[Reader-list] Swiss referendum

[Patrice Riemens]

> Hi Patrice,
> Would be interesting to know what the arguments of your friends
> are.Arguments against referenda are not an argument against democracy
> itself. In any case I feel uncomfortable if all parts of a constitution is
> subject to the unfettered tyranny of the majority,without being subject to
> judicial review.
> Some of my friends have argued that judicial review is nothing but elitism
> where the zeitgeist is subject to the snobbery of a few learned people.I
> do not necessarily see it as such.I see it as a check/balance which can
> guard against temporal swings in opinion.After all,the judiciary  is
> protecting nothing else but the basic principles upon  which a particular
> constitution is based on.
> In a country like India, such a "referendum happy" direct democracy is
> difficult to implement because of reasons of logistics,so here this issue
> would probably have been framed as a power struggle between the
> legislature and the judiciary. Here, judicial review is important because
> legislature is not the same as direct democracy and till the time the
> legislature goes back to the peoples' court again the judiciary should be
> there to protect the interests of the people
> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK in India judiciary has the
> right to review everything.This may probably slow down change but as I
> said earlier is a good check against temporal frenzy.
> I have thought about this and probably I would go with a system in which
> the heart of the constitution is not sacrosanct but it can only be changed
> after a given number of consecutive referendums(not one) vote for the
> change.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rahul
>
>

Rahul,

It's a very complex issue, but the (my) bottom line is that you cannot
reconcile democracy with rejection of referenda (which doesn't mean you
have to introduce them where they dont exist). The problem lies with
representation in the broadest sense. And the current crisis in democratic
politics is therefore also known as the crisis of representative democracy
- where 'the people' feel 'unrepresented', despite elections.

Many of my friends take the (elitist) viewpoint that the people at large
are stupid, nasty, and brutal, and that democracy can only be salvaged
from them thru enlightenend representatives. Which the masses may elect
every so many years - and then shut up. Direct democracy is really
anathema to them, as it can only mean the onslaught of the great unwashed.
And they do think the Swiss are really backward with their system.

It is a strange system indeed: as per official doctrine, the government is
made up of all parties represented in parliament (save the very marginal
ones), and the opposition is ... the People itself (that famous
'sovereign'
as it is called in the papers), expressing its desires or disaprovals
through 'popular votations' triggered by a 'popular initiatives' or a
request for a refrendum (an x number of signatures, depending on the reach
of the votation, federal, cantonal, municipal). It is interesting to note
that over the past 100 years the 'sovereign' has rejected around 90% of
the proposals submitted to its vote.

Judicial review: another vexed question. Next time!

Cheers, patrizio & Diiiinooos!