Despite their surface similarity, deliberative democracy and direct democracy often pull in different directions. In this context, Lawrence LeDuc asks how the conduct of referendums can be made more deliberative. He finds that the process is currently inhibited by the intrusion of politics, the absence of clarity, the amount and quality of information, and the degree of participation and engagement of citizens in the process

LeDuc, Lawrence

LSE Research Online

By Democratic Audit UK 2015-12-4Significant changes to the referendum process are requiredto make direct democracy deliberative in practicedemocraticaudit.com /2015/12/04/significant-changes-to-the-referendum-process-are-required-to-make-direct-democracy-deliberative-in-practice/Despite their surface similarity, deliberative democracy and direct democracy often pull in different directions. In thiscontext, Lawrence LeDuc asks how the conduct of referendums can be made more deliberative. He finds that theprocess is currently inhibited by the intrusion of politics, the absence of clarity, the amount and quality of information,and the degree of participation and engagement of citizens in the process.Credit: Epping Forest District Council, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0The theoretical concepts of deliberative democracy and the institutions and processes associated with referendumshave surprisingly little connection, in spite of the similarity of certain key words and phrases. A deliberative modelemphasises the importance of voice whereas referendums prioritize votes. A truly deliberative model would involvecitizens at every stage of the political process, whereas a referendum vote typically brings them in only at the veryend. A deliberative democratic process is less interested in resolving an issue than in discussing it, while areferendum often takes place solely for the purpose of settling a particular question. However without institutions,deliberative democracy tends to become an elusive and rather idealistic concept.This raises the question: how might the practice of direct democracy be adjusted to more closely approximate a trulydeliberative model?  In a recent article, I examined four specific areas in which the conduct of referendums tends toinhibit deliberation, and consider ways in which the quality of deliberation within existing rules and practices mightbe improved. These are: the intrusion of politics, the absence of clarity, the amount and quality of information, andthe degree of participation and engagement of citizens in the process.Politics gets in the way of deliberation. Many referendums are initiated either directly or indirectly by governments. Avariety of political calculations often enter into a government’s decision to call a referendum on a particular issue, but governments in such circumstances are not usually neutral parties. When a governing party opts for a referendumstrategy, it generally does so in the expectation that it will win, by definition placing the emphasis on votes ratherthan voice. However, a referendum is sometimes called because a governing party finds itself divided on an1/3important issue, as the Conservatives in the UK have been for a number of years on Europe. Where governingparties are divided on an issue, a better quality of deliberation may occur simply because more voices will be heard.But if the partisan stake in the outcome is high, the degree of coercion felt by voters will undoubtedly be greater. Onbalance, it is probably more positive for the deliberative process if governments or political parties are neutral orotherwise constrained in referendum campaigns. But such neutrality is not easy to maintain or to enforce, asattempts to do so in a number of countries have shown.A referendum or initiative question needs to be clear, but clarity is not an easy matter either to define or to achieve.Both Quebec referendums were widely criticised at the time that they took place because the questions put to thevoters left in some doubt both the boundaries of the debate about Quebec sovereignty and the possibleconsequences of a Yes vote. This made deliberation of the sovereignty question considerably more difficult forvoters, but it served the agenda of the Quebec government on both occasions quite well. American state ballotpropositions often suffer from problems of clarity, sometimes because of poor drafting but also because of deliberatecampaign tactics. The expected British “in or out” referendum on Europe sounds clear enough, but the campaign islikely to turn on successful negotiations, which can more easily be fudged. One can readily see that deliberation islikely to work best when the public is able to focus on a single issue, and when the various dimensions of that issueare already reasonably well known. But this may be difficult to accomplish in circumstances where large packagesof constitutional proposals or complex international treaties are put to a popular vote.Deliberation requires a well informed citizenry. But surveys regularly show that “insufficient information” is one of themost common complaints of citizens about the referendum process. Genuinely deliberative democracy requires thatall arguments be heard equally, but referendum campaigns sometimes appear to work against this goal because ofinequality of resources. The increasing use of disinformation and negative campaign messaging further inhibitsdeliberation. These tactics can be quite effective, particularly in a short campaign involving an issue on which therehas been little prior public deliberation. In some jurisdictions, this problem is addressed by having neutral authoritiesprovide more balanced information. Ireland has perhaps the most tightly regulated environment in referendumcampaigns, while other jurisdictions such as Switzerland maintain much lighter regulation of campaign activities andfinances. Where regulation is overly tight, the opportunity for adequate deliberation may be lost as the restrictionsimposed limit the free expression of positions. But an entirely unregulated campaign environment runs the risk oftilting the “playing field” sharply in the direction of those with the deepest pockets or the greatest access to channelsof communicationA truly deliberative direct democratic process requires both the engagement and participation of the citizenry.Turnout tends to fluctuate more widely in referendums than it does in elections. In general, it tends to be lower, butcan sometimes rise to much higher levels, as it did in Scotland, when a particular issue engages wide voter interestor when a more intense campaign is waged by interested groups. Some jurisdictions impose a turnout quota onreferendum votes in order to assure an adequate level of participation. In Italy, a referendum result is ruled invalidunless fifty percent of voters participate. A vote in which only a small minority of citizens participate is not only likelyto be a poor vehicle for democratic deliberation, it will often create circumstances under which the legitimacy of theprocess itself may come under challenge. But turnout cannot be considered in isolation. It is affected by many otherfactors, including the timing of votes, party mobilisation, levels of information, and the nature of the campaign.If the overtly partisan motives that drive many referendum campaigns can be limited or controlled, if better questionwording and availability of information can lead to greater clarity, and if citizens can be more fully engaged over alonger period leading to higher and more inclusive rates of participation, there is every reason to believe that directdemocracy can become more deliberative in practice. But the tension between the expression of voice and acampaign for votes is likely to remain a factor in the practice of direct democracy in today’s world, even if thebalance between these goals can be shifted somewhat in the direction of providing greater voice.—Note:  This article is based on Lawrence LeDuc’s recent Electoral Studies article Referendums and Deliberative2/3Democracy. It gives the views of the author, and not the position of Democratic Audit, nor of the London School ofEconomics. Please read our comments policy before posting.—Lawrence LeDuc is Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto. His publications includeThe Politics of Direct Democracy  and Comparing Democracies (with Richard G. Niemi and PippaNorris), as well as articles on voting, elections and related topics in North American and EuropeanPolitical Science journals.3/3

Significant changes to the referendum process are required to make direct democracy deliberative in practice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online