“More or less democracy Needed?”
(903 words)
We have come to accept that whenever the word “democracy” is used, it must be agood thing. Democracy can mean many things to many people. What one man might calldemocracy, another may call an elected dictatorship. British political theorist Sir BernardCrick said, “Democracy is perhaps the most promiscuous word in the world of publicaffairs.” However, when democracy means many things to many people, it runs the risk of meaning nothing at all to anyone. At present newspaper editorials and letters to the editor abound with debates over the promiscuity of citizens initiated referendums, due to thepolarizing nature of the pro-smacking referendum we will soon be voting on.While New Zealanders debate the pros and cons of such an issue, perhaps the realissue we should all be debating is... do we want more or less democracy? There are thosewho argue we should simply leave all the decision making to professional politicians. Theyargue that we elect governments to govern, so all we need to do is vote once every threeyears, then leave it up to these professional politicians to make all the hard decisions. Onemight consider these elitists. They argue that referendums are expensive, ambiguous,misleading and crude instruments that lead to tyranny of the majority. Prime Minister JohnKey has also promised another referendum on the future of proportional representation,but many are arguing for a return to first-past-the-post, even though under this system, theparty with the most votes does not always become the government. This happened in NewZealand in the 1978 and 1981 elections. These results, along with a growing distrust of politicians due to many broken promises, and New Zealanders innate belief in fairness, ledto calls for a Royal Commission. This eventually bought about our current proportionalrepresentation system.If we do want more democracy, and consider this to be a good thing, is electing agovernment every three years, then having no say in between, all that is required to callourselves a democracy? Given the complexity of life and the polarizing issues that face thenation from time to time, surely the answer must be to make politics more inclusive? After all, we are a far more educated and informed society than ever before. What we need in amodern society is a true exchange of communications between the elected and theelectorate. We need to develop our political system to better reflect the will of the peoplewhile still protecting the rights of all minorities.No system is perfect with dictatorships, representative democracy and directdemocracy all having their good and bad points. If we are to have a more inclusive society,
then we have to continually look for ways to improve our political system. Referendumstherefore, must form an important part in that process, but to what point and in what way?In his book
Bridled Power
, former Prime Minister and Law Professor, Geoffrey Palmer,when discussing the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 says, “The Act should berepealed. It appears to offer a chance for citizens to influence policy but in substance thatopportunity is like a mirage in the desert. Referenda should be reserved for those few andimportant issues of constitution and conscience that should be bound by the people'svoice.” To those who think this is a good idea, should we also repeal parliament? Becauserepresentative democracy also gives the illusion that citizens can influence policy, butrarely does this happen.The weakness of representative democracy and our current system is that once agovernment is elected, there are few checks and balances between elections. The publicis basically excluded. While proportional representation and coalition governments mayhave shackled Cabinet government to some extent, voters generally accept that whatever the government of the day wants, it usually gets. This happens even if this goes againstthe general will of the people.While many arguments are given against the use of referendums, most of themsimply do not hold water when given closer scrutiny. As David Lange said, "Many of thearguments against binding referenda are demeaning. They assume people always vote for things which are popular, which carry benefits without acknowledging the costs. Thesearguments have been largely discredited by the experience overseas." Along with manypoliticians, I would be the first to agree referendums in the past have been ambiguous,misleading, biased and confusing. This in itself however, does not show a reason to repealreferendums, only a reason to improve the process and make it more robust. In turn canonly make our democracy more robust and inclusive.If politicians want an inclusive society, and not an exclusive, elitist society, they aregoing to have to take referendums more seriously. If referendums are not binding thenthey simply are not worth the paper they are written on. Whatever the price for, and thearguments against, referendums are the voice of the people, that voice is sovereign andmust be respected by politicians. After all, it wasn't it all that long ago, politics was thedomain of a small elitist group. Although New Zealand was the first country in the world togive women the vote, politicians prior to this didn't consider women were interested, or even wise enough, to have the vote, and only those who owned real estate could have asay in electing the government.END
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More or Less Democracy Needed
“More or less democracy Needed?â€
(903 words) We have come to accept that whenever the word “democracy†is used, it must be a good thing. Democracy can mean many things to many people. What one man… (More)
(903 words) We have come to accept that whenever the word “democracy†is used, it must be a good thing. Democracy can mean many things to many people. What one man… (More)
591
Reads
0
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
