Constitution and Law -Citizen power

Bogjumper

We all know that elected TDs are there to do the "will of the people" but how often is this subsumed into the "good of the party" I have just read a post which tells me earlier this year, the Finnish government enabled something called a “citizens’ initiative”, through which registered voters can come up with new laws – if they can get 50,000 of their fellow citizens to back them up within six months, then the Eduskunta (the Finnish parliament) is forced to vote on the proposal.
It struck me that we should have a similar ability and also an ability to demand a referendum if a certain number of voters require it, For a start I would like to change and lower the constitutional number of TDs/decide how much they should be paid etc. Compared to us Spain has 1 for 150,000 but do have regional government. Why not have regional here and reduce the TDs to national law.This would bring it closer to home and maybe a bit more in the will of the people line.My suggestion may not be the best but what I am getting at is the need for people to be more in charge instead of the present situation.

bazkennedy

Its an interesting concept. In switzerland, they have an open referendum system where if you get ~50,000 signatures, a referendum will be held. They have 4 "voting days" each year where they vote on all manner of things

EDIT: On a side note i saw this this evening http://www.thejournal.ie/new-political-party-direct-democracy-ireland-launched-in-dublin-674643-Nov2012/

Peregrinus

The obvious problem with topic-by-topic direct democracy is that it doesn’t foster effective joined-up policy and legislation. It’s very easy to vote for (say) long minimum sentences for this or that crime when you don’t also have responsibility for the prisons budget, the taxes required to finance it, or the implications of the early release of other prisoners to create the space required by the new law. The point about parliamentary democracy is that the people who decide if there is to be a minimum sentence for this or that crime also have responsibility for all those other decisions, so that there’s at least the opportunity (if not the guarantee) of some degree of coherence in public policy.

It works reasonably well in Switzerland, but I suspect only because the Swiss are intensely conservative, socially and politically, and very rarely favour change. Thus they mostly vote in favour of the status quo. (They were, notoriously, a couple of generations behind the rest of Europe in introducing universal female suffrage, for example.) I suspect it’s only this characteristic of the Swiss that makes their degree of direct democracy feasible. And they avoid any dilution of this characteristic by making it difficult for outsiders to settle in Switzerland and practically impossible for those who do to acquire Swiss nationality (and therefore voting rights).

The Finns seem to have an interesting take on it, from what you say, in that through direct democracy voters can force parliament to consider an issue - but (presumably) not control the decision that parliament will make. In other words, direct democracy can affect the legislative/policy agenda, without determining any outcome.

It sounds interesting, but it strikes me that there may be less in it than meets the eye. Is it any more than a formalisation of what happens in most democracies anyway? Citizens have a variety of mechanisms for making their views and concerns known to parliamentarians, and parliamentarians have a strong vested interest in being responsive to those views and concerns. Does a formal procedure, which requires 50,000 votes (and therefore a campaign, and leadership, and advertising, and funding) really add very much to this?

Do we know is the Finnish mechanism very often invoked? How many draft laws have been tabled in parliament because of a citizens’ initiative? Ad, of those draft laws, how many have been adopted? And, when adopted, were they judged to be effective?

Carra23

Sounds like a good idea and we certainly need reform. I think the way our leader is elected is all wrong, I never asked for Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowen and most definitely not Enda Kenny. I don't think he deserves to lead the country because he is popular in Mayo.

I have thought about this for a while but still haven't thought it through properly. My idea is that 2 years prior to election, political parties should assemble an executive with people already chosen for particular portfolios. They should campaign nationwide for 2 years outlining their policies etc and then we vote for our next government rather than just a TD.

Reduce number of TD's to 52- 2 per county who are supported by a team of 4 County Councillors each. Leave TD salaries as they are but pay the Councillors half TD salary. Abolish the Seanad.

That idea sounded better when it was still in my head !

Pete_Cavan

I certainly dont think the Swiss system (collect x number of signatures and we have a referendum) would work here. I fear it would result in knee-jerk decisions based on whats favour of the month in the media without much consideration of the consequences. The average person isnt particularly arsed about the occasional referendums we have at the minute, more would only result in further loss of interest among the general public giving extremists more influence.

Also, I dont see how it increases accountability, surely it does away with accountability. Some one with a particular agenda, not a politician just a normal person, could capitalise public outrage at a certain incident to secure constitutional change in favour of there agenda, and then disappear into the shadows and not feature in public life ever again. Take Declan Ganley for example (because we only here of him when a referendum is called), is it wise to give him (or anyone else for that matter) the ability to call a referendum at an opportune moment when one incident could see support for something which would not be as popular at any other time. How would Ganley be held responsible for something which he promoted which later turned out to be detrimental to the country? If political accountability is the goal, I think this type of direct democracy would make things worse.

Podgerz

Carra23 wrote: »

I have thought about this for a while but still haven't thought it through properly. My idea is that 2 years prior to election, political parties should assemble an executive with people already chosen for particular portfolios. They should campaign nationwide for 2 years outlining their policies etc and then we vote for our next government rather than just a TD.

So exactly like the American Presidential Elections?

ArmaniJeanss

Carra23 wrote: »

Reduce number of TD's to 52- 2 per county

So Leitrim voter get 40 times as much representation as Dublin voter?
Its not exactly sensible is it?

gizmo555

Bogjumper wrote: »

We all know that elected TDs are there to do the "will of the people" but how often is this subsumed into the "good of the party" I have just read a post which tells me earlier this year, the Finnish government enabled something called a “citizens’ initiative”, through which registered voters can come up with new laws – if they can get 50,000 of their fellow citizens to back them up within six months, then the Eduskunta (the Finnish parliament) is forced to vote on the proposal.

We had something very similar in the 1922 Free State constitution, but it never came properly into effect:

Ordinary citizens would have the right, through an initiative process, to draft both constitutional amendments and ordinary laws, and insist that they be submitted to a referendum. The constitution provided a general frame-work for how the initiative would work, empowering the Oireachtas to fill in the details with legislation. It required that a proposal could be initiated by a petition of 50,000 registered voters. Once initiated a proposal would be referred to the Oireachtas, but if the Oireachtas did not adopt the law it would be obliged to submit it to a binding referendum. The constitution gave the Oireachtas two years to adopt a law allowing voters to introduce initiatives. However after this time voters had power to force the issue. This is because the initiative process itself could then by made the subject of an initiative. After two years the introduction of an initiative process would be put to a referendum if demanded by a petition of not less than 75,000 voters on the register (not more than fifteen thousand of whom could be voters in any one constituency).

The Achilles' heel of the direct democracy provisions was contained in Article 50 which provided that, for eight years after the constitution came into force, the Oireachtas could amend the constitution without a referendum. As interpreted by the courts, this even included the power to amend the article itself and extend this period.

The Oireachtas did not adopt legislation providing for the initiative within the two years stipulated by the constitution and, eventually, a petition of 96,000 signature was gathered by the opposition in order to trigger a referendum forcing the Oireachtas to introduce an initiative process. The Oireachtas responded by removing all provisions for direct democracy from the constitution, save for the requirement that, once the eight year transitional period had passed, it would be necessary to hold referendums on all constitutional amendments. Then in 1929 the Oireachtas extended this period to sixteen years. This meant that, by the time the constitution was replaced in 1937, the provisions for the constitutional referendum had still not come into force.

Carra23

Podgerz wrote: »

So exactly like the American Presidential Elections?

Well if thats what their system is then ye !

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So Leitrim voter get 40 times as much representation as Dublin voter?

Its not exactly sensible is it?

I have thought about this for a while but still haven't thought it through properly.

That idea sounded better when it was still in my head ![/QUOTE]

You missed the point altogether. The 2 TD'S per county in the Dail would not be there to represent local constituents, hence them being supported Councillors. They would be there to solely focus on national interests.

As I said in my original post, I haven't thought through the finer details of that suggestion but do know that our current system is all wrong and needs to be addressed.

ArmaniJeanss

Carra23 wrote: »

You missed the point altogether. The 2 TD'S per county in the Dail would not be there to represent local constituents, hence them being supported Councillors. They would be there to solely focus on national interests.

If this is in the 'national interest' then why limit Dublin to 2.
Dublin is likely to have one quarter of the people best suited to leading the country in the national interest, on the basis that it has ~one quarter of the population. You just freeze out a hell of a lot of good people, like Dublin at the moment has Richard Bruton, Leo Varadkar, Shane Ross, Clare Daly, Eamon Gilmore, Ruari Quinn, MaryLou McDonald, Pat Rabbite + about 10 other high profilers. You'd just end up with a Dail composed of an incredibly rural bias.

Its frankly a terrible terrible idea. Basically abandon your X per county idea, its barely fit for purpose for the GAA let alone running a country.

Carra23

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

If this is in the 'national interest' then why limit Dublin to 2.
Dublin is likely to have one quarter of the people best suited to leading the country in the national interest, on the basis that it has ~one quarter of the population. You just freeze out a hell of a lot of good people, like Dublin at the moment has Richard Bruton, Leo Varadkar, Shane Ross, Clare Daly, Eamon Gilmore, Ruari Quinn, MaryLou McDonald, Pat Rabbite + about 10 other high profilers. You'd just end up with a Dail composed of an incredibly rural bias.

Its frankly a terrible terrible idea. Basically abandon your X per county idea, its barely fit for purpose for the GAA let alone running a country.

Easy now, I've said twice already but just once more for the craic, it was not an idea that consumed an awful lot of my time. However, we do need a lot less TD's and we do need to change the system somehow.

As the OP suggests, TD's are elected to represent the will of the people but this doesn't happen. Wrong thread for this debate but how many people do you know believe it is right to use our tax to repay unsecured bondholders ?

Most TD's can't even air their true feelings in a vote because they will be booted out of the party if they don't tow the line. Its a laughable system, but sure tis Ireland after all !