For friends who are new to the Campaign we want here to summarise what our demands are and to define some basic principles of democracy by the people.

Power to the People when it comes from political parties sounds like a promise which they have no intention to keep if they win the election.

To put and fix “The People” in stronger control of the politicians and governments we propose that elements, or “tools” of citizen-led direct democracy should be formally introduced in the UK, in the countries and at local government level. So, an electorate could decide to intervene or innovate in any matter of public policy and would have the right to demand a veto of unwanted law or official action.

Our main Campaign demands are as follows:

Citizens’ Initiative
With the “initiative” a citizen or group has the right to put forward a proposal to introduce or change law. In order that a proposal will be put to the electorate (in a “referendum” or “ballot”) an agreed number of endorsements (“signatures”) must be collected and validated.

Legally binding referendum
If the required number of endorsements is obtained as above, there are two ways to proceed:
1. The proposal is put to the electorate in a referendum.
2. The proposal is first presented to parliament or local council, which must debate it. Parliament or council may adopt the proposal and pass it as law. Proposals which are rejected must be put to the electorate in a referendum. If a majority of the electorate votes for the proposal then it becomes law.

Power to the People: Principles of governance

The right to take part in running public affairs is a universal human right.

This right must be readily operable in politics and not subject to hindrances beyond reasonable regulation.

Democracy must include rule-by-the-people and may not be limited to indirect “representative” rule by politicians.

Some features of this rule-by-the-people include

The people can decide directly on public issues in addition to electing and removing politicians.

Formal proposals concerning public policy may come from the people and not only from an “authority” such as a parliament, government, civil service or a political party.

Proposals supported by a large number of the people must be put to the whole electorate for decision by ballot.

—————————————————–

Can we expect “them” to improve the way our democracy works? The political parties in 2011

Modest proposals for democracy reform involving citizen-participation were put forward by the Labour government but were never put to Parliament for enactment into law. A number of proposals in this field have come from the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. These proposals give the impression of a response to longstanding popular demand for better governance, greater accountability and more public participation. Under scrutiny the Con/Libdem proposals are seen to offer only half-measures: In local government affairs the people may make proposals and if the authorities agree the electorate may even be called to vote on a citizens’ proposal. However, according to the Coalition the Council will not be obliged to accept the electorate’s decision! At the level of state, only a right to petition Parliament is foreseen, with no citizens’ right to demand and obtain a plebiscite for a proposal with massive public support and no right to veto unwanted government legislation. See our critical overview of Con/Libdem proposals about democracy http://www.iniref.org/conlibdem.html  Further detail on request.

1. Letter to Communities ministry re. “state of the art” local democracy
Blog http://iniref.wordpress.com/letter-to-communities-ministry-re-state-of-the-art-local-democracy/
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=117619011650368

Stronger rights of electors to govern their own affairs now anchored in constitution

For the around 300 local authorities and 26 regions the Swedes introduced from the beginning of 2011
1. Citizens’ law-proposal (initiative)
2. Right (improved) to demand a plebiscite (decision by the electorate, “referendum”).

These changes strengthen the role of citizens in regional and local government. Before this reform there was a citizens’ right to demand a referendum but this could be refused by the governing authority.

Swedish attention to detail for good governance is illustrated by some accompanying innovations. They propose to build a “comprehensive direct-democratic infrastructure” (Kaufmann), with local advice centres for voters who wish to contribute to governance and exploit their new democratic rights. Also planned is a national institution for political participation, which will inform citizens and support and encourage the newly introduced “direct” democracy.

The rules for citizens’ initiative and referendum were laid down by revision of the constitution of state which came into force in January 2011.

————–
Summarised from: Bruno Kaufmann,  “A more democratic Sweden”: Demokratischeres Schweden md magazin Nr.88, 1/2011 published by mehr-demokratie.de

key words, tags: direct democracy, citizens initiative, ballot

In short:
The Government backs our proposals for Initiative, Citizens’ Referendum and Recall (sacking) of Members of Parliament!

Three items from the coalition paper:

We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.

We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament. The petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament.
—————————–

Campaign work must continue!

The realisation of these coalition proposals would bring considerable improvement to public participation in government. This reform could become a quiet revolution, a move from “steered” democracy to one with practicable, pro-active and veto rights for everyone, in a living, everyday democracy at local and national levels.

In order to ensure that these promises are fulfilled our Campaign will continue. There is a long way to go before legislators in parliament formally introduce genuine citizen-led democracy. Broad public demand for progress on this must become loudly audible. Our Campaign will:
– inform
– educate
– advocate
– lobby
– publish
– research

All of these activities depend on real people doing hard work with professional skill and original flair.

The Campaign for Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum in Britain needs helpers and support, see
http://www.iniref.org/crew.html volunteer
http://www.iniref.org/action.html support
http://www.iniref.org index
Independent of any political party
—————————————————

Why must we be satisfied with the offer (see below*), made first by a desperate Labour party last year, of such a bad “reform” of the electoral system, “alternative vote”? New Zealand in the 1990s showed us a democratic way to go from first-past-the-post to a fairer and party-proportional system. In 1992 the people of New Zealand were asked (a) if they want a change then (b) which of four electoral systems they would prefer! The systems considered were: Mixed Member Proportional, Supplementary Member, Single Transferable Vote, or Preferential Voting. For descriptions of these consult the Electoral Reform Society or the London School of Economics Guide.

The Conservative/LibDem coalition’s plans are not chiselled in stone. With an effective campaign one or more alternatives to AV and FPTP could be pushed into the public debate and so widen eventual choice.

—————–

* See some comments:
Cameron Clear as Mud on AV. WSJ Blogs Iain Martin On Politics July 5, 2010

Nick Clegg July 2010 “Surely when dissatisfaction with politics is so great, one of our first acts must be to give people their own say over something as fundamental as how they elect their MPs.”

Conservative-LibDems agreement 2010. The Coalition: our programme for government. Freedom, fairness, responsibility. May be downloaded from direct.gov

How about the promised shift of “power to the people”? Unconvincing. The authors of this coalition plan offer policy and democracy “for the people” but shy away from introducing effective civil participation. More

In the table (see article) we comment on and assess the national (Westminster) petition, local democracy, the tax veto, the MP (sacking) recall, how we elect our MPs, constituency boundaries and number of constituencies, local councils and a possible referendum about the European Union.

Contents
– Coalition democracy table
– Further coalition plans related to democracy
– Press articles about The Coalition plans
– Footnote: David Cameron recorded in Autumn 2009 saying that he would introduce citizen-initiated referendum both at local and national levels.

FULL ARTICLE

We citizens have NO SAY because we continue to accept a system of  INDIRECT democracy. This means that we elect people who behave like lord-aristocrats, with near-absolute power in the times between elections,  with power largely unchecked and policy unbalanced by sensitive feed-back and effective control.

THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP:

CITIZEN-LED democracy which gives us the following powers:

How it works.
1) A BRAKE on runaway government. With the optional veto-referendum a parliamentary bill or recently passed law can be referred to the people. Say, half a million endorsements (signatures) collected with a few
months can trigger a veto referendum.

2) INPUT BY THE OWNERS The citizens’ law proposal (initiative) allows  ideas which have gathered huge support to go onto the public agenda for debate. Parliament is obliged to debate these proposals. If rejected,  the proposal goes to binding referendum of the whole electorate.  Regulations for “the citizens’ initiative” are set to avoid overwhelming  the system with proposals. This sort of democracy generates much public  debate and encourages people to become involved.

3) SACK BAD MPs The “Recall” procedures is a citizens’ initiative within  a constituency. If an agreed large number of voters call for an MP to go, a ballot must be held to decide her/his fate. If the Recall succeeds  a by-election must be held. (As a reaction to public anger about the MP  expenses scandal the political parties now offer to introduce “recall”.  Beware that they may introduce only a watered-down and toothless  procedure!)

More detail about these “DEMOCRACY APPS” may be found in www, see

http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html

I&R ~ GB Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain

These tv spectaculars are part of a periodic circus designed to convince us that by voting for “our” party you will be represented on most if not all major public issues of government. Such representation over the four or five year life of a parliament is as impossible as it is fraudulent.

Simply by improving the electoral system by which we select candidates and parties – whether with alternative vote, single transferable vote or another, cannot more than marginally correct our deep and dangerous democratic deficit! That is, all this talk of “PR”, proportional representation and related, would alter only INDIRECT democracy.

Both with PR etc. and with the current electoral system (“first past the post”) you may vote for candidates and political parties ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS after which you have NO SAY AT ALL in public policy or in managing (your own) public affairs.

We say, THE ELECTORATE should (a) be enabled to veto unwanted government policy and (b) obtain the right to put forward proposals public and parliamentary debate. If necessary a large,  agreed number of voters should be able to bring a proposal to referendum of the whole electorate, even if the government of the day does not want a referendum.

How to enact these straightforward but vital reforms? See:
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm Election campaign call
http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html Web site index

People in recent decades have become more sceptical about politicians of all parties. Many have learnt that by just giving away your vote once every five or so years you have very little influence. At election time you have to choose a “package deal” of party policy, hoping for the best, and you have no chance to select and vote on particular public issues, however important some of them may be.

For our “democracy deficit” a remedy offered, at least by LibDems and Labour, is to replace our “first past the post” electoral system with a supposedly better one. The Conservative Party wants no change. The LibDems want proportional representation of parties whereas Labour offers “alternative vote”.

These changes would in no way give more “power to the people” in the long period between general elections.