Bob Harvey: Time to listen to the voice of the people

John Unsworth (L) from the Wanganui Splash Centre with the city's Mayor, Michael Laws, after a successful referendum voted to extend the centre. Picture / Tracey Grant.

I have been exploring the concept and the pros and cons of referenda, or what some people call "direct democracy".

A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. Non-binding referenda, what we currently have in New Zealand on national issues, are merely consultative or advisory, and the government may ignore them. A binding referendum requires the government to carry out the will of the people.

A referendum usually offers the electorate only two choices, either to accept or reject a proposal. In Switzerland, however, multiple choice referenda are common. Two multiple choice referenda held in Sweden in 1957 and 1980 offered voters a choice of three options, and in 1977 a referendum in Australia to determine a new national anthem gave voters four choices.

In New Zealand, Hamilton City residents voted last month to keep fluoride in their tap water and Wanganui District City and its Vision Wanganui team led by Mayor Michael Laws have held several referenda on a number of local issues.

By ensuring the referenda went ahead only after a balanced information campaign outlining the pros and cons of each question, they have enabled the district to make clear, informed choices.

Laws hailed the 54 per cent voting response as a stunning success, giving a clear indication that the people wanted to have a say in how their hard-earned ratepayer dollars were spent. (You can understand his jubilation when you consider, for example, that only 27 per cent of eligible electors voted in the Waitakere ward byelection).

Laws said Wanganui people had proven they were a passionate, constructive and deliberative community.

"I said I would give the people of Wanganui the power and they have proven they want that power."

Advocates of referenda see them as a way of giving people the right to make important decisions more often than every three years.

They maintain that voters, rather than politicians, are ultimately responsible for the well-being of our society and to survive as a healthy collective we must develop our political voice into one more sophisticated than simply voting for a political party every three years. They say that only the people can create and run a government "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Steve Baron founded the Better Democracy movement in New Zealand three years ago to put pressure on politicians for change and to raise the awareness of binding citizens' initiated referenda as a political tool.

He says there is a feeling among New Zealanders that real democracy has been and is being threatened by past and present governments, and that many people feel they have lost control of the politicians they elected. (While many of these comments relate to central government I think the messages are the same for local government.)

Advocates also argue certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of political elites and determined directly by the people.

Opponents argue the superiority of representative democracy in which elected officials are the exercisers of "independent judgment" rather than merely delegates bound to robotically carry out the wishes of voters. Some opponents claim that referenda are used by politicians as a way of abrogating responsibility in difficult and controversial decisions.

They also argue that voters in a referendum may be driven by transient whims rather than careful deliberation or may not be sufficiently well informed to take decisions on complicated or technical issues. Voters may furthermore be swayed by strong personalities or the adverse influence of spin or expensive public relations campaigns.

Others think "the people at large" simply are not capable of making the right decisions; or worry that if we had to go to the public every time we wanted to get something major done there'd be no such thing as civil unions or prostitution reform. However, those opposed to social engineering of any kind would say that's definitely a good thing.

As you can see there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. But my search for answers wasn't over and it was by coincidence I heard about a book by New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki called The Wisdom of Crowds - Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few.

Surowiecki's last chapter "Democracy: Dreams of the Common Good" poses the question "What do voters think democracy is for?". He claims that politicians want, above all, to be re-elected and therefore act not in the way that they think is best for the electorate but in the way they think has the best chance of winning over the voters.

This often translates into playing "pork barrel" politics and paying special attention to the interests of powerful lobbies.

It seems strange that many politicians think the way to do politics well is to distance themselves as much as possible from citizens' everyday lives. In the same way a healthy market needs the constant flow of localised information that it gets from prices, a healthy democracy needs the constant flow of information it gets from people's votes.

Clearly, this has huge implications for how we run our businesses, structure our political systems and organise our society.

So, are we ready and willing for Direct Democracy? I think we might be. Certainly the way is clear in terms of the Local Government Act 2002 and we are only limited by a need to have a fair and credible process. I'm not indicating it's a simple process - it isn't. But I am saying the time is right.

* Bob Harvey is the Mayor of Waitakere City.