REFERENDUMS: DEATH BY DIRECT DEMOCRACY

The European spotlight was shining on Moldova last week, where a crucial referendum took place regarding the country’s future. After a dramatic turn of events with the diaspora votes being counted last, Moldovans approved with 50.38% “Yes” amending their Constitution to include the Moldovan citizens' wish for EU membership, in order to prevent future governments from easily shifting the country away from its pro-European trajectory.

By the thinnest of margins, disaster was averted in Moldova, despite predictions forecasting a much more comfortable “Yes” win–a phenomenon which is common in referendums: bizarre results often not reflecting the electoral balance of power, which put obstacles in social progress and European integration.

Case A: The Maastricht Referendum in France 

In 1992, the then 12 member states of the European Communities agreed to the Maastricht Treaty, the foundation treaty of the European Union. 3 of the 12 member states required approval by referendum before ratification, most notably France.

The Socialist Party (PS) of President Francois Mitterrand and the two major opposition parties, center-right UDF of former president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Gaullist RPR of future president Jacques Chirac, supported the “Yes” to ratification of the Treaty. The “No” was championed by the far-right Front National of Jean-Mari Lepen, the far-left Communist Party and a faction of RPR.

The political champions of “Yes” had secured between 60 and 70% of the vote in the Presidential and Parliamentary elections and were the heavyweight names of the French political scene. As a result, the narrow 51.05% victory caught everyone by surprise. France’s “petit oui” as seen in the Liberation frontpage, was described by Jacques Delors and his chief-of-staff Pascal Lamy as the end of Monnet's approach to European integration (which can be summarized as a technocratic top-down decision making, where convincing the political leadership was enough to push forward changes).

Case B: The European Constitution Referendum in the Netherlands

The European Constitution never came to fruition under its original form (a lot of its elements were incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon) due to two rejections by referendum in 2005: by France and Netherlands. The Dutch result was the most astonishing, not only because of the clear “No” win with 62.8%, but because the political parties supporting “Yes” were representing 80% of the Dutch parliament, while the biggest “No” campaigner, the far-left SP, had gained just 6% of the votes in the last election.

The post-result analysis showed that 30% of the “No” voters cited as reason their dissatisfaction with Jan Peter Balkenende’s government, while populists like Geert Wilders successfully convinced the voters that a vote for “Yes” is a vote for Turkey to join the EU. Neither of these reasons given were of course related to the actual question of the referendum.

 Case C: The Treaty of Lisbon Referendum in Ireland

Ireland was not new to referendums. In fact, the country has a referendum every time they change the constitution, and according to a Supreme Court decision in 1987, ceding power to the EU requires a constitutional amendment in Ireland. This special feature of the emerald isle caused delays in the past, and 2008 was the latest example: 53.8% of Irish voters rejected the Treaty despite all major parties apart from Sinn Fein supporting it. According to a post-referendum Irish Times poll, 40% of the “No” voters stated as a reason that they were not familiar with the changes the Treaty would bring and didn’t want to vote for something they do not understand.

 

Why referendums are not a good idea:

We can summarize the main reasons rendering referendums problematic and blocking progress and change more often than not:

  • Referendums delegate complex decisions to people unqualified to make them.

Harsh and perhaps elitist, but true. We would have no European Union if every step of the way needed to be ratified by referendum in every country. The great societal leaps of the 20th and 21st century would have been delayed by decades. Leadership is not just reflecting the popular flavor of the moment, but sometimes taking society by the hand and showing the way forward.


The political leadership of each country is responsible for making informed decisions on nuanced topics which require expertise and years of experience and work. As we saw in Case B, delegating such decisions to people who have a superficial relationship with the issue, leads to having votes cast because people believed that Turkey will enter the EU if the Constitution is adopted, or as we saw in the Greek 2015 referendum, that defaulting on debt is perfectly fine because the country can revert to its own currency, print money and solve the problem.

 

  • Referendums end up as an anti-establishment protest.

In the era where more and more people vote for the “lesser evil” rather than a party or a politician they believe in, referendums are used to give a middle finger to “the system” and “the elites”. This was showcased in Case A and Case B, where a large percentage of the “No” vote wanted to spite the people in power unrelated to the question reasons.

Someone might ask, why is this bad? The answer lies within the nature of representative democracy: elections aren’t necessarily about if you like someone, but if you think he is a better option than the other candidates. Voters agreed that Francois Mitterrand was better suited to government than Jean-Mari Lepen, and that CDA and VVD were a better option than PVV and Pim Fortyun List. But when their choice isn’t “which one you prefer?” but “do you agree to do what the President/PM recommends?”, a much higher level of popular support is needed. Try to find a French president with 50% approval rating by the way…

Given that we live in an era when it is very common for newly elected governments to quickly become unpopular because voters demand swift solutions to structural societal and financial problems which started years or decades ago, this “middle finger vote” will remain a problem in future referendums.

  • Referendums are the home ground of populists.

A common element of Case A and Case B is that populist politicians saw percentages of support for their “No” choice far greater than the ones they enjoy in elections. That happens because the nature of referendums (a yes/no choice on a complicated issue) helps parties who rely on this messaging: short, simple and treating topics as black or white–in other words, populists. 

Populists rely on fear, anger, emotions and extensive propaganda. The Brexit referendum is obviously the most prominent example of such a case. Populists take advantage of the anti-establishment sentiment; the grievances people have with their government or the EU and goad them to “punish the system” to make themselves heard. They also successfully divert the conversation to unrelated topics, bombard the voters with fake news and downright lies, and as we saw in the Moldovan referendum, can be the mouthpieces of illiberal regimes (Russia in that case) interested in influencing the vote.


  • Referendums are a naturally conservative tool.

As we can see more explicitly in case C, there will always be a percentage of the population which will show resistance to change when posed directly with a yes/no question. This human behavioral pattern, the preference for the status quo which is already familiar versus the new and the unknown, raises the difficulty level of achieving an outright majority in favor of a change. The exact same voters will vote for parties supporting said change in the next election–and this is why progress is easier legislatively cemented by parliamentary majorities rather than popular ones.

The country which has referendums ingrained in its political culture more than any other, Switzerland, usually adopts social reforms later than most of Western Europe, as can be seen by when women’s suffrage and same-sex marriage were legalized (1971 and 2022). Social progress rarely has 50% popular support when it is pioneered. Asking for such is the equivalent of starting a football match from 2-0 down.

How can a referendum be beneficial?

Three conditions need to apply:

  • A society with a high degree of engagement in societal issues.
  • A society with a high degree of education in civic and political affairs.
  • A society with a high degree of trust in the political system (not necessarily the government).

When 0/3 conditions apply (which is often the case, especially in France, or Greece in 2015), holding a referendum is rolling the dice and hoping you win. Even 1/3 or 2/3 conditions being met still leaves an opening for populism to take a strong foothold in the country’s political life, and fringe and extreme voices to become as loud and important as the moderate and progressive ones–as we saw with Brexit.

Referendums require responsibility, both from the leadership and society in order to. When the conditions are not met and there is no constitutional obligation, European democracy has a much more effective tool to express the will of the people: elections.