Question
You wrote:
“All important laws should be put to a popular referendum.
The people themselves should also be able to propose votes, provided
they first gather a certain number of signatures.”
How do you explain the fact that the “referendum” approach is central to
the National Front’s program in France and is opposed by
the entire left and part of the right because it supposedly
negates the system of party representation and the
National Assembly, and therefore democracy as understood in the
institutional system of the Fifth Republic…????
And that is true: In a referendum system, what use is party
representation in the Assembly if important decisions are made without them…
??
A royalist system that addresses the people intermittently through referendums
would suffice, yes.
”Death to parties and the National Assembly; long live the popular referendum!”
That is more or less the handbook of the extreme populist right, royalists, etc.,
etc. A good omnipotent king, without an assembly or parties, and the good people
opposite him from time to time, when someone deigns to ask their opinion.
None of this seems serious to me; I mean neither progressive nor
democratic.
On the other hand, if people organize and define for themselves the methods
and goals of production (produce what, for whom, and how?), without
being subjected to alienated outside interests (shareholders, etc.), and
define for themselves, continuously, the laws governing their
social organization (without a president, god, or master subjugating them), yes, I
call that “democracy.”
Popular democracy, democracy of the people, in short…
What do you think?
Anonymous
Answer from Master Kosen
I think you are completely in tune with the times, far more concerned with producing who knows what than with developing new laws made by the people and administered by the government. The economically liberal right, I presume?
If the popular referendum is one of the National Front’s hobbyhorses (?), it is surely because its populist, activist rhetoric pushes it that way, and because it represents a new campaign argument it would presumably like to exploit. Referendums harm only those who fear the people’s opinion and power, those who think the people are incapable of deciding how their social system should evolve, or worse, incapable of initiative.
Of course, if the people decide everything, politicians have reason to worry. They would move from the role of show-business stars to the role they are actually paid for: state employees, technical coordinators, or agents of change, in a sense, whose usefulness would depend on the people’s judgment rather than ratings or polls.
Now, when we speak of a popular referendum, we must not confuse it with a populist logic of “referendum” activism, the old list of grievances of the Third Estate, or a form of internal negotiation specific to certain privileged companies. Citizens proposing and voting on laws is a sign of great maturity, social trust, initiative, and evolution. Confident and mobilized in this way, we work BETTER to earn more.
Kosen