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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS