Should the idea of referendums be abandoned, on the grounds that they enjoy support from various EU detractors and right-wing populists? Or should the traditional democratic political families actually do the opposite and embrace the format, put it to work, rather than allow the enemies of open society to retain the rhetorical monopoly on them?
The latter option is the right one, simply because the digital age has direct democracy running through its DNA and there is no point trying to uninvent it. Moreover, referendums that have been held concerning Europe are a feature of the collective memories of most of the EU populations. Calling time on them (but without having the guts to say so) would deprive the people of a valued means of political expression and would simply feed into the delusion that the powers that be are deliberately becoming less and less democratic, bringing together unelected transnational élites, hiding their culpability under a cloak of opacity.
Of course, referendums may have a whiff of populism about them, in certain countries; very often, people answer not the question, but the lofty individual who asked it. The majority coalesces various groups that are incapable of agreeing on any plans beyond the result, particularly if that result was ‘no’. Referendum campaigns offering just two options are inadequate when dealing with complex matters; they encourage the expression of simplistic views, get passions running high at the expense of judgment, and the intended aim could very often be better served in the more serene atmosphere of a parliament, where rational and qualified persons hold seats.
But instead of avoiding or denigrating the concept of the referendum, let us look at how it could be put to the service of a modern and vibrant democracy, as well as that of the European project in the 21st century. And it should also be stressed that direct democracy is certainly compatible with the participative and representative forms of democracy and unquestionably worth hanging on to.
A referendum can be consultative or decisive, it can be held by government or popular initiative. It could be beneficial to increase the frequency with which they take place under proper conditions, as the drama and rarity surrounding them make reasonable decisions less likely. At local or regional level, therefore, it would pay to have more consultations on specific issues, launched by initiative of the administration or that of a critical mass of citizens. At national level, on the other hand, a purely consultative referendum is politically frustrating, particularly if the matter at hand concerns the EU.
Let us make the case for prudent reform. Any decisive referendum should be held in two stages. The first would consist of asking: “Do you intend to take part in the referendum that will be held in two weeks’ time concerning XXX and do you consider that you are sufficiently well informed to be able to answer the question?”. If the turnout rate for this first consultation is below 50% and most participants do not vote in the affirmative, the subject is referred to Parliament for a decision.
There is nothing shameful in this scenario: if the populace declares itself insufficiently motivated or competent to respond, parliamentary legitimacy is consolidated. But in the alternative hypothesis, the electorate would be convened for Round 2 and, unless turnout is less than 50%, the results will be definitively binding upon Parliament and Government. This would mean no repeats of what happened in Ireland and Denmark, where the electorate were asked to keep voting on a treaty until they had “voted the right way”, with new ‘guarantees’ being cobbled together in between times.
Obviously, the success of a serious and properly constructed referendum depends on the massive amount of awareness work that needs to be carried out in advance, by the competent public bodies, the press, political parties, associations and educators. If the referendum is about ratifying a treaty that modifies an existing treaty, it is in everybody’s interests for this document to be short, to the point and readable, so that the ordinary citizen can take ownership of the matter in hand. Furthermore, the days of major “catch-all” treaties are probably behind us, thank goodness. Take the Single European Act, for instance – more than once!
We now have to ask ourselves how the fact that six member states of the EU are denied this form of direct democracy stacks up with the principle of equality of European citizens (article 9 TEU). If it does not, as good sense would dictate, this means that those six states would have to make constitutional changes to allow referendums to take place. And states in which referendums are purely consultative, like Spain, would have to do likewise. It all becomes a matter of common interest, if only out of respect for European citizenship.
It then becomes quite clear that a debate between the senior officials of the EU should be held on certain constitutional issues, in a departure from the current – but outdated – principal that ‘each country does as it likes at home’. But it is very much the practice at the moment, and quite rightly so, for the governments of the member states to be allowed comparative exchanges, at least once a year, on the health of the rule of law and democracy in each of them. The European Parliament has called for a permanent, global and objective monitoring mechanism (see EUROPE 12137), as previously proposed by the Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel (see EUROPE 12014).
Let us take the idea a bit further. We already have a ‘European Semester’ (first half of the calendar year) given over to the coordination of economic and budgetary policies. Why not have another ‘European Semester’, in the second half of each year, focusing on the situation in the member states, concerning law and democracy, certainly, but also concerning public opinion, the behaviour of the political parties and, last but not least, various constitutional matters that affect all partners, such as referendums, the voting system in European elections, compulsory voting, voting age, regional autonomy, and much more?
Finally, this ‘European Semester of Democratic Coordination’, which would involve the Parliament, Council, Commission and Committee of the Regions and culminate in a report to the European Council, would make it possible to deal regularly with fundamental questions related to the motivations and equal participation of the electorate, to sketch out the legal convergences that would be needed to build a more democratic, more legitimate Union that is more in line with the increased aspirations of the citizens in the digital age.
Because – make no mistake about it – the digital age will not only be the age of artificial intelligence. Notwithstanding complete political disaster, it will be the age of the permanent participative instinct, in the collective intelligence, the era of as much voting as possible, that is so universally and ardently wished for.
See EUROPE 12206 for the first part of this editorial.
Renaud Denuit