Social media is an odd phenomenon. It gives everyone a voice; a platform to express their ideas and opinions, and say whatever crosses their minds. But more people are arriving at the conclusion that everyone broadcasting their ideas does more harm than good.
So why would any government encourage such a practice?
Referendums are in the same vein as soliciting citizens' opinions. You might liken them to online polls: "Should this happen or shouldn't it?", but on a much more consequential scale.
Indeed, most referendums and plebiscites are simple 'yes/no' questions with supporting information provided. Why does the Australian government feel compelled to ask their citizens what should or shouldn't become law?
That question takes the idea of referendums too far. Australian citizens on the voting registers only need to vote in referendums to change Australia's Constitution.
Plebiscites, votes on other matters regarding life and laws in Australia are optional. Australian citizens have such latitude in shaping their country's guardrails! We need to see why are referendums important in Australia.
Referendums Around the World
Of all the centuries-old countries in Europe, Switzerland stands as the champion of referendums. Out of Napoleon's successful 1797/98 conquest arose the Swiss nation as we know it today.
But long before Napoleon set his sights on that land, the menfolk of that country were compelled by law to attend popular assemblies. There, they'd vote by a show of hands on important state matters.
Swiss menfolk engaged in direct democracy as far back as the Early Middle Ages, as mandated by the Swiss Union of 1291. To this day, registered voters participate in referendums, which either they or the state might trigger.
Other European countries have not embraced the practice to such an extent. To wit, Swiss referendums amount to one-third of the world's total referendums.
Ireland promised its citizens direct democracy, which they partook of with gusto. Unfortunately, the Irish legislature could amend its Constitution without a referendum. So when citizens started advancing initiatives, the government amended the Constitution to make those petitions invalid. Despite that preemptory move, today's Irish citizens are once again required to vote on any Constitutional amendment.
Italians are also fervent direct democracy adherents. Italian citizens may challenge any law and may even trigger referendums themselves, as long as half a million people agree. This high turnout requirement, along with Italians not having a vote to change their Constitution, tarnishes this country's referendum standing.
The United States does not offer its citizens any way to influence their government or laws at the federal level. Nor do US citizens have any input on their country's Constitutional amendments. Instead, the federal government proposes the bill, which 38 of the 50 states must approve before it goes back to Congress for ratification.
Of all the Western democracies, the United Kingdom is an outlier. It is a constitutional monarchy that lacks a constitution, and there are no checks on parliamentary power. However, the UK offers its citizens opportunities to participate in direct democracy; the Brexit vote is the most (in)famous example of such. British citizens' voices to Parliament may be muted but that time, they made themselves heard loud and clear.
Referendums in Australia
Australia is a young country in a lot of respects. Until January 1, 1901, our country was a collection of colonies that answered to distant dictates from our monarch. On the other side of the world, the king wasn't privy to all the negotiations amongst colony leaders that led to Australia becoming federalised. Those newly-minted Australians might have thought he didn't need to be.
To this day, we Australians baulk at too much federal oversight. That attitude might help explain why early writers of our Constitution insisted on including how our country's founding document could be changed.
Section VIII states that the Constitution of Australia cannot be amended without citizens' direct input. Considering how limited citizens in other countries are in shaping their countries' foundational laws, we seem to be ahead with this privilege.
How Referendums Work in Australia
The Australian Parliament mirrors other bicameral governments around the world. The House and Senate work together to formulate laws and ensure their passage. In their draft forms, laws are called bills. When a bill proposes to change the Constitution, it merits extra consideration.
Once such a bill is drafted, it's put to the vote in the House and Senate. If the bill passes in the Senate but the House doesn't vote favourably, the Governor-General may cast the tie-breaking vote. The Governor-General represents the monarchy; they typically invoke the 'deadlock provision' at the Prime Minister's advisement. Once a bill has passed in both chambers, or the Governor-General cast the tie-breaking vote, the bill goes to the public.
In Australia, everyone on the voting rolls must vote - both in elections and in referendums. That mandate isn't as martial as it sounds. If a citizen is unable to vote for whatever reason, checking in at their polling station without casting a vote may be sufficient. Turning in a blank ballot is also acceptable.
Once the referendum results are in, they are tallied in two ways. First, fifty per cent plus one (50% + 1) must have voted 'Yea' for the bill to pass. Next, four of the six states' populations must also have voted that way. This double-majority system ensures the strongest support for any ballot initiative. Especially one as important and consequential as changing the Constitution.
A referendum question is considered carried when a vote satisfies the double-majority standard. Then, the bill is presented to the Governor-General for royal assent, after which the amendment may move forward. Of the 44 amendments put to a referendum since Australia became federalised, only eight have passed.
State Referendums and Plebiscites
Besides national referendums that every state and territory must participate in, states may hold referendums. The referendum question affects only that state and the results are binding only in that state. Using 'referendum' suggests that every citizen on the voting rolls in that state must cast a ballot, even if it's blank. Western Australia's vote to adopt daylight saving time is an example of such.
The citizens rejected that initiative after trialling time shifts for three years. But this instance and others like it call into question using 'referendum' to define such votes. Remember that referendums to change the Constitution demand a double majority. A majority of states and a majority of citizens voting in favour of any action to take place.
By contrast, plebiscites are simple-majority votes that may change one aspect of society without changing foundational laws. Broadening Australia's Marriage Law is a recent example of such. That 2017 ballot initiative is the most recent national plebiscite.
As mentioned in this article's introduction, citizens are not compelled to vote on plebiscites. They don't have to register at their polling place, nor must they submit a blank ballot if they wish to abstain from voting. Despite these words being used interchangeably, these qualities distinguish plebiscites from referenda.
Why Are Referendums Important?
Morally and ethically, people should have a degree of input in how they live and how their governments function. But not every government welcomes or encourages civic participation.
One of the US's earliest presidents, James Madison, averred that direct democracy amounts to 'tyranny of the masses'. More than two centuries later, Irish politician John Bruton said that if given the chance, people would vote against government, presumably regardless of the issue.
Under such sentiments runs a whisper of disdain; the idea that citizens cannot be well enough informed to make decisions of such magnitude. That they will vote emotionally rather than rationally. That they're incapable of considering all aspects of an issue before letting their voices be heard. That they should remain quiet and trust their elected officials to do what's best for them.
There's also historical abuse of referenda to consider. Throughout the past century, populist dictators used direct democracy to advance their agenda. Masking their true intent behind innocuous yes/no questions 'tricked' citizens into agreeing with populist agenda items.
A question like "Should German people have the best standards of living?" implied that enjoying such standards would come at the expense of others.
Still, which German citizen would vote 'No' to a question like that? Therein lies the danger of referendum questions. They may come loaded with propaganda and divisiveness that harms society rather than help advance it.
The UK's Brexit referendum underscores that point. Today, that country's society and politics are more bitterly divided than before, when it was beset with simple, unformed malaise.
Being civically engaged means being informed and having the ability to think critically. To look beyond the headlines and propaganda to examine an issue from all sides. To make our neighbours and communities a part of our political and actual considerations.
And to make decisions based not on what we feel or what might be best for ourselves, but on what might be best for everyone. A referendum is our chance to prove that we are rational, informed actors capable of considering and voting on important issues.
Enjoyed this article? Leave a rating!
Loading...
