Mr Douglas Carswell MP (P10)
E-PETITIONS AND INITIATIVE: OPEN POLITICS
IN THE AGE OF YOUTUBE
This paper outlines how voters could be empowered
to petition Parliament and initiate debates in the House of Commons
online.
Voter turnout has fallen steadily and there
is evidence of growing disillusionment with the political process.
Our system of representative democracy needs reinvigorating with
a measure of direct democracy. Giving people the power to e-petition
and initiate Parliamentary debates online would not diminish the
role of elected MPs. On the contrary, it would ensure that more
people took a greater interest in what happened in the House of
Commons.
A right of Citizen's Initiative: Voters should
be given an indirect right of legislative initiative so that if
enough voters demanded it, a measure would be given a Second Reading
in Parliament, with a debate and a vote. Unlike a direct initiative,
Parliament could not be by-passed, and any Bill would still need
to be approved by MPs.
Many Western democracies already enjoy a right
of initiative; it exists in 24 out of 50 American states, as well
as Switzerland, Austria, Italy, New Zealand, Hungary, Lithuania
and Slovakia[2].
How Citizens Initiatives might work in Britain:
Any person would have the power to trigger the following five
stage process:
1. To initiate a law, a person must submit
a written proposal to the Clerk to the House of Commons Table
Office. This could be done online or in writing. The Clerk would
require relevant contact details together with a draft of the
proposed wording of the petition and a draft of the petition collection
form. An administration fee and deposit would be payable, too.
2. The second stage would determine the wording
of the proposed petition and subsequent Bill. The Clerk is permitted
several weeks to determine the precise wording, perhaps (as in
New Zealand) having consulted with members of the public. The
Clerk would have the power, in consultation with the Speaker,
to rule out of order frivolous or fantastic petitions.
Again, as in New Zealand, procedures that would
prevent the petition proceeding would include the withdrawal by
the original petitioner, or their death. Moreover, the petition
could not proceed if in the opinion of the Clerk a similar initiative
had been proposed within the previous five years.
3. The third stage involves collecting signatures.
Citizens would have a year in which to gather signatures for the
proposal. Again, this could be done online. If it was done online,
voters would need to provide their names and addresses, and there
would need to be some process to cross check and prevent fraud.
In other countries, a threshold needs to be reached in order to
trigger the initiative process[3].
Rather than pick an arbitrary threshold, we instead suggest that
those half a dozen or so Bills with the highest number of signatures
over the twelve month period, qualify.
Voters could sign up online, or by more conventional
means. The only requirement is that all signatories must be on
the electoral roll and those who sign must provide their full
name and address.
4. Stage four of the process would involve
the Clerk checking the petition and ensuring that he was satisfied
that it met the relevant criteria. Proposals that did not qualify
or attract enough signatures, would fall at this stage, and the
petitioners would lose their deposits.
5. Those half a dozen proposals that had
attracted the highest number of signatures over the preceding
year, would then be presented to Parliament during the State Opening
of Parliament. Having read out Her conventional Queen's Speech
outlining the executives legislative priorities, Her Majesty would
then read out the six or so Peoples' Bills due for a Second Reading
on the floor of the House of Commons over the following year.
Every couple of months, Parliament would set aside time to debate
and vote on one of the Peoples' Bills.
Reconnecting with voters: There is growing and
legitimate disenchantment with the political process[4].
Introducing the Initiative could re-engage a greater number of
the electorate with politics.
Empirical evidence shows that a right of initiative
does increase voter turnout in elections. Voter turnout is 5%
higher on average in those US states which use the Initiative,
compared to those states that do not.[5]
While not a panacea for disaffection with the
political process, this proposal could help re-engage people with
Parliament. A Queen's Speech that unveiled what the citizens wanted
debated on the floor of the Commons would be one more people might
find worth watching.
Considered legislation: It is important to say
that our proposal is not intended to replace the role of Parliament
or do away with representative democracy—but to complement
it. Government through elected representatives would remain the
norm. Laws which had come up through the initiative process would
carry extra weight and would reinforce, rather than weaken, the
governing process.
Evidence from overseas suggests that laws enacted
as a result of Initiatives are as carefully debated, considered
and drafted as are those laws passed through the standard legislative
process. We recognise that Parliament plays an important role
as—to quote Edmund Burke—"a deliberative assembly".
Under our proposal for indirect initiative, Parliament would retain
its deliberative role, and be able to vote on and amend a popular
proposal as it could any other Bill.
Liberal law-making: The experience of New Zealand,
America and Switzerland shows that a right of popular initiative
does not mean rampant populism. As Keith Joseph might have put
it, "if you give people responsibility, you make them responsible".
The default setting of people empowered to initiative
lawmaking is liberal. This can be demonstrated by the fact that
instead of resulting in perennial demands to restore the death
penalty, referendums on the death penalty have actually resulted
in its abolition (such as in Ireland in 2001). There are some
states in America where capital punishment has been introduced
via popular votes. Yet there are more states where this decision
has been taken by representative assemblies. Frederick Boehmke
has produced evidence to suggest that the initiative-operating
states are less likely to adopt the death penalty than states
that do not allow voters to enact legislation through initiatives[6].
With Parliament having the final say, even if a radical, populist
proposal was introduced in Westminster, Members of Parliament
would be able to vote it down.
What about the cost and time?: Would it not
be costly and time-consuming? Democracy does indeed take time.
That is not in itself an argument against the online initiatives
and e-petitioning.
The burden on the public purse of initiatives
would be very slight. The Clerk's office would incur some additional
costs—albeit that they would be partly offset by the administration
fee paid by petitioners. Yet apart from that, the costs of six
People's Bills would be no greater than the cost of six other
pieces of legislation. The cost of collecting signatures would
be borne by the petitioners themselves. There is evidence from
Switzerland to suggest that money spent collecting signatures
does not have a huge impact on the outcome.[7]
2 While a growing number of countries have a right
of initiative in theory, given the relatively high threshold required
to trigger one, it is really only in the United States and Switzerland
that they play an integral role in the political process. In the
US and Switzerland, major issues such as immigration, taxation
and environmental regulation are put to the popular ballot. Back
3
For example, the threshold is 10% in New Zealand Back
4
See Direct Democracy; an agenda for a new model party. Chapter
2. Back
5
David Schmidt, Citizen Lawmakers: the ballot initiative revolution,
Temple University Press 1989. Back
6
Supply Side Politics. Matt Qvortrup. Page 17 Back
7
K Koback, The Referendum; direct democracy in Switzerland, Dartmouth
Publishing, 1992. Back
|
