John Roughan: Decisions better from elected heads

Smackers, whackers, violence victims, life-means-lifers - just about everybody who has initiated a referendum in this country may be in Queen St today to march behind a banner called "democracy".

It belongs to an Auckland property manager, Colin Craig, who advocates a certain kind of democracy which I witnessed some years ago in Switzerland.

It was just weeks before a general election but you would never have noticed.

There were no hoardings, no advertising blitz on television, no leaders' debates, nothing. The reason: elections don't decide much in Switzerland, referendums do.

The Swiss constitution allows any act of Parliament or anything done by the Government to be overturned by a referendum if 50,000 registered voters sign a petition for one, a "citizens' initiative".

Does this sound like heaven? Maybe. But there are implications for politics as we know it. The reason Swiss elections are so quiet is that every party comes into the government. There is no opposition.

This is inevitable. As a political scientist explained to me in Berne, the citizens' initiative makes it untenable for Parliament to do anything that a party opposes. It is too easy for the party to organise a petition and defeat it at a referendum.

It's usually easier to get people to vote against a proposition than for it. Discontented people turn out; the contented are more likely to forget or not care.

So all parties were brought into the federal Cabinet. Its seven members took turns to be President. Hardly anyone notices Switzerland has a President. Does that sound like heaven?

When you consider Switzerland's wealth, the economic consequences are obviously not too bad.

The country is richer per head than even the surrounding European Union, which the Swiss in referendums steadfastly refuse to join.

You don't see poverty or serious social inequality. The place can afford to pay its farmers even higher subsidies than the EU, not because it needs the butter but to keep the cowbells tinkling and the landscape manicured.

I came back fairly enthusiastic about "direct democracy". That enthusiasm lasted until the New Zealand firefighters' union forced a referendum under the newly enacted Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993. Thank heaven Parliament had not bound itself to enact the referendum results. Had it done so the national fire service would today have to employ no less than the number of paid firefighters it needed (or said it didn't need) on January 1, 1995.

But maybe binding referendums would produce more responsible results. The Swiss have not voted themselves social benefits they are unwilling to finance. Civil liberties have survived. Women, it is often mentioned, were not enfranchised until 1971, but it is a conservative society.

There were still no women in the Cabinet when I was there.

Switzerland is not the only place ruled by referendum. Critics of direct democracy can point instead to California. There citizens habitually hamstring themselves with restrictions on taxation that cripple the state government.

Given binding referendums, the desire of at least some of today's marchers, would we be Swiss or Californian? The turn-outs would surely be better. The debates might be more balanced too.

Referendums that are merely "indicative" can be approached with no more care or responsibility than need to be given to an opinion poll, which is all they really are.

You might not sully your mind with a subject such as smacking kids, but if somebody asks your opinion you'll agree it is parents' business and the Government should butt out. Suppose, though, the Government did butt out by handing the final decision to you?

You may be one of the majority who told a Herald-DigiPoll survey this year they use physical punishment rarely, if at all. Would you still vote to permit its use by parents of a different view? Or would you consider it your responsibility to give all children the rights and human respect you give your own?

Opinions are easy, decisions harder. Opinions can be outrageous, decisions are usually dull.

I found it easy to vote for a reduction of Parliament from 120 members to 99 at the referendum in 1999.

But if the vote was going to be decisive, would I have done the same?

A royal commission had carefully decided 120 were needed for proportional representation to function properly. Since we'd chosen MMP my decision would probably have deferred to the logic of it. How dull.

In my opinion we could take a chance and trust ourselves with binding referendums.

But if my opinion really counted, I'd probably come to my senses. It's better, on reflection, that democracy delegates decisions to people elected to consider them properly.

When their decisions disappoint it is probably because the task has taken them beyond sentiment and passion to a higher and drier realm of reason and practicality.

It sounds like Switzerland.