notes for a documentation and report concerning:

notes for a documentation and report concerning:

Prospects for more democracy in Great Britain

Michael Wallace-Macpherson

Introduction

Britain is an aristocracy and monarchy. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Both of the latter statements, although paradoxical, are true. Given the nature of these prevailing systems it would seem that there could be little if any place for direct democracy. There is evidence that a great number of British citizens would like to have more say in public affairs. We cannot fully review that evidence here but will describe some recent developments and events which taken together indicate, we argue, that reform, even revival of democracy in Britain is possible.

The history of procedural direct democracy (e.g. referendums) in Britain is according to most experts very short. The first countrywide referendum in Britain was held in 1975. All countrywide and large regional referendums have been imposed by government - indeed whether or not these plebiscites may be classified as direct democracy is debatable. The citizen-initiated referendum, with which the people can direct or over-rule their elected government, has almost certainly never existed. In recent years there have been hints of improvement starting "above", among academics close to ruling politicians and in local and central government. And "below" there have been signs that "ordinary" people are increasingly beginning to take public matters into their own hands, more often to take political action, some of which has the form of direct democracy. Firstly these latter developments "from below" will be illustrated by some examples.

Current practice and developments

Some real-life examples. Is local democracy awakening?

Law which explicitly permits elements of local direct democracy, passed by the British parliament in 1972, was "re-discovered" in the late 1990s. It applies in small communities of England (parishes) and Wales but apparently does not apply in cities, nor in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Just a small number of citizens have the right to demand that the district council should finance and organise a referendum in the parish or community. For more detail see Appendix, "How to organise your own local referendum".

Case 1. Fire brigade.

In 1998 there was a firefighters' strike in Essex over cuts in services and training. Under the Powers and Constitutions of Local Councils, ten people present at a parish meeting can demand a poll on any issue, which the district council must then hold on similar lines to an election. This the firemen did, calling for a referendum on whether the people of Essex wanted the cuts. Although the result could not be legally binding, it would have been embarrassing for the council to contradict. So, even before the referendum was held, the Chief Fire Officer made an offer which the fire brigade trade union reportedly found acceptable, so that this dispute was resolved with aid of a direct democratic procedure. (WWW report which cited The Guardian of 15/9/98).

Case 2a. Gene-manipulated crops, St. Osyth

In 2000 a trial of gene-manipulated crops was stopped after a local referendum had been organised. Even before the vote Scimac, the industry umbrella group supervising the trials, abandoned a site for oil seed rape in St Osyth, near Clacton in Essex. The farmer concerned had already promised to abide by the decision of a parish referendum on the planting. (The newspaper reported: "The government wants an average of 75 trials a year for three years to monitor the effects of GM crops on the environment and wildlife. This year it wanted 30 sites for sugar beet or fodder beet for animals, 25 for maize, and 25 for oilseed rape, much of which should either already have been planted or be in the ground within a few weeks.") James Meikle, Thursday May 4, 2000, The Guardian. Another report (unconfirmed) stated that the referendum was held and that three-quarters voted against the trial.

Case 2b. Gene-manipulated crops, Tavistock.

On 16th August 1999 a parish Referendum was held in Tavistock, Devon on Genetic

Engineering. Two questions were asked:

1. Do you agree that GM crops should not be grown in the Tavistock area?

Yes - 487 votes, No - 58 votes

2. Would you like to see Tavistock Council work proactively toward

becoming a GM free zone ?

Yes -  487 votes, No   - 59 votes.

Thus 89% voted no to gene-manipulated crops in their area on both questions. (Source: GE - Catch up no 3. August 24th 1999. <genetics@gn.apc.org)

Case 3. Strong feeling in the parishes against the single european currency.

From the Daily Telegraph, Monday 10 September 2001 (Report which follows has been shortened.)

The Campaign Alliance for Referendums in Parishes (Carp), a Euro-sceptic pressure group, used local government legislation to compel district councils around the country to organise polls asking: "Do you want to keep the pound as the currency of the United Kingdom?"

Referendums held in 12 parishes in Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Lincolnshire, Wiltshire and Essex showed that 93.8 per cent of voters were in favour of retaining the pound. Further polls are pending in about 40 other parishes. So far the parish polls have recorded turnouts of up to 56 per cent, and an average turnout higher than the 24 per cent that voted in last year's elections for MEPs (Members of the European Union Parliament).

The councils have been forced to hold the polls because Carp members have invoked a little-known section of the 1972 Local Government Act. The act states that if 10 or more people attending a parish council meeting vote for a poll on a subject of their choosing, the governing district council must agree to organise it within the boundaries of that parish.

Voters attending the polls are also asked if they would like to stop councils spending time and money on preparing for the euro in advance of a national referendum. In the 12 parishes canvassed so far, more than 90 per cent said that they would.

The parish referendums have been criticised by district councillors, some of whom have claimed that the polls could cost up to 1,700 pounds. At Iver Heath in Buckinghamshire a parish poll organised for October 5 was called off suddenly when South Buckinghamshire council said it believed that a parish poll should be on local matters only. This view was disputed by the poll organiser.

Some real-life examples. Spontaneous and "do-it-yourself" referendums.

Within the last few decades there have probably been dozens of referendums held in towns and districts. These were initiated in some cases by local politicians, in others by citizens petitioning, mandating or appealing to their local councils, or by persons acting independently.

Case 4. Conflict about a war memorial

From: The Independent Newspaper.

A village divided over whether the name of a disgraced First World War soldier should be inscribed on its war memorial will vote on the issue today in a referendum organised by its vicar. Each of the 1,700 inhabitants of Shoreham, a picturesque commuter village near Sevenoaks, Kent, will be invited to answer "yes" or "no" to the question: Do you think that Thomas Highgate's name should be included on Shoreham war memorial?

Highgate, 19, a private in the Royal West Kent Regiment, became the first Great War soldier to be shot for desertion, on 8 September 1914, after he was found cowering in a shed far from the front line in France.

The referendum follows a fierce debate in Shoreham, where the local branch of the Royal British Legion is refurbishing the village memorial. At a meeting last November, the legion was evenly divided over the move to include Highgate's name. An attempt by the parish council to adjudicate also failed when it was decided that the memorial was the legion's responsibility.

In an attempt to resolve the issue, Shoreham's vicar, the Rev Barry Simmons, has offered his church as the polling station for today's vote. Mr Simmons, 67, padre of the Shoreham branch of the legion, said: "There is talk that Parliament may grant those shot at dawn a pardon but, even if it does, it is still the villages and towns around the country who are going to have to solve the memorial problem. I believe we should grasp a privileged opportunity to speak to the nation on what is a very difficult issue."

(Result of this referendum is not known. Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/This_Britain/2000-03/memorial130300.shtml)

Case 5. A campaign about homosexuality and education

The Labour government announced in autumn 1999 that it intended to abolish Section 28 (known in Scotland as Section 2A), introduced under the Conservative administration of Margaret Thatcher to prevent local government providing funding for gay and lesbian groups and discussing homosexual relations in sex education classes in schools. A campaign to keep "Section 28", accompanied by much public debate, was funded by a rich businessman, a free church member, who formed an alliance with certain religious groups and conservatives. Allegedly four million ballot papers were distributed, and about forty percent returned. Not surprisingly, those against teaching about homosexuality were more likely to take part and 80% voted to keep the bill. A poll of this type has no legal effect and the Scottish parliament had announced in advance that the result would be ignored. Parliament duly abolished Section 28. A left wing group complained however that the Labour-Liberal government made concessions about sex education to the rightist group. (Sources: www.eurogay.co.uk, World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org)

Cautious steps towards reform "from above"

Choosing to elect a mayor and form of local council.

With the Local Government Act 2000 the Labour Party government seeks to improve the functions of local councils, for instance by allowing voters to decide if they wish to directly elect a mayor and to compel councils to decide upon one of several offered executive structures.

From the internet version of The Stationery Office Limited, Explanatory Notes to the Local Government Act 2000, ISBN 010 562 000 9 :

Referring to Part 2:

"28. This Part of the Act allows the Secretary of State to specify further forms of executives and forms of alternative arrangements. It requires local authorities to hold a referendum:

where their proposals involve a form of executive which includes a directly-elected mayor, or a further form of executive specified in regulations under section 11 for which those regulations specify a referendum is required;

where 5% or more of the council's electorate petition for a form of executive for which a referendum is required; or

where the Secretary of State requires an authority or group of authorities to hold a referendum on one of the forms of executive available in or under the Act."

Regarding direct democracy there is an important innovation here. For the first time in British legal history acts of governance may be initiated and carried through by citizens, that is, if the five percent hurdle can be jumped and the local electorate so brings about a referendum, then the people will have made a decision, about a public matter, which is direct and not mediated by political representatives. The problem is, most people seem to be uninterested. Reasons for this include the fact that the issues on which people may decide are (again, as in all previous large referendums) imposed upon them by government, secondly there is probably only a minority of citizens who know about their new rights, thirdly the five percent petition hurdle is arguably too high. The first referendum of this type was probably held in London. A commentator writes:

"The danger of apathy. By Jim Mortimer.

In the referendum on London local government the outcome was a demonstration of indifference on the part of the overwhelming majority. Despite millions of pounds spent by the Labour government to stimulate public interest approximately two out of every three eligible voters did not vote." Source: http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/9806/page2.html

Since the London referendum, which led to the direct election of mayor, several others have been carried out, for instance in Watford, a town near London. The referendum was initiated by the council, not by a petition of citizens, putting a question whose content was pre-determined by central government. A narrow majority voted in favour of the proposal to elect a mayor, only a quarter of voters turned out.This "yes" vote followed three previous 'no' votes involving councils in other parts of England.

Local authorities organise referendums.

In recent years there have been several referendums of this type. It seemed that a difficult decision, or one which the council did not wish to take itself, was passed over to the electorate. This is a poor form of direct democracy because the issue selected has not, necessarily, had the attention of nor been important for a substantial number of constituents. Debate about the issue and a will to resolve the problem, developed in the society, have not led to the referendum being held. These referendums, although weak forms of democracy, are not to be entirely dismissed. They provide examples and precedents of referendum actually being used as an instrument of public policy; they illustrate ÷ not least because having called the people to vote a council rarely dares to ignore or negate the result ÷ that everyone involved accepts that sovereignty is of the people; and they allow citizens and their political representatives to get used to the ideas and practice of a form of direct democracy.

The city council of Bristol called its citizens to decide by referendum how much council tax should be increased. On voting documents they described the effects of three different tax increases or "no change" on several aspects of public education and asked voters to rank their choices from one to three. Voting could be done by post, by telephone or via internet. According to The Guardian newspaper, "ministers and MPs had been hailing the referendum, the first of its type in a large city, as a groundbreaking consultation exercise which could lead to other experiments designed to rekindle interest in local democracy. Council election turnouts often drop to just 20%. In Bristol, which used a combination of postal and e-voting, turnout for the referendum was 40%." A majority of Bristol's citizens voted for "No tax increase". Again quoting The Guardian, "In a similar exercise two years ago in Milton Keynes, taxpayers opted for a 10% increase, almost four times the rate of inflation, after being presented with the option of big cuts in services."

In Croydon, the largest local authority of greater London voters were presented with three options: a 2%, 3.5% or 5% council tax increase. A majority voted for a 2 percent tax increase. 80,383 voters (35.1%) took part in the ballot.The overall turnout was 2.7% less than the 37.8% turnout at the last municipal election in May, 1998, but exceeded by far the best figures that Croydon had previously enjoyed for involvement in public consultation . Of those who voted, 91.7% did so by freepost, 4.9% via freephone and 3.4% through the internet.
 

What the political parties promise.

The following remarks arise from "on-line" observations made by the author in the run-up period to the British general election of 2001. Their accuracy cannot be guaranteed partly because on-line publications may be changed and may not be identical with printed statements. A study and research project would be needed to allow the preparation of a satisfactory report on the attitudes of the British political parties to direct democracy.

In recent years the Green Party carried a manifesto at its internet website which contained a clear commitment to introduce elements of direct democracy. These included citizens' initiative and referendum (I and R) at all levels of government and the right of electors to dismiss their representatives. Their pre-2001-election manifesto contains much less detail about direct democracy. In the section Democratising the EU appears the statement: "The right to initiate legislation should be extended to the European Parliament, member states, the Committee of the Regions and citizensâ initiatives."

The Liberal Democrats probably for the first time included a commitment to direct democracy in their 2001 manifesto. From Chapter 8 Freedom, Justice, Honesty: Reforming Politics and the Constitution. "Voting: Introduce new methods of voting. We will extend the right to vote by post and investigate internet voting, while ensuring that votes remain secure. We will also promote public involvement in decision-making, through Citizens' Juries, Citizens' Initiative Referenda and electronic consultation."

The Conservative Party surprised observers by including a promise to introduce obligatory referendum on tax increases proposed by local governments.They stated, "we will look at ways in which local councils proposing increases in their budgets significantly above the rate of inflation can be obliged to hold a local referendum on the increase in the Council Tax which this would entail. We will also retain Section 28 of the Local Government Act."

The Labour Party during their first recent period in power allowed some very cautious progress of direct democracy. Local governments were encouraged to consult their constituents more and perhaps as a result of this some referendums were held. Labour changed the Local Government Act to allow citizen initiative and referendum but with extreme limitation. The questions which may be put involve decisions only about type of local government, scrutiny of the executive and whether or not to directly elect a mayor. Even the referendum questions are pre-set by central government. A council may hold such a referendum only once every five years. A body of law has been passed to control the conduct of referendums. Reading this Westminster legislation as a physician, one is reminded of the sort of public health regulations needed to prevent the spread of bubonic plague after a few fresh cases have been suspected, let us say, in Watford. (See: Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1298. The Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001)

Further very small steps of the Labour government are commented (2001) upon by John Laughland for the British Helsinki Human Rights Group. "To general public indifference, the government whipped two Acts through Parliament last year (the Representation of the People Act and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act) which comprehensively re-write the procedures for holding referendums and elections. The new rules on referendums have been written specifically to deal with the euro referendum, for there are no foreseeable circumstances under which this country will hold a referendum on any other subject."

With this sobering remark we will leave our account of recent developments in British democracy and glance into its murky past.

An historical note

An australian author is reported to have stated that "Britain has favoured representative institutions rather than direct democracy and, as we have seen, had never held a national referendum until 1975." This is presumably correct. The roots of direct democracy arguably reach much deeper in history. After listing the referendums which have been held in "mainland*" Britain since 1975 we will add some remarks upon the roots of direct democracy, which are arguably the true roots of all democracy. (* further referendums were held in overseas territories)

It deserves to be repeated that all the referendums listed below were imposed by government and parliament. A special law must be passed in order to allow each and every referendum. Apart from the minor and seldom-used exceptions at local level described above, there is NO right of the people to demand a referendum on a question of their choosing.

NORTHERN IRELAND - 22.5.1998 - Belfast Agreements

WALES - 18.9.1997 - Introducing a Regional Assembly

SCOTLAND - 11.9.1997 - Introducing a scottish parliament

SCOTLAND - 11.9.1997 - Tax-varying powers for the scottish parliament

SCOTLAND - 2.3.1979 - Regional autonomy

WALES - 2.3.1979 - Regional autonomy

GREAT BRITAIN - 5.6.1975 - Remaining in or leaving the European Community

Source: Centre for the Study of Direct Democracy, Geneva.

The London Correspondent of The Referenda Society, Geoffrey Munnery sees precedents of British democracy in ancient Greece and "possibly the early Scandinavian popular assemblies, which were to produce the Icelandic parliament in 970 A.D..." A contemporary society for "Middle England" claims that village gatherings for decision-making, called moots, were known hundreds of years ago in the British Isles. A recent ripple of democratic renewal, described above (referendum in Watford) moved the city council to include the following passage in their published introduction to the referendum in 2001:

"Watford people can be proud that their town is leading in the innovation of local democracy. This is not the first poll on a single issue of importance to the town. In1908 concerned citizens organised themselves into the ÎWatford Poll Committeeâ and organised a referendum on the purchase of a portion of Cassiobury Park for a peopleâs Park and pleasure ground. It too was a postal poll. A majority voted Înoâ to the purchase, which would have cost the Watford Urban District Council &pound;16,500. The following year however, the council bought 65 acres. Local people were instrumental in winning borough status for the town. Citizens Îhumble and nobleâ presented the case to the Kingâs representative one Thomas Reginald Colquhoun Dill at the inquiry held on 10th March 1922. There are many other instances in history of local people taking action to affect change in the town dating back to the peasantsâ revolt in the 14th century. Once again the people of Watford have a choice before them."

In Victorian Britain, notes Andrew Adonis, polls of local ratepayers (citizens who paid property tax) were common; indeed, they were obligatory before certain important decisions could be taken by councils. It seems that in 19th century Britain, as in other countries of Europe and in the United States of America, considerable support for direct democracy had developed. In a published letter to the Daily Telegraph Munnery writes, "In 1911, during the passage of the Parliament Bill, which endeavoured to bring reform to the House of Lords (...) an amendment was brought forward in the upper house. This stated that any bill which raised constitutional and other issues "of great gravity on which the judgement of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained" should not become law "unless and until it has been submitted to, and approved by, the electors in a manner to be hereafter provided by Act of Parliament.

"This amendment pointed the way to direct, accountable democracy."

The amendment failed to become law.
 

Who and what , if any, are the agents for revival and renewal of democracy in contemporary Britain? We are especially interested in those who promote the introduction of citizens initiative, referendum called by the people and obligatory for grave and constitutional matters, and electoral recall of representatives and officials. A comprehensive survey and analysis cannot be made here. We are able only to list a few actors and add our impressions.

Some political parties appear to be supportive, as indicated above. The Green party published quite detailed proposals to introduce citizens' initiative and referendum if elected and the Liberal Democrats made a clear but very brief statement of a similar kind. Some small groups, which may have the form of political parties, place elements of direct democracy among their published aims. The latter include a "Rainbow" party , a World Party and a "progressive party". The Referendum Party, later a movement, is critical of the European Union and aims "To campaign to give the British people an opportunity to decide for themselves in a wider referendum what form the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union should take." Their on-line list of aims does not include a proposal to apply direct democracy on a regular basis, e.g. to apply it to issues other than their "single" one or to introduce citizens' initiative but presumably some of their sympathisers could favour such proposals.

A europe-wide association of organisations known as TEAM (The anti-Maastricht Alliance), which lists affiliates in Britain, proposes that referendums should be held on the Maastricht treaty in all affected countries.

A group called Third Way states in its manifesto "We believe that the peoples of this country should adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy. Based on self-governing local communities co-operating within a loose framework, it has enabled four distinct cultures and language groups (French, German, Italian and Romansch) to work together yet at the same time preserve their distinctive identities. It promotes active citizenship, giving each citizen a true stake in his or her community. Switzerland enjoys an enviable degree of political stability and ecological sustainability." and goes on to make clear proposals for the introduction of citizens' initiative, referendum and recall in Britain.

In addition to the movements and groups who have published pro-direct democracy statements and have started referendum campaigns others if approached could be expected to be supportive. In the opinion of this author it would be feasible within the next one or two years to call together a syndicate or alliance of organisations who would agree to the endorse and support I&R. Support might come too from groups and concerned persons associated with causes such as pro-environment, civil rights, "rights of way" and "right to roam", constitutional rights, "anti-globalisation", critics of European union and of reduced state sovereignty. The well-established group Friends of the Earth has published a detailed guide to citizens' referendum at the local level, referring to the Local Government Act 1972.

It seems that few academics and intellectuals have explicitly expressed support for direct democracy. Writing on the world wide web pages of Charter 88, Andrew Adonis writes that "Reform is needed to promote fair government and good government, but it can do neither unless it exploits the potential of the British people for more democratic government. It is a striking fact that more than a century after the creation of a mass electorate, the opportunity for voters to participate in their government has actually declined with the emasculation of local democracy. In Victorian Britain polls of local ratepayers were common; indeed, they were obligatory * before certain important decisions could be taken by councils; nowadays, direct public involvement in local decision-making is nugatory." (*emphasis added, M.M.) Adonis states that these are his own views and not necessarily those of the group known as Charter 88, which campaigns for electoral and constitutional reform and has apparently not explicitly proposed that direct democracy should be strengthened in Britain.

Gerry Stoker, Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde, appears to have encouraged cautious reform of local democracy. He writes (with J. Williams)

"The proposed use of trigger referendum to force a referendum for an elected mayor is an innovative development in the Government's approach to constitutional reform. Trigger referendum start to take this country down the road of citizen initiative referendum, more commonly used in the US and Australia. No country as far as we can tell has ever used this mechanism to force referendums for new political institutions or reform of electoral systems."

Draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence - First Report APPENDIX 38 Memorandum from Professor Gerry Stoker, Chair and John Williams, Executive Director, New Local Government Network http://www.nlgn.org.uk/news/parliam/draftbil.htm

The opinion of Stoker and Williams, that "Trigger referendum start to take this country down the road of citizen initiative referendum" seems over-optimistic. Although the citizenry (now that the law has been passed) has been given the right to initiate a referendum, the subject and even the formulation of the allowed few questions, as we have seen (Cautious steps towards reform "from above") are dictated by the government. The option to decide on which type of local government there will be, probably in part because local government has been left so few powers, has not proved at all popular.

The contemporary politician who speaks out in favour of direct democracy is a rare bird. A social democrat and former psychiatrist David (Lord) Owen is reported to have suggested to parliament in April 2000 that bills (law proposals) of "first class constitutional importance" should not come into force until a referendum has been held. (G. Munnery, The Referenda Society. Daily Telegraph 2 May 2000). A chink of light may occasionally break into the democratically gloomy Houses of Parliament as the following report illustrates, "My hon. Friends and I share the view of the hon. Member for Brent, East that we have to do something to reduce the relatively unrestricted power of the mayor as proposed. We intend to table an amendment, on which we shall be happy to negotiate, that would provide a power of recall. If, say, 90 per cent. of assembly members passed a motion, they could force the mayor to resign;

or if 10 per cent. of Londoners signed a petition, they could trigger a referendum that might force the mayor to resign." (Hansard, Commons 14th December 1988, pt19).

A human developmental approach to the study of democracy, in Britain and internationally, appears to have been neglected in the social and educational sciences, a deficiency which must be corrected urgently. In this report we cannot review these scientific fields but only offer some impressions. Some of our working assumptions are that relationships between children and parents and in families, and processes of learning in school are of importance for the development of democratic attitudes, behaviour, values and expectations. In Britain an authoritarian family has been the rule and schools have imitated this "in loco parentis". Corporal punishment is widely used at home, was formally abolished only recently in public schools, and persists legally in some private schools (some of which are confusingly termed "public"). The corresponding authoritarian interpersonal patterns (e.g. teacher-pupil, parent-child) prevail. All of these entrenched practices mitigate in favour of conserving a hierarchical social and political system and against the emergence of independent thought, expressive civil courage, responsible civic and political behaviour, and expectation plus demand of own right to co-decide in collective and public affairs. Political education in general and education for participation in democratic processes are almost certainly very deficient, with few exceptions, in primary and secondary schools and in higher educational institutions. Signs of positive social and educational change may be found in recent years, for instance, judging from its internet website, the Hewitt School, Norfolk, teaches about the history of democracy and offers pupils an opportunity to learn about and discuss both direct and indirect (representative) forms of democracy. Also, materials placed "on-line" by the educational services of both a teachers' association (History Learning Site) and a major newspaper (The Guardian) present elements of direct democracy as realistic possible democratic innovations for Britain.

Usenet, a wide area computer system which pre-dated internet and now appears to merge with it, is a forum in which a broad range of social and political topics are discussed. The contributions to Usenet "newsgroups" may be searched using "tools" such as Google ("groups"). In Usenet, as in the broader internet (world wide web etc.) some British contributions about direct democracy may be found, indicating that in recent years numerous users have thought about the topic. Some clearly formulate their approval, a few are opposed. In the run-up period to the general election 2001, this author observed and contributed to information and debates about direct democracy in uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.constitution and in regional newsgroups. Several long exchanges of views occurred "on-line" (to be found archived), and the founding of at least one new campaigning group was apparently stimulated.

The campaigners

This part of our report is dedicated to those persons and groups who have publicly presented and distributed proposals to introduce one or more elements of direct democracy into the British parliamentary and monarchic system of governance ÷ not linked to, or not only to, a particular cause or issue.

The Referenda Society "was founded in 1992, with the sole object of moving the United Kingdom, in logical progression, from the increasingly outmoded representative democracy to direct democracy, as the enclosed green paper argues. At the time, it was felt that the tide was turning in favour of greater public intervention in the nation's affairs, and this was supported by a Mori poll of 1991 showing 77 per cent favoured referenda on a particular issue when raised by petition."

The author of this paper received the following letter of reply from the Referenda Society, 12 April 2000:

--------------------------------------------

Please reply to:

29 Cleves Walk

ILFORD

Essex IG6 2NQ

Tel: +44 20 8500 4074

Dear Dr. Macpherson,

In your letter of 23 March, you ask how can elements of direct democracy be introduced into the British system of governance.

As mentioned in our previous letter, when the Society was founded, the United Kingdom was one entity. Now, with devolutionary dismemberment taking place, there is no clear lead as to what the end product will be. Direct democracy will certainly lend itself to regional application on bread and butter issues, e.g. housing, health, education, transport etc.

On a national basis, assuming we still have a nation, if legislation is secured by Peoples' Petition, it is envisaged that two elements of direct democracy would obtain. One, mandatory referenda in respect of any constitutional changes. Two, popular initiatives in respect of sponsoring proposals or challenging bad legislation, of which there is a great deal. To obtain a referendum, a petition would require to collect a minimum number of signatures within a specific time, eg two and a half per cent of total electoral votes, ie 1.1 million, within (say) 6 months, under the supervision of the Society. The resulting referendum would be overseen by a Referendum Commission.

It is essential that, in a democracy, just as the executive, legislature and justiciary must be independent, so the referendum must be independent of government. It is an instrument of the people, and for this reason, certain interests would be excluded from sponsorship, eg political parties, trades unions, corporate interests. Adoption of direct democracy would require our representatives to cede some power back to the electorate, and though some would argue that this would inhibit the independence of Parliament, direct democracy would not supplant parliamentary institutions, but supplement them by remedying deficiencies.

There is, of course, much more to this whole concept beyond the scope of this letter, but I trust the foregoing gives some idea of what the Society has in mind.

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey W.G. Munnery

--------------------------------------------

M Macpherson to Geoffrey W.G. Munnery

21st July 2000

(....)

My second point refers to your letter dated 12th May 2000. Thank you for this letter and congratulations on the publication of your fine comment in the Daily Telegraph. You write

"With regard to the introduction of direct

democracy, if the People's Petition successfully

demonstrated overwhelming support from the

electorate, which would have to amount to at least

70 per cent, then the appropriate legislation would

have to be negotiated between People and

Parliament. The petition in itself, would be a

referendum on direct democracy."

Why should an elected British parliament comply with the people's demand for direct democracy? Is there a legal or even traditional basis for such compliance?

Yours sincerely,

(M. Macpherson)

Explanatory note: The People's Petition refers to a country-wide petition, presumably to be handed to Parliament, which demands the introduction of citizens' initiative and binding referendum.

G. Munnery to M. Macpherson, 31 July 2000.

(...)

With regard to your second point concerning the initial People's Petition, overwhelming support for direct democracy implies acceptance of the sovereignty of the people, as argued in the green paper. For Parliament to refuse to recognise this sovereignty would precipitate a constitutional crisis. Subsequent legislation would establish legality, as it has done for all the previous reform acts. (....)

----------------------------------

The campaign called "Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R" may be regarded as an off-shoot of the study programme "Citizen, Society, Polity" of Integral Studies. In the mid-1990s papers were published which explored the significance of new electronic communication media (ICT) for the participation of citizens in politics. Direct democracy, indirect (representative) democracy and innovative, in some cases futuristic forms of governance were considered. The potential benefits for democracy, especially the facilitation of information, public debate and deliberation, were presented. Innovations in electronic communication were critically assessed. By reviewing experimental and potential applications of digital technology (ICT) we were able to show that numerous innovations in democratic systems are possible given public and political will; and direct voting on issues could become much easier, better informed and so potentially wiser. It may prove to be that ICT will allows new forms of democracy to emerge, indeed some modifications, especially in the USA, have already been observed. But it is important not to overlook or reject the "best practices" of democracy, such as those of Switzerland, which had emerged many years before ICT and internet became available. Also, if public decision-making on issues is going to become easier and more rapid because of ICT, then this author suggests that established non-electronic systems should be known in advance and preferably practised by citizens, so that an adequate basis of democratic-participative experience will develop, which can help to guide the introduction of and learning how to use the new systems and to avoid mistakes. The discourse about democracy, politics and ICT co-initiated by Integral Studies, aided by ICT, which took place especially in european (english and german-speaking) circles during the 1990s cannot be detailed here. The campaign "Citizens' Initiative ...I&R" arose as a separate "citizens'" venture. This venture was launched with the peoples' proposal to renew democracy, which was circulated in internet discussions in May 1999. The following letter, along with a documentation of replies to the Peoples' Proposal, was published July 1999 in the world wide web:

from: Michael Macpherson mjm@berlin.snafu.de

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I want to gather people's opinions and encourage discussion about the chances to improve real participation in public decision-making, democracy and governance.

Imagine there would be a people's referendum for the citizen's right to

take part in public affairs. This could be a new way to revive democracy, and the debate about it, in Britain (maybe elsewhere, too). "Taking part" means, for instance, being able to put a new law before parliament and the people, to cancel an existing law or

to dismiss an M.P. who has represented her or his constituents badly.

Below is a suggestion for the text of a people's referendum (called "Proposal"). If enough citizens want the referendum to go ahead, volunteers will be needed to organise the proceedings and collect the signed ballot papers. The latter could be done both "on

paper" and "on-line".

In brief, the suggestion is "Have a referendum for the right to referenda!"

_________________________________________________________________

PEOPLE'S PROPOSAL TO RENEW DEMOCRACY (with Rider, below)

We the undersigned propose that a law be passed in parliament which enables and provides finance for the following forms of democracy at all levels of government from local to national, these forms of democracy to be initiated by a fair and reasonable

percentage of the population, with decisions being made by an appropriate majority of voters:

1) Initiation of laws to be voted upon by the legislative body be it

parliament, assembly or council (Citizens' Initiative).

2) Referendum: The people decide, for instance if the legislative has

decided against the citizens' initiatives in 1) or 3).

3) Cancellation or modification of existing laws by citizens' initiative or referendum.

4) Recall of elected public delegates, representatives and officials at any time during the usual period of office: The people decide.

A "green paper" outlining the hereto relevant practices of democracy in

other countries and describing different reform options and the reasons for these shall be rapidly published and made freely available (gratis) via wide-area computer networks such as Internet.

Signed

.......

.......

.......

___________________________

Rider

By signing the foregoing proposal I mandate my Member of Parliament to help introduce and support an appropriate Bill in Parliament. In future my vote will go ONLY to those candidates for parliamentary office who promise to support the proposal.

Signed

.......

.......

.......

End of proposal.

---------------------------------

A website dedicated to the campaign "Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R" was launched in early 2000, arguing the case for more direct democracy in Britain, offering the chance to vote in a "pilot" referendum for the introduction of I&R, campaign materials such as a leaflet and voting paper which can be printed out of the internet, background information about direct democracy and links to specialised institutes. Visitors are invited to join the campaign and donations are invited.

Direct Votes is a campaign launched in 1999-2000 by James McGlynn of Tottenham in London. The initial focus arose from the frustration felt by many citizens and many voters in Britain, where most people have no possibility to influence public policy in between elections, where party campaign slogans and manifestos often turn out to have been empty promises and where bad legislation, which very few citizens want, is not seldom pushed through parliament by a government elected by a minority, nevertheless with a large parliamentary majority of seats harvested from the poorly representative election system of "first past the post" (NOT a "majority" system, as often stated). McGlynn proposed that citizens should have the right to vote on and approve or reject key issues from manifestos of the political parties. How exactly this should work is not specified. McGlynn later added an indication of his support for I&R and has become a dedicated campaigner for the cause, co-operating with Citizens' Initiative...I&R.

A "Campaign for Direct Democracy" exists as a WWW presentation authored by "John Harvey". He argues the case for more direct democracy in Britain, referring to the practice in Switzerland and the USA. He supplies guidelines for starting a parish (or community) referendum in England and Wales.

England has a reputation as the mother of parliaments. But the evolution and optimisation of democracy slowed down several hundred years ago and appeared to grind to a halt at the beginning of the 20th century when the second chamber of parliament, the so-called house of lords, had its powers modestly curtailed. A light-hearted campaign organised at an english college in 1997 offers some hope:

"Rave for the Republic

On Thursday 30 January Rave for the Republic celebrated the anniversary of the execution of Charles 1st . At 18:15 we succeeded in projecting our logo on to Buckingham Palace for 15 seconds (pictures available). It is a reminder of the fact that Britain did away with its unwanted Monarchs in the 17th century, and we did not ask for them back.

Rave for the Republic is a relatively new organisation which was formed on 22 October 1996. The execution of Charles 1st is our inspiration for fighting to reform the undemocratic British state. After the bloodshed on 30 January 1649, until shortly after Oliver Cromwells death Britain enjoyed a successful 12 year republic, without a Monarchy or House of Lords. Our organisation sees the complete abolition of outdated, imperialistic and undemocratic Monarchy as the only way forward for a modern democracy. We see the right to be citizens and not subjects as fundamental to the democratic process.

The Monarchy which, with the House of Lords, is supposed to embody our 'unwritten constitution' stands in the way of us having proper rights separate from the state. The creation of a written constitution would help protect those rights which have been increasingly infringed in the recent past : Criminal Justice Act, VAT on fuel, the poll tax and the new the Police Bill. With no bill of human rights people of Britain have no statutory line of defence against these oppressive and unrepresentative measures. What is more, it is only through the creation of a social contract can we rebuild a caring civil society."

__________________________________

A comment on "Rave for the Republic": The author of this report agrees that constitutional changes are needed but demands that they should be introduced only after extensive public debate and sealed with binding referendum(s).
 

Support from Abroad

Very few British people possess any detailed information about direct democracy, such as "initiative and referendum" or "recall" and even less have experienced these procedures in practice, e.g. by having observed a town meeting in New England, the conduct of an initiative-ballot in California or having spent time in Switzerland. Thus for promoting the development of democratic culture in Britain sources of reliable information, reports of experience and of innovations (including those in countries where, as in Britain, direct democracy is almost unknown, e.g. France) are very helpful. We can recommend the Centre for the Study and Documentation of Direct Democracy, University of Geneva, Switzerland; Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter edited by Jiri Polak Ph.D. <jiri.polak@swipnet.se>; Miroslav Kolar's Direct Democracy internet pages; Initiative and Referendum Institutes, USA and The Netherlands; Network for Direct Democracy Initiatives in Europe.

A boost for citizens' lawmaking came from the Republic of Ireland in May 2001. In this country-wide referendum the Irish were not only asked about the Nice Treaty of the European Union. They also decided with a majority of over sixty (60+) percent to remove the option of death penalty from their constitution.
 

The Houses of Parliament - the "Commons" and the "Lords", also those people bound in the archaic power structures of and around the monarch, many politicians and civil servants in central, regional and local government, probably a majority of them will resist, scheme, plot, trick and conspire against the introduction of citizen law-making, with its clear assertion and expression of citizen-sovereignty as in "power to the people".

In order to get elements of direct democracy introduced into British political life a perhaps unprecedented social mobilisation around an idea will be needed. People must get out of old, lethargic and passive life-habits and become active citizens, members of society and polis. This is a great deal to expect of many, those who are already stressed, poor or overworked. Others, with personal and material resources to spare, must help. For campaigning success an alliance of people, groups and organisations with a range of interests and aims will be needed. The spectrum of political views and affiliations must necessarily be broad. Common denominators, shared interests, will be the wish to strengthen democracy, to promote civic responsibility, to create for all fellow citizens a chance to take part in deciding about public ÷ their own ÷ affairs.

Participative politics for Britain would be a social innovation ÷ there are things to be learned here from those who have studied social innovations and how they disseminate and may be disseminated.

The author of this paper proposes that elements of direct democracy should not replace but be integrated with the existing representative system of rule. A first step is to introduce citizens' initiative, along with the option to go on to referendum which is binding on government and administration. The initiative-proposal will be debated in parliament or council and only if rejected there will a referendum become an option. Time-lags, information and deliberation are built into the system so that hasty decisions and, certainly, "push-button" electronic instant decision-making will be avoided. (Electronic collection of signatures for initiatives, and voting in referendums via internet, telephone or other electronic system, are feasible.)

The citizens of a polity ÷ country, region, city, town or district ÷ and this is most important, should have the option to propose or veto a law or make a rule. Plebiscites should not be imposed from "above". Of course, if the people wish to introduce regular voting on quite numerous issues then, as citizen-lawmakers, they will be entitled to do so.

The new law which governs the form and conduct of direct democratic procedures should preferably originate from a constitution-giving process of citizen law-making, most likely a referendum.

Deliberate processes of information, promotion and litigation - summed up in the word "campaign" are essential if reforms of the British political landscape, such as those which we have described above, are to have a chance of success. Beginnings have been made - see for instance the rubrics "Campaigners" and "Evidence of broader support " above.

M. Macpherson, founder of the campaigning project "Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R" formulated the following, published in Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter Vol.3 (No.3) September 2001:

"What should be done to promote the introduction of elements of direct democracy such as initiative, referendum and recall into the British system of governance?

Suggested are:

1) A campaign based on condensed and readily available information. Basic explanation of I&R, proposals and some resources are at http://www.iniref.org/  Some initial work by volunteers is in progress. We need more members - you can join via the website.

2) A process of education, learning and research about direct democracy. This means serious work. Skilled people will have to be paid in order to get it done. The interdisciplinary research venture Integral Studies, which I co-ordinate, would be interested to organise and contribute to a programme of study about direct democracy for Britain. We would like to hear about related work planned by other groups and about sources of funding.

The website of Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org has been improved to allow easier navigation and expanded to offer membership. See:

*THE CASE FOR INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN BRITAIN* *RESOURCES* *VOTE FOR MORE DEMOCRACY* *WHAT YOU CAN DO* *CONTACT*

Please visit the website via http://www.iniref.org/map.html then consider joining and helping our campaign for more democracy in Britain.

---------------------------------------

Appendix

How to organise your own local referendum on an issue that is important to your community.

You have to live in a Civic Parish Council in England or a Community Council in Wales. These are mainly in rural areas, but if you are in any doubt then check with your local council.

The law which entitles local communities to a referendum is part 3, schedule 12, paragraph 18, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Local Government Act of 1972. In Wales, the reference is part 5, paragraph 34, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5.

Here's what you do... Obviously, choose an issue that you want to vote on, it can be any subject, but it's best to pick one that local people are interested in. Then, decide on the question that you want people to vote on. Then, you and at least 5 other parish or community residents need to contact your parish or community council, arrange a parish meeting and advertise it locally. There must be at least 10 people at the meeting.

At the meeting you have to call a vote on the proposal to hold a referendum. At least 10 people, or a third of those who are at the meeting, must vote in favour Assuming success, go to your local district council offices, and submit your request for a referendum. Tell them you are invoking your right to do this under part 3, schedule 12, paragraph 18, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Local Government Act of 1972, or if you live in Wales, refer to part 5, paragraph 34, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5.

The Council should contact you within a week, and the referendum has to take place between 14 and 25 days after you submit your request. You must publicise the referendum yourselves.

Further information about citizens' referendums can be obtained from The National Association of Local Councils, 108 Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3LD. Tel: 0207 637 1865

to return to I&R index page click on logo