{"id":2929,"date":"2016-08-01T20:37:09","date_gmt":"2016-08-01T20:37:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wiki.davelevy.info\/?p=2929"},"modified":"2023-12-10T16:17:06","modified_gmt":"2023-12-10T16:17:06","slug":"dictatorship-and-plebisites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/dictatorship-and-plebisites\/","title":{"rendered":"Dictatorship and Plebiscites"},"content":{"rendered":"

For people casual acquainted with political theory, we know that dictators quite like plebiscites in a way that they dislike parliaments. We can see in the UK, the way in which some of the Brexiteers, but not their leadership, are frightened of both parliament’s consideration of interpreting the referendum result and\/or running a second one.
\n<\/p>\n

That’s Democracy!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

they wail, but so is Parliament. Democratic politics is about expressing the will of the majority under the rule of law. It should involve debate and compromise; it often doesn’t.<\/p>\n

The anglosphere’s political theory starts with Hobbs who posited the need for a strong sovereign to tame the bestial nature of the mob through to Paine’s “Rights of Man”, first suggesting inalienable human rights. The latter has ensured the establishment of a representative democracy based on universal suffrage but we know this has been challenged in existential terms by Fascism and in lesser terms in the UK by the move towards mayors and commissioners, rather than councils and the mindless and reactionary New Labour mantra “with rights come responsibility”.<\/p>\n

Totalitarians have their theorists also, one of them is Carl Schmitt<\/a>, and I was pointed at him in a paper, entitled, “The Paradox of Plebiscites: Why Do Authoritarian Submit issues to the voters?”<\/a> by Matt Qvortrup, currently teaching at Coventry. When I originally noted this article, I highlighted the following quote,<\/p>\n

Robert Michels, an otherwise piercing analytical mind, tersely observed that \u201ca F\u00fchrer [sic!] would lead the people astray through unclear questions, and would himself be solely entitled to interpret the result afterwards\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I have now read Nigel Jones article (see 6 below) and present this quote.<\/p>\n

So what conclusions can be drawn from this largely\u00a0melancholy history? That referendums are usually used\u00a0for the convenience of rulers rather than the ruled.\u00a0Much depends – as Alex Salmond realises – on the question\u00a0on the ballot paper and on who controls the organs\u00a0of propaganda – radio, TV, newspapers and, today, the\u00a0Internet.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I hope to write more, arguing that the dumbing down of politics, the building of a super-hero culture and the destruction of debate is anti-democratic. When I am ready, I’ll convert it into an essay and post it to the blog.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Since writing this little note, I have been working extensively on the remain\/rejoin EU campaign in the UK. My writings are distributed across my blog and this wiki and I have concluded, inexorably that,<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Referendums and Presidencies create losing communities that are too large. Because Parliaments can compromise, solutions based on second best can developed.<\/li>\n
  2. It is not possible to isolate a single issue. The fact is that the UK’s EU referendum is so clearly adjacent to issues of the Union itself, it will have impacted votes in Scotland and Northern Ireland where large cohorts will have cast their vote on the basis of their desires on the issue of independence\/unionism. With some SNP voters and oddly Ulster Unionists voting to leave the EU because the former thought it would accelerate independence and the latter that it would impede Irish reunification.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    See also<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. Referendum a \u201cDevice of Dictators and Demagogues\u201d?<\/a>, at conversion uplift by Neal Cole, dated 2018, with another catalogue of democratic deficiencies<\/li>\n
    2. \n
      Matthew Willner-Reid<\/span> (2018)<\/span> The Rise of Referendums: A Death Sentence for Multilateralism?,<\/span> The International Spectator,<\/span> 53:2,<\/span> 1-20,<\/span> DOI: 10.1080\/03932729.2018.1438240<\/a><\/span> mirrored here<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
    3. Democracies don’t have Executive Presidents<\/a>, on my blog<\/li>\n
    4. On Presidentialism<\/a>, on this wiki<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      ooOOOoo<\/p>\n

      Dennis Jarvis @flickr<\/a> CC 2012 BY-SA Romania-2354 – Freedom has a Price……..<\/p>\n

      I have just noticed a spelling mistake in the permalink, here is the surl https:\/\/wp.me\/pauVx4-Lf<\/a><\/p>\n

      Related Reading<\/h3>\n
        \n
      1. google search q=fascism+and+plebiscites+carl+schmitt<\/a><\/li>\n
      2. Carl_Schmitt<\/a>, at Wikipedia<\/li>\n
      3. Google’s link to Matt Qvortrup’s paper<\/a> in Word, and Matt’s Coventry U publications<\/a> page. See also my mirror of Qvortrup, Dictators + Plebiscites MQvortrup<\/a><\/li>\n
      4. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe<\/a> a review by Fukiyama of Linz & Stepan’s revised work on Autocracy, referenced by Qvortrup, Here is\u00a0a mirror<\/a>, on this site.<\/li>\n
      5. Referendums: A Device for Despots?<\/a> at History Today, no really by Nigel Jones, but behind a paywall, a catalogue of the use of Referendums in France & Germany, but also talks about Denmark’s EU referendum and Papendreou’s leave the Euro referendum. It was written in 2012 and he falsely predicts that there won’t be one on the EU. His conclusion is that they are stacked in favour of the state, and used as a tool of control, see above for the quote.<\/li>\n
      6. Thatcher was right about referendums<\/a> by Philip Stephens, published in the FT, dated 2007 and quoting her from even earlier. Her line, and Atlee’s are problematic if we are beginning to question Parliamentary Sovereignty as inadequate to defend the rule of law.<\/li>\n
      7. Why referendums are anti-democratic<\/a> by Mike Mcnair, published at Labour Party Marxists, this is one of the best at quoting left winger’s theory in defence of their case, by which I mean he goes beyond blunt assertion. Here is\u00a0\u00a0my mirror copy<\/a>, in case the hosting site fails.<\/li>\n
      8. Mcnair references Kautsky’s Parliamentarism, direct legislation by the people and social democracy<\/a><\/li>\n
      9. The Weekly Worker also reviews Kautsky “Kautsky on referenda<\/a>, an article of which I have created a mirror,\u00a0 Kautsky on referenda.<\/a><\/li>\n
      10. Solidarity also comments <\/a>in the light of the Momentum coup. It interestingly looks at the decline of the Workers Party in Brazil, after its adoption of online democracy, but not the experience of Podemos, which I believe to be similar.<\/li>\n
      11. Here is a reference to Mainwaring & Shugart’s “Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy,\u00a0A Critical Appraisal 1997<\/a>, together with\u00a0a mirror<\/a>. Linz’s original 1985 article is here<\/a>, or https:\/\/is.gd\/BicfCX<\/a> and here’s my mirror,\u00a0Linz Presidentialism 1985<\/a>., I made a new version with Calibri font<\/a>. It seems that Juan Linz<\/a> also wrote a prequel to the paper, “The Perils of Presidentialism”<\/a>. Mainwaring and Shugart produce a number of tables illustrating their critiques of Linz, including one which attempts to collerate poverty with democratic stability. It wuold be interesting to see the failures of these classes of rule, India vs (say) Argentina, or more recently Turkey.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        For people casual acquainted with political theory, we know that dictators quite like plebiscites in a way that they dislike parliaments. We can see in the UK, the way in which some of the Brexiteers, but not their leadership, are frightened of both parliament’s consideration of interpreting the referendum result and\/or running a second one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2931,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[140],"tags":[1052,1105,1055,1347,1053,1054,1051,141,2022,1359],"class_list":["post-2929","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","tag-carl-schmitt","tag-democracy","tag-human-rights","tag-juan-linz","tag-nazism","tag-plebiscites","tag-political-theory","tag-politics-2","tag-referenda","tag-referendum"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/romania-unionsq-w650.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2929","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2929"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2929\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9742,"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2929\/revisions\/9742"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2931"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}