Open Forum
New Delhi, 21 July 2015
Referendum for Delhi
MORE QUESTIONS THAN
ANSWERS
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s call for a referendum
on the issue of full statehood for the capital city seems to critics another political
gimmick of this over-enthusiastic Aam Admi Party to share power with the
people. The intentions and timing are irrelevant in debating the pros and cons
of introducing referendum and paving way for direct democracy.
The Greece-style call follows the party’s professed practice
of conducting surveys and polls to ascertain people’s views on the choice of
candidates for election, and the aborted attempts at convening Mohalla Sabhas for
public discussion of public issues to guide governmental decision-making. Experiments
in widening the scope for people’s participation in policy matters are certainly
a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy.
But, we have to tread carefully and gradually giving due consideration
to the possible repercussions of any hasty step.
Apparently, Kejriwal is said to have sent a note to various
departments asking them to draft a law and create machinery for the practice of
holding referendums. Urban Development Department is asked to come up with a
feasibility report and indicate a time schedule.
The issue raised now is a national issue and definitely not local
in two aspects. One is the very question of according statehood for the capital
city which is the national capital of equal importance to all the States in India. The
other is the use of referendum, a device not provided in the Constitution, as a
method of deciding this issue. The
significance of the national capital is not restricted to the territory and
people residing in that territory.
Referendum, apparently a most democratic instrument for
decision-making, had its beginning in the turbulent days of the French
revolutionaries as a technique to achieve their goals. Plebiscite was an
innovation of Jacobins to assist governments described as “totalitarian
democracies” to achieve legitimacy. People were asked to vote on a single
specific issue mostly to “approve” or “disapprove” a proposition.
Referendum as a political device developed in Switzerland in
mid-19th century and took the place of traditional assemblies of all
voters that met for taking decisions on national issues. It was intended to
assist and not to substitute representative bodies. Through referendum, policy
decisions were ratified. The rules were clear on convening and conducting
referendums. Switzerland
has become the model for efficient practice of referendum as a democratic tool.
Smallness of the nation and its familiarity with organizing people’s assemblies
made referendum an acceptable alternative to popular meetings that were not
suited to take federal decisions.
Many countries all over the world are in recent decades
experiencing movements for greater and direct participation of people in
governance. They assume different forms. On-line parties are formed in Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, and Sweden to mention
a few. Direct democracy is the new
mantra that has given rise to new political parties in Sweden, Ireland,
New Zealand, Poland, Uganda
and Argentina
in different continents.
They are evidence of the growing popularity of the concept
of inclusive democracy. Representative
system, parliaments and legislative assemblies, adult franchise, majority
decisions, independent election machinery, and decentralization have become
inadequate to reflect the will of the people. Rather, every one of these institutions
has become pliable to the power of the powerful to move away from people’s
choices and aspirations.
Consequently, it is realized that the present representative
system of democracy is not the end of our road and we have to search for new
paths to reach inclusive and equalitarian democracy, which is provided but not
guaranteed now. Referendum seems a
panacea in this context to make democracy work democratically.
So far, so good! But,
will it deliver? Is it a feasible alternative? What are its limits and
limitations? There are more questions than
answers. These must be addressed before we plunge into action.
One of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence in
the US
has stated that “pure democracy is very subject to caprice and the madness of
popular rage”. Alexander Hamilton remarked that experience had disproved that pure
democracy was a perfect form of government. He cited that ancient democracies
practised direct participation of people in decision-making, but “their very
character was tyranny, their figure deformity”.
World Wars and dictatorships in Europe
reopened the discourse on democracy. President Theodore Roosevelt in his speech
at the Ohio Constitutional Convention held in 1912 on the Charter of Democracy
asserted: “I believe in the initiative and referendum, which should be used not
to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes
misrepresentative” – a statement indicating possible and probable degeneration
of the representative system to characterise the voice of the people.
Today, in the US, initiative is an important way
of influencing public policy. On several crucial issues like affirmative
action, educational reforms, tax relief, drug policy, environmental concerns
and so on, initiative has been used for action.
There is no referendum at the federal level in the US, but at
least 24 States have constitutional provision for referendum. Many local and
city governments provide for both referendum and citizens’ initiative.
In 1978, during the Janata rule at the Centre, Shanti
Bhushan brought the 45th Constitutional Amendment Bill (later adopted
as 44th amendment) which provided for referendum. In the Statement
of Objectives, it was mentioned that certain changes in the Constitution could
not be made unless “approved by the people of India by a majority of votes at a
referendum in which at least 51% of the electorate participate”.
This bill envisaged referendum for making changes in the Constitution relating to four issues – its secular and democratic
character; abridgement or abrogation of fundamental rights, impediment to conduct of
free and fair elections, and independence of the judiciary.
The Internal
Emergency declared in the mid-1970s necessitated inclusion of adequate
safeguards in the Constitution itself to prevent recurrence of such a
contingency in future and to ensure to the people themselves an effective voice
in determining the form of government under which they are to live. It was
proposed to include the provision under Article 368 pertaining to Constitutional
amendment. But, the bill was defeated in the Rajya Sabha.
Presently, in India, public pressure has become
the force behind many legislations, specially in social reforms. Pressure comes
directly or through NGOs and interest groups.
The growing need for introducing referendum to directly
ascertain people’s views also cannot be denied as governments and Parliaments
seem to be moving away from the people. However, one cannot be sure that a
referendum will reflect the free will of the people given the politics of
political party alliances.
With more questions cropping up as we go into the issue, it
seems that transparent and accountable
political parties, and strict and equal application of the rule of law for all must be our immediate task to lessen the gap
between the rulers and the ruled and make the former responsible and responsive
to the latter. Referendum and recall are of no use if they can be rigged. ---
INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|