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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.