|
The problem with petitions - or should we say the problem with politicians?
An article in The Guardian by Denis MacShane repeated a
number of arguments that professional politicians love to parade against
the introduction of direct democracy.
His point of departure is the petition against road pricing that has been
launched on the website of the Office of the Prime Minister and that has
attracted widespread public support.
MacShane quotes an adviser to Charlemagne who supposedly told his King
1200 years ago that 'the clamour of the mob is often close to insanity'.
That may well be so but we could also point out any number of politicians
whose actions, and even more so whose opinions, would be called insane by
a wide majority of the electorate (or the mob as Mr. MacShane likes to
call those who pay his not inconsiderable wages). We also have serious
doubts as to whether Charlemagne would make a suitable leader in today's
political landscape. Maybe some politicians would love to decide policies
in the same way that Charlemagne could - without having to consider the
wishes of his people (who were still subjects in the true sense of the
word).
The argument that supporters of a petition against rearmament in the 1930s
were misguided cannot be used against the use of direct forms of
government either as it does not prove that policies - or the outcome of
policies - would necessarily have been different in the absence of the
petition.
Denis MacShane is obviously against the introduction of the death penalty
but that does not mean that the existence of petitions calling for its
reintroduction are an argument against direct democracy. Who is to decide
that the majority is wrong if a call for the death penalty would be
carried in a referendum?
MacShane also makes an incoherent argument against the use of petitions
(he probably includes referenda as well) when he argues that plebiscitory
democracy 'will take us away from rational decisions' and cites the
discussions surrounding the new European Constitution as an example. In
our opinion, a rational discussion of any policy is only possible if the
public at large and all points of view can be aired and all voters have
the final say on the issue - not only politicians that are beholden to
parties, the party whip or lobbies that operate behind closed doors and
have privileged access to the media and the decision makers.
17-Feb-07
|