Tom Ginsburg on Brexit And The Limits Of Direct Democracy

Reform The Referendum: Brexit And The Limits Of Direct Democracy

Coauthored by Dawood Ahmed

In Federalist No. 63, James Madison wrote that the defining principle of American democracy, as compared to Athenian democracy, “lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” This was a warning against the dangers of direct democracy - referendums, voter initiatives and the like; Madison was against populist usurpation (by the ballot box) of elected representatives’ responsibility to make decisions on complex issues, with the benefit of parliamentary debate and the ability to negotiate compromises.

In theory at least, if politicians get it wrong, they can get voted out; in contrast, if an impassioned majority gets it wrong, accountability is unlikely - very much a case of nationalist slogans and “do first and think of consequences later”.

As an example, The Economist writes in respect of the United States that “states with excessive direct democracy, such as California, Oregon and Arizona, now face daunting budget deficits because the recession has exposed the cumulative legacy of past voter initiatives. Voters love schools, hospitals, prisons, and trains. They also hate the taxes that pay for them. Recessions are often triggers of fiscal chaos, whereas ballot-box budgeting is the cause.” In Glen Gendzel’s words, direct democracy in California has become a “vivid example of reform gone awry and good intentions leading to catastrophic unintended consequences.”

Read more at Huffington Post