Without study, the concept of a referendum appears to be the perfect approach for a democracy. In a larger population, the concept of direct democracy – referendums – disregards the promise.

Canada follows the British Parliamentary system for governance – a system of representative democracy. Since Magna Carta in 1215, England has only used referendums on three occasions. Once, to reflect on England’s voting system. Then recently, first to consider if a referendum ought to be held to ask if a binding referendum on leaving the European Common Market should be held. Finally, a binding referendum asking, “Should England exit the European Common Market.”

In more than 800 years, England engaged direct democracy three times. On the question of leaving the European Common Market, polls today affirm that citizens of England believe that they made a serious mistake by choosing to leave the European Common Market.

To understand the process that is used with representative democracy, I will share a personal example of how a parliamentary-committee works. I was a member who studied three parliamentary bills considering reducing tobacco use.

More than 20 witnesses provided testimony to the committee. These witnesses would deliver an opening statement, then remain for an enduring session of questioning by an all-party committee. Sometimes, a witness would be asked to return for an additional day(s) for further examination. A witness could be subpoenaed to attend if they did not volunteer upon request. The process would continue until the committee felt it had exhausted all relevant considerations.

Some of the witnesses were as follows: The federal Department of Health, some Provincial Departments of Health, Canadian Lung Association, Canadian Heart Association, Canadian Cancer Association, representatives from an association for Hospital Administration, and others. All of these organizations claimed that smoking was causing great harm to human health and there was a lot of data provided regarding the high level of cost and misery brought on by smoking tobacco.

Also appearing as witnesses were owners of tobacco stores, an organization of tobacco farmers (mostly southern Ontario), and numerous tobacco manufacturing companies. (I was called to attend an annual meeting of the Canadian Cancer Society to receive their highest recognition for my cross examination of the tobacco industries.)

This process – sometimes taking months to conclude – is a practise for almost every legislative bill. This is the same procedure in England. Now, think about what happens in a referendum process.

Instead of elected persons who are expected to research and exercise leadership, England turned over the examination regarding international trade, economic impact, transportation agreements and inter-government coordination to the persons who operate the hair salons, the butcher, the carpenter, the farmer, and on and on. Citizens do not have the opportunity to balance all that needs to be considered. In referendums, citizens are left to guess which advertising campaign they should trust.

Critical issues are being decided by persons who do not have the means to reflect on all of the intricacies that should to be considered. No wonder England, after voting to leave the Common Market, now regrets their own choice. How could citizens – involved as they are with their everyday life – ever consider all of the entangled factors that need to be balanced?

Referendums place a heavy burden on citizens when they are asked to do what governments were elected to do, but without the resources those governments have in abundance. Referendums are not about a simple question. Always, the whole is the result of balancing a number of intertwined complicated parts. For all of those considerations, the citizen is asked to select “Yes” or “No”; “agree” or disagree”. The complicated is reduced to gross simplicity. Then the citizens are asked to live with their uninformed choice.

The largest failing of a referendum is the binary nature of the process – a complicated matter that has untold tangents for considerations being asked to be decided by a “Yes” or a “No.” Referendums are not used on easy issues. Always they ask citizens to reduce the complicated to bar-room simplicity.
I recall former Premier Peter Lougheed stating, “Anyone can be a politician on the 95 to five questions, but skill and talent is required and tested on the 50/50 or even the 49/51 questions.” So, what happens in so many referendums? Too many are a situation where politicians “duck” an issue. The issue is too hot. The question is difficult. No matter what politics does with the issue a lot of people will be mad.

The safe action is taken, “Let the people decide.”  Regrettably, that is what politicians were elected to do – to solve the difficult as well as the easy.

Referendums can be an opportunity for a collective scream of anger. Such a scream rarely translates into enduring public policy. During a period of “mad”, the public mood can try to disarm the courts, challenge electoral procedures or destroy the pillars of a democracy such as choking the press or restricting what people say. Check out the referendum in Turkey on Presidential powers.

One of the disturbing results of referendums is the automatic rise of paid advertising on both sides of an issue. Anyone who has followed the practice of referendum will know that the ads can be an excessive bombardment of fear. It is one thing to ask citizens to express their opinion on a matter, but quite another to do so in the midst of professional misinformation that exaggerate advantages and dismiss all flaws.

One of the responsibilities of a democratic government is to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Representative governments have an obligation to protect minorities. If issues were to be resolved through direct-democracy, then the majority would always win. One might argue that is how democracy is supposed to work. However, in the smaller communities of Canada, that means that total power is delivered to the larger cities in Canada since they have the larger share of the nation’s population. The majority can be gender, ethnic, regional, occupational or a host of other dimensions. Governments are expected to balance policies such that fewer people are left disadvantaged.

This will seem like an unworthy comment, but with a representative government citizens can get mad at their government. Not only can they, they very often do. That is the right of any citizen in a democracy. You have the right to criticize a government or a policy. This leads to a more peaceful society. Why?

Disagreements require an outlet. If you cannot condemn a government because they are offering a referendum, then a person’s anger is directed at any other person with whom you disagree.

In an early referendum in Oregon on the emotional issue of abortion, the State was a bastion of angry people. There was non-stop advertising by radio, television, newsprint and billboards. Some of the ads were grotesque. These ugly ads forced citizens into opposing tribes. Spouses were fighting each other, there was a big spike in the rate of divorce, parents were disagreeing with their children, neighbours were arguing with each other. It was among the worst of times for the people of Oregon. Deeply held values were being challenged. Anger could not be channelled towards a government, so now it was ripping apart family units and neighbourly conduct. This was Oregon’s darkest years.

Governments need to be immersed in public opinion, but then accept their responsibility for governing.