to change the attitude of the Ukrainian government and its western partners in terms of their declared goal. That is, liberating all Russian-occupied territories and restoring Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in its internationally recognised boundaries at the time of independence in 1991. This, however, is unlikely to be achieved any time soon.</p>
<p>Even the most optimistic assessments about the success of the current counteroffensive now estimate that Ukrainian forces are still some months away from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/05/ukraine-slow-progress-piles-pressure-on-west-to-keep-up-supply-of-weapons">reaching the Azov Sea</a> by 2024. This is a central part of their strategy to disrupt Russia’s land bridge to Crimea. </p>
<p>It’s a key condition for liberating the peninsula and also for breaking Russia’s grip on the Donbas region. In light of the effective defence that Russia has mounted of its illegally annexed territories and the insufficient military resources that Ukraine has, at present, to overcome well entrenched Russian defence lines, neither of these two goals will be easy or quick to achieve. </p>
<p>At the same time, Kyiv is taking a tougher line on its citizens still living in the occupied territories. Iryna Vereschuk, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister for the temporarily occupied territories, recently <a href="https://us.firenews.video/war-in-ukraine-news/the-cabinet-of-ministers-may-stop-some-payments-to-ukrainians-under-occupation-there-will-be-an-audit-vereshchuk-ukrainian-news-politics/">announced a review of social payments</a> for Ukrainians living in those territories with a view to stopping some of them. This includes pensions.</p>
<p>These steps are similar to measures taken after 2014 with respect to the self-declared so-called people’s republics of <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/thousands-eastern-ukraine-lose-access-pensions">Donetsk and Luhansk</a>. It’s a logical and understandable thing to do from the perspective of Ukraine’s government. </p>
<p>Yet for Ukrainians holding on to their citizenship in what is one of the few acts of defiance left to them, it also means payments from Russia – which are impossible to receive without Russian citizenship – is now the only way to survive.</p>
<p>So, in different ways, Moscow and Kyiv appear to be settling into the reality of a war that will continue for some time. Both sides are also settling into a normality of occupation, the human consequences of which will be more difficult to reverse the longer it goes on.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212890/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU's Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London and Co-Coordinator of the OSCE Network of Think Tanks and Academic Institutions.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tatyana Malyarenko receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Jean Monnet Programme of the European Union.</span></em></p>Elections to install pro-Moscow puppets in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine should not be taken seriously. Here’s why.Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of BirminghamTetyana Malyarenko, Professor of International Relations, Jean Monnet Professor of European Security, National University Odesa Law AcademyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2043652023-05-01T05:02:11Z2023-05-01T05:02:11ZWhile the Voice has a large poll lead now, history of past referendums indicates it may struggle<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523569/original/file-20230501-26-rxhhxq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aaron Bunch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Support for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament has dropped since the first polls that asked about it in late 2022. Analyst <a href="https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1649608515957436417">Kevin Bonham</a> has plotted all the poll results, and the average Voice support is down from 65% in August 2022 to 57% now. </p>
<p>Last week’s Morgan (a “yes” lead of just 54-46) was particularly concerning for Voice supporters, given the history of support for referendum proposals collapsing as the referendum draws near.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-gains-in-newspoll-but-voice-support-slumps-in-other-polls-nsw-final-results-and-queensland-polls-204107">Labor gains in Newspoll but Voice support slumps in other polls; NSW final results and Queensland polls</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Sydney Morning Herald reported Sunday that a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/yes-vote-for-the-voice-is-leading-in-every-state-and-territory-poll-20230429-p5d482.html">YouGov poll</a> of over 15,000 respondents, for the group behind the Uluru Statement from the Heart, had “yes” to the Voice leading nationally by 51-34, and in every state and territory, with Queensland the closest at 47-40 “yes”. </p>
<p>However, this poll was conducted March 1-21, so it is well over a month out of date.</p>
<p>To win a constitutional referendum in Australia, a majority of the states as well as an overall majority must vote “yes”. This means at least four of the six states need to vote “yes”.</p>
<h2>History of past referendums</h2>
<p>Only eight of 44 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia">proposed referendums</a> have succeeded. There have been five instances where “yes” has won nationally, but failed to win a majority of states.</p>
<p>I have investigated whether referendum proposals were attempted by Labor or conservative governments, and whether those held concurrently with a general election were more successful. Referendum results and dates <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia">are here</a>, governments formed after each <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_elections">election here</a> and House of Representatives election dates <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/federal_elections/election-dates.htm">are here</a>.</p>
<p>The first nine years after federation in 1901 were before the development of the two party system, and Labor was part of a government led by the Protectionists that passed the 1906 referendum. Since then, only one of 25 referendums proposed by Labor governments have succeeded.</p>
<p>Conservative governments have had more success with six of 18 referendums proposed by non-Labor governments succeeding. Analyst <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/whats-in-it-for-everyone/">Peter Brent</a> wrote in Inside Story that conservative oppositions nearly always oppose Labor referendum proposals, while Labor oppositions sometimes support conservative government proposals.</p>
<p>While not doing well enough to pass when held with a general election, Labor government proposals have performed better when held with an election than at midterm referendums. The four 1988 midterm referendums all failed with between 31% and 38% support nationally, while the four that were held with the 1974 election had 47% to 48% support.</p>
<p>Brent says that elections are about who will form the next government, and referendums held with elections benefit from not being the focus of attention. But midterm referendums are the focus, and can become like a byelection, at which governments usually do badly.</p>
<p>Early polling for referedums is not predictive. Brent said the 1988 referendums were polling in the 60s and 70s in May 1988, before crashing into the 30s at the September referendum date.</p>
<p>The record “yes” vote of 90.8% at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Australian_referendum_(Aboriginals)">1967 referendum</a> is not a guide to the result of the Voice referendum, as this earlier referendum was proposed by the Coalition and supported by Labor. Brent also thinks this referendum benefited from being the second question asked in 1967; the first was heavily defeated.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/right-wrongs-write-yes-what-was-the-1967-referendum-all-about-76512">‘Right wrongs, write Yes’: what was the 1967 referendum all about?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In 2017, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey">plebiscite that allowed</a> same-sex couples to marry was passed with 61.6% support (this was not a referendum as it did not require a change to the constitution to implement). </p>
<p>This plebiscite was initiated by the Coalition with Labor support, and the large majority of voters would have known someone who was homosexual, and were therefore inclined to be sympathetic to same-sex marriage. By contrast, most Australians do not have regular contact with Indigenous people.</p>
<p>If the Voice is to defy the history of Labor-initiated referendums that were opposed by the Coalition, particularly at midterm referendums, the Albanese government will need to continue to poll at honeymoon levels until the referendum date. Labor’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-aston-byelection-nsw-election-and-trump-polling-updates-202716">history-making win</a> at the federal Aston byelection gives the Voice some chance of passing, but history suggests it will be a struggle.</p>
<h2>UK local elections and the US debt limit</h2>
<p>I wrote for <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2023/04/27/uk-local-elections-minus-one-week/">The Poll Bludger</a> last Thursday that UK local elections will be held this Thursday. Labour has a large poll lead, but it is being reduced.</p>
<p>Last Thursday AEST, Republicans passed a bill that would raise the US debt limit in return for spending cuts that are strongly opposed by Democrats through the House of Representatives. The US is headed for a crisis over the debt limit later this year. Donald Trump’s lead in national Republican primary polls continues to widen. Polls for the May 14 Turkish elections were also covered.</p>
<h2>Victorian Resolve poll: Labor still way ahead</h2>
<p>A Victorian state <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/labor-holds-lead-over-state-coalition-but-deeming-drama-fails-to-make-dent-20230421-p5d2cc.html?btis=">Resolve poll</a> for The Age, conducted with the federal March and April Resolve polls from a sample of 1,600, gave Labor 42% of the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2021/political-monitor/index.html">primary vote</a> (up one since February), the Coalition 30% (steady), the Greens 10% (down three), independents 12% (down one) and others 5% (up one).</p>
<p>Resolve does not provide two party estimates until close to elections, but Labor is clearly still far ahead. This poll was taken before the corruption watchdog’s report that criticised the Labor government. Incumbent Daniel Andrews led the Liberals’ John Pesutto by 49-28 as preferred premier (50-26 in February).</p>
<p>Liberal MP Moira Deeming attended an anti-trans rights rally that was gatecrashed by neo-Nazis. Pesutto tried to expel her, but was forced to settle for suspending her for nine months. </p>
<p>The poll article says that 23% wanted Deeming expelled, but 20% said she deserved less punishment than her suspension. “About one-third” were unsure or indifferent as to her punishment, leaving 24% who presumably supported the nine-month suspension.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204365/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>History shows the “yes” vote tends to drop off as referendum day nears, and the government will need to maintain its strong polling lead for the vote to succeed.Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1903932023-01-10T13:29:03Z2023-01-10T13:29:03Z30 years on, Czechoslovakia’s ‘velvet divorce’ is not a model for Scottish independence from the UK<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503322/original/file-20230105-20-vwaelx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C544%2C4641%2C2456&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scottish independence has its supporters -- as did that of Slovakia.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/slovakia-fans-in-the-stands-before-the-2018-fifa-world-cup-news-photo/857936752?phrase=scotland%20slovak%20fans&adppopup=true">Jane Barlow/PA Images via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Had Scottish nationalists got their way, 2023 would have seen the country head to the polls in a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-top-court-rule-legality-new-scottish-independence-referendum-2022-11-23/">second referendum over independence</a> from the United Kingdom – and they might have won. Whereas the first attempt in 2014 resulted in 55% voting “no,” <a href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/22564415.scottish-independence-polling-polls-changed-2022/">polls suggest</a> that after Brexit, a majority of Scots might now favor secession.</p>
<p>But that plan for a fresh referendum was scuppered in November 2022, when the U.K. Supreme Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-supreme-court-rules-scotland-cannot-call-a-second-independence-referendum-the-decision-explained-194877">decided</a> that Scotland could not hold such a vote without the consent of the Westminster Parliament. And that permission seems unlikely given that the governing Conservative Party <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-independence-scotland-cameron/cameron-says-scottish-independence-issue-settled-for-a-generation-idUKKBN0HE0IN20140919">believes the 2014 referendum</a> settled the debate “for a generation.” Even a change of government is unlikely to matter, with the opposition Labour Party indicating that it too is <a href="https://www.thenational.scot/news/20268570.scottish-independence-keir-starmer-confirms-labour-reject-section-30-call/">not inclined to allow a second vote</a>.</p>
<p>It seems that when it comes to disentangling nations with a shared government, breaking up can be hard to do.</p>
<p>Yet, some advocates of Scottish independence point to an event that took place 30 years ago as an example of how such a divorce can be amicably managed and beneficial for all concerned: In January 1993, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia <a href="https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states/czechoslovakia#:%7E:text=Following%20the%20receipt%20of%20their,admitted%20to%20United%20Nations%20membership.">were welcomed into the United Nations</a> as separate states. </p>
<p>While it is tempting for some to look back to the Czech-Slovak split for <a href="https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/65544/">comforting lessons</a> <a href="https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2013/may/headline_278765_en.html">over the</a> <a href="https://www.economicsobservatory.com/scottish-independence-what-lessons-from-the-break-up-of-czechoslovakia">long-run consequences</a> of Scottish independence, as <a href="https://www.drake.edu/polsci/facultystaff/kieranwilliams/">a scholar who has studied the politics of Central Europe</a>, I’m mindful of two things: It wasn’t entirely smooth, and the circumstances were not all that comparable to Scotland’s situation today.</p>
<h2>Better apart?</h2>
<p>Combined at the end of the First World War, the two national identities that made up Czechoslovakia were papered over under Communist rule and burst into the open with the <a href="https://time.com/5730106/velvet-revolution-history/">return of democracy in 1989</a>. </p>
<p>This came to a head with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-067X(93)90004-B">elections in the summer of 1992</a>. The decision to terminate the union was rooted in an aversion among leaders of the largest Czech and Slovak parties to sharing power – and a vision of post-Communist economic reform – in a coalition government. The Czech side, which had been <a href="https://kdwilliams7.medium.com/the-czech-legislatures-secret-session-on-the-breakup-of-czechoslovakia-90a64e612899">secretly</a> thinking through what uncoupling would entail, had no appetite for Slovak proposals of a loose confederation and insisted on a cleaner break.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A black and white photo show three women in a crowd clap hands and cheer." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503445/original/file-20230106-25-zrc6fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503445/original/file-20230106-25-zrc6fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503445/original/file-20230106-25-zrc6fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503445/original/file-20230106-25-zrc6fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503445/original/file-20230106-25-zrc6fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503445/original/file-20230106-25-zrc6fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503445/original/file-20230106-25-zrc6fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Demonstrators in Prague on June 18, 1992, the day before negotiations between Czech and Slovak politicians over a proposed split.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/CzechScotlandCzechoslovakiaBreakup/d1f4edd4954043f0a2f6e28f64fcddb4/photo?Query=slovakia%201993&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=5&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/David Brauchli</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the end, a chaotic vote in the federal parliament on Nov. 25, 1992, saw a slim majority <a href="https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/11/25/Federal-Parliament-votes-to-dissolve-Czechoslovakia/1607722667600/">in favor of dissolving the union</a> at the end of that year. But it was messy: The first two attempts failed, and the third attempt succeeded by just two or three votes (the votes cast and tallied did not add up). </p>
<p>Furthermore, the legislature did not have the expressed will of the people behind it – parties that months earlier had campaigned to preserve the union in some form acted without prior authorization or subsequent affirmation by a referendum. Thirty years later, <a href="https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/domaci/3554349-rozdeleni-ceskoslovenska-hodnoti-kladne-necela-polovina-cechu-mezi-slovaky-zastancu">polling</a> finds that very large majorities in both successor states wish a referendum had been held. Czechs still struggle to accept the end of federation, with a plurality of 48% regarding it negatively, while 62% of Slovaks say it was the right thing.</p>
<p>The lack of popular assent notwithstanding, the Czech-Slovak split is cited by <a href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18983787.independence-breaking-not-always-bitter/">advocates for Scottish independence</a> as a model that minimizes the risk of violence and economic disruption. </p>
<p>No doubt, the two new countries seem to have flourished. Both went on to become members of the European Union and the Schengen Area, which allows free movement across much of the continent. They also joined NATO and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Czech Republic is routinely ranked among the <a href="https://www.socialprogress.org/index/global/results">safest countries in the world with high scores</a> for quality of life. Its adjusted <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=EU-CZ&most_recent_value_desc=true">per capita gross domestic product</a> is now ahead of those of older EU member states such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, and closing in on Italy’s.</p>
<p>Slovakia had to overcome greater political turmoil and structural challenges. But since joining the EU in 2004 and the eurozone in 2009, it has matched or outpaced the Czech Republic in annual economic growth. Indeed, Slovakia has attracted so much investment by foreign automakers that it is now the world’s largest producer of cars relative to population – which <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/slovakia-population/">at around 5.5 million</a> is <a href="https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/population/">almost identical in size to Scotland’s</a>.</p>
<p>Even more so than the Czech Republic, Slovakia confirms that <a href="https://www.economicsobservatory.com/scottish-independence-how-do-other-small-economies-fare">small states</a> can find their way in the world.</p>
<p>As such, it is no wonder that <a href="https://www.thenational.scot/news/15200957.whas-like-us-former-partners-czech-republic-and-slovakia-are-flourishing-after-velvet-divorce/">some Scots conclude</a>, “If Slovakia can make a success of itself after the Velvet Divorce, surely Scotland can do so too.”</p>
<p>And Slovakia did so while remaining on cordial terms with the Czech Republic. Setbacks such as the recent Czech reimposition of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/czech-border-controls-blocking-migrants-route-germany-frustrate-slovakia-2022-11-10/">controls</a> on the border with Slovakia are minor compared with what we see in nearby regions that also fractured in the early 1990s - raging conflicts in the former Soviet Union and simmering tension in the former Yugoslavia.</p>
<h2>The velvet divorce</h2>
<p>Where the utility of Czechoslovakia as a precedent ends, however, is with the actual process of splitting up.</p>
<p>The appeal of the story of Czechoslovakia’s dissolution is that it seemed to be quick and easy as well as peaceful. In reality, it took years to finalize some issues, such as arrangements for citizens of one state to attend a university in the other and to acquire dual citizenship. Final settlement of the central bank’s balance took until November 1999 to sort out. </p>
<p>Most of the work of dividing assets was governed by a simple 2-to-1 principle that reflected the relative sizes of the Czech and Slovak populations. Liabilities, in the way of external debt, were dispatched on the same basis, and Czechoslovakia had little of it anyway.</p>
<p>The new international border was not agreed officially until 1996 but needed only minor adjustments. Being landlocked, the new states had no maritime issues to resolve. </p>
<p>For several reasons, it is hard to imagine such an amicable and swift grant of independence to Scotland from the rest of the U.K.</p>
<p>For starters, Edinburgh and London might never agree that the time had come to start discussing terms of divorce, in the way that Czech and Slovak leaders did in the summer of 1992. </p>
<p>Scotland’s first minister has said that the next U.K. general election, due to be held before the end of 2024, will be <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63742281">treated as a “de facto referendum</a>.”</p>
<p>The Scottish National Party might interpret a general election result as a mandate to leave, but unionist parties might see it otherwise and refuse to come to the table. Any push towards independence in the face of opposition from the U.K. government could lead to an impasse akin to that between <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/25/is-catalonia-still-dreaming-of-independence-from-spain">Catalonia</a> and the Spanish government.</p>
<p>Even if talks did somehow get underway, there is no simple rule to hand like the 2-to-1 ratio for Czechoslovakia’s partition. That applied to a process of ending a country, whereas the U.K. would seek to carry on with its remaining parts.</p>
<p>Instead, there would be hard bargaining on every major issue – trade, labor, pensions, currency and banking, debt, citizenship, defense, and borders – including claims to the dwindling tax receipts from <a href="https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insight/scottish-independence-implications-for-the-north-sea-oil-and-gas-sector">North Sea oil and gas fields</a>.</p>
<p>In all likelihood, it would <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-022-00210-1">more closely resemble the United Kingdom’s choppy exit</a> from the European Union than Czechoslovakia’s division.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, Brexit itself presents another potential headache. Even if Scotland and the U.K. government were to reach agreement on the terms of any split, they might have to be reopened should an independent Scotland seek to join the E.U. – forcing it to choose between the single market of Europe and that of the rump U.K. </p>
<p>This is not to say that the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom could not be arrived at. But harking back to events of 30 years ago may not serve anyone’s interests, least of all Scotland’s – especially if the path of the referendum-free “velvet divorce” leaves lingering doubts about the legitimacy of the process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190393/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kieran Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite hopes of a second referendum on independence being dashed, many Scottish nationalists look to Slovakia as an example of how a small nation can stand on its own.Kieran Williams, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1958062022-12-02T05:12:55Z2022-12-02T05:12:55ZThe government will not send out Yes and No case pamphlets ahead of the Voice to Parliament referendum. Does this matter?<p>The Albanese government <a href="https://ministers.ag.gov.au/media-centre/next-steps-towards-voice-referendum-01-12-2022">proposes</a> to ditch the “Yes/No” case pamphlets that are ordinarily posted to voters before a referendum. Is this a good idea, and what, if anything, should replace it?</p>
<h2>What changes are proposed?</h2>
<p>Under the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rpa1984353/s11.html">existing law</a>, after a proposed constitutional amendment is passed by parliament, a majority of MPs who voted for it may prepare a written Yes case of up to 2,000 words. If any members voted against it in parliament, they can prepare the official No case. </p>
<p>Before the referendum, the electoral commissioner sends a pamphlet in the mail to every voter. This includes the Yes case and the No case (if one has been provided) as well as a copy of the proposed changes to be made to the Constitution. This is the only official information given to voters to help them decide how to vote in the referendum.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth government is currently prohibited from otherwise spending money on the presentation of arguments for or against a referendum proposal. </p>
<p>In its <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6965">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</a>, the Albanese government intends to “disapply” the relevant section so it ceases to operate until the next general election. The effect would be that there would be no official Yes/No case distributed to voters for any referendum held in this term of parliament, and no legal restriction on government spending on the referendum campaign.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/creating-a-constitutional-voice-the-words-that-could-change-australia-187972">Creating a constitutional Voice – the words that could change Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is the point of the Yes/No case?</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498645/original/file-20221202-19-xmkv40.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498645/original/file-20221202-19-xmkv40.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=809&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498645/original/file-20221202-19-xmkv40.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=809&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498645/original/file-20221202-19-xmkv40.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=809&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498645/original/file-20221202-19-xmkv40.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1017&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498645/original/file-20221202-19-xmkv40.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1017&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/498645/original/file-20221202-19-xmkv40.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1017&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attorney-General Billy Hughes had a rather naive idea of how the Yes/No case pamphlets might be used.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Australian War Memorial</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Yes/No case pamphlet was first required by a law enacted <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1912A00035">in 1912</a>. It was introduced due to a concern that the previous referendum had failed because the voters were inadequately informed. </p>
<p>Opposition Leader Alfred Deakin, who had opposed the previous referendum, was nonetheless supportive of introducing better public education on referendums. He <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=HANSARD80;id=hansard80%2Fhansardr80%2F1912-12-16%2F0057;orderBy=_fragment_number,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80%20Decade%3A%221910s%22%20Year%3A%221912%22%20Month%3A%2212%22%20Day%3A%2216%22;rec=0;resCount=Default">argued</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is our duty, when we ask the electors to vote for or against momentous proposals of this kind, to give them the best material we have in order that they may form an independent judgment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The attorney-general of the day, Billy Hughes, had a rather naïve expectation of how the Yes/No case would be used. He <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=HANSARD80;id=hansard80%2Fhansardr80%2F1912-12-16%2F0055;orderBy=_fragment_number,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80%20Decade%3A%221910s%22%20Year%3A%221912%22%20Month%3A%2212%22%20Day%3A%2216%22;rec=0;resCount=Default">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Honourable Members may put their case before the public, provided that it is put in an impersonal, reasonable, and judicial way. There is to be no imputation of motives. In short, the argument is to be one which appeals to the reason rather than to the emotions and party sentiments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not how things have turned out. In fact, the Yes/No case, because it is prepared by political partisans, is often misleading and emotive, particularly on the No side. </p>
<h2>The No case and the aviation referendum</h2>
<p>A good example is the 1937 referendum on giving the Commonwealth parliament power to legislate on aviation. When the Constitution was first being written, the Wright brothers had not yet flown a plane. So there was nothing in it about making laws to govern aviation in Australia. </p>
<p>The consequence was that federal laws applied to flights in and out of Australia and some interstate flights, but not to planes flying within a state. This was inefficient and potentially dangerous, so a referendum was held to give the Commonwealth full power over aviation in 1937. Despite it logically being the type of thing that should be dealt with on a national basis, the referendum was lost. </p>
<p>The No case had <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/230795282">argued</a> the expansion of aviation would compete with and ruin the state railway systems. It would make railway workers unemployed and bankrupt country towns. The price of food would sky-rocket, because the cost of freight would be higher and the finances of every state government would be endangered. </p>
<p>These claims were highly exaggerated and had nothing to do with whether the Commonwealth or the states should regulate aviation. But it was enough to make some people worried and so vote No. </p>
<p>It is, of course, difficult to attribute referendum outcomes to the inflammatory and misleading content of the Yes/No cases, as most people don’t read them. But some will, and the official nature of the document will give its contents greater credence than they deserve. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/changing-the-australian-constitution-is-not-easy-but-we-need-to-stop-thinking-its-impossible-183626">Changing the Australian Constitution is not easy. But we need to stop thinking it's impossible</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Referendum pamphlets in New South Wales</h2>
<p>In contrast, in New South Wales the practice has been to have public servants, not politicians, write the pamphlet that is sent to voters prior to a referendum. The public servants are required to do so in a factually accurate and impartial manner. Before publishing the pamphlet, they send it to acknowledged experts for vetting to ensure it is accurate and a fair explanation of the issues. </p>
<p>The success rate of New South Wales referendums is much higher than that at the Commonwealth level. If you count state-wide referendums to amend the New South Wales Constitution where voters were given a binary Yes/No choice, then the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Constitution_of_New_South_Wales/KayCZfZwafwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Twomey+Constitution+New+South+Wales+success+rate+constitutional+referenda&pg=PA320&printsec=frontcover">success rate is 85%</a>. This can be compared with the Commonwealth success rate of 18%. While other factors will also have been in play, providing voters with informative and accurate material rather than inflammatory and misleading material is likely to have helped at the state level.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h_ZWBCDiS78?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>What replaces the Yes/No case?</h2>
<p>While the Yes/No case in its current form has not proved the reasonable and informative tool that was intended by Hughes, a question remains as to what should replace it. If there is no officially sanctioned information, then this just leaves open a free-for-all on social media with even more misleading material circulating. There surely needs to be at least one source of authoritative information to which people can turn.</p>
<p>The government has said it proposes to fund educational campaigns to promote voters’ understanding of referendums and the referendum proposal. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus <a href="https://ministers.ag.gov.au/media-centre/next-steps-towards-voice-referendum-01-12-2022">has stated</a> the bill will “enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation”. </p>
<p>The difficulty facing the government will be working out how this can be done in a way that maintains public confidence and is not seen to be partisan in nature. </p>
<p>The intention behind this change is a worthy one. The Yes/No case has long been recognised as a failed experiment. But the successful execution of the government’s educative proposals will be difficult and need great care.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195806/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and been a consultant to Parliaments, Governments and inter-governmental bodies. She is a director of Constitution Education Fund Australia (CEFA) which engages in constitutional education initiatives. It is possible that CEFA or its materials might be used in any education campaign. Anne Twomey also has her own constitutional education YouTube channel, Constitutional Clarion.</span></em></p>The Yes/No case has long been flawed and the government is right to dispense with it. But it will need to replace it with something else to counter misinformation – and do so with great care.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1955522022-11-30T02:59:29Z2022-11-30T02:59:29ZCould the Nationals’ refusal to support a Voice to Parliament derail the referendum?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498158/original/file-20221130-18-lp2hst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Nationals have declared they will support the No case for the Voice referendum. This position has not been endorsed by all the Nationals, with the Western Australian Nationals and federal MP Andrew Gee confirming their support for the Voice.</p>
<p>The Nationals’ move is unusual, as we do not know yet know what specific constitutional changes will be proposed by the referendum. It seems to be an “in principle” opposition to the general idea of the Voice, and it would appear to be largely driven by Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.</p>
<p>What is the significance of this early decision? And what does it say about the National Party and its relationship to the Liberal Party, which has yet to declare its position on this matter?</p>
<p>The National Party is an independent party that forms a coalition with the Liberal Party. When the two parties are in government together, they would normally agree on policy matters.</p>
<p>In opposition, the Nationals are much freer to diverge from the Liberals on policy. This would seem to be an issue on which they are seeking to assert their independence.</p>
<p>Of course, support by a major political party for a particular case in a referendum matters, because so few referendums have been successful (8 out of 44). It is generally acknowledged that a referendum requires bipartisan support if it is to succeed. This move could be seen as a sort of preemptive strike to bury the referendum.</p>
<p>The reason why it is extremely difficult for a referendum to be successful is because of the double majority; this means both an overall majority of voters and a majority of voters in a majority of states (that is, at least four).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-insists-voice-will-help-close-the-gap-as-divisions-flare-in-nationals-195564">Albanese insists Voice will help 'close the gap', as divisions flare in Nationals</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There have been <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia">cases in the past</a> where a constitutional amendment received a majority of the votes but majorities in only three, and in one case two, states. This meant it failed. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1597706567658639360"}"></div></p>
<p>Referendums are more likely to succeed if they do not have a major impact on the majority of the people voting for them. The major exception to this rule was the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000rp02">1946 social services referendum</a> that has had an enormous impact, allowing, for example, Commonwealth intervention in educational matters.</p>
<p>The 1967 referendum, when Australians voted 90% in favour of changing the Constitution to allow Aboriginal people to be counted in the census and the government to make decisions for them, falls into this pattern. It did not directly affect most Australians, but was overwhelmingly successful because most people believe it to be the right thing to do.</p>
<p>The referendum that attracted the next highest approval rating was the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1977/1976bd082">1977 referendum</a> that made High Court judges retire at 70. It attracted 80% of the popular vote, thereby embedding a form of age discrimination into the Constitution.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/Papers_on_Parliament_68/The_Defeated_1967_Nexus_Referendum">1967 parliament referendum</a> on breaking the “nexus” between the size of the House of Representatives and the Senate indicates how difficult getting a referendum up is, even with bipartisan support. The Constitution states that the size of the Senate should be half that of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>It had been mooted by Robert Menzies in the early 1960s, but ended up being put to the people by the Holt government in 1967. By this stage, the Country Party (which later changed its name to the National Party) Federal Council had decided the referendum was unnecessary. But as a member of the ruling coalition, the Country Party <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2018.1517591">fell into line</a> supporting the Yes case, with perhaps diminished enthusiasm.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/changing-the-australian-constitution-is-not-easy-but-we-need-to-stop-thinking-its-impossible-183626">Changing the Australian Constitution is not easy. But we need to stop thinking it's impossible</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Despite massive support from both the government and the opposition, there was a campaign against the change led largely by the Democratic Labor Party and several dissident Liberal and Country Party members. This small group ran an effective populist campaign based on the need to contain costs and stop an increase in the number of politicians.</p>
<p>The referendum failed miserably, only achieving a majority in New South Wales.</p>
<p>The 1967 Parliament referendum indicates the effect that even a small amount of dissidence in the political class can have on the outcome of a referendum. Initially, the Country Party had supported this referendum, then changed its mind as political circumstances changed.</p>
<p>Moreover, the outcome of the referendum indicates how vulnerable any Yes case is to a strongly argued and populist No case.</p>
<p>All referendums in Australia face considerable obstacles because of the double majority. Significant opposition, especially if it can appeal to populist instincts in the Australian population, can easily derail a Yes case.</p>
<p>The crucial factor in the Voice referendum may not be so much that the National Party has come out in opposition to it, but that that opposition has found a passionate voice in Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. She will no doubt run a strong a No case campaign. </p>
<p>Will this cause problems for the Liberal-Nationals relationship? As they are in opposition the relationship is not as close as it would be if they were in government. Certainly, there are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-how-will-the-constitution-change-and-what-will-australians-be-asked-to-vote-on">strong supporters</a> of the Voice in the Liberal Party such as Julian Leeser. But he may well have his work cut out countering Price.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195552/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Melleuish receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>It is hard to say how big an influence the Nationals’ stance may have – but history shows us the Yes case in referendums is easily defeated.Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1914322022-09-28T09:34:03Z2022-09-28T09:34:03ZUkraine war: west condemns ‘sham’ referendums in Russian-occupied areas<p>Polls <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-voting-annexation/32053737.html">have closed</a> in four Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine after four days of voting in referendums on their future status. Predictably, the results showed “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-annexation-votes-end-amid-russian-mobilisation-exodus-2022-09-26/">overwhelming support</a>” for joining Russia.</p>
<p>Tass, Russia’s state-owned news agency, <a href="https://tass.com/politics/1514213">has reported</a> that early counting has revealed more than 97% of votes were cast in favour of the occupied regions joining the Russian Federation. </p>
<p>The very idea that people who lived under a hostile occupying power for months and in many cases were forced to participate in the vote have had a free choice, or that their choice mattered, is laughable even by Russian standards. </p>
<p>In 2014, Russia at least kept up some facade of a campaign in the equally illegal and shambolic <a href="https://theconversation.com/crimea-votes-to-secede-from-ukraine-as-eu-considers-sanctions-against-russia-24426">Crimean referendum</a>. This time, there were merely three days between the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/medvedev-says-moscow-backed-separatists-must-hold-referendums-join-russia-2022-09-20/">announcement</a> of the referendums on September 20 and their start on September 23. </p>
<p>The referendums <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63052207">violate</a> almost every conceivable democratic standard. Ballot boxes were reportedly <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63013356">carried</a> from house to house to force people to cast their votes. There was an <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63032705">intimidating</a> military presence in polling stations. No credible international observers were <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/27/europe/russia-ukraine-referendum-intl/index.html">monitoring</a> the vote in the occupied areas or in Russia or Crimea, where refugees from Ukraine have also been called upon to vote. </p>
<p>Given the <a href="https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-26">increasingly precarious situation</a> of Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine, the rush to cement a new status quo is understandable. In the Kremlin’s logic, once these territories have become part of Russia as a result of the referendums and an act of the Russian parliament – possibly as <a href="https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1574633113598283777/photo/1">early</a> as September 30 – they will enjoy Russia’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2022/sep/25/ukraine-annexed-territory-will-have-russia-protection-says-sergei-lavrov-video">full protection</a>”. </p>
<p>To drive home this point, Putin ordered a partial mobilisation and threatened nuclear strikes. The former Russian president and now deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, subsequently <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-warns-west-that-nuclear-threat-is-not-bluff-2022-09-27/">repeated</a> this warning. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-putin-calls-up-more-troops-and-threatens-nuclear-option-in-a-speech-which-ups-the-ante-but-shows-russias-weakness-191044">Ukraine war: Putin calls up more troops and threatens nuclear option in a speech which ups the ante but shows Russia's weakness</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But, like many times before in this disastrous war, it is hard to see what – if anything – Putin is likely to gain. Ukrainian military operations to liberate the Russian-occupied territories <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-fighting-mobilization-protests/32053755.html">continue</a>. Potential conscripts are <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/00ee8cef-446b-4042-9278-a7603965a698">fleeing Russia en masse</a> to neighbouring countries. In Russia itself, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63035427">protests</a> against mobilisation continue. </p>
<p>Countries otherwise considered relatively friendly with Russia, such as Kazakhstan, have <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-ukraine-referendums-recognize-russia/32052907.html">already announced</a> that they will not recognise the results of the illegal referendums. The <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-uk-sanctions-russians-referendums/32052857.html">UK</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/canada-impose-new-sanctions-russia-over-sham-referendums-ukraine-2022-09-28/">Canada</a> and the <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/eu-sanctions-russia-referendums/32054285.html">European Union</a>, meanwhile, are planning to put sanctions on individuals associated with organising them. </p>
<p>The United States is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-preparing-new-11-billion-arms-package-ukraine-us-officials-2022-09-27/">preparing</a> another military support package for Ukraine worth US$1.1 billion (£1.03bn). Nato has warned Russia in no uncertain terms of “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-warns-russia-severe-consequences-case-nuclear-strike-2022-09-27/">severe consequences</a>” in case of a nuclear strike.</p>
<h2>Putin’s strategic objectives</h2>
<p>Despite all of these predictable consequences, the Kremlin carries on regardless. And despite multiple setbacks, Putin is holding on to some of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-whats-really-behind-putins-deployment-of-peacekeeping-troops-experts-explain-177585">objectives</a> that have been at the centre of his invasion of Ukraine since its very start at the end of February 2022. </p>
<p>Once it became clear to Russia that the self-declared so-called people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk had lost their value of political leverage over Ukraine because Kyiv was <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-whats-really-behind-putins-deployment-of-peacekeeping-troops-experts-explain-177585">unwilling</a> to accept Moscow’s terms for a peace settlement in the east of the country, Putin opted for war to capture more of Ukraine’s territory. </p>
<p>This way, he was hoping to secure a durable land bridge to Crimea, potentially cutting off access to the Black Sea completely and <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-invasion-stage-two-of-russias-war-is-ringing-alarm-bells-in-nearby-moldova-heres-why-181813">connecting</a> Russian-occupied territory in Ukraine to the Russian-controlled breakaway of Transnistria in Moldova.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-invasion-stage-two-of-russias-war-is-ringing-alarm-bells-in-nearby-moldova-heres-why-181813">Ukraine invasion: 'stage two' of Russia's war is ringing alarm bells in nearby Moldova – here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There was always some degree of uncertainty over exactly how Russia’s well-established “<a href="https://www.ponarseurasia.org/the-changing-de-facto-state-playbook-from-opportunism-to-strategic-calculation/">de-facto state playbook</a>” would play out in Ukraine. But the installation of some form of <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukraine-how-putin-could-try-to-split-the-country-into-regional-puppet-governments-179214">Russian-controlled administration</a> in the occupied areas had always been part of that plan. </p>
<p>Moscow’s early withdrawal from Kyiv in April and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-surprise-counteroffensive-kharkiv-russia-land-east-rcna46805">now from Kharkiv</a> indicates where the Kremlin puts the strategic emphasis of the aggression – in the Donbas and the southeast of Ukraine. These are areas where Russia is still making modest advances and where Ukraine’s liberation of occupied territories is progressing much more slowly. </p>
<p>Putin and his generals may not have much manpower and material resources left, but they use them in areas that make, from a Russian perspective, the most strategic sense.</p>
<h2>Senseless human sacrifice</h2>
<p>Holding the referendums in the territories currently controlled by Russia, therefore, fits into a strategy to shore up domestic support for an increasingly unpopular war at home. If nothing else, defending Russian territory – however ludicrous a notion that is with reference to Ukraine – makes it legally possible for Putin to use not only the reservists being currently mobilised, but also new conscripts due to arrive in Russian army barracks in the coming weeks and months as part of Russia’s regular autumn conscription cycle.</p>
<p>What Putin may achieve, at huge cost, is that these likely poorly trained and equipped soldiers will hold on to some of the territories now claimed as Russian as a result of the referendums. They will, though, no more turn the tide in the war decisively in Moscow’s favour as the referendums will persuade the international community that Russia is engaged in anything but the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The results of the referendums will not be accepted by any significant international actor. Western military support for Ukraine will not diminish and sanctions against Russia will not soften. </p>
<p>But the danger of further escalation remains, and with it the ever-increasing human and material costs of this senseless Russian war.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191432/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefan Wolff receives funding from the United States Institute of Peace. He is a past recipient of grants from the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU's Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Senior Research Fellow of the Foreign Policy Centre in London and Co-Coordinator of the OSCE Network of Think Tanks and Academic Institutions.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tatyana Malyarenko receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Jean Monnet Programme of the European Union</span></em></p>The Kremlin claims 97% of votes counted are for the four occupied regions to join the Russian Federation.Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of BirminghamTetyana Malyarenko, Professor of International Relations, National University Odesa Law AcademyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1906352022-09-15T18:16:56Z2022-09-15T18:16:56ZDirect democracy can force governments to better represent the people – but it doesn’t always work out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484894/original/file-20220915-6106-dzavym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3994%2C2658&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade has led to a push for citizens initiatives to enshrine abortion rights.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/abortion-rights-activists-gather-during-a-restore-roe-rally-news-photo/1243016789?adppopup=true">Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In August 2022, a statewide referendum in Kansas saw citizens overwhelmingly <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/2022-live-primary-election-race-results/2022/08/02/1115317596/kansas-voters-abortion-legal-reject-constitutional-amendment">reject a plan to insert anti-abortion language</a> into the state’s constitution. It comes as a slew of similar votes on abortion rights are planned in the coming months – putting the issue directly to the people after the Supreme Court struck down the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.</p>
<p>But are referendums and citizens initiatives good for democracy? It may seem like an odd question to pose, especially at a time when many feel democracy is imperiled <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-americans-democracy-is-under-threat-opinion-poll-2022-09-01/">both in the U.S.</a> and <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_2022_PDF_Booklet_Digital_Final_Web.pdf">around the world</a>.</p>
<p>As someone who <a href="https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/susan-stokes">researches democracy</a>, I know the answer isn’t simple. It depends on the kind of initiative and the reason that it comes to be held.</p>
<p>First, some simple distinctions. <a href="https://uchicago.shinyapps.io/democracy-tools/_w_8dbdb816/#!/referendums">Referendums</a> and <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-process-101.aspx">citizens initiatives</a> are mechanisms of direct democracy – instances in which members of the public vote on issues that are commonly decided, in representative systems, by legislatures or governments. While with referendums it is typically the government that places questions on the ballot, with citizens initiatives – more <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/chart-of-the-initiative-states.aspx">common at the state level</a> in the U.S. – the vote originates outside of government, usually through petition drives.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://democracy.uchicago.edu">Chicago Center on Democracy</a>, which I lead at the University of Chicago, recently launched a <a href="https://uchicago.shinyapps.io/democracy-tools/">website</a> that tracks many of these direct democracy efforts over the past half-century.</p>
<h2>Appealing to the masses or settling scores</h2>
<p>That a majority of democracies retain some form of direct democracy is a testament to the legitimacy with which citizens’ voices are heard, even when, in fact, most decisions are made by our elected leaders. Often, national governments call referendums to bring important questions directly to its citizens. </p>
<p>But why would governments ever decide to turn a decision over to the people?</p>
<p>In some cases, they have no choice. Many countries, <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-faqs-about-australian-constitution">among them Australia</a>, require that constitutional amendments be approved in popular referendums.</p>
<p>In other instances, such votes are optional. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, was under no obligation to undertake a <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/eu-referendum/background-uk-eu-referendum-2016/">2016 referendum on continued EU membership</a>. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos had plenty of legislative support that same year to ratify peace accords with a rebel group through an act of congress. But he <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37537252">turned the decision over to the people</a>, instead.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman in a red coat holds to British Union flags one with 'Brexit' written on it" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484900/original/file-20220915-18-fzyk0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484900/original/file-20220915-18-fzyk0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484900/original/file-20220915-18-fzyk0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484900/original/file-20220915-18-fzyk0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484900/original/file-20220915-18-fzyk0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484900/original/file-20220915-18-fzyk0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484900/original/file-20220915-18-fzyk0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pushing a Brexit referendum backfired on then-Prime Minister David Cameron.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/pro-brexit-supporters-outside-stormont-in-belfast-as-the-uk-news-photo/1197857920?adppopup=true">Brian Lawless/PA Images via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One reason leaders voluntarily put important issues before voters is to solve disputes within their own political parties. The Brexit vote is a case in point. The U.K. Conservative Party was <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-road-to-brexit-how-euroscepticism-tore-the-conservative-party-apart-from-within-108846">deeply divided</a> over British membership in the EU, and – as Cameron later acknowledges in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/15/five-things-we-learned-from-david-cameron-memoir-boris-johnson-michael-gove-referendum">his memoirs</a> – his position as head of the party, and thus as prime minister, was increasingly threatened.</p>
<p>In these instances, the government is in effect using the people as a referee to decide an internal dispute. It is a high-risk move, though. For Cameron, going to the country meant the end of his premiership. And six years on, the U.K. is <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-problems-six-years-eu-referendum-b2107160.html">still dealing with the fallout</a> of that vote.</p>
<p>Sometimes leaders seek public support on issues about which they expect powerful opposition upon implementation. Colombia’s Santos expected resistance to the peace deal from opponents, including wealthy landed interests. He used the people as a kind of force field to protect the policy. But again, the strategy backfired. The Colombian accords were defeated, and have since faced <a href="https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/andes/colombia/060-shadow-no-peace-after-colombia-s-plebiscite">powerful resistance</a> when subsequent attempts were made to implement them through legislative approval.</p>
<p>But do these two high-profile instances illustrate fatal flaws in referendums, and direct democracy in general? Perhaps not.</p>
<p>Though <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/10/colombian-referendum-farc-guerrillas-brexit">plenty of disinformation circulated</a> before both votes, the results probably fairly accurately reflected the people’s preferences. Moreover, they illustrate the perils to political leaders of placing issues of crucial importance before voters – they can’t be sure they will like the results.</p>
<p>And when their referendums fail, they may set back causes that these politicians care about. For example, Brazil held a <a href="https://participedia.net/case/5553">referendum on gun control</a> in 2005. It failed, and later <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/08/bolsonaro-pro-gun-bill-policies-brazil-senate-vote-congress-cac/">pro-gun rights President Jair Bolsonaro</a> used its failure to try to loosen restrictions on firearms, claiming that the failure of the referendum allowed him to do so. </p>
<h2>Tool of demagogues</h2>
<p>Sometimes the prime minister or president does prevail. A kind of referendum was used in Australia in 2017 to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/nov/15/same-sex-marriage-survey-how-australia-voted-electorate-by-electorate">pressure the legislature into legalizing same-sex marriage</a>. Conservative politicians were willing to hold a vote, with the same kind of “referee logic” as in Brexit – they were opposed to same-sex marriage, but preferred to go along with the public’s will, rather than continue to fight over this internally divisive issue.</p>
<p>In the end, the pro-marriage equality prime minister opted for a “postal survey” rather than a formal referendum. And the gamble worked for Australia’s leader – a very large majority expressed support of same-sex marriage and the prime minister got his way.</p>
<p>For every Colombia-style debacle, in which a leader holds an optional referendum but fails, one can point to governments putting matters to a popular vote to produce a force field, and winning. The approval of the public can make policy immune to – or at least undermine – later opposition. Such was the case of same-sex marriage in Ireland, passed by referendum in 2015. The following year, Ireland settled the issue of abortion access, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/ireland-votes-by-landslide-to-legalise-abortion">overturning a ban by a two-thirds majority</a>.</p>
<p>Referendums are not only used by democratic leaders but also by autocrats and demagogues. Russian President Vladimir Putin put a series of constitutional reforms before voters in 2020, including <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/07/01/886440694/referendum-in-russia-passes-allowing-putin-to-remain-president-until-2036">one that overturned</a> Putin’s prior term limit in office.</p>
<p>Accusations of <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/07/03/data-scientist-claims-staggering-fraud-at-russias-constitution-vote-a70769">fraud and intimidation</a> followed the vote. The process could hardly have been more at odds with direct democracy and the autonomous expression of the people’s will.</p>
<h2>Getting policy to line up with people’s will</h2>
<p>There are no national referendums in the U.S. But American voters have a great deal of experience with initiatives at the state level – and with statewide referendums, as well. These votes have the potential to force governments to abide by the people’s will in cases where legislators may be resisting popular policies.</p>
<p>Yet problems can arise with these exercises in direct democracy. Even though they are presumably citizens initiatives, the <a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2020/11/citizens-ballot-initiative-should-belong-to-citizens-not-special-interests/">influence of political parties, special interests, lobbyists and big money</a> can turn them into something quite different, as was the experience of California in the 1990s – which in turn <a href="https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-initiative-process-100-years-old/">undermined the public’s satisfaction</a> in the initiative process.</p>
<p>But recently we have seen a spate of state initiatives that seem more promising – where majorities of citizens are demanding that their state legislatures bring policy more in line with public opinion. Florida voters <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida">approved ex-felon voting</a>; Arizona voters <a href="https://education.azgovernor.gov/edu/proposition-123-0">approved bigger budgets for public schools</a>; Missouri voters forced a reluctant legislature to <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/08/05/898899246/missouri-voters-approve-medicaid-expansion-despite-resistance-from-republican-le">expand Medicare in their state</a>. All of these initiatives were backed with popular public support.</p>
<p>Most recently, Kansans <a href="https://apnews.com/article/kansas-abortion-vote-recount-e874f56806a9d63b473b24580ad7ea0c">said “no,” in referendum</a>, to inserting pro-life language into their state´s constitution.</p>
<h2>‘Let the people decide!’</h2>
<p>The potential for mechanisms of direct democracy to improve citizen representation depends on the context in which they are held, including the manner in which they are placed on the ballot and the motives of those who placed them there.</p>
<p>At one extreme are autocrats like Putin who held votes that augment his power and the length of his term. At the other are citizens frustrated by legislators whose actions stray far from public opinion. In between are measures sponsored by governments that may want to insulate policies they care about with the help of the people’s backing, and parties that throw their hands up, in the context of internal divisions, and say, “Let the people decide.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190635/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Stokes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Referendums and citizens initiatives can be a popular way to push politicians to listen to the people – they can also be an exercise in propaganda.Susan Stokes, Professor of Political Science, University of ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1876902022-08-01T02:36:03Z2022-08-01T02:36:03ZFirst Newspoll since election gives Albanese ‘honeymoon’ ratings; Australia’s poor success rate at referendums<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476798/original/file-20220801-13716-prnz3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The first Newspoll since the May federal election, conducted July 27-30 from a sample of 1,508, gave Labor a 56-44 lead (52.1-47.9 to Labor at the election). Primary votes were 37% Labor (32.6% at election), 33% Coalition (35.7%), 12% Greens (12.2%), 6% One Nation (5.0%), 2% UAP (4.1%) and 10% for all Others (10.5%).</p>
<p>Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s satisfaction rating was 61% (up 20 since the final pre-election Newspoll) and his dissatisfaction rating was 26% (down 20). That gave Albanese a net approval of +35, up 40 points.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/07/31/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-open-thread/">Poll Bludger</a> said Albanese’s net approval is the highest for a PM since early in Malcolm Turnbull’s tenure after he <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Turnbull#:%7E:text=Two%20years%20later%2C%20citing%20consistently,prime%20minister%20the%20following%20day.">toppled Tony Abbott</a> in September 2015. Prior to Turnbull, Kevin Rudd in October 2009 was the last to exceed Albanese’s net approval.</p>
<p>Albanese has a higher “satisfied” rating than any other new PM after a change of government election. But Newspoll has changed its methods since Rudd was PM, resulting in a lower undecided vote on the PM’s ratings. Net approval should be used for comparison with past PMs.</p>
<p>Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s initial ratings were 41% dissatisfied, 37% satisfied (net -4). In comparing debut ratings for opposition leaders since 2006, The Poll Bludger said Dutton’s net approval was worse than all except Albanese, who had a -5 net approval in his first poll as opposition leader.</p>
<p>Albanese led Dutton by 59-25 as better PM, which The Poll Bludger says is the widest gap since early 2008 under Rudd. Now that we have a Labor PM, this measure will skew towards Albanese. Better PM skews to incumbents, not parties.</p>
<p>These ratings for Albanese are ‘honeymoon’ ratings that are likely to fade as more opposition builds to his agenda. High inflation is likely to damage Albanese and Labor if it persists.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/final-2022-election-results-coalition-routed-in-cities-and-in-western-australia-can-they-recover-in-2025-184755">Final 2022 election results: Coalition routed in cities and in Western Australia – can they recover in 2025?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Essential: should the Greens support Labor’s 43% emissions reduction target?</h2>
<p>In an <a href="https://essentialreport.com.au/reports/26-july-2022">Essential poll</a>, conducted in the days before July 26 from a sample of 1,082, 50% thought the Greens should vote for Labor’s policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030, 25% thought the Greens should only vote for Labor’s policy if Labor agrees to changes to bring it closer to Greens policy, and 25% said they did not want further action on climate change.</p>
<p>68% of those who voted Labor at the federal election wanted Labor’s current policy, while just 22% thought Labor should shift towards the Greens’ position. Among Greens voters, 52% thought Labor should shift while 40% did not.</p>
<p>Among the 75% who wanted further climate change action, 44% thought the 43% target is a sufficient contribution from Australia to limit the impact of climate change, while 40% thought more needs to be done.</p>
<p>Voters rated the new Labor government good at handling COVID by 36-27, education by 35-18 and climate change by 33-21. But Labor received a poor rating on cost of living (41-23 poor). </p>
<p>Well over 50% thought the federal government had a lot or a fair amount of influence over various economic issues, implying that voters will blame the government for a poor economy. Labor will hope inflation is under control and the economy is doing better by the 2025 election.</p>
<h2>Just eight of 44 constitutional referendums have succeeded</h2>
<p>Albanese has <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-31/what-is-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-and-uluru-statement/101285958">proposed a referendum</a> to recognise an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the Australian Constitution. Our constitution can only be changed by referendum, with a majority of the overall vote and a majority in a majority of the states (so four of the six states).</p>
<p>Just eight of the 44 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia">referendums proposed</a> since federation in 1901 have succeeded. Another five would have succeeded if only a simple popular vote majority had been required, but failed as at least three states were opposed. </p>
<p>The last constitutional referendums were in 1999, when a referendum on becoming a republic failed. The last successful referendums were in 1977, which required the replacement of a casual Senate vacancy with someone from the same party.</p>
<p>Australia has also had four non-constitutional referendums (plebiscites), where the law could have been altered by legislation alone but a public vote was desired. The successful same-sex marriage plebiscite in 2017 was the most recent. </p>
<p>The other three plebiscites were two narrowly defeated conscription plebiscites in the First World War and the plebiscite that chose Advance Australia Fair as our national song in 1977.</p>
<p>The one previous occasion in which a referendum on Indigenous rights was proposed resulted in a record “Yes” vote of over 90% at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Australian_referendum_(Aboriginals)">1967 referendum</a>. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey">same-sex marriage plebiscite</a> had a 61.6% Yes vote nationally, easily winning in every state.</p>
<p>Previous referendums have mostly involved proposals to reform our system of government. It’s likely the high failure rate is because voters take the attitude that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Partisan politics is also a factor, and if the Coalition opposes the Voice, the chance of a successful referendum drops.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187690/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The latest Newspoll show Albanese’s net approval ratings are the highest for a prime minister since early in Malcolm Turnbull’s tenure.Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist), The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1864782022-07-11T14:32:27Z2022-07-11T14:32:27ZA referendum on electoral reform in South Africa might stir up trouble<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472956/original/file-20220707-16-psr2t9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Voters in Johannesburg queue to vote in South Africa's May 2019 national elections. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA/Kim Ludbrook</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After 28 years of democracy, South Africa is having to reform its political party-based electoral system to make it fairer and in line with the constitution, by allowing independent candidates to <a href="https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/12746">contest national and provincial parliaments</a>. A <a href="https://www.parliament.gov.za/bill/2300397">bill</a> to amend the country’s electoral law accordingly is before parliament.</p>
<p>The present electoral system has underpinned the governing African National Congresses’ (<a href="https://www.anc1912.org.za/">ANC</a>’s) <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-african-voters-are-disillusioned-but-they-havent-found-an-alternative-to-the-anc-171239">dominance of the political system since 1994</a>, not least by making individual MPs accountable to party bosses rather than the voters. This lack of accountability has facilitated the <a href="https://www.thepresidency.gov.za/speeches/statement-president-cyril-ramaphosa-handover-final-part-state-capture-commission-report%2C-union-buildings%2C-pretoria">stunning level of corruption</a> in the country.</p>
<p>Now there are calls for a <a href="https://www.news24.com/citypress/voices/standing-up-to-defend-our-democracy-is-the-only-option-20220702">national referendum</a> on the electoral system to define the way forward, and liberate it from the clutches of party barons. The intention seems to be to give the decision to “the people” rather than to parliament, which is the ordinary way for legislative change to be enacted.</p>
<p>But, this proposal would need to be handled carefully. </p>
<p>Referendums can be easily abused. Politicians often resort to them to avoid responsibility for making a difficult political decision, or to secure backing for a controversial policy and thus beat an opponent.</p>
<p>Examples abound.</p>
<p>British Labour prime minister Harold Wilson’s <a href="https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/britain-decides-the-first-european-referendum/">1975
referendum</a> on whether Britain should stay in the European common market was an example of the first. South African president FW de Klerk’s <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/1992-whites-only-referendum-or-against-negotiated-constitution">1992 referendum</a> among whites to secure backing for entering negotiations with the ANC to end apartheid – thereby scuppering the opposition <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Conservative-Party-political-party-South-Africa">Conservative Party</a> – was an example of the second.</p>
<p>Both Wilson and De Klerk received the answer they wanted and
expected. But politicians can also miscalculate badly. The most obvious example is British Conservative <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-Cameron">prime minister David Cameron</a>’s decision to call a referendum <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-five-years-after-the-referendum-here-are-five-things-weve-learned-162974">in 2016</a> on whether the UK should stay in the European Union.</p>
<p>He fully expected to win, but in the face of a scurrilous campaign by populist politicians like <a href="https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/boris-johnson-exit-is-beginning-end-brexit-2022-07-07/">Boris Johnson</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/13/nigel-farage-hard-right-faction-brexit-net-zero-tory">Nigel Farage</a>, he lost. Today Britain is having to live with the consequences of Brexit: increased costs of imports from Europe, lower exports to Europe, constant supply chain problems, labour shortages and huge difficulties around Northern Ireland.</p>
<h2>Lessons to be drawn</h2>
<p>Britain’s history with referendums is worth noting. South Africa does not want to go the same way. Lessons need to be drawn from these and other examples around the world. </p>
<p>Care and rules are needed for how any referendum, on any question,
would be conducted. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Who would devise the question put to the electorate? Are they independent, or are they subordinated to the interests of particular politicians?</p></li>
<li><p>Are the questions posed neutrally phrased, or do they deliberately or otherwise point their respondents in a particular direction?</p></li>
<li><p>Would the government of the day be bound by the result of a referendum, or would it be advisory?</p></li>
<li><p>Would a government accept a result endorsed by a 50.1% majority,
or would it require a “special majority”, of say 55%, to pass?</p></li>
<li><p>What rules would have to be followed during a campaign, and how would the media be required to conduct themselves? </p></li>
<li><p>What sanctions would be imposed to limit the subversion of the campaign by lies by both sides of the electoral debate? </p></li>
<li><p>Would there be any rule outlawing a repeat of the referendum within any given period of time?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Without careful regulation, a referendum can be predisposed to securing a particular answer. Yet it is ostensibly designed to deepen democracy, not to subvert it.</p>
<h2>Proportionality</h2>
<p>Electoral systems can be highly complex. The great virtue of South Africa’s proportional representation <a href="https://hsf.org.za/publications/hsf-briefs/the-south-african-electoral-system">electoral system</a> is that it is simple. The voter has two votes, one for national level, one for provincial level. These votes contribute to the proportionate vote of the chosen party.</p>
<p>It is rather more difficult to explain to voters how <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272466990_The_Case_of_Lesotho's_Mixed_Member_Proportional_System">mixed member systems</a> ensure proportionality of party representation. These systems combine <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/first-past-the-post-voting-explained/">first-past-the-post</a> constituency elections with proportional representation. </p>
<p>This poses the issue of how members of parliament who are elected by constituencies would be balanced by those elected by <a href="https://www.eisa.org/wep/sou3.htm">proportional representation</a> to ensure an election result which, as the <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/saconstitution-web-eng.pdf">constitution</a> requires, is overall, proportional. In other words, what proportion of MPs would be elected by constituencies as against those elected by proportional representation?</p>
<p>These complexities and other considerations suggest a way forward if much-needed electoral reform, beyond that presently ordered by the Constitutional Court, is to be achieved in South Africa.</p>
<p>The first step must be for the ANC to be pushed well below 50% in the <a href="https://www.eisa.org/wep/southafrica.htm">2024 election</a>. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. The ANC is unlikely to hold a referendum which might lead to far-reaching electoral reform.</p>
<p>It is unlikely that the ANC will vote for radical electoral reform unless it is hard pushed to do so. It is at present working hard to <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africa-is-in-search-of-a-fairer-electoral-system-but-whats-been-tabled-is-flawed-184277">minimise the impact</a> of allowing independent candidates to stand in elections, as required by a ruling of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-court-ruling-heralds-changes-to-south-africas-electoral-system-140668">Constitutional Court</a>.</p>
<p>Second, there needs to be a binding commitment by opposition parties to electoral reform and how to bring it about. Presuming that the ANC receives <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2022/05/20/jeff-radebe-warns-anc-could-get-below-50-of-votes-at-2024-national-elections">well below 50%</a> in the 2024 election, this commitment must be a condition of any coalition agreement formed between political parties forming a government.</p>
<p>Third, there should be a repeat of the 2003 <a href="https://static.pmg.org.za/docs/Van-Zyl-Slabbert-Commission-on-Electoral-Reform-Report-2003.pdf">Van Zyl Slabbert Commission</a> to consider electoral alternatives. Such a commission should be composed in such a way to earn the trust of both politicians and voters.</p>
<p>Its deliberations need not take much time, as the commission has already discussed the fundamental principles involved. It also ran a survey which – rather than asking respondents directly what electoral system they favoured – asked them what values they wanted an electoral system to express, values like fairness, equality and accountability.</p>
<p>Fourth, the recommendations of such a commission would need to be
accepted and implemented by parliament. This is where any coalition
agreement should kick in. Perhaps such a coalition agreement might
require that, in the event of a serious disagreement about electoral reform, the matter should be referred to the Constitutional Court.</p>
<h2>What issues should the people decide?</h2>
<p>This leaves open the issue of whether, following the approval or
defeat of a bill to implement electoral reform, the outcome should be
referred to the electorate in a referendum.</p>
<p>It needs to be clear as to why, if parliament has made a decision, the
matter should be referred to a referendum. Perhaps it should. Perhaps this would be a way of making South Africa’s democracy more direct, and its politicians more accountable.</p>
<p>But if the form of an electoral system can be referred to the electorate in a referendum, why not capital punishment? And why not abortion? Or LGBTIQ rights? </p>
<p>Care is needed. A referendum may well have a place in the country’s
democracy, but beware – it may release a host of problems.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186478/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger Southall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Referenda may well have a place in the country’s democracy, but if the form of an electoral system can be referred to a referendum, why not capital punishment, abortion or LGBT rights?Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1836262022-05-27T02:11:17Z2022-05-27T02:11:17ZChanging the Australian Constitution is not easy. But we need to stop thinking it’s impossible<p>Supporters of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament have celebrated the commitment of the new Albanese government to put the issue to a referendum. But is government support enough? </p>
<p>It’s a start, but the road to referendum success is a hard one, as it was always meant to be.</p>
<h2>The Constitution was meant to be hard to change</h2>
<p>When the Constitution was being written in the 1890s, the initial expectation was that it would be enacted by the British and they would control the enactment of any changes to it, just as they did for Canada. </p>
<p>But the drafters of the Commonwealth Constitution bucked the system by insisting they wanted the power to change the Constitution themselves. They chose the then quite radical method of a referendum, which they borrowed from the Swiss. </p>
<p>While it was radical, because it let the people decide, it was also seen as a <a href="https://adc.library.usyd.edu.au/view?docId=ozlit/xml-main-texts/fed0043.xml&chunk.id=&toc.id=&database=&collection=&brand=default">conservative mechanism</a>. British constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey described the referendum as “the <a href="https://archive.org/details/nationalreview2318unse/page/64/mode/2up">people’s veto</a>”, because it allowed the “weight of the nation’s common sense” and inertia to block “the fanaticism of reformers”. </p>
<p>The drafters of the Commonwealth Constitution were divided on the issue. Some supported the referendum because it would operate to defeat over-hasty, partisan or ill-considered changes. Others were concerned that change was hard enough already, and voters would have a natural tendency to vote “No” in a referendum because there are always objections and risks that can be raised about any proposal. Fear of the new almost always trumps dissatisfaction with the current system, because people do not want to risk making things worse. </p>
<p>In this sense, the referendum is conservative – not in a party-political sense, but because it favours conserving the status quo.</p>
<p>Another concern, raised by Sir Samuel Griffith, was that constitutions are complex, and a large proportion of voters would not be sufficiently acquainted with the Australian Constitution to vote for its change in an informed way. He favoured using a United States-style of constitutional convention to make changes. </p>
<p>The democrats eventually won and the referendum was chosen. But to satisfy their opponents, they added extra hurdles. To succeed, a referendum has to be <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coacac627/s128.html">approved</a> not only by a majority of voters overall, but also by majorities in a majority of states (currently four out of six states). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-indigenous-voice-must-be-enshrined-in-our-constitution-heres-why-153635">An Indigenous 'Voice' must be enshrined in our Constitution. Here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A Constitution frozen in time</h2>
<p>The predictions were right. The referendum at the federal level has indeed turned out to be the “people’s veto”. Of 44 referendum questions put to the people, only <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/referendum_dates_and_results.htm">eight have passed</a>. No successful Commonwealth referendum has been held since 1977. We have not held a Commonwealth referendum at all since 1999. </p>
<p>There are many <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rp/2002-03/03rp11.pdf">suggested reasons</a> for this. Some argue that the people have correctly exercised their veto against reforms that were proposed for party-political advantage or to unbalance the federal system by expanding Commonwealth power. If reforms are put because they are in the interests of the politicians, rather than the people, they will fail. </p>
<p>Questions asked in referendums have been poorly formulated and often load too many issues into the one proposed reform. If a voter objects to just one aspect of a proposal, they then vote down the entire reform.</p>
<p>Another argument is that, as Griffith anticipated, the people know little about the Constitution and are not willing to approve changes to it if they are unsure. The mantra “<a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_referendum_reports_statistics/yes_no_pamphlet.pdf">Don’t know – Vote No</a>” was extremely effective during the republic campaign in 1999. </p>
<p>Of course, if you don’t know, you should find out. But the failure to provide proper civics education in schools means most people don’t feel they have an adequate grounding to embark on making that assessment. </p>
<p>Decades of <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/better-civic-education-will-help-australians-respond-in-challenging-times/">neglect of civics</a> has left us with a population that is insufficiently equipped to fulfil its constitutional role of updating the Constitution.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465242/original/file-20220525-20-1ebbwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465242/original/file-20220525-20-1ebbwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465242/original/file-20220525-20-1ebbwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465242/original/file-20220525-20-1ebbwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465242/original/file-20220525-20-1ebbwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465242/original/file-20220525-20-1ebbwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465242/original/file-20220525-20-1ebbwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If people have the slightest uncertainty about what they are saying ‘yes’ to, they will inevitably say ‘no’ – something the republic referendum suffered from in 1999.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rob Griffith/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Vulnerability to scare campaigns</h2>
<p>The biggest threat to a successful referendum is the running of a “No” campaign by a major political party, or one or more states, or even a well-funded business or community group. </p>
<p>Scare campaigns are effective even if there is little or no truth behind them. It is enough to plant doubt in the minds of voters to get them to vote “No”. Voters are reluctant to entrench changes in the Constitution if they might have unintended consequences or be interpreted differently in the future, because they know how hard it will be to fix any mistake.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465249/original/file-20220525-22-a5fyt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465249/original/file-20220525-22-a5fyt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=844&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465249/original/file-20220525-22-a5fyt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=844&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465249/original/file-20220525-22-a5fyt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=844&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465249/original/file-20220525-22-a5fyt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1061&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465249/original/file-20220525-22-a5fyt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1061&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465249/original/file-20220525-22-a5fyt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1061&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 1967 referendum was one of the few that were successful.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Gallery of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If a referendum campaign ends up focused on technical issues about the future operation or interpretation of particular amendments, then it is likely lost. </p>
<p>Campaigns tend to be more successful if they focus on principles or outcomes, such as the 1967 referendum concerning Aboriginal people. That referendum had the advantage of not being opposed in the Commonwealth parliament. The consequence was that there was only a <a href="https://www.naa.gov.au/learn/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/first-australians/rights-and-freedoms/argument-favour-proposed-constitution-alteration-aboriginals-1967#:%7E:text=In%20the%201967%20referendum%2C%20no,recorded%20in%20a%20federal%20referendum.">“Yes” case</a> distributed to voters, as a “No” case can only be produced by MPs who oppose the referendum bill in parliament. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/right-wrongs-write-yes-what-was-the-1967-referendum-all-about-76512">‘Right wrongs, write Yes’: what was the 1967 referendum all about?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Overcoming the malaise</h2>
<p>While recognising these difficulties, perhaps the greatest risk is becoming <a href="https://www.auspublaw.org/2018/12/getting-to-yes-why-our-approach-to-winning-referendums-needs-a-rethink/">hostage</a> to the belief the Constitution cannot be changed and referendums will always fail. It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. </p>
<p>Instead, we need to face constitutional reform as being difficult but achievable and worthwhile. The Constitution should always serve the needs of today’s Australians, rather than the people of the 1890s. </p>
<p>The key elements for success include a widespread will for change, the drive and persistence of proponents, good leadership, sound well-considered proposals and building a broad cross-party consensus. Not every element is necessary, but all are helpful.</p>
<p>As incoming Indigenous Affairs Minister <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/linda-burney:-%E2%80%9Cwe-need-consensus-on-a-referendum/13895144">Linda Burney</a> recently noted, there is still a lot of work to be done in building that consensus in relation to Indigenous constitutional recognition, but the work has commenced.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183626/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental bodies. She is also a Director of Constitution Education Fund Australia which is concerned with trying to improve civics teaching in schools. </span></em></p>Of 44 referendums put to the Australian people since federation, only eight have passed – but those championing a First Nations Voice to Parliament need not be deterred.Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1781452022-03-08T19:02:54Z2022-03-08T19:02:54ZLetting the people decide: should Australia hold more referendums?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449956/original/file-20220304-13-r1d35g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Darren Pateman</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last month the mayors of Queensland’s two biggest cities <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/queensland/pressure-mounts-for-daylight-saving-referendum-30-years-on-from-last-poll-20220222-p59ym7.html">proposed</a> a referendum on reintroducing daylight saving in the Sunshine State. </p>
<p>South Australians, meanwhile, have recently heard calls for popular votes on <a href="https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/08/27/parliament-leaves-shopping-hours-referendum-on-shelf/">retail trading hours</a> and <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/hanson-endorses-possible-sa-plebiscite-for-recreational-cannabis-use/video/6926d8a3b0f6e3150a12c5380ceda76f">recreational cannabis</a>.</p>
<p>In our system, politicians pass laws and make decisions, but sometimes they first gauge public opinion by holding an advisory policy referendum or “plebiscite”. Most people think of these as rare events. The 2017 same-sex marriage survey was just the <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=HANDBOOK;id=handbook%2Fnewhandbook%2F2017-06-21%2F0045;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fnewhandbook%2F2017-06-21%2F0045%22">fourth</a> national policy referendum in more than a century, compared to over 40 referendums on constitutional amendments. </p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/sydney-law-school/research/publications/slrv44n1mar2022kildeaadvance.pdf">new research</a> shows policy referendums have been far more frequent at the state and territory level. This rich and largely forgotten history fills out our understanding of Australian democracy. It also demonstrates the enduring appeal of giving the public a direct say on contentious issues. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-65218">Explainer: the same-sex marriage plebiscite</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Alcohol, daylight saving and other controversies</h2>
<p>Australia’s states and two mainland territories have together held 56 referendums since 1901. About a dozen of these have put forward proposals for constitutional amendment. The remainder have concerned policy questions.</p>
<p>New South Wales has made most use of the referendum, having put 16 proposals, followed by Western Australia with 12. The Northern Territory’s 1998 poll on statehood remains its only one. Victoria has been least enthusiastic in recent times – its last referendum, on hotel closing hours, was in 1956.</p>
<p>About a third of all state and territory referendums have been about alcohol policy. The topic of hotel closing hours appeared frequently on ballot papers in the early 20th century. During the first world war, voters in three states backed 6pm closing at licensed premises. This choice proved consequential, giving rise to the infamous “six o’clock swill”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449736/original/file-20220303-19-1m4z1a7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449736/original/file-20220303-19-1m4z1a7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449736/original/file-20220303-19-1m4z1a7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449736/original/file-20220303-19-1m4z1a7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449736/original/file-20220303-19-1m4z1a7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449736/original/file-20220303-19-1m4z1a7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449736/original/file-20220303-19-1m4z1a7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The move to close pubs at 6pm gave rise to the ‘six o'clock swill’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.museumoflost.com/six-oclock-swill/">Museum of Lost Things</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some governments have asked voters about prohibition. In 1928, residents of the Federal Capital Territory (now the ACT) were asked if they wanted to allow the private sale of alcohol. The territory had been “dry” since its creation in 1911, prompting many to dash across the border to Queanbeyan to quench their thirst. </p>
<p>On polling day, a majority of electors voted to end prohibition. The timing could not have been better for the nation’s federal politicians, who just a year earlier had begun sitting in Canberra. </p>
<p>In more recent times, daylight saving has been put to voters more than any other issue. By the 1970s, many states had experience with daylight saving but the question was whether people wanted to keep it. Around 70% of electors voted ‘Yes’ to this in New South Wales (1976) and South Australia (1982). </p>
<p>Public support was never tested in Victoria and Tasmania. These states opted to keep daylight saving without holding a referendum.</p>
<p>But daylight saving has proved hugely divisive elsewhere. A 1992 Queensland referendum revealed a stark urban-rural divide on the issue. More than 60% of residents in the south-east of the state voted “Yes”, but opposition in regional and rural areas was enough to defeat it. </p>
<p>On the other side of the continent, Western Australian governments have asked voters about daylight saving four times, most recently in 2009. On each occasion the answer has been a decisive “No”. </p>
<p>State and territory electors have also voted on the teaching of scripture in schools, the location of a hydro-electricity dam on Tasmania’s Gordon River, and self-government for the ACT. More often than not, these polls have attracted significant media attention and been fiercely contested. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449739/original/file-20220303-4451-1uju433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449739/original/file-20220303-4451-1uju433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449739/original/file-20220303-4451-1uju433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449739/original/file-20220303-4451-1uju433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449739/original/file-20220303-4451-1uju433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449739/original/file-20220303-4451-1uju433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449739/original/file-20220303-4451-1uju433.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This year marks the 30th anniversary of Queensland’s failed 1992 referendum on daylight saving.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>High success rate</h2>
<p>In Australia, a lot of commentary on federal referendums is about how difficult it is to pass them. Voter have approved just eight of 44 proposals (or 18%) for constitutional amendment. This has led <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/735383">some</a> <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2526530">commentators</a> to say Australians are naturally inclined to vote “No”.</p>
<p>The history of state and territory referendums challenges this notion. Referendums held by state and territory governments enjoy a much higher success rate. </p>
<p>Of the 41 state/territory referendums that have asked voters a Yes/No question, 19 (or 46%) have been carried. The success rate varies across policy and constitutional polls. About a third of policy referendums have passed, while voters have approved an impressive three-quarters of constitutional proposals.</p>
<p>The reasons for the different federal and state/territory success rates are complex and remain to be fully explored. But the sub-national referendum record bucks the conventional wisdom, showing that Australians are indeed willing to vote “Yes”.</p>
<p>This is worth keeping in mind as we consider the prospects of future federal referendums, including a possible vote on a First Nations Voice.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-australia-ready-for-another-republic-referendum-these-consensus-models-could-work-142646">Is Australia ready for another republic referendum? These consensus models could work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>When should we hold policy referendums?</h2>
<p>Given Australia’s long track record of using policy referendums, should we be holding more of them? </p>
<p>Australians are generally in favour of the idea. In <a href="https://academic.oup.com/pa/article-abstract/74/4/911/5890700">research</a> conducted for the Australian Constitutional Values Survey (<a href="https://news.griffith.edu.au/topics/australian-constitutional-values-survey/">ACVS</a>) in 2017, <a href="https://www.griffith.edu.au/griffith-business-school/departments/government-international-relations/contact-us/aj-brown">my</a> <a href="https://staff-profiles.cqu.edu.au/home/view/24803">colleagues</a> and I found more than 80% of respondents gave “in principle” support for direct democracy.</p>
<p>And referendums, when run well, can strengthen our democracy. They can provide opportunities for public deliberation on tough issues, give people a sense of contribution, and build trust and engagement.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449740/original/file-20220303-17-4dyscx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449740/original/file-20220303-17-4dyscx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449740/original/file-20220303-17-4dyscx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449740/original/file-20220303-17-4dyscx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449740/original/file-20220303-17-4dyscx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449740/original/file-20220303-17-4dyscx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449740/original/file-20220303-17-4dyscx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Popular wisdom has it that Australians mostly vote ‘no’ on referendums. But research shows many have succeeded, including, most recently, the vote on marriage equality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joe Castro/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But referendums are not suitable for all issues. The question is where we should draw the line. Four years after the marriage survey, this is a big philosophical question that remains unresolved.</p>
<p>Governments have held advisory polls on alcohol, daylight saving and same-sex marriage, so why not also on COVID rules, the date of Australia Day or – as Pauline Hanson has <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1138">proposed</a> – on immigration levels?</p>
<p>The case for a policy referendum is arguably stronger when the proposal concerns basic governing arrangements – think statehood or some electoral laws – or contentious social issues. It will be weaker when the proposal is highly technical or could endanger minority rights. </p>
<p>The ACVS suggests people’s attitudes towards direct democracy align with this approach to some degree. Respondents favoured a popular vote on some social issues (such as voluntary euthanasia) but preferred to leave more technical matters (such as emissions targets) to parliament.</p>
<p>We might also reason that policy referendums are best reserved for those issues that genuinely divide the parliament, or the parties, to the point of stalemate. This was arguably the case with same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>Basic principles are helpful, but it is not possible to be definitive about the circumstances in which policy referendums should or should not be held. It will always be a case-by-case judgment.</p>
<p>With that in mind, we could do more to promote debate about when policy referendums should be held. Currently the decision rests entirely with politicians, who tend to favour them only in narrow circumstances. </p>
<p>Parliaments in all jurisdictions could establish processes for individuals and groups to propose referendums on certain issues. Special committees could be tasked with considering these proposals and reporting back. A more radical idea would be to enable citizens to directly initiate referendums by gathering a certain number of signatures from voters.</p>
<p>In any event, there is scope for us to think more creatively about how we integrate policy referendums into our representative politics. And, as the state and territory record shows, this would build on a rich democratic practice that stretches back more than a century.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Kildea has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>The federal government rarely holds policy referendums. But research shows they are more common in the states and territories, and voters are more amenable to them than politicians might believe.Paul Kildea, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1500732020-11-16T02:25:42Z2020-11-16T02:25:42ZThe numbers suggest the campaign for cannabis reform in NZ will outlive the generations that voted against it<p>Reactions to the result of the <a href="https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2020/referendums-results.html">cannabis referendum</a> were highly polarised. Some argued the majority verdict must be accepted. Others pointed to the narrow margin — 50.7% to 48.4% — as evidence that the issue is still alive politically.</p>
<p>The government, however, has seemingly signalled a desire to move on. Before the announcement of the special vote count that narrowed the election night margin considerably, the then justice minister, Andrew Little, <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/123253543/referendum-result-cannabis-legalisation-abandoned-by-government-greens-wont-concede-defeat">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The electorate has spoken, they are uncomfortable with greater legalisation and […] decriminalisation of recreational cannabis. The New Zealand electorate is not ready for that, and I think we have to respect that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern <a href="https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/cannabis-referendum-new-zealanders-decide-and-they-have-jacinda-ardern-says">echoed</a> those sentiments:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When it comes to a referendum, a majority is a majority and so it hasn’t tipped the balance in terms of what we as a government will do. We gave our commitment to New Zealanders if it won the majority, we would progress legislation. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the short term, such judgments are understandable. Legalising recreational cannabis use is not an issue a government might need on its policy agenda right now. But in the medium to long term, the wisdom of pushing the matter aside is questionable.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1324529007992340481"}"></div></p>
<h2>The age factor</h2>
<p>Referendums are crude devices and the idea of a “New Zealand electorate” that has collectively spoken is simplistic.</p>
<p>In reality, the electorate is made up of individuals with opinions on cannabis that are far more complex than voting yes or no could adequately express. In particular, the <a href="https://www.referendums.govt.nz/cannabis/index.html">referendum question</a> did not allow a decriminalisation option. There is no basis for interpreting the result as ruling that out.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-reducing-harm-to-society-is-the-goal-a-cost-benefit-analysis-shows-cannabis-prohibition-has-failed-145688">If reducing harm to society is the goal, a cost-benefit analysis shows cannabis prohibition has failed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As with the vote on Brexit in Britain, which the <a href="https://time.com/4381878/brexit-generation-gap-older-younger-voters/">old strongly supported</a> and the young strongly opposed, New Zealand’s cannabis referendum results were defined by age. </p>
<p>Post-election survey data provided by <a href="https://voxpoplabs.com/about/">Vox Pop Labs</a> for <a href="https://votecompass.tvnz.co.nz/">Vote Compass</a> suggest a majority of those over 50 voted against legalisation. A majority of those under 50 voted for it.</p>
<p>Given the narrowness of the margin, assuming preferences remain roughly the same by age and these data are reasonably accurate, it will not be long before generational replacement within the electorate produces a majority for legalisation and control.</p>
<p><iframe id="JYjSn" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/JYjSn/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Calls for a second vote</h2>
<p>Nor do referendums necessarily produce outcomes that are permanently binding. In 1993, New Zealanders voted for MMP, but there was a second (also successful) MMP referendum in 2011 — to “<a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2982044/First-MMP-referendum-in-2011">kick the tyres</a>”, as the then prime minister, John Key, put it.</p>
<p>The Brexit vote was also close, and there was a strong campaign for a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-labour-referendum/uks-labour-says-it-will-back-call-for-second-brexit-referendum-idUSKCN1QE25U">second referendum</a> once the full implications of Britain withdrawing from the European Union became more apparent than they had been at the time of voting.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-new-parliament-turns-red-final-2020-election-results-at-a-glance-147757">New Zealand's new parliament turns red: final 2020 election results at a glance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A second referendum would likely have reversed the outcome, as more young people would have entered the electorate while many older people would have died in the interim.</p>
<p>The poor quality of debate and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-referendum-lies-boris-johnson-leave-campaign-remain-a8466751.html">widely publicised lies</a> leading up to the decisive vote also fuelled demands for a second Brexit referendum.</p>
<p>The cannabis debate never descended to Brexit levels, although there were <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cannabis-referendum/123239460/did-misinformation-sway-cannabis-referendum-votes">accusations</a> the anti-legalisation camp used misinformation to support its cause. But there was also another contentious referendum topic (assisted dying), not to mention a general election, consuming media attention and crowding out informed debate.</p>
<h2>Another chance for change</h2>
<p>As well, the campaign in favour of change was ill-organised and ineffective, if not naive. The proposed legislation involved two concepts: legalisation and control. The most important of these was control, but the issue in many people’s minds came down to legalisation of what they believed to be a harmful and dangerous drug.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-law-gives-nz-police-discretion-not-to-prosecute-drug-users-but-to-offer-addiction-support-instead-122323">New law gives NZ police discretion not to prosecute drug users, but to offer addiction support instead</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Such a belief can only have been based on two implicit assumptions: that the existing law is effective in reducing harm and damage, and legalisation would increase the odds of harm and damage.</p>
<p>Neither of those assumptions has any basis in <a href="https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/cannabis/">evidence</a>. The real debate should have been about controlling various aspects of existing use: criminality, strength of product, age thresholds, taxation and health education.</p>
<p>Given that another referendum in the not-too-distant future could well have a different outcome, there are good reasons to continue the campaign for change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150073/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jack Vowles receives funding from Victoria University of Wellington and the New Zealand Electoral Commission. He acted as an academic advisor during the preparation and administration of Vote Compass 2020.</span></em></p>Like Brexit in the UK, cannabis reform in New Zealand fell into an age gap — given time, a second referendum would probably succeed.Jack Vowles, Professor of Political Science, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1456882020-09-07T20:12:21Z2020-09-07T20:12:21ZIf reducing harm to society is the goal, a cost-benefit analysis shows cannabis prohibition has failed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356698/original/file-20200907-20-1ooje0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C4%2C2972%2C2039&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The case for a referendum on New Zealand’s cannabis law was already urgent in 2015 when the supposedly more pressing issue was whether we should <a href="https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/flags-of-new-zealand/flag-referenda">change the flag</a>. As I <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11539001">argued</a> at the time, prohibition had failed and was costing society far more than the drug itself.</p>
<p>As with alcohol, tobacco, prostitution and gambling, regulation – not prohibition – seemed the smarter way forward. Nothing has changed as the cannabis legalisation and control <a href="https://www.referendums.govt.nz/cannabis/index.html?">referendum</a> looms on October 17. If anything, the evidence from five wasted decades of war on cannabis is even more compelling.</p>
<p>First, tens of thousands of New Zealand lives have been disproportionately damaged – not through use of the drug, but because of its criminalisation.</p>
<p>According to figures released under the Official Information Act, between 1975 and 2019, 12,978 people spent <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1209/Appendix_Two_-_C120817.pdf?1599450513">time in jail</a> for cannabis-related convictions (using and/or dealing). In the same period, 62,777 were given <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1210/Appendix_One_-_C120817.pdf?1599450825">community-based sentences</a> for cannabis-related convictions.</p>
<p>These statistics have not been evenly distributed. Māori are <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1177083X.2020.1760897">more likely</a> to be convicted on cannabis charges, even accounting for higher rates of use. </p>
<p>Each conviction represented real or potential harm to job prospects, ability to travel, educational and other forms of social opportunity.</p>
<h2>Despite the law, cannabis use increases</h2>
<p>Second, despite these penalties and the millions of hours of police time spent enforcing the law, demand remains stronger than ever. Mirroring international trends (an <a href="https://wdr.unodc.org/wdr2020/en/exsum.html">estimated</a> 192 million people used cannabis in 2018, making it the most used drug globally), the number of people using cannabis in New Zealand is increasing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cannabis-use-after-work-doesnt-affect-productivity-new-research-144780">Cannabis use after work doesn’t affect productivity – new research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The most recent statistics suggest <a href="https://minhealthnz.shinyapps.io/nz-health-survey-2018-19-annual-data-explorer/_w_6e397eab/#!/explore-topics">15% of people</a> used it at least once in the past year – nearly double the 8% recorded in 2011-12. The rate for those between 15 and 24 could be closer to 29% (nearly double the 15% in 2011-12).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2020.1750435">Research</a> suggests most New Zealanders (about 80%) born in the 1970s have used cannabis at least once. Despite the hype, propaganda and fear, such widespread use has not sent the nation spinning of control.</p>
<p>This is not a universal rule. For a minority (perhaps 4% to 10% of all users), there is a risk of developing a dependence that impairs their psychological, social and/or occupational functioning. Again, Maori suffer <a href="https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_155808738/Wai%202575%2C%20B030.pdf">disproportionately</a> in this area.</p>
<p>Despite these risks, overall the damage of cannabis is far <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/we-took-a-scientific-look-at-whether-weed-or-alcohol-is-worse-for-you-and-there-appears-to-be-a-a8056186.html">less</a> (for both individuals and wider society) than for legal drugs such as <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/alcohol-factsheets.pdf">alcohol</a> and <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/addictions/smoking/health-effects-smoking#:%7E:text=Smoking%20kills&text=Around%205000%20people%20die%20each,That's%2013%20people%20a%20day.">tobacco</a>.</p>
<h2>Black markets only work for criminals</h2>
<p>Third, criminals have thrived on the illegality of cannabis. The median price of an ounce fluctuates between <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395920300694">$350 and $400</a>. With such attractive profit margins for an illegal product, a black market is inevitable.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cannabis-high-potency-strains-linked-to-greater-chance-of-anxiety-new-research-139614">Cannabis: high potency strains linked to greater chance of anxiety – new research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In turn, the quality and safety of the product are not regulated, the market is not controlled (children become customers), and no tax is earned from the profits. The spill-over crime rate increases as gangs or cartels seek to monopolise business and expand their territory.</p>
<p>The referendum now offers the <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-12/Cannabis%20Legalisation%20and%20Control%20Bill.pdf">Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill</a> as a solution to these problems. If it became law the current situation would change in several significant ways:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>access to cannabis for those aged 20 or over would be restricted to a personal supply (two plants) or purchase of 14 grams per day at a set potency level</p></li>
<li><p>sale would be through licensed premises selling quality-controlled product from licensed producers</p></li>
<li><p>standardised health warnings would be mandatory</p></li>
<li><p>advertising would be strictly controlled</p></li>
<li><p>cannabis could not be consumed in a public place</p></li>
<li><p>selling to someone under 20 would risk four years in jail or a fine of up to $150,000</p></li>
<li><p>cannabis sales would be taxed</p></li>
<li><p>money would be available for public education campaigns to raise awareness of potential harm and promote responsible use.</p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/economics-of-legalising-cannabis-pricing-and-policing-are-crucial-119914">Economics of legalising cannabis – pricing and policing are crucial</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some <a href="https://nzier.org.nz/publication/nzs-cannabis-referendum-2020-some-facts-and-recommendations-about-the-process-of-cannabis-legalisation-nzier-public-discussion-paper-20201">estimates</a> put the potential tax take as high as NZ$490 million per year. There are also optimistic arguments that criminality and harm associated with the drug will drastically reduce, if not be eliminated altogether.</p>
<p>But these outcomes will depend on the price and quality of the product, the effectiveness of policing the non-compliant, and providing the right help to those who need it.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1300621470238797824"}"></div></p>
<h2>There is no perfect solution</h2>
<p>While <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/legal-marijuana-medical-use-crime-rate-plummets-us-study">overseas evidence</a> suggests legalisation reduces many of the peripheral crimes associated with the illegal supply of cannabis, this tends to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666903">turn on</a> the types of crimes examined and the nature of the black market. </p>
<p>New Zealand conditions <a href="https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj18/cannabis-black-market18-pages31-43.html">may differ</a>. These caveats suggest it is overly simplistic to believe that regulation of recreational cannabis will lead to a happy utopia down under. There will always be harm and there will undoubtedly be teething problems if the new law goes ahead.</p>
<p>But that is not the question being asked on October 17. What voters have to answer is this: does regulation offer a better pathway than prohibition when it comes to reducing harm in our society?</p>
<p>Five decades of failure would suggest one of those options offers more hope than the other.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145688/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Around 75,000 New Zealanders have been sentenced for a cannabis-related offence since 1975. With the drug more popular than ever, is it time we let the evidence guide our decisions?Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of WaikatoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1098472019-01-18T09:45:32Z2019-01-18T09:45:32ZFrance: in response to ‘gilets jaunes’ protests, Emmanuel Macron turns to watered-down populism<p>The violence of France’s “<em>gilets jaunes</em>” (yellow vests) protests highlights the <a href="https://theconversation.com/gilets-jaunes-contre-emmanuel-macron-aux-racines-de-lincommunication-108048">profound crisis of communication</a> that has been brewing in the country over several decades. Now, in an effort to appease the protestors, the government of President Emmanuel Macron has launched a “<a href="https://www.gouvernement.fr/le-grand-debat-national">grand débat national</a>” – a two month informal national consultation with the French people on a way to alleviate the anger that led to the protests.</p>
<p>Since 2009, when OpinionWay developed a political trust barometer for the CEVIPOF Reference Centre for Political Science, it’s been clear that a vast majority of the French population believe that governments take little or no notice of their problems. In the <a href="https://www.liberation.fr/france/2019/01/11/enquete-cevipof-flambee-de-defiance-contre-les-institutions-politiques_1702319">latest version of the survey</a> from December 2018, the number rose to 85% after a slight dip to 83% at the end of 2017.</p>
<p>This sentiment has been emphatically expressed at every French election in the last 30 years through a steady rise in protest votes and abstentionism. It also helps to explain the results of the 2017 election: with his moderate brand of anti-establishmentarianism, Macron was elected by the French people as a kind of last-chance promise that they would finally be listened to.</p>
<p>Macron’s campaign was designed to elicit hope for a revitalised political process. His oft-repeated axiom, <a href="https://theconversation.com/et-en-meme-temps-une-pensee-macronnienne-de-la-complexite-77917">“on the other hand”</a>, implied the construction of a calming platform of consensus, above and beyond the <a href="https://theconversation.com/emmanuel-macron-la-parenthese-des-enchantee-85656">fruitless and counterproductive left-right divide</a>.</p>
<p>At a time of great distrust in mainstream political parties, this was undoubtedly a politically savvy and ultimately successful electoral strategy. But on a deeper level, the future president was already signalling a clear intention to establish a direct relationship with citizens, via a kind of watered-down populism aimed at winning over both those wanting to overturn the status quo and more moderates.</p>
<h2>Contradiction at the heart of Macronism</h2>
<p>The first 18 months of Macron’s term in office perfectly illustrated the <a href="https://theconversation.com/le-macronisme-ou-la-privatisation-du-politique-102376">contradiction lying at the heart of Macronism</a>. While happy to pour fuel on the populist fire, the government contented itself with worn-out representative institutions, incapable of empowering citizens to appropriate political action. </p>
<p>Macron’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/emmanuel-macron-est-il-un-president-anormal-85376">imperious manner</a> demonstrated a desire to re-establish a strong presidential image, one of a leader capable of rising above the noise of the media to guide the nation with a firm hand over the rocky seas of a changing world. At the same time, Macron clearly liked mixing with the French people, greeting them, touching them and talking to them frankly and directly.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-NxtTzsKZvM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Behind this contradictory posture – a mix of the haughtiness of Charles De Gaulle and the warmth of Jacques Chirac – is a government intent on rushing through a series of reforms and a parlimentary majority that’s largely ineffectual. Both are locked within the cumbersome framework of a dehumanised, technocratic structure, inherently deaf to the social innovation of civil society.</p>
<p>But he who lives by populism dies by populism. By insisting on an initiative for <a href="https://theconversation.com/referendums-assemblees-citoyennes-des-propositions-a-ne-pas-sous-estimer-108927">citizens’ referendums</a> as their ultimate demand, the most radicalised and visible <em>gilets jaunes</em> have clearly demonstrated that Macron’s veneer of populism will no longer do. The entire representative model of democracy is now being radically challenged, right down to its foundations.</p>
<h2>The erosion of the electoral pact</h2>
<p>As I’m exploring in my own research, there are deep structural problems with France’s political system. There has been a drastic decline of third-sector organisations. Trade unions have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/les-syndicats-en-france-poids-representativite-et-declin-93296">undermined as negotiators</a>, non-governmental organisations are seen as unable to spark and spread social change. Media outlets are regularly disparaged, overwhelmed by the profusion of unfiltered information and opinions on social networks, and no longer deemed capable of prioritising and making sense of the news. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HPriOvcG_go?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Political parties, who once developed ideologies and acted as a liaison between civil society and the government, are now paralysed by the “presidentialisation” of French government. For his part, Macron has made little effort to transform his party, the République En Marche, into a bona fide organisation. </p>
<p>Other problems arise from the institutions themselves. The heavy weight of the presidency in the parliamentary system, reinforced by five-year terms and concurrent presidential and general elections, has damaged the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government. France’s National Assembly, now an echo chamber for government decisions directed by the president’s office, has lost all ability to effectively relay the feedback of those affected by decisions to those making the decisions. </p>
<h2>An approach tainted by convenient populism</h2>
<p>Given the severe breakdown in political communication and the ineffectiveness of the bodies designed to mediate between governments and those governed, the government’s response to the <em>gilets jaunes</em> is puzzling. First, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/debat-la-foule-nest-pas-le-peuple-108487">intense focus on the movement is unusual</a> given the relatively small number of protestors. As early as December, many trade union leaders expressed their consternation at the state of a democracy in which the protestors obtained <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46513189">initial concessions</a> with such ease, while deliberately refusing to respect the rules regarding protests and never numbering more than a few hundred thousand.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7LbcoDdNc_w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The new national debate – potentially followed by a referendum on a range of questions – is just as surprising. It’s difficult to see the point in rehashing the debates that preceded the 2017 elections outside of the established institutional frameworks, when it appears impossible to change certain aspects of the programme on which the government was elected.</p>
<p>There is a high risk that the debate could generate more frustration than satisfaction among citizens, and from representatives who will be deprived of their role as intermediaries. All of this creates great uncertainty regarding the outcome of the planned referendum, which may be seen as a de facto test of popularity for Macron.</p>
<p>Tainted with convenient populism, the government’s approach raises questions about its real intentions. If its objective is to preserve the representative political system, the first step should be extensive rehabilitation to improve its form, the way it operates on a daily basis and its modes of communication.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/transports/gilets-jaunes/themes-organisation-le-mode-d-emploi-du-grand-debat-national-promis-par-emmanuelmacron-aux-gilets-jaunes_3135039.html">informal national debate lasting all of two months</a>, touching on policy measures and institutional issues, appears unlikely to meet this imperative. Especially amid a crisis where there is a dearth of communication and all sides are already talking at cross purposes.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Translated from the French by Alice Heathwood for <a href="http://www.fastforword.fr/en/">Fast For Word</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109847/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Isabelle Mathieu ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>It’s unlikely that a two-month informal national debate will solve France’s crisis of political communication.Isabelle Mathieu, Ingénieur de recherche, Sciences Information et Communication, associée à Cimeos, Université de Bourgogne, Auteurs historiques The Conversation FranceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1094552019-01-09T12:57:46Z2019-01-09T12:57:46ZA referendum on land reform in South Africa? Brexit suggests not<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252806/original/file-20190108-32124-1mum8kb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Brexit fallout shows why referenda shouldn't be considered lightly. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are many valid reasons for calling for a deepening of democracy in South Africa, despite the fact that it has <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-electoral-body-has-its-work-cut-out-to-ensure-legitimate-2019-poll-103643">regular free elections</a> and constitutional mechanisms designed to promote public participation in lawmaking. </p>
<p>The major flaw in its system of government is often said to be the manner in which the electoral system - uninhibited open list <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/proportional-representation">proportional representation</a> - has shaped its party system. </p>
<p>The usual complaint is that individual members of parliament or provincial legislatures are <a href="https://hsf.org.za/publications/focus/focus-72-democracy-and-its-discontents/is-south-africa2019s-electoral-system-in-urgent-need-of-change-g-solik">accountable to party bosses</a>, rather than to the electors. Accordingly, there are often demands that the electoral system should be <a href="https://www.thesouthafrican.com/mosiuoa-lekota-south-africa-private-members-bill/">reformed</a> via the introduction of constituencies. In that way, public representatives would need to be sensitive to the concerns of constituents, as well as to the demands of those above them in the party hierarchy. </p>
<p>But the call for electoral reform has constantly stalled, largely because list system proportional representation has guaranteed the ANC - which has governed the country since 1994 - majorities at national and most provincial levels. Thus, it is not in the party’s interests to change the system.</p>
<p>One danger of this is that there may be a populist call for the introduction of referenda. For instance, if down the road, the Constitutional Court was to rule that any proposed amendment to the constitution regarding the expropriation of land without compensation was unconstitutional, there might be a demand that the issue be put directly to the people. And, there are many within the governing ANC who might agree.</p>
<p>Superficially, the idea might have its attractions. Why should the Constitutional Court be entitled to frustrate the popular will? The answer is that, although referenda may have their place in the toolbox of democracy, (as in <a href="https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/referendum/">California</a>, where referenda concerning a variety of matters are regularly put to voters at elections), they can be easily misused (as was proved emphatically by <a href="https://www.conversion-uplift.co.uk/brexit-referendum-and-democracy/">fascist dictators in Europe</a> in the 1930s). However, we need to look no further than <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887">Brexit</a> for an example of where a referendum has been arrogantly and thoughtlessly entered into with alarming consequences.</p>
<h2>Brexit: a referendum for all the wrong reasons</h2>
<p>Britain has got into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-this-brexit-debacle-shows-us-about-the-uks-broken-political-system-108650">Brexit mess</a> because of a longstanding division about membership of the European Union (EU) within the ruling Conservative Party. Then Prime Minister David Cameron made the fateful decision in 2016 to hold a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33141819">national referendum</a> on continuing membership of the EU, on the presumption that a “Yes” vote would win, and that this would silence his right wing for a generation.</p>
<p>His plan went terribly wrong. For a host of reasons, the electorate chose to give the political establishment a bloody nose <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887">by voting “No”</a>, albeit narrowly: some 52% of those who voted, voted to leave the EU, 48% to stay.</p>
<p>Humiliated, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/david-cameron-resigns-after-uk-votes-to-leave-european-union">Cameron resigned</a>: Theresa May took over as PM and committed to negotiating Britain’s exit. Fatefully, she held an election to strengthen her hand, but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/dec/12/tory-mps-trigger-vote-of-no-confidence-in-may-amid-brexit-uncertainty-politics-live">lost her majority in parliament</a>. After two years, the chickens are coming home to roost. </p>
<p>It’s not inconceivable that she will be able to edge the deal she has negotiated for Britain to leave the EU through parliament. However, most observers reckon that parliament will reject it, as it pleases neither the majority of “leavers” nor “remainers”. In which case, Britain is approaching a constitutional crisis.</p>
<p>One way out of the crisis, apparently gaining momentum, is for parliament to vote for the holding of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-referendum/opposition-uk-lawmakers-call-for-second-brexit-referendum-preparations-idUSKBN1OA1OR">another referendum</a>. The justification put forward is that now the British people have had two years to gain a greater understanding of the consequences of leaving the EU, and that realistic options (no deal, May’s deal, further negotiation or stay within the EU) are now on the table, they should be entitled to decide.</p>
<p>However, if parliament opts for another referendum, it will have to do so over May’s head. She routinely calls the 2016 referendum</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the greatest exercise in democracy in British history.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>She insists that the referundum’s result must be honoured – despite the fact that domestically and internationally there is widespread opinion and evidence that Britain’s decision to leave the EU has turned out to be a terrible mistake.</p>
<h2>Lessons for South Africa</h2>
<p>There are four lessons South Africans can learn from the Brexit fiasco. </p>
<p>One, resort to referenda on highly contentious issues is as likely to deepen political polarisation as to resolve it.</p>
<p>Two, if referenda are to become part of a country’s democratic machinery, it is vital that their constitutional status is established prior to their use. In Britain, the constitutional status of referenda has never been established.</p>
<p>Britain calls itself a parliamentary democracy. But resort to referenda implies that popular sovereignty must trump parliamentary democracy. However, because Britain does not have a written constitution, it does not have a Constitutional Court to resolve the matter.</p>
<p>Three, it is vital to establish the rules for the game before referenda are used. In Britain, successive governments have failed to establish what sort of issues may be put to a referendum. Likewise, there has been a failure to consider whether referenda results should be determined by absolute majorities or requisite majorities. Should fundamental constitutional changes be effected with the support of just 50.1% of those who vote for them?</p>
<p>Fourth, should the results of referenda be considered final? What happens if it appears that voters want to change their minds? Would a repeat referendum be a negation (the overturning of a democratic result) or a reassertion of democracy (a going back to the people)?</p>
<p>All this implies that referenda should not be lightly entered to without careful consideration. South African are often frustrated by their politicians and might like to overrule them. Indeed, there is probably a popular majority for such issues as <a href="https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/2007771/south-africans-call-for-return-of-the-death-penalty/">bringing back capital punishment</a>, despite the Constitutional Court having ruled the latter <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/sa-constitutional-court-abolishes-death-penalty">unconstitutional </a>.</p>
<p>Referenda could have their place under South Africa’s constitution, but only if they deepen constitutional democracy, and don’t undermine it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109455/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger Southall has received funding from the National Research Foundation</span></em></p>Referenda have their place in democracy, but can also be misused.Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1073932018-11-26T13:38:30Z2018-11-26T13:38:30ZOnly a referendum on Theresa May’s Brexit deal can end deadlock in parliament – what the options should be<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247249/original/file-20181126-140522-1862116.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Tubi/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Now that EU leaders have <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-deal-sealed-in-brussels-believe-it-or-not-that-was-the-easy-bit-107582">signed off the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement</a>, Theresa May faces a huge struggle to get parliament’s approval for it. At a time where the country never seemed so divided, the prime minister <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/10/theresa-may-s-incompetence-has-united-tory-brexiteers-and-remainers-against-her">managed to unite most MPs</a> against her plans. Westminster is at a stand-off. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/22/mps-pile-on-from-all-sides-to-trash-mays-brexit-non-deal-deal">revolt is growing</a> from all sides the longer it continues, ahead of a vote in mid-December.</p>
<p>If parliament’s Brexit deadlock continues, the public should now decide whether to accept May’s deal or remain in the European Union. But a second referendum must be treated with great care. Divisions over Brexit and mutual suspicions are high. Any such decision must command confidence from all sides if only to ensure finality in the result. </p>
<p>As someone who <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/192075/EU-referendum-question-assessment-report.pdf">advised the Electoral Commission</a> on the original referendum, which led to a change in the question’s wording and options, I knew how to make it fair, neutral and unbiased. A second referendum can, and must, meet that same test. </p>
<p>More than 17m people voted to leave the EU, but without a clear manifesto about what would happen if the UK did. This is in stark contrast to the referendum about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/09/snp-must-do-more-to-persuade-voters-on-independence-says-sturgeon">Scotland’s independence</a> and the then-Scottish government’s <a href="https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00439021.pdf">Scotland’s Future</a> white paper which set out the terms for any such win. No similar clarity on policies were available for Brexit. This contributed to different understandings of what an acceptable Brexit should look like – and the ongoing divisions on which plan best captures the public mood. </p>
<p>With no parliamentary majority in sight, May has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46320585/in-full-pm-theresa-may-answers-your-questions">taken to the airwaves</a> to make her case directly to the public. This is the right direction of travel: where MPs remain divided, a final say should be left with voters. </p>
<h2>Referendum options</h2>
<p>If parliament does approve May’s deal, then it will be the plan for Brexit which will govern what happens after March 29, 2019. But if parliament cannot accept it – which seems increasingly likely – then May should put her Brexit deal before the public in a new referendum. And the public should be asked to vote on two options: whether they want the only Brexit deal on the table, or whether they want the UK to stay in the EU. </p>
<p>Like the 2016 referendum, a new plebiscite would be legally advisory, meaning parliament would not be obliged to act on the result; but it would place parliament under considerable pressure to honour the result. Crucially, a second referendum must not be a re-run of the last one or open a Pandora’s Box of continued indecision.</p>
<p>This means a second referendum ballot should not include an option to reopen EU negotiations. Everyone from May to German Chancellor Angela Merkel has <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-theresa-may-deal-angela-merkel-germany-negotations-eu-latest-a8637366.html">made clear</a> that the current deal is the only deal available. Short of a snap elections, there is no clear mandate for starting afresh, nor is there time to do so now. If a referendum included an option of reopening negotiations, it would set up a cycle of more future referendums until the government likes the answer. That would not bring finality or respect democracy. </p>
<h2>No Deal not on the ballot</h2>
<p>Some argue that a second referendum would disrespect the 2016 result. But this is untrue. The country voted for Leave, but without a plan for how. Now there is a plan that requires parliamentary support – which it does not appear to have. A second referendum on the terms agreed with the EU would give the public a chance to either reaffirm its choice for Leave and so push parliament to move forward. Or not. </p>
<p>Nor should an option for a No Deal be on a second referendum ballot. No Deal was never really an option – and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46178676">politicians</a> on both sides of the aisle have said parliament will work <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/21/amber-rudd-parliament-will-stop-a-no-deal-brexit">to prevent a no deal</a>.</p>
<p>If No Deal was on the ballot, it would split the pro-Brexit vote between May’s Brexit and a No Deal Brexit. This would potentially undermine the result because while a majority might again vote in favour of Brexit, their votes would be divided by having two choices, while the Remain vote would be concentrated behind one choice. </p>
<p>I take seriously the need to keep the choice neutral for voters. That’s why I successfully advised the original referendum wording should be changed from “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?” – with a “Yes” or “No” response – because this phrasing favoured the pro-Remain side. Instead I recommended that remain or leave be added and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/01/eu-referendum-cameron-urged-to-change-wording-of-preferred-question">the government agreed</a>. The final question was: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”, with voters asked to choose whether to “Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union”. </p>
<p>This neutrality is critically important because a referendum should present voters with a clear choice on fair terms free from bias. This same motivation leads me to back a second referendum for May’s deal or Remain.</p>
<p>May has much else to worry about beyond her Brexit deal. Some in her party have threatened a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/nov/20/brexit-dup-defends-not-backing-may-on-budget-saying-consequences-were-inevitable-politics-live">no confidence vote</a> while others – including Labour and other parties – call for a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/19/labour-theresa-may-no-confidence-vote-brexit-deal-voted-down">snap election</a>. Neither of these scenarios need block a second referendum – and might even provide a temporary lifeline to May. </p>
<p>Britain is at a fork in the road. The choice – as May herself <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu/my-deal-no-deal-or-no-brexit-may-says-after-winning-ministers-backing-idUKKCN1NJ0SE">continues to state</a> – is between her Brexit and remaining, at least for now. Another referendum can be conducted that respects the 2016 vote while drawing a line under the issue. That’s why the public should get a final say if parliament remains split.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107393/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thom Brooks is a Labour Party member</span></em></p>Why a No Deal option shouldn’t be on the ballot in any second referendum.Thom Brooks, Dean of Durham Law School & Professor of Law and Government, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/988942018-11-23T14:33:38Z2018-11-23T14:33:38ZHow an EU citizens’ assembly could help to renew European democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246687/original/file-20181121-161633-amyp08.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Discussions on a citizens' assembly in Cluj, Romania in June 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tudor Brabatan of Declic</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s an urgent need to reduce the distance between citizens of EU member states and the EU’s political institutions, to challenge the rise of populism and to renew citizen engagement in the way those institutions make decisions. An EU citizens’ assembly – a representative group of randomly selected citizens, brought together to learn about and deliberate upon an issue, and then make a policy recommendation – would be a major step towards achieving this. </p>
<p>That’s the <a href="https://www.citizensassemblies.eu/en/resource">recommendation</a> from EU citizens who took part in a major cross-European <a href="https://www.citizensassemblies.eu/en">research project</a> that I led. </p>
<p>States across the world have held citizens’ assemblies. Ireland is a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/3/733/2450810">notable example</a>. It held a constitutional convention in 2012-14 and a <a href="https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/">national citizens’ assembly</a> from 2016-18 on topics such as abortion and climate change. The UK has also held citizens’ assemblies on difficult political issues such as <a href="https://citizensassembly.co.uk/brexit/about/">Brexit</a> and <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/housing-communities-and-local-government-committee/news/citizens-assembly-faq-17-19/">social care funding</a>.</p>
<p>The EU has also started to experiment with forms of citizens’ assembly, such as an 80-member <a href="https://europa.eu/newsroom/events/european-citizens-panel-future-europe_en">Citizens’ Panel</a> on the future of Europe in May 2018. But there are still doubts as to whether a citizens’ assembly can be effective in an area as large and culturally diverse as the EU. Our project aimed to challenge these doubts with an innovative, decentralised form of citizens’ assembly.</p>
<h2>Options for a greater say</h2>
<p>Over two weekends in May and June 2018, representative groups of between 25 and 30 citizens met in Berlin, Budapest, Cluj and Rome. They discussed how to increase citizen engagement in debates about the future of Europe, and how to increase citizen influence over EU policy. </p>
<p>One of the strongest criticisms of group assemblies like these, known as mini-publics, is that they are simply too small. This means the selection of the participants is key. We used a three step recruitment process to ensure a range of opinions and demographics in the events. We had a relatively high number of participants who considered themselves to be EU citizens, but also strong eurosceptic voices and a high number of people critical of EU engagement with citizens. Although our spread was reasonably good, there were some over-represented groups, such as participants with a relatively high level of education. </p>
<p>On day one, experts presented the participants with five options to strengthen citizen participation in EU decision-making: <a href="https://ecas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Towards-a-crowdsourcing-pilot-at-the-EU-level-1.pdf">legislative crowdsourcing</a> (where citizens use online crowdsourcing tools to agree laws to propose), citizens’ assemblies, referendums, enhanced consultations and citizen lobbying. In small groups facilitated by a helper, the participants discussed the different options and chose two to examine further the next day. After a vote, all four of the groups in Germany, Hungary, Romania and Italy voted to examine referendums and an EU citizens’ assembly more fully.</p>
<p>On the second day, we provided the participants with more detailed information about key design choices for referendums and citizens’ assemblies. For example, we asked them to think about whether referendums should be related to treaty change or all EU policy areas, whether they should be triggered by citizens or by the treaties in specified circumstances, and whether their recommendations should be treated as consultative or legally binding. </p>
<p>For an EU citizens’ assembly, we asked them whether such a body should be a centralised single assembly or decentralised to member state level, and whether it should convene regularly or only be triggered for specific topics. Again, we asked whether its recommendations should be consultative or trigger a binding response, such as starting the process of making a law.</p>
<h2>Support for citizens assemblies</h2>
<p>Overall, 42% of the participants in the four member states voted to recommend the establishment of an EU citizens’ assembly, compared to 40% who voted for referendums. Drilling down into the mechanics, they preferred a single citizens’ assembly at EU level, wanted it to be convened regularly as part of the framework of the EU, and to be directly able to influence EU policy. </p>
<p>But they recommended that the assembly’s decisions should be consultative – because while they thought an assembly should exert political pressure, they didn’t think it should be legally binding. One of the main reasons the participants gave for this was the desire to avoid any risk of the assembly mounting a populist challenge to fundamental rights such as equality and justice.</p>
<p><iframe id="FyYwg" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/FyYwg/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>As the pie chart shows, there was also strong overall support for EU referendums. And, as many of the participants didn’t see the options as being mutually exclusive, 18% overall abstained to avoid choosing. Many wanted different forms of citizen participation used together – for example an EU citizens’ assembly used as a precursor for an EU-wide referendum.</p>
<p>At the end of the project, all the participants said that discussions were useful and constructive, that they had an opportunity to speak, and that they were listened to. One of the important benefits of reasoned deliberation is that people have the opportunity to change and develop their opinions. In our survey, 94% of participants said they’d changed their mind occasionally or frequently as a result of the conversations during the weekend.</p>
<p>If this form of citizens’ assembly is to be rolled out more widely, the issue of how participants will be selected will remain central. One way to assure a spread of participants would be to pay a polling company to match participants against demographic characteristics, and use a wide range of communication channels to target hard to reach groups.</p>
<p>Our project has shown there is a real appetite for doing politics differently in the EU, with citizens keen to participate in informed deliberation about the complex questions facing Europe. My colleagues and I hope that EU politicians will endorse the recommendation from EU citizens and start the process towards implementing a citizens’ assembly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Organ receives funding from the EU Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for this project</span></em></p>The EU urgently needs to improve the link between its citizens and its institutions.James Organ, Lecturer in Law and Social Justice, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1001092018-07-17T11:59:24Z2018-07-17T11:59:24ZBrexit: here are the barriers to a referendum on the final deal<p>Theresa May, the UK prime minister, has said that there will be no new Brexit referendum “in any circumstances”. This came in response to former education secretary Justine Greening’s claim that a fresh plebiscite is needed to end the parliamentary “deadlock” over what sort of Brexit deal the government should be pursuing.</p>
<p>Calls for a referendum to approve or reject the government’s Brexit deal have typically been voiced by those – like Greening – who are sympathetic to the UK’s continuing membership of the European Union. The <a href="https://www.peoples-vote.uk/">People’s Vote campaign</a> for just such a referendum is backed by the pro-EU group <a href="https://www.open-britain.co.uk/">Open Britain</a>. Unsurprisingly, such demands are vulnerable to the accusation by Leavers that they are an attempt to undo the result of the 2016 referendum.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, Brexit supporters are expressing their increasing discontent with the government’s <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725288/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf">proposals</a> on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Some may therefore now join Remainers in viewing a new referendum as the only way to avoid the prime minister’s vision of Brexit.</p>
<p>The impediments to another referendum are, however, evident.</p>
<p>Leaving aside all other practical considerations, a central difficulty would be in specifying the referendum question. The decision back in 2015 <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-the-latest-eu-referendum-question-is-worse-than-the-original-47051">to change the referendum question</a> from one that would elicit a “Yes/No” answer to a “Leave/Remain” response was not uncontroversial. But at least voters were presented with a binary choice between the status quo of remaining in the EU or change in the form of Brexit. The problem now is that Remainers and Leavers have radically different views of what the status quo option should be.</p>
<p>For Remainers, it’s self-evident that the status quo is continuing EU membership. In their view, voters should be asked whether they want to accept the deal negotiated by the government or to reject it in favour of remaining in the EU. But for Leavers, this ignores the new status quo created by the 2016 referendum – namely that the UK has decided to quit the EU. For them, the options on the ballot paper could be between leaving with “no deal” or accepting the Brexit deal agreed with the EU.</p>
<p>A referendum could depart from the binary selection model and give voters a <a href="https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/matthew-taylor-blog/2017/12/the-leave-case-for-a-second-referendum">three-way choice</a>. So voters would have to select between remaining in the EU, leaving the EU with no deal or accepting the government’s agreement with the EU. The obvious risk is that no single option commands more than 50% of the popular vote. Imagine a scenario in which the electorate voted in the same way as in 2016 – 48% backing EU membership – but the Leave vote splits in half with 26% supporting the negotiated withdrawal agreement and 26% wanting a no-deal Brexit. There would still be a majority vote to leave the EU but the option of remaining in the EU would have significantly more votes than either of the leave options. This would only intensify the political deadlock, not resolve it.</p>
<h2>Ticking clock</h2>
<p>It’s also just not obvious that there is any time for a new referendum. The 2016 referendum was held almost exactly 13 months on from the introduction of the <a href="https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/europeanunionreferendum/documents.html">European Union Referendum Bill</a> into the House of Commons. We are now just eight months away from the UK’s departure from the EU. The bill itself took nearly seven months to become law. Legislation would have to be rushed through parliament to make a second vote possible.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/193265/EU-Referendum-Bill-HoL-Second-Reading-Briefing-2015-10-13.pdf">Electoral Commission’s best practice</a> for the conduct of referendums also stipulates that referendum legislation should be clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with by campaigners. This is not six months before the referendum is held but rather six months before campaigning gets underway. The Electoral Commission recommends a ten week referendum period during which campaigning and campaign funding is regulated. With the Electoral Commission finding that the <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law">Vote Leave campaign broke campaign finance rules</a> during the 2016 referendum, there is a clear risk that a rushed referendum campaign could give rise to more accusations of wrongdoing.</p>
<h2>A constitutional question</h2>
<p>There is also a wider question of whether another referendum is simply contrary to the UK’s constitutional tradition in which parliament is sovereign, not the people. The difficulty here, however, is that the UK’s constitutional process evolved under EU membership with the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/pdfs/ukpga_20110012_en.pdf">European Union Act 2011</a>, binding governments to hold referendums to endorse or reject the outcomes of certain treaty negotiations at EU level. The 2011 act is repealed under the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpga_20180016_en.pdf">European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018</a> and the referendum requirements under the 2011 act were never triggered when it was operational. Nonetheless, a referendum on a withdrawal treaty which sets out the framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not inconsistent with the constitutional reforms of the 2011 act.</p>
<p>The UK now finds itself stuck between a model of parliamentary democracy that – thanks to the <a href="https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/fixedtermparliaments.html">Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011</a> – keeps this government in power but potentially unable to command majority support in the House of Commons for its Brexit plan, and the option of a referendum that is unlikely to resolve the political deadlock. If the UK is to avoid becoming ungovernable, something is going to have to give.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100109/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kenneth Armstrong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Both Leavers and Remainers are unhappy with the UK’s exit plan – but can their dispute ever be resolved satisfactorily?Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of European Law and Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/999882018-07-16T14:00:24Z2018-07-16T14:00:24ZCan democracy vote itself out of existence?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227692/original/file-20180715-27036-1enkwcy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Look at the state of the world’s democratic nations, and it is easy to see why so many are <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/american-democracy-on-the-brink-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2018-06?barrier=accesspaylog">concerned for the future of democracy</a>.</p>
<p>Leaders such as <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/24/europe/turkish-election-results-intl/index.html">Recep Tayyip Erdoğan</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-election-result-factbox/russian-presidential-election-results-idUSKBN1GU0WZ">Vladimir Putin</a> and Hungary’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/apr/08/hungary-election-victor-orban-expected-to-win-third-term-live-updates">Viktor Orbán</a> have centralised political power by changing their countries’ constitutions, silencing dissent and controlling the media. Since 2016’s coup attempt in Turkey, Erdoğan’s government has used the subsequent state of emergency to incarcerate thousands without trial. <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/07/turkey-opposition-party-leaders-mps-jailed">Opposition politicians</a>, <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/05/turkey-judges-prosecutors-unfairly-jailed">judges</a>, <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/27/turkey-journalists-convicted-doing-their-jobs">journalists</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/11/erdogan-turkey-academics-terrorism-violence-kurdish-people">academics</a> have been thrown in jail – all following a successful referendum that saw the office of president <a href="https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/15/turkey-is-sliding-into-dictatorship">shed many of the restraints of parliament</a>. The recent presidential elections then <a href="https://theconversation.com/turkeys-snap-election-yields-surprises-on-all-sides-what-next-98865">returned Erdoğan to office</a>, albeit with the slimmest of majorities.</p>
<p>Given this climate of fear and censorship, the people cannot be said to have voted freely. But the fact that they did vote raises a fundamental question: can an electorate vote democracy away?</p>
<h2>The people have spoken … sort of</h2>
<p>First of all, there are important distinctions between general elections and constitutional referendums, and each comes with its own set of democratic dangers.</p>
<p>In Turkey and the UK, narrow referendum results have endorsed fundamental constitutional change. But these referendums are not, like general elections, exercising the democratic right to select leaders. Instead, they are making complex governmental decisions that often require understanding of specialist information, way beyond what could reasonably be expected of an ordinary person. Voting on such questions – usually concerning fundamental long-term change – ought to, and often does require a <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supermajority">super majority</a>. Otherwise, as we can see from the 52/48 split in the UK’s Brexit vote, the results can be highly contentious.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227688/original/file-20180715-27015-hr84yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227688/original/file-20180715-27015-hr84yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227688/original/file-20180715-27015-hr84yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227688/original/file-20180715-27015-hr84yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227688/original/file-20180715-27015-hr84yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227688/original/file-20180715-27015-hr84yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227688/original/file-20180715-27015-hr84yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some Turks have heralded the threat to their democracy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/president-turkeys-ruling-justice-development-party-1122337505?src=-2Tjymfa7ydayyweDp1t8g-1-27">shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>General elections do not require super majorities, and the government is formed from whichever party captures enough seats to command the legislative assembly, or, in a proportional system, the opportunity to lead a coalition. Frequently, the popular vote is not reflected in the number of seats a party wins. In Hungary, Orbán’s Fidesz party won <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-election-2018-viktor-orban-fidesz-jobbik/">49% of the vote</a>, but 133 of the 199 available seats. In the US Hillary Clinton <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/nov/11/clinton-won-more-votes-trump-won-the-election-and-its-not-the-first-time">gained more votes overall</a>, but lost the presidency under the <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/what-is-the-electoral-college_n_2078970.html">electoral college system</a>. </p>
<p>These divergences are well-established, and when elections are contested between two moderate parties trying to appeal to the middle ground (as has been the case across Europe for many years), such anomalies have not caused too much instability. But in today’s more extreme, divergent political climate, a greater number of governments could emerge that are divisive and extremely unstable. When there is enough support for the extremes, they can be elected against the wishes of the majority of the population, leaving the ordinary voter faced with “democratically elected” leaders whose policies they vehemently oppose.</p>
<h2>Tale as old as time</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227693/original/file-20180715-27045-1shqhgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227693/original/file-20180715-27045-1shqhgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227693/original/file-20180715-27045-1shqhgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227693/original/file-20180715-27045-1shqhgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=862&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227693/original/file-20180715-27045-1shqhgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1083&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227693/original/file-20180715-27045-1shqhgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1083&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227693/original/file-20180715-27045-1shqhgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1083&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Napoleon III was elected in 1848, but declared himself emperor four years later.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/napoleon-iii-aka-louis-bonaparte-18081873-86443465?src=e_KbsZqE8nmwDnY4sMwNOw-1-0">shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The concept of electorate-mandated autocracy goes back as far as the modern democratic state. In his <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/18th-Brumaire.pdf">Eighteenth Brumaire</a>, Karl Marx lamented the election of Napoleon III in 1848 that led to him declaring himself “emperor” in 1852. Marx observed how easy it was for an already centralised power to centralise further, and remove the institutions that might stop it from doing so. He lamented too, how easy it was to adopt a “heroic” personality, and to strategically appeal to the interests of specific groups of people in order to win an election. The appeals are of course hollow, but they can harness the support of those seduced by charisma and strength.</p>
<p>To suggest that electorates deliberately, or consciously vote for autocracy is another matter. The standard explanation is that people know not what they do – that they are swept up in a desire to be part of something greater than themselves. This is partly true, but there are certainly those that support autocracy and hold extreme views. When these elements represent a significant enough minority they can sometimes sweep enough people into their narratives to elect an extreme leader whose views do not represent the body politic.</p>
<h2>More than a vote</h2>
<p>But even in a vote with high turnout, an electorate free of disproportionately powerful minorities, and a legislative assembly aligned entirely with the popular vote, the results of an election could be wholly undemocratic. An election, to hold validity, must be “free and fair”.</p>
<p>Many recent votes have been blighted by constraints on the press, manipulation of social media and data (note the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election">Cambridge Analytica</a> story), and defamatory campaigns that have strangled the free flow of information. Targeted attacks on those representing “the establishment” (such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/06/the-george-soros-philosophy-and-its-fatal-flaw">George Soros</a> during the Hungarian elections), destabilise the moderate views and institutions associated with them, and foster a divisive “us and them” mentality.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227696/original/file-20180715-27030-1epeqyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227696/original/file-20180715-27030-1epeqyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227696/original/file-20180715-27030-1epeqyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227696/original/file-20180715-27030-1epeqyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227696/original/file-20180715-27030-1epeqyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227696/original/file-20180715-27030-1epeqyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227696/original/file-20180715-27030-1epeqyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A float in Prague’s Labour Day procession protests the degradation of Eastern European democracy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/prague-czech-republic-maj-1-2017celebration-634592537?src=Ld9MwCd5ZKc3zCov9LlbwA-1-48">shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The institutions that structure political power and authority can also easily be centralised, particularly in moments of recognised stress, such as war or a state of emergency. These provide a reason or excuse for consolidation of executive power, allowing the governing class to make decisions without having to go through regular legislative channels. And once in place, these can be difficult to reverse. Turkey’s <a href="http://www.intellinews.com/turkey-s-state-of-emergency-to-end-144250/">state of emergency</a>, the US <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm">Patriot Act</a> and Britain’s <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n10/karma-nabulsi/dont-go-to-the-doctor">Prevent legislation</a> are all examples of the power states have acquired to act without regard for due process.</p>
<p>Turkey’s presidential elections, and its presidential referendum, were not democratic because the state had already become autocratic. Rather, they were exercises in projecting an image of democracy, since states that run elections are popularly assumed to be democratic. In reality the vote was not free, so the people did not “vote against” democracy.</p>
<p>Democracy is about more than just voting. It is about freedom of speech, the separation of executive from legislative power, judicial independence, and political equality. Democratic institutions exist to keep power from becoming centralised in a single, despotic location. Once these institutions begin to weaken, and the only remaining element of democracy is the pretence of elections, then democracy in its meaningful form is already gone.</p>
<p>Powerless votes perpetuating pre-existing autocracies are barely votes at all. And a democratic vote that votes against democracy, probably wasn’t very democratic in the first place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99988/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Manjeet Ramgotra is a member of the Labour Party, and a representative for the SOAS UCU.</span></em></p>Recent elections in Turkey, Hungary and Russia raise a fundamental question about democracy. Can it give autocracy a mandate?Manjeet Ramgotra, Senior Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/966592018-06-07T10:54:51Z2018-06-07T10:54:51ZGuernsey has no political parties – but a referendum could be about to change all that<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221801/original/file-20180605-119850-1aiso9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C33%2C2496%2C1837&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine a community with no political party brands. No Conservatives, no Labour – no political leaders and elections with no party policies. Can you envision an electoral system with no party logos or slogans, no safe seats and no activists? A place where elected representatives vote on a matter of personal principle rather than being “whipped” in line with party politics.</p>
<p>Does this sound appealing or does it sound confusing and unworkable? Well, this community, “the States of Deliberation”, does exist. It’s alive and well in the British Crown Dependency of Guernsey – part of the Channel Islands.</p>
<p>However, this way of doing politics could be about to change. Guernsey is holding its first ever <a href="https://www.gov.gg/referendum">referendum</a> on the island’s electoral process on October 10 2018. </p>
<p>All of Guernsey’s 38 members of parliament, otherwise known as deputies, are independent figures. Deputies stand in elections as individuals rather than parties. They present a personally developed, concise manifesto, which outlines personal characteristics such as educational background, personality traits, professional and individual experiences. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221816/original/file-20180605-119856-1tafr3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221816/original/file-20180605-119856-1tafr3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=887&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221816/original/file-20180605-119856-1tafr3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=887&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221816/original/file-20180605-119856-1tafr3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=887&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221816/original/file-20180605-119856-1tafr3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1115&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221816/original/file-20180605-119856-1tafr3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1115&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221816/original/file-20180605-119856-1tafr3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1115&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is Guernsey really ready for change?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Often, they set out the broad values that will guide them if elected. During the 2016 general election, one member of parliament proposed that if elected they would be “challenging, questioning, independent, defend the island’s heritage and eccentrically different”.</p>
<p>“I go to church, and I’ve studied law and I’ve worked in a recruitment agency,” said another. “I believe the island should have the best possible education system it can afford, improved health systems, support children’s services and family life and ensure we continue to have a balanced economy towards tourism and banking. Trust me and I’ll do my best for you.”</p>
<p>However, something is often missing from the manifestos and campaign material – and it’s not just the affiliation with a political party. Few candidates get into specifics about the actions they would actually take if elected. According to several parliamentarians, that only gets discussed after a general election – “often 18 months after polling day”. That’s how long it generally takes for government committees such as the Committee for Home Affairs or the Committee for Education, Sport and Culture to be formed and establish a policy agenda.</p>
<p>Deputies do often form informal transient alliances – collections of constantly changing coalitions that are sometimes seen as quasi-political parties. These groupings are based on prominent issues of the day such education reform, housing and transport links. However, these unofficial transient alliances currently have no “party” name, structure, ideology or identity. Nor are they generally publicised to the wider population, functioning largely behind closed doors. So the personalities and profiles of deputies take precedence over policy and party in Guernsey. </p>
<h2>The referendum</h2>
<p>In October, voters get to choose whether to switch from voting for a candidate in their local constituency to island-wide voting. Each citizen could be given the same number of votes as there are deputy seats and could elect the whole parliament from candidates across the island.</p>
<p>In a recent study, we found many members of the Guernsey government believe that if the public opt for island-wide voting, it could open the path for political parties to form on Guernsey. Formalised alliances or parties would allow deputies to stand on a shared platform, campaign with a collective set of focused policies and make the practice of governing more efficient, effective and proactive. This in turn could simplify the electoral process for voters by proving greater clarity of what each party stands for. Voters might also get a better of idea of what deputies stand for before they elect them. That, in turn, could make them more accountable in office.</p>
<p>But it’s not known if the people of Guernsey actually want all this. There was a record turnout of 72% in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-guernsey-36115151">last election in 2016</a>, suggesting voters actually quite like the independent, personal touch. The majority of voters between 18 and 24 told us they didn’t have an appetite for political parties and value Guernsey’s current approach to politics. </p>
<p>And, at least from the outside looking in, they seem to run more positive campaigns with less mudslinging than an average election. As they head to the ballot in October, Guernsey’s voters will surely be thinking about the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/political-divisions-39147">divisive nature</a> of party politics in the US, or even closer to home in the UK, where two parties dominate. The grass isn’t necessarily greener on the other side of the Channel.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96659/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Pich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Islanders currently stand as independent candidates, but this special system could be about to disappear.Christopher Pich, Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/974802018-06-01T08:12:50Z2018-06-01T08:12:50ZEven Africa’s most entrenched presidents are still preferable to dictators<p>There are fewer and fewer outright dictatorships in Africa, but even as elections are held across the continent, still the same faces have occupied the same elected presidential offices year after year.</p>
<p>All over Africa, leaders are using elections to legitimise themselves and shore up international support – or at least to make sure the rest of the world tolerates them. An uneasy but still secure tolerance is extended to <a href="https://theconversation.com/rwanda-cant-achieve-reconciliation-without-fixing-its-democracy-94925">Paul Kagame</a> of Rwanda, who’s extended his tenure via a democratic referendum – and the president of neighbouring Burundi, <a href="https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/burundi-court-validates-vote-to-extend-presidents-tenure-20180531">Pierre Nkurunziza</a>, has followed suit.</p>
<p>Elsewhere, parties with historically massive majorities, including the ANC in South Africa, know that they still have electoral breathing space – even after their leaders are exposed as failures and even <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-zumas-trial-matters-for-south-africas-constitutional-democracy-94323">fraudsters</a>. Party loyalties take a long time to fade. Promises for a better future are easily made by incumbents and oppositions alike – except that whereas incumbents can point to their record in office, most oppositions can’t.</p>
<p>Most oppositions haven’t been given the chance to become governments, despite election after election. There are conspicuous exceptions, such as Ghana and Zambia, though the latter is showing signs of a new authoritarianism. And some strong ruling parties – in Ethiopia, for instance – are yielding to huge public protest and starting to incorporate opposition personnel and policies. </p>
<p>Provided a ruling party is strong enough not to lose office, it can afford to do this in the name of sustaining itself. Even Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, after some <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/jun/23/zimbabwecrisisthabombekisr">protracted interventionist diplomacy</a> from South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, gave in and formed a coalition government with the opposition in 2008. Then again, he went on to defeat that opposition once more in 2013.</p>
<h2>Till the bitter end</h2>
<p>Until he was ousted at the end of 2017, Mugabe was the ultimate presidential limpet. He subjected himself to regular elections, but somehow, for nearly a quarter of a century, his popularity and that of his party proved remarkably enduring. In his latter years that changed dramatically – and Mugabe is now gone. But today, his successor and party comrade Emerson Mnangagwa hopes to secure an electoral victory of his own <a href="https://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/zimbabwe-elections-a-major-test-for-mnangagwa-20180530">in July</a> – promising, as Mugabe did, to win it freely and fairly.</p>
<p>That Mnangagwa and his ZANU-PF party will win is highly likely. The opposition, having lost its charismatic leader <a href="https://theconversation.com/morgan-tsvangirai-the-man-who-dared-zimbabweans-to-dream-again-91925">Morgan Tsvangirai</a> to cancer, has a new young and untested leader – but not everyone in the opposition wants to follow him. At time of writing, there are at least two major MDC parties, with several splinter parties that were once part of the MDC or ZANU-PF.</p>
<p>It would take a remarkable swing to the MDC, now run by Nelson Chamisa, to make ZANU-PF lose its nerve and resort to irregularities and the massive powers of incumbency. The party’s contingency tactics are all-too familiar: sudden splurges of public spending in electorally volatile areas, police forces being mysteriously slow to permit opposition rallies, electoral espionage into the plans and strategies of the opposition parties – all this even before any intervention in the vote-tallying itself. </p>
<h2>The bad and the ugly</h2>
<p>This sort of thing is unedifying, to be sure – but it needs to be kept in perspective. </p>
<p>These “masquerade democracies” aren’t all that outlandish by global standards. At least they <em>have</em> opposition parties – which is more than can be said for China, among others. While many of sub-Saharan Africa’s opposition leaders face intimidation, their travails generally pale in comparison to the deadly government retribution meted out in Russia. And then there are the various Western powers, especially the UK and the US, where two long-established parties simply trade power back and forth while their governing institutions remain largely unchanged.</p>
<p>Even where real change is not forthcoming, elections at least allow for some sort of political debate and airing of political demands. Even if the incumbent government knows it’s going to win, it has to make a show of listening to the public. Of course, as in Uganda, an uneasy government can imprison or prosecute opposition leaders to stop them leading a national campaign – but most governments’ tactics are now more sophisticated and subtle than that.</p>
<p>Yes, the results are less than ideal, to put it mildly. But better than out-and-out dictatorship? The answer can only be yes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97480/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Chan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many African elections are less than ideal. But is the rest of the world really that much better?Stephen Chan, Professor of World Politics, SOAS, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.