Philosophical context
Classical political philosophy sets out three types of government, Monarchy, Aristocracy
and Democracy. Monarchy is a government of one person, Aristocracy is a
government of less than half of the population and Democracy is a government of
more than half of the population. By viewing politics using these terms there
are currently no democratic nations (as far as I’m aware). In the UK we have a
government of at most a few thousand (Members of the Commons, Members of the
Lords, Local authority councillors and judges) or a lower estimate of 22
(Cabinet Ministers) with a total population of around 62 million. We are therefore
a semi elected aristocracy (with us electing Local Councillors and Members of
the Commons). This system of Government is what caused the political
philosopher JJ Rousseau to remark “The English people believes itself to be
free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of
parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is
nothing. In the brief moment of its freedom, the English people makes such a
use of that freedom that it deserves to lose it.”
To the modern speaker it sounds appalling that we should be
ruled by an aristocracy but that is partly because of how we use the term in
modern English and how we use the term democracy. A democracy according to the
classical definition would have more than the half the population making the everyday
decisions of government not just electing people to make those decisions. This
kind of government is actually now more practically possible than it has ever
been in the past with smart phones potentially allowing people to make decisions
and receive information anywhere at any time. There are two good reasons why a
pure democracy is worse system of government than a semi elected aristocracy.
Firstly most people don’t know enough to make most decisions but secondly and
more importantly most people don’t care.
Most people don’t
care about most government decisions
When I say that most people don’t care about government decisions I don’t mean that they don’t care about the outcome. I mean they don’t care about the decision itself. When choosing how much private companies should be allowed to operate NHS services the most popular answer amongst the general public is essentially "I don’t mind as long as the NHS is still good". For most people many of the major issues of politics are valence issues. I believe that people when asked questions on politics are more likely to say they care than they actually do because we view not caring as a negative social trait. Even if this isn’t the case many solid polls show that the most popular opinion (if not the majority opinion) is "whatever works”. It is more important that the government makes the right decision than whatever the decision they take actually is. People want low unemployment more than they care about whether we should cut the deficit or not.
When I say that most people don’t care about government decisions I don’t mean that they don’t care about the outcome. I mean they don’t care about the decision itself. When choosing how much private companies should be allowed to operate NHS services the most popular answer amongst the general public is essentially "I don’t mind as long as the NHS is still good". For most people many of the major issues of politics are valence issues. I believe that people when asked questions on politics are more likely to say they care than they actually do because we view not caring as a negative social trait. Even if this isn’t the case many solid polls show that the most popular opinion (if not the majority opinion) is "whatever works”. It is more important that the government makes the right decision than whatever the decision they take actually is. People want low unemployment more than they care about whether we should cut the deficit or not.
This isn’t a bad thing. Even for a political obsessive like myself there are whole
departments of government (DEFRA for one) where I have no opinion on what they
should do, just that they should make the right decisions whatever they are.
They are important decisions that matter a large amount to interested parties
and probably eventually have an effect on my life but that does not mean that I
will have an opinion. I care that they get it right and I will support whoever
to the best of my knowledge I believe will get it right. Essentially this is
one of the main reasons that we elect politicians, to have an opinion on these
subjects and to make sure the right decision is made.
If we don’t know and
we don’t care when should we get a say
With the justification for the political system outlined above there remains the question of when if ever should we have a referendum. I would say that it is fairly obvious that we shouldn't have a referendum on valence issues because most people don’t care and it makes little sense for them to have a say in them. So the first requirement of a referendum should be that it is something which the general public is interested in and not something that the public are simply interested in it being done right (economic policy would be the perfect example of this). I would contend that voting systems and constitutional structure fit within this bracket. I’ve not seen a poll on this but I am fairly confident that people would be of the opinion that we should have a fair voting system, rather than being of the opinion that we should have first past the post or the alternative vote. Similarly people want an efficient and accountable local government more than they care if they have an elected mayor or not. The fact that this has been ignored in recent referendums explains the extremely low turnout where they were the only votes happening on those occasions and drastically decreases the importance of the results. I believe that a referendum on reforming the House of Lords would see similar results. There is simply not a good case to make on having a referendum on any of these issues. On the other hand an issue like whether or not to have a death penalty seems to be a good issue to have a referendum upon if the general public are divided over it because it is clearly not a valence issue.
With the justification for the political system outlined above there remains the question of when if ever should we have a referendum. I would say that it is fairly obvious that we shouldn't have a referendum on valence issues because most people don’t care and it makes little sense for them to have a say in them. So the first requirement of a referendum should be that it is something which the general public is interested in and not something that the public are simply interested in it being done right (economic policy would be the perfect example of this). I would contend that voting systems and constitutional structure fit within this bracket. I’ve not seen a poll on this but I am fairly confident that people would be of the opinion that we should have a fair voting system, rather than being of the opinion that we should have first past the post or the alternative vote. Similarly people want an efficient and accountable local government more than they care if they have an elected mayor or not. The fact that this has been ignored in recent referendums explains the extremely low turnout where they were the only votes happening on those occasions and drastically decreases the importance of the results. I believe that a referendum on reforming the House of Lords would see similar results. There is simply not a good case to make on having a referendum on any of these issues. On the other hand an issue like whether or not to have a death penalty seems to be a good issue to have a referendum upon if the general public are divided over it because it is clearly not a valence issue.
The issue of the European Union is a far less open and shut
case. Far more people seem to have an opinion on our relationship with Europe
and the “I don’t care as long as it is done right” option though still
significant is less dominant. However it is not ideally suited for a
referendum. There are many different answers to what we would like our
relationship with Europe to be, many of which cannot be achieved simply by
changing our countries policy. This means any question that would be difficult
to draw up and many of the answers it gives could only have a guiding effect on
policy. It is also not a great issue for a referendum because it is very
complex. It would be very difficult to ensure that the entire electorate was sufficiently
educated about the costs and benefits of the issue. However this shouldn’t necessarily
be seen as a reason to give control of this decision to elected
representatives. These representatives
have to be educated on the issue and in theory if that is possible then it
should be possible to educate the general public. In practice I think many MPs
are just as ill informed about Europe as a general member of the public.
I think it’s important to look at our general structure of
politics before making any decisions about whether or not to hold a referendum
and look beyond manifesto commitments or the size of the change to why we elect
politicians in the first place. Just
because an issue is important or big does not mean it’s a good issue to have a
referendum over. The economy is extremely important but it would be a terrible
idea to have a referendum over economic policy.
