Referendum in Taiwan big issue. First time in your country it will be held.
I am jealous as leader of the Democratic Party D66 from the Netherlands
I was a young boy, 10 years old, when my political party D66 founded by Hans van Mierlo.
It was a time in the Netherlands, mid sixties, that many developments in society took place. Student revolts, labour strikes,
People started to realize that the power that authorities were executing, were not a matter of fact. For the first time the general public started to question authorities why they were executing the powers the way they did. For example: when the police made an arrest because somebody was demonstrating, the public did not accept that anymore. The people did not take ‘no’ for an answer anymore. They wanted to be taken serious, they wanted to be heard.
I was 10 years old. I was watching television at my parents house. An old black and white model. We were the first family with television in the whole block in our neighbourhood.
How proud I was!
On television I saw Hans van Mierlo, the founder of D66. In this hectic period of history he was critizising the existing political parties. He described the changes that took place in society. He blamed the other political parties for trying to hold on to the powers they had and not listen to the needs of the people.
This was the very reason why D66 was founded. My party wanted to change the political system. Wanted to think about people as individuals and not as groups. The cause for direct democracy was the very reason why D66 was established in 1966 of the last century.
In Dutch politics there are about 10 political parties, some are big, most are small. Not one political party will be able to govern by itself. So after elections a coalition of two or more parties must be formed.
What we see in such a period of time is a very unsatisfying phenomenon.
During election time in the campaigns of the political parties, politicians are doing their utmost best to mark their differences of opinion. Every political party wants to show its unique selling points. It seems that the gap between the parties is tremendous.
But right after the elections are over, politicians start to court one another, they want to become members of the coalition government.
All of a sudden the differences are not as clear anymore and one discovers a same line of thinking. All kind of compromises are being made. These agreements are new to the public because nor the in the party’s program, nor during the election campaign the politicians were mentioning that they agreed on certain issues.
In the Netherlands the public has no possibility to stop politicians. After the elections it is rather a black box. What kind of of government will start running the country. And on what kind of agreements!
It is for this very reason that my political party is a strong believer in the instrument of the referendum.
We want a referendum to correct the decisions politicians have made. I always compare it with the brakes of a car. The people should be allowed to pull the brakes if politicians have decided to take initiatives the people don’t like.
We call such a referendum: a corrective referendum. Decisions by politicians can be overruled, corrected by the people.
Such a corrective referendum differs from the referendum Taiwan is organizing later this month.
In Taiwan two questions are proposed to the people. The initiative has been taken by the Government, top-down, not by the people. A decision has not been taken by the government. Such a referendum is called an informative referendum
To me that resembles an opinion poll. One asks the people to give its opinion. And after that the government will act.
Democratically seen that is quite different from a corrective referendum. Because that instrument is started by the people against the decision, made by the government.
In a corrective referendum people need to collect ten thousand signatures within a short period of time. If they make it in time, the corrective referendum will be held.
Unfortunately, what I have just told you is still fiction and not reality. The other political parties oppose national referendum. And to change our constitution we are required to obtain a 2/3 rd majority in both houses of parliament.
In 1998 D66 almost succeeded in changing the constitution. We were then governing with two other political parties an after the elections in this black box period we made an agreement to introduce the national corrective referendum. Every member of parliament was obliged to vote in favour of the new referendum law. We used the very undemocratic coaltioncontract in this black box period to bring direct democracy into our constitution.
Alas one member of parliament- from the conservative liberal party- did not keep his word and voted against. We did not reach the 2/3rd majority and the referendum issue was lost.
The reason why most politicians in the Netherlands object to a corrective referendum are:
-The people choose their representatives. If they get the possibility to say no to a decision made by the government it is a breach of their representation.
My answer: if used in a proper way it strengthens representative democracy. It only eradicates unjustified decisions or decisions that have no basis in the peoples will.
-The people do not realize what they are doing when voting in a referendum. They can not grasp the scope of their decision.
My answer: in other words this argument is saying that people are stupid. With a clear campaign to sa yes or no in gthe referendum people learn the facts relevant to decide.
-The majority will stumble upon the rights of minorities.
My answer: referenda in the US have shown the contrary.
-Because of all their referenda Switzerland is a conservative country.
My answer: there are a number of decisions through referenda that contradict this argument:
2002: joined the UN
1999: prescription of heroin to drugs addicts that meet certain criteria.
1995: support for sustainable agriculture
-Referenda lead to populism and demagogies
my answer: Ridiculous reasoning. Look at politicians especially in election campaigns.
Conclusion
In the Netherlands we are missing the instrument of direct democracy, called a national corrective referendum. People are dissatisfied. They do not feel represented by their politicians. A referendum could stir their interest in the general cause again. Unfortunately the other political parties are afraid to take the people seriously and do not want to hand over a piece of their power.
