Democracies stand tall on a value often referred to as `
Suffrage’ or the right to vote. In the modern era, increasing awareness among
the public points to increasing scrutiny of public policy and law. As a result,
it becomes crucial to maintain transparency and accountability in government
decisions. Here, we see an interesting political invention; a `referendum’
which merges the ideals of suffrage, accountability and participation. However,
it is often confused with the word `plebiscite’. An error, which in my opinion,
is crucial to address.
A referendum is a product of ` Direct Democracy’. It is an exercise where the public votes on a
legislation that has been passes by the legislature. The vote in this case is a
`Yes’ or a `No’. By voting in a referendum, the public is exercising its right
to accept or reject a legislation before it is enforced upon them as a
law. Here, the initiation of a
referendum may not necessarily come from the state. Referendums can be initiated
by citizen groups as well. Citizens must, to that effect, give rise to a
petition that clearly states the legislation that they want subject to a
referendum. This does not mean a shift in sovereignty from the state to the
people as there are laws and legislation that are cannot be opened up to a referendum.
These include legislations that are crucial to the functioning of the branches
of government or those that relate to immediate public interest such as the
`police power’ of the state. That being said, it is undeniable that referendums
are effective tools to increase participation. The most widely covered referenda
are those in the USA put forth state by state over the issue of `Legalization
of Marijuana’. Washington and Colorado are among those who have legalized the
use of Marijuana through the use of the referendum which had now successfully
answered a question that had been in the fore front of the public discourse.
A plebiscite is
similar to a referendum in the sense that it is a vote on an issue of general
public importance. However, unlike a referendum, it lacks legal force. The
result of the vote is not binding on the government. It is used in order to
gauge whether the government has the support of the public with respect to a
certain issue or not. In a plebiscite, the votes are taken before a legislation
is passed whilst a referendum is a vote that is conducted after. While referendums are initiated by citizen
groups, plebiscites are initiated by the state itself. Thus, while a plebiscite
does induce citizen participation, its nature is less direct as compared to a
referendum. The United Nations Security
Council (UNSC) resolution 47, recommended the conduction of a plebiscite in the
disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Even though the decision of the UNSC
(The body that passed the resolution) is only recommendatory in nature and is
even opposed by the Indian state, one can see the use of a plebiscite to
address an issue of not only national but global security.
Thus, when studying policy making processes, both procedures
can play pivotal roles in addressed key issues. However, it is critical to note
the differences between these two tools of participation. After all, both are
votes that are vastly contrasting in their context and consequence.
-
Atharva Deshmukh
20153011
Good post.
ReplyDelete