Why are binding referendums proposed directly by citizens so rare?

Question

Switzerland has an interesting system where citizens may directly call for a legally binding referendum, ranging from a simple questions ("Should religious calls for prayers be prohibited?") to complex ones (constitutional changes). It seems that this system is quite rare in other countries - most either don't have federal referendums altogether, have extremely high barriers for organizing a referendum, or the referendums are not legally binding (United Kingdom).

Why is this so? Isn't it great if citizens can directly vote on important issues?

Answer 1

The Problem of Democracy

A lot of ink has been spilled about the central problem of democracy. On one hand, the reason to have a democracy is because people should have some input into their governance. On the other hand, people do stupid or terrible things with that power.

The ancient Greeks (and later the Romans and Christian writers) considered democracy to be a failure of government. Plato (Republic, Book 8) explains that a democracy is ruled by useless desires (such as misplaced survival instincts or the desire for personal wealth). In a democracy, these misguided people are allowed to rule, which results in chaos.

This view was shared by Aristotle (Politics, Book 3 part 8), who summarized the problem as:

For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.

Outside the classics, this view exists up until today. In the 19th century, English philosopher J.S. Mill (On Liberty, Chapter 1) attributed the problem to public opinion. Nearly all people use their naive opinion as a basis for political decision making. They base their support, voting, and other choices on there own personal opinion based on their personal experience - and they don't see a problem in this. Governments led this way do what their citizens want, rather than what is effective for obtaining what their citizens want. In addition to poor governance, Mill describes how democracies are driven to control people's personal lives - the "tyranny of the majority".

So the problems common throughout history are that democracy is unstable, leads to poor governance, and easily becomes oppressive rather than free.

In Practice

Although I cited philosophers, in practice politicians have followed these kinds of ideas. The American founding fathers implemented many features to prevent citizens from having direct influence on the government:

• Legislation can only be created through legislators, not citizens.
• Senators (members of the upper chamber) are not to be selected by citizens, but by state legislators (this feature later removed).
• Federal judges are not elected, but appointed for life terms to prevent citizens from influencing them.
• The electoral college prevents citizens from directly choosing the President and Vice President.

We could easily list many more, including examples from other countries. Founders of modern democracies are aware that popular rule is a problem to be avoided, rather than something to be embraced. Probably the fairest synopsis is that although the public should have input into the system, their input has to be moderated.

Scientific Examples

In political science, we often describe states with "too much" democracy as being populist. Populism is generally a danger to citizens' rights and liberties. Much of this theory was developed by William Riker, but it is still common in spatial voting theory, social choice theory, and other fields.

Riker's basic concern was with electoral systems. How does the electoral system influence policy? Essentially, his conclusion is that elections restrain elected officials and policy, not empower them. Furthermore, the populist example (where citizens empower representatives to enact their will) is meaningless. Public support is unstable unless it is moderated by some kinds of institutions. Relying on public opinion directly for policy would lead to policies which are chaotic and inconsistent, as public opinion ebbs and flows. The result is that in these kinds of states, most public policy is wasteful: it changes too quickly or is quickly forgotton, never allowed to be useful.

In the modern liberal democracy (where policy is somewhat insulated from public opinion) voting is less detailed: we either accept or reject a candidate. Voters punish candidates who create policies they don't like. In this situation, policy is more consistent, less prone to large fluctuations, and leads to better outcomes.

I won't cite all of Riker's work, but this synopsis may be useful to anyone interested.

Answer 2

From a theoretical viewpoint, this paper on voting theory discusses one of the more fundamental problems, namely if the proposal system allows related issues to be divided so as to give binary options for questions then majority rule can cause a winning combination which nobody wants. The classic example is something like:

1. Q: should taxes be lowered?

2. Q: Should spending on schools be increased?

When both questions get answered in the affirmative, then the governing system's finances rapidly run out.

Answer 3

Some US states have a referendum process at the state level. I don't know how many states allow this. In some states it's rare, but in others (e.g., California, Oregon) it's quite common. I have voted ballots in both states with 20-30 statewide measures. Some are referred by the state legislature -- e.g., constitutional amendments, borrowing for capital projects -- and others were put there by citizens gathering signatures.

Results are mixed, and origimbo's example applies quite well. Both California and Oregon have passed measures which make it harder for local government to raise money by property taxes. Schools and local roads have suffered. California's state budget has many constraints imposed by the voters in one way or another -- at least for a while, the legislature really couldn't follow all of them.

As a voter, I've found some of these rather frustrating. If I support change on an issue, and a ballot measure on that issue is poorly written or goes to far, what do I do? If I vote for it, I may end up with a badly written policy, but if I am sending a message that I don't support the idea. At least in the legislature, proposals can be amended.

A cynical interpretation: democracy isn't about letting the people rule. It's about preventing violent revolutions like the mess in Syria -- those are bad for business. Instead, democracy gives us frequent, ritualized, non-violent revolutions. It channels rebellious impulses into a process which can absorb them harmlessly.

Answer 4

"Isn't it great if citizens can directly vote on important issues?" - Perhaps, but a lot of great things don't happen in practice. There are historical reasons that Switzerland's political system developed the way that it did.

As one page puts it:

In Switzerland, Direct Democracy has a long tradition: The origins of Direct Democracy can be traced back to the late the middle ages: archaic forms (assemblies of the electorate discussing and deciding major political issues) have been practised in part of the country since the founding of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1291.

The origins of Switzerland's modern system of Direct Democracy with formalized opinion polls and frequent referendums lie in the experimental phase of democracy in the 19th century when Switzerland was surrounded by monarchies on the European continent that showed little to none enthusiasm for democracy.

Another page on the same site it explains the historical origins of the modern practice in the wake of civil war. It is often suggested that the modern referendum actually has its origins in Switzerland.

For a similar practice to be adopted in other countries would require a concerted demand, and would likely face opposition from entrenched interests. Democratic rights more generally have historically been won from elites in need of legitimating their rule. Outside of Switzerland, this is simply not a concession they've been forced to make.