Lesson From 2010: more direct democracy, not more representative democracy

And all these surely outweigh one referendum banning minarets. And to be rather blunt about the minaret issue, there are conflicting rights here which I think are best dealt with publically (planning rights, debates over secularism, feminist rights) diffused through a referendum.

Interestingly, in Arizona, the people - via CIR - legalised medical cannabis only for the legislature to overrule it. Hmm, the people legalising medical cannabis: clearly further evidence of CIRs “right-wing-ness”. Perhaps detractors of CIR would do better to argue for abolishing Parliament and not the peoples’ right to defend their own freedoms or suggest novel policy approaches to their politicians.

Certainly, when it comes to political freedom, CIR has a better record than a bill of rights (or "rations of slavery" as I like to call it). Last time I checked in Australia it was the people via our constitution’s s128, not the Parliament, which refused to allow a ban on the Communist Party in the 1950s. By contrast, in America, a country which no referendum requirement to amend its constitution yet possesses a Bill of Rights, did nothing: their courts did nothing to prevent the American government from hunting down, persecuting and banning communists. CIR did.

Additionally, it was the people, not the courts, which determine Indigenous Australians should be included in the census and be given the right to vote.

In Switzerland it has also led to an outstanding environmental and health-care record (particularly, in the area of drug rehabilitation and old-age retirement saving pensions). Equally, it was the people, not the Parliament, who gave Zurich the best transport system in the world (the so-called Zurich model); and green policies (such as the reduction in Nuclear Power and projects geared toward more “green” energy projects). Sweden had a similar referendum on “green” matters.

Contrast this with South Africa, which has no CIR, but only a corrosive bill of rights: for all its positive rights on health, a better environment and transport, South Africa has not managed to engineer the sort of transport and educational system they still dream of having. The Swiss have.

Furthermore, let’s face it: the arguments levelled at CIR can also be levelled at representative democracy. Issues like slavery would mean the legislature would have been abolished long ago. Equally, detractors do not mention that in California, a proposition to ban gays from the public school system went down in flames and has in several US states given gays and other minorities’ free access to health services, subsidised medical services and anti-discrimination laws. The CIR record for gay rights and immigration is certainly better than any of our Federal and State Parliaments.

The California Argument

Now, of course, there are California’s fiscal woes. Comparing Australia to California is spurious. Indeed, California is screwed not because of CIR; California is screwed because it has the US system of government (and I mean that as nicely as possible).

First, Americans have a different culture to us and other places with CIR: their Calvinist, anti-tax heritage rather see everyone else suffer, just as long as they themselves were not comparatively better off. In Australia - and we see this in opinion polls - we do not mind tax increases in exchange for better infrastructure. “Tax revolts” are not as strongly engrained in our culture, even though we have just as much fetish for Ponzi property speculation as the US. We have a more caring, gentle culture more akin to the Swiss rather than the Americans.

Second, Americans have a different system of government with a strict separation of powers. This entails a bill of rights where judges veto laws which limit corporate interests, which drone out opposition and quality debate in CIR. They have a situation where the Governor blames the judges and the legislature. The legislature blames the Governor or the people. And everyone gets really divided; the system is simply too fragmented, not due to the initiative, but a very system of government that create division and a lack of cohesion. This is less likely where the executive and Parliament are fused as in Switzerland and Australia.

Thirdly, Americans have a different electoral temperament i.e. there is no compulsory voting to appeal to a “middle ground”.

Fourthly, in Sweden and Switzerland, the referenda often have three options on the table (the third often being a governmental counterproposal). Americans simply do not understand compromise or the notion of a “multiple choice” referendum.