[P2P-F] Fw: Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland Q and A

Mon Jul 2 16:19:48 CEST 2012

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: I&Rgb <info at iniref.org>
To: press at iniref.org 
Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012, 13:59
Subject: Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland Q and A

 Questions and answers from public discussion launched by INIREF / I&R~ GB

Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland

"... expressing our political sovereignty, we the people could intervene on important issues which we choose to select"

CIR = citizens' initiative and referendum, DD = direct democracy, SNP = Scottish National Party, Dave and Nick = UK prime minister and deputy

question

iniref says the Direct Democracy provisions would apply in the period between elections but I'm  intrigued as to why under such a system as Direct Democracy it is even necessary to have elections or  elected representatives.  Surely the will of the people could be heard and enacted by  professional civil servants and legislators and elections themselves become unnecessary?  (even oversight could be done by judges or appointed commissioners) 
>
reply
We are not suggesting a sudden, drastic change and ask you all to consider the case of Scotland. We propose to integrate a few methods of direct democracy with our existing system of political parties and parliament. These can be introduced in a step-wise manner so that the people, the civil service and politicians can learn to deal with the innovations in hopefully constructive ways. This model is well known, tried and tested in a number of other countries.The use of direct democratic tools, such as the citizens' law-proposal or the veto-referendum, once they have been formally introduced, we envisage as being optional.  So, if a government "forgets" some manifesto promise, or proposes some action which nobody wants, or there are unforeseen events, then an "initiative" which could lead to binding referendum could be launched. An agreed, large number of voter-endorsements would be needed to kick-start this process.

Again, most law-making and day-to-day governing would be done by parliament and government as before. But, in addition, expressing our political sovereignty, we the people could intervene on important issues which we choose to select. It would be unwise to abolish "elections or elected representatives" in the near future. A fully direct democracy would (arguably, should) take many years to develop, even if the people wanted it.

Direct democracy cannot be reduced to "referendum" any more than indirect, "representative" democracy can be reduced to a single vote in parliament. In  both there is long and complex deliberation before a proposal is put forward, plus debate and examination of evidence before a decision is taken. The culture of political life is changed.

question

Of course D...  has argued the case, and i agree with him, that Direct Democracy would simply delay the introduction of an independence referendum, 
>
reply

You mean that the independence referendum would be delayed beyond 2014? Would the introduction of optional direct democracy, as we describe it, cause such delay? If so, how? The SNP has stated that they are in favour. They could introduce elements of DD while they are in power. They may not get another chance to make this vital reform, which would guarantee their place in the history of democracy:  from ancient Athens to Edinburgh!

question

however, perhaps the bigger question is whether independence would either be necessary or desirable if such a system of democracy were reality, or had the prospect of becoming a reality.
>reply
For the UK, direct democracy is not in sight. All three "major" parties are likely to resist. Independence of Scotland is IMO a matter for the Scots. Direct democracy would improve our quality of life, our politics and (there is evidence) our economic prosperity. 

question

iniref, do you see Direct Democracy ( if enacted UK wide) as an alternative to devolution and/or independence and ....
>
reply
Again, we are talking about direct democracy for Scotland here. It's extremely unlikely that Dave and Nick will offer UK-national direct democracy (although in 2009 Dave did promise to introduce it). Even if they did, then it would be up to the Scots people to decide about independence. 

question

.... if so what checks, balances and safe-guards are necessary within such a system to control any possible abuse?
>reply
The changes which are to be expected with "more" democracy are mainly positive: Better representation of electoral will would give greater weight to well-being of the people, provide creative input from a much wider range of citizens, better checks on government e.g. the veto referendum and on politicians and e.g. the recall (impeachment) initiative. Modern direct democracy has been analysed and there are optimal models. These concern such things as hurdles –  number of endorsements to be collect for a proposal, period allowed for collecting signatures, methods of collection (e.g. in public places, via electronic communication), involvement of council or parliament say by taking a vote on a citizens' proposal or presenting an alternative proposal to be put to referendum. 

question

On the matter of Direct Democracy, one of my concerns would be the trigger point at which parliament would be required to introduce legislation.  There is also the constituency from which that trigger point would be calculated.  I'm assuming that for Uk only/reserved matters that would be the Uk as as whole, and that for devolved matters that would be from those registered to vote in the devolved countries.  For the purposes of securing legislation on Scottish independence, or indeed a variation on the extent of devolved powers, that would require the participation of voters from all over the UK. 
>
reply
A citizens' proposition would become law after achieving a majority in plebiscite. We propose to introduce CIR at all levels of governance from local communities and unitary authorities to Scottish central. You ask about some details, which could be sorted out quite easily.

A citizen-initiated proposal could address matters of national independence and devolution but this might well face obstruction by the UK. Nevertheless, such a proposal, stemming from a country with strong democracy based on citizen-sovereignty, would send a powerful message to both the Scottish and the UK governments and thus influence the outcome of the independence debate.

question

Clearly matters like the Sewel convention would become obsolete and so it follows, as i see it, that devolution as it currently exists for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would become meaningless and unworkable.
>reply
Just introducing CIR in Scotland would not change existing structures or agreements.
-----------------------------------------------------

More information via http://www.iniref.org/ 

BALLOT FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Proposal for comparison: maybe we need a version for Scotland!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20120702/00a47979/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14569 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20120702/00a47979/attachment.jpeg 