Originally Posted by
Stavros
What excited people about the referendum in Scotland, albeit in the last 6 months of a two year campaign, was the intensity of the open debates that were held, the fact that a broad section of the population -in Scotland- participated in both the debates and even more importantly, the vote itself with a turn-out of over 84%. For many of us this is what democracy in action should be like, even though there seemed to be a ban on the discussion of issues such as the Royal Family and immigration, but it is also the case that it appears to have been a positive experience for many because they got the result they wanted.
The danger is that the referendum has the potential to replace the political process as it winds its weary way through our Parliaments and Congresses. If we elect a government we don't then expect it to abdicate its decision-making powers and hand it back to 'the people'. What would happen if there were a referendum on issues like capital punishment, in the UK; or abortion in the USA? The Scots turned out en masse, but suppose a referendum on a contentious subject attracted only 60% of the electorate of whom 57% vote one way and 43% the other?
We may, in the UK, be asked to vote in a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. I don't know how many are likely to turn out to vote, and I suspect that for all the noise the anti-Europeans can make, as in Scotland, a 'silent majority' will vote to stay in. But should there even be a referendum, and is this the best way to deal with political problems that our institutions seem unable to resolve?