When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Enjoy unlimited access to quality journalism.

Limited time offer

Get your 30-day free trial!
CLARIN

Manichaean Democracy, What's Wrong With Referendums

Momentous national referendums in Colombia and Britain have shown how dangerous it can be to put complicated decisions in the hands of a fickle populous.

Colombians voted regarding the peace agreement between the government and the FARC
Colombians voted regarding the peace agreement between the government and the FARC
Graciela Römer*

-OpEd-

BUENOS AIRES — Do referendums, plebiscites and other methods of direct public participation serve democracies? Are they really compatible with representative government?

Such direct votes block debate and put off a search for consensus. Instead, they deepen divisions between voters and widen chasms between political parties tasked with resolving conflicts.

In its recent referendum, Colombians rejected a peace deal between the government and the country's longstanding FARC rebel group. Before that, in a similar referendum, Britons chose to opt out of the European Union. In both cases, the results were very close. Voters seemingly considered not just the question at hand. They also evaluated the government's legitimacy.

What's wrong with citizens helping solve problems that governments are finding hard to overcome? A democracy demands participation but it also needs citizens who are willing to carefully consider the options — an increasingly unlikely proposition in today's world.

Democracy requires that people are not just familiar with alternative courses of action but also the consequences of those actions. Above all, democracy needs the kind of information that many political leaders are reluctant to provide. The fact that leaders are using referendums to boost the legitimacy of their governments suggests that something is wrong. The plebiscite has become an instrument of political marketing.

The Colombian case is telling. Complex problems divide the political system. FARC's killing of hundreds of thousands of people over the years has left many people angry. But the result was bad news, regardless of one's opinion of the peace deal. The very low voter participation muddies the legitimacy of "asking the people". The narrow margin of voters in favor of rejecting the peace deal paved the way for different interpretations of what the people "really" meant to say.

What can the elite propose now after they've already given the public the final decision-making power on the deal? A deal that has seen complex negotiations that the public has broadly been shut out of?

How were there massive demonstrations for a Yes vote just days before there was a victory for the No camp? This referendum showed the limitations of direct democracy in resolving complex issues.

Manichaean campaign formats, such as the one that prompted Britons to vote to leave the EU, have replaced the required education and enlightenment of citizens that are needed to make informed decisions. As political debate and democracy become the playthings of the chattering, or Tweeting, masses, false promises have gained sway instead.

As far as one can tell, the yes or no votes cast in recent referendums did not involve considered deliberations of any kind.

*Graciela Romer is a sociologist.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Economy

Post-Pandemic Reflections On The Accumulation Of State Power

The public sector has seen a revival in response to COVID-19. This can be a good thing, but must be checked carefully because history tells us of the risks of too much control in the government's hands.

photo of 2 nurses in india walking past graffiti that says "democracy'

Medical students protesting at Calcutta Medical Collage and Hospital.

Sudipta Das/Pacific Press via ZUMA
Vibhav Mariwala

-Analysis-

NEW DELHI — The COVID-19 pandemic marked the beginning of a period of heightened global tensions, social and economic upheaval and of a sustained increase in state intervention in the economy. Consequently, the state has acquired significant powers in managing people’s personal lives, starting from lockdowns and quarantine measures, to providing stimulus and furlough schemes, and now, the regulation of energy consumption.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest