Dangers of referendums
I write in response to your editorial (“Unleash the power of referendums,” May 5, page 8). Direct democracy has been debated for more than 2,000 years and has generated a vast literature. I will not attempt to summarize that literature, but there are two important cautionary points that we should be aware of when considering the power of referendums.
Majority rule often comes into conflict with minority rights. Written constitutions generally require supermajorities (higher standards than simple majority rule) to overturn core interests, providing protection for minority rights.
Referendum restrictions can also protect minority rights against majority rule.
Consider what is happening in the UK. In a supposedly non-binding referendum 52 percent of voters chose Brexit, voting to leave the EU.
Should so narrow a majority serve to negate the rights of a minority with vested interests in the benefits of belonging to the EU?
What if a majority voted for strict censorship of speech, or restrictions on free press, or a state religion? Supermajority provisions help to protect these rights.
Referendums can serve vital purposes, but unrestricted direct governance through referendums is not the kind democracy we expect. Some restrictions are reasonable and some interests deserve supermajority protection. Achieving the proper balance is a difficult problem.
The second point is perhaps less recognized, but is equally important. Consider again the Brexit vote in the UK. Leaving the EU is a very complex issue with a lot at stake.
Most Brexit voters did not have the time, interest or resources to really study the economic, political, social and cultural effects of Brexit, and reach an informed decision for their individual votes. They had to vote without a clear understanding of how the outcome would affect themselves, the nation and the world.
It is a simple fact that casting a single vote will not determine the outcome of a national referendum. The odds against a single vote are like the odds against winning a billion dollar lottery. Given the odds, there is little incentive for individual voters to invest heavily in studying and fully understanding complex referendum issues.
It is unreasonable to expect voters to invest a lot of time and effort on the details of complex issues.
Representative government, where voters can elect trusted representatives to study and make informed decisions, is a response to the complexities of governance.
Any system of government can (and will at times) break down. Safeguards are necessary if a democratic system is to survive. Written constitutions and referendum provisions are safeguards.
A majority in the US might now be wishing that their constitution provided for a recall referendum for the US presidency.
However, we should also beware of constitutional referendums, such as witnessed in Turkey and Hungary, where majority rule has been abused to restrict democratic freedoms.
The US Senate just did away with supermajority protection for Supreme Court appointments, overturning a well-established Senate rule solely for the expediency of an immediate result: The confirmation of a controversial justice appointment.
This is not a model to be followed. Unknown consequences, for good or for ill, were discounted by the Senate.
Taiwan’s history puts it in a unique position. Taiwan must find its own balance among representative government, direct democracy and constitutional protections.
The Taipei Times is correct to call for consideration of proposed amendments to the Referendum Act, and for removal of unreasonable restrictions to assure that the act will be suitable for Taiwan going into the future. The details will be all important, and the act must serve long-term needs, not immediate expediency.
Consideration of the Referendum Act amendments should be careful and well-informed, and what restrictions are reasonable and what are unreasonable must be considered in free and open debate.
Robert Dildine
Yilan County
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under