Beyond hurting political credibility and market confidence, such volatility could create friction between elected politicians and civil-service technocrats, damaging a relationship that is critical to efficient, forward-looking, and fact-based decision-making.
Proponents of referenda hold them up as the epitome of democracy, giving ordinary citizens a direct say over specific policy decisions.
But, in a representative democracy, referenda undermine the relationship between the voters and their political leaders, who have been entrusted to make policy on citizens’ behalf.
Ominously, referenda are already becoming an increasingly common – and consequential – feature of policymaking in the Western world.
The United Kingdom has held just three referenda in its entire history; but two have been carried out just in the last six years (plus another in Scotland).
François Fillon, a candidate for the French presidency, promised two referenda if he won the recent election – and suggested that France needs as many as five.
Elections, too, are becoming more frequent.
The average tenure of a G20 political leader has fallen to a record low of 3.7 years, compared to six years in 1946 – a shift that, no doubt, is contributing to a rise in short-term thinking by governments.
It is not yet clear whether voting technology actually does spur greater voter participation.
What is clear is that, if it is adopted widely, it could exacerbate trends that are undermining public policy, including governments’ ability to boost economic growth and improve social outcomes.
Reducing barriers to democratic participation for the poorest citizens is a worthy goal.
But what good will achieving it do if those citizens’ interests are harmed as a result?
By Dambisa Moyo- This article was first published by Project Syndicate
(157 VIEWS)
