Skip Navigation | HOME | UK Indymedia | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

manchester Indymedia

Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy

iniref | 31.10.2010 11:32

The time seems ripe for a broadly-backed effort to introduce partial direct democracy in the UK and its countries.

Moving our countries, cities, towns and districts towards real "democracy-by-the-people" is not a party-political issue.

The idea that we as citizens should be able to participate in our own public affairs has spread to people from most walks of life. However, when we move on to ask "How?" shall we take part then the answer, despite blustering talk by the "major" political parties about giving power back to the electorate, remains very unsatisfying. The condition of our political power remains much as it was in the oft quoted eighteenth century quip by Jean Jacques Rousseau, "The people of England think they are free. They are gravely mistaken. They are free only during the election of Members of Parliament". We may vote for a politician or party once every few years but in the intervening periods we have no effective ways to influence public policy nor to veto unwanted laws and government actions. Opinion surveys, petitions and mass demonstrations may occasionally have influenced government behaviour but there is no guarantee whatsoever that the will of the electorate shall be respected in public policy.

So what are the effective ways to return some "power to the people"? Several well-tried "tools" of democracy are available including:
– the Citizens' Proposal (also known as "initiative" and "proposition").
– the Referendum.

Some illustrations follow:
a) The Citizens' Proposal tends to act as an "accelerator" or stimulus in public affairs. Governments may fail to act on an important matter of policy, or assign low priority to another. By formulating a proposal and collecting an agreed number of endorsements, members of an electorate can put the proposal on the public agenda, obliging parliament to debate and decide on the proposal, and if need be triggering a decision by the whole electorate in a referendum ("ballot").

b) The Veto-Referendum, the "brake", may be used to strike out part of a law, annul a law or block a government law before it comes into effect. For current government law, usually an agreed number of signatures must be collected within a few months, in order to usher in a referendum on the legislation which has been challenged.

c) The Recall is a form of Citizens' Initiative which can lead to the sacking of an MP (or councillor) in the period between normal elections. A proposal to "recall" the elected representative must be endorsed by a large number of members of her or his constituency. A successful "recall" must usually be followed by a by-election.

These procedures of democracy are of course not meant to replace, nor would they weaken, parliament and government.

It is of interest to note that the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties have repeatedly promised to devolve power to the "lowest possible" level. After gaining power the Conservative/Libdem coalition put forward some surprisingly advanced proposals for improving democracy in Britain. For instance, the coalition agreement among other related ideas promises:

– We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.
– We will give residents the power to veto excessive council tax increases.
– We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall ...

Elsewhere David Cameron promised to introduce "The right to initiate local and national referenda" ('Fixing broken politics' speech May 2009).

*************
It is by no means certain that the Con/Libdem coalition is sincere about the above described reforms nor is it clear that their leaders can realistically hope to deliver in the face of anticipated opposition from their own back benches and elsewhere. They need our help and encouragement!

Those many citizens (more than seven in ten adults according to surveys) who yearn for people-powered democracy in all parts of the UK could rise to take these politicians AT THEIR WORD.
Moving our countries, cities, towns and districts towards real "democracy-by-the-people" is not a party-political issue. Whatever your political views, so long as you want better democracy then please join in yourself or support others who actively campaign.

*************

Further information:

 http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/
 http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
 http://www.iniref.org/

















iniref
- e-mail: info@iniref.org
- Homepage: http://www.iniref.org/

Download this article in pdf format >>

Email this article to someone >>

Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>

Comments

Hide the following 13 comments

Tinkering

31.10.2010 12:20

"These procedures of democracy are of course not meant to replace, nor would they weaken, parliament and government."
So in what way would they make any difference? You want to 'return some "power to the people"' - where is this power being retuned from? Power, in this context, is relative. You cannot give people more power without reducing government power (i.e. weakening it).


How will you prevent 'the tyranny of the majority?' The mechanisms that you propose seem to suggest that:

a) The democratic thing to do is the thing that most people want done. What about the people that disagree - are they ignored? How do you prevent the tyranny of the majority? What mechanisms will be in place to protect the most vulnerable people in society?

b) One of the most aspects of any group or society is the ability to set the agenda - to say what discussions will be had, and what topics will have decisions on them. How do your proposals address the current status quo whereby politicians have the power to set the agenda? Your proposal seems to say that we, the people, can tell them to think again about a decision, but offers no possibility to say that the wrong topic is being discussed in the first place.


I'm sure you have good motivations, but your proposals do not seem to get to the core of the issue. Democracy should be based on the consent of everybody, not just the majority. And this will not happen until power is distributed evenly. These proposals only try to reign in the power of government. They do not return power to all of the people. This return of power will not be achieved by technocratic adjustments to our system. Far deeper changes are needed. Tinkering with a broken system is not a 'super campaign' - a campaign address more fundamental aspects of how we organise and distribute power would be.

(A)


Super-campaign for people power / more democracy

31.10.2010 13:11

Tinkering wrote: "One of the most aspects of any group or society is the ability to set the agenda - to say what discussions will be had, and what topics will have decisions on them. How do your proposals address the current status quo whereby politicians have the power to set the agenda? Your proposal seems to say that we, the people, can tell them to think again about a decision, but offers no possibility to say that the wrong topic is being discussed in the first place."

But the citizens' initiative IS an agenda-setting tool. In this regard it is even more valuable if the procedure of "indirect initiative" is adopted. This means that citizens' proposals do not go directly to referendum but first must be debated and decided upon by local council or parliament. This helps to start public information and discussion of the issue, so that people can later make a better informed choice.

Also, reaching consensus in a society of many millions, even in a village, is not practical. This applies to actions of governments in "representative" democracy. By introducing some tools of direct democracy we citizens can (a) set agenda (b) block unwanted government policy (c) approach nearer to consensus by improving public involvement in decision-making, levels of information and quality of debate.

"Super-Campaign" is meant to grasp the idea of a campaign "for campaigners". These tools of democracy can be used to address all sorts of issues in many fields of activity, problem-solving and struggle.

iniref
mail e-mail: info@iniref.org
- Homepage: http://www.iniref.org/


violent democracy or anarchy

31.10.2010 15:22

Government is a gun against the head of everyone in the land.
You want to control the gun ?
You don't want disarm ?

It dos not matter to me how people chose to organize their affairs,
only that they don't use the violence of statism.

anarchist


Still don't get it

31.10.2010 17:13

OK, I accept that I missed the agenda setting point in the original post - to a degree. But I don't get how this proposal will really change much.

"do not go directly to referendum but first must be debated and decided upon by local council or parliament. This helps to start public information and discussion of the issue, so that people can later make a better informed choice."
So I can put an item on the political agenda, and then we the people can decide if we agree or not on what they in power have deemed suitable for us to vote on. And if we don't agree, the process starts again. All I can imagine happening is politicos filibustering. And do you really think that politicians discussing something is how the public get involved in things? Or that we, the public, are better informed by what they say compared by discussing it within our own communities?

"Also, reaching consensus in a society of many millions, even in a village, is not practical."
Reaching consensus in villages as a successful and sustainable way of organising has a far longer history than liberal democracies have. If you do not accept consensus as the basis for decision making, I don't see how you can get around the issue of tyranny, which you didn't address in your reply.

"Super-Campaign" is meant to grasp the idea of a campaign "for campaigners"
I don't know what this means.

But I don't really want to get into a big debate about these issues. I want to hear about how these reforms will fundamentally alter the power imbalance that are inherent in any hierarchical system.

I think anarchist said it better than I have. It's not about how controls the levers of power, it's about questioning why we need those levers in the first place.

(A)


Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy

31.10.2010 21:06

(A) wrote, ""do not go directly to referendum but first must be debated and decided upon by local council or parliament. This helps to start public information and discussion of the issue, so that people can later make a better informed choice."
So I can put an item on the political agenda, and then we the people can decide if we agree or not on what they in power have deemed suitable for us to vote on. And if we don't agree, the process starts again. All I can imagine happening is politicos filibustering. And do you really think that politicians discussing something is how the public get involved in things? Or that we, the public, are better informed by what they say compared by discussing it within our own communities?"

With direct democracy we "can put an item on the political agenda" and push it through to ballot (referendum) in a decision which has the power of law. It is not the case that we must consider "what they in power have deemed suitable for us to vote on". The people hold ultimate political power and can propose and decide as they choose. Just because a parliament may discuss a citizens' proposal does not mean that parliament can block or delay the matter. What I have just described here is not fantasy or new design. The practice already exists in a number of places but not in UK.

To see how it works view the Alpine Initiative film via  http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html





iniref
mail e-mail: info@iniref.org
- Homepage: http://www.iniref.org/


More democracy.

01.11.2010 18:13

I'm not sure 'liberals' would like more democracy. It might mean the return of things like the death penalty and fox hunting, and many immigrants being sent away from these islands.

'Liberals' care deeply about the common people but know they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.

Pete


Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy

01.11.2010 20:53

to Pete: There is no convincing evidence of a causal link between politically imposed cruel punishments and direct democracy.

Where there is capital punishment then it was usually maintained or introduced by "representative" governments from right to left of political spectrum.

In modern times the tide seems to be turning against cruel punishments.

In recent years in referenda (decision of the people) the death penalty in parts of Europe has been abolished.

Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
 http://www.iniref.org/

iniref
mail e-mail: info@iniref.org
- Homepage: http://www.iniref.org/


Prisoners vote

02.11.2010 12:20

I look forward to a referendum about giving the vote to evil child killers people like Ian Huntley.

I'd fancy one on EU membership too.

I supect many UK people would have welcomed a referendum on whether to admit, with full rights to work, people from the new EU countries such as Poland a few years ago. No other large EU countries let them in.

We could have local referendums on whether asylum seekers should be deported or not or on whether halal and kosher slaughtered meat should be allowed to be sold in the city.

We could be asked if we really do want our council to hire so many diversity and equal opportunity staff on large wages and small workloads.

Urbis would probably never have opened if we'd been asked about it first. We'd have samed millions.

Yes, I'm beginning to like this proposal for increasing democracy.

Pete


Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy

02.11.2010 16:33

Some of what Pete writes is distant from reality. For instance, "local referendums on whether asylum seekers should be deported or not" could not be legally held in the UK.

Having stronger democracy and better participation does not mean that a village can take over tasks or law-making of central government. A local referendum can address only those areas of responsibility held by the local council. If you want to change things at country level then you have to organise initiative (citizens' proposal) and referendum at that level. That's much more difficult and time consuming, there are hurdles which prevent trivial or dangerous proposals from getting through.

Why throw out the democracy "baby with the bathwater"? All political and social themes of progressives, creative movements, even anarchists can be helped along with citizen-led democracy of the sort which we propose.

iniref
mail e-mail: info@iniref.org
- Homepage: http://www.iniref.org/learn.html


Only some democracy then.

02.11.2010 17:56

Iniref says

'"local referendums on whether asylum seekers should be deported or not" could not be legally held in the UK. '

Perhaps he is right.

But if his peoples democracy really does catch on perhaps they will be allowed one day. And why would iniref mind? He loves local democracy with decisions being devolved down to the people as much as possible.

Or does he? Maybe he's like many 'liberals'. Does he only want the little people to decide on little things like how often they want their bins emptied while they are still told what to do when it comes to important matters like capital punishment and whether to let immigrants in or not.

So, iniref, please tell us which matters do you want more democracy on, and which you don't.

Pete


Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy

02.11.2010 20:29

Pete surmises, "But if his peoples democracy really does catch on perhaps they will be allowed one day. And why would iniref mind? He loves local democracy with decisions being devolved down to the people as much as possible."

Here is our campaign "platform". On the page
 http://www.iniref.org/about.html you find "Citizens' Direct Democracy – Definition of citizens’ direct democracy". We propose to introduce elements of direct democracy at all levels of government.

Pete's suspicions are grounded. There are some, conservative types, who would like to see citizens' democracy limited to low budget, local issues. For different reasons, it may be wise to first introduce direct democracy in towns and cities, then extend to country after experience has been obtained.

iniref
mail e-mail: info@iniref.org
- Homepage: http://www.iniref.org/crew.html


Yes or No

03.11.2010 11:47

Iniref,

would you welcome national referendums on

1. Capital punishment

2. EU membership

3. Immigration from the new EU countries

4. The UK's admission of asylum seekers

5. any proposed 'green' taxes


Yes or no?

I'm a big fan of democracy and would like to see referendums on all sorts of things. Look at how useful the one about the Manchester congestion charge was. Many councillors, private green pressure groups and handsomely paid (from our taxes) PR people told us it would be just wonderful. It was rejected by the people by a huge majority.

Let's have some more refendums on the topics above. Let the people speak!

Pete


Super-Campaign for people power / more democracy

03.11.2010 15:07


Hi Pete, the campaign for more democracy described at iniref.org does not promote single issues (apart from better democracy) and is independent of political parties. I am writing for the campaign here, so must stick to the rules.

There is a problem with suggestions for ballots about your priority issues. In UK, its countries and smaller political units, with very minor exceptions, there is no recognised way for citizens to obtain a referendum. That is what our campaign is trying to change. We want regulations to be introduced so that citizens can formally put forward a proposal and collect supporting endorsements. If an agreed number of electors (voters) sign up then a referendum must be held, whether the government agrees or not. The decision of the people has the power of law.

At present, all we citizens can do is to beg politicians to hold a referendum for us. Often an "authorities" referendum like this is unsatisfactory because the government of the day can decide on wording and timing of the proposal. The whole thing has often become a tactical game of the political parties and government.

So, first we need the right to referendum. We demand a referendum on this! See  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb

iniref
mail e-mail: info@iniref.org
- Homepage: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Manchester Topics

Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Manchester Actions 2010

Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands

Manchester Actions 2009

COP15 Climate Summit 2009
G20 London Summit
Guantánamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
University Occupations for Gaza

Manchester Actions 2008

2008 Days Of Action For Autonomous Spaces
Campaign against Carmel-Agrexco
Climate Camp 2008
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Smash EDO
Stop Sequani Animal Testing
Stop the BNP's Red White and Blue festival

Manchester Actions 2007

Climate Camp 2007
DSEi 2007
G8 Germany 2007
Mayday 2007
No Border Camp 2007

Manchester Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
Faslane
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
SOCPA
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

Manchester Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

Manchester Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

Manchester Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

Languages

english

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech