IS REFERENDUM... THE NEW TOOL OF CHOICE

Apart from Switzerland, European countries do not frequently include their citizens in the law- and decision-making process. Since the 1970’s, referendums on the European integration have occurred in several member and non-member states. Three different types of referendums can be distinguished: accession referendums, treaty-ratification referendums, and European issues related referendums. Forty-one referendums have been conducted on European issues in almost twenty countries.

Voting in a referendum is similar to voting in an ordinary election and voters make reasoned decisions about the future of the EU. However, national issues tend to dominate campaigns and voters are thus expected to use their vote as a means of signaling their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the government or to follow the recommendations of national parties. Hence, the outcomes of referendums constitute either plebiscites or punishments for the performance of national governments.

The explanation for voting behavior lies varies from one referendum to the other, as well as from one voter to the other. In other words, it is a question whether voters really address the issues and involve themselves actively in the policy-making process in a vital issue or do they merely vote for or against the current government . When voters have a great knowledge of European affairs, they are less likely to treat the referendum as a second-order election.

The chief characteristic of referendums is the participation of the electorate in policy-making. However, the role of the political elites should not be minimized. Most of the referendums are the product of strategic elites considerations. When the process is launched, referenda increase the salience of European issues and, perhaps more importantly, limit the capacity of political parties and their leaderships to control debate. Unlike general elections, referenda highlight conflicts within, as well as among political parties. Referendums constitute unrestrained expressions and therefore can spin out of the elite control.

One of the criticisms often leveled against the use of referendums is that ordinary citizens lack sufficient knowledge to vote on complex policy issues.  On the other hand, the organization of a public consultation can contribute to increasing the level of knowledge via the information offered by the media as well as by the political leaders.

Above all, this learning-process is not only one-way: from those who have the knowledge to those who don’t. A referendum offers the opportunity for a broad and public deliberation: before, during, and after the actual voting day, regardless of the outcome. Such a deliberation brings to the agenda important issues related to the question of the referendum itself.

Moreover, a referendum alone does not generate a trans-national public sphere, but it can contribute to the development of such a European public sphere. Nonetheless, this so-called public sphere is fragmented rather than united, plural rather than unique.

In short, referendums not only shed light on the gap between the political elites and the voters but also have the potential to narrow it by integrating the citizens in the decision about the content, the direction, and the speed of the European enterprise, at least partially and in combination with the two other effects. By so doing, the process of Europeanization resonates more among Europeans and hence, increasing their identification with it.

While referendums can contribute to the emergence of a European identity, Europeans may ultimately reject the process with which they start to identify. It is worth reflecting on this paradox. First, by definition, direct democracy bears the potential to bring a “positive” or a “negative” outcome –whose meaning may vary from one person to the other and from one issue to the other. In any case, this outcome would be democratic, even though the voters might have actually not voted on the specific issue. A second comment logically follows: referendums must be practically organized as to minimize second-order effects (i.e. that referendum be an opinion poll on the work of the government or on the state of the economy). In the case of the European integration, this is particularly crucial since the outcome of a negative vote seems not to matter much (i.e. voters feel they have a freebie). Thus, the wording of the question should be precise, clear, and specific (as to yield a yes or no answer). Finally, referendums, which differ widely from ordinary elections, have some particular characteristics : highly volatile electorate with dramatic change during the campaign, highly uncertain outcomes, context and timing are important, risk of second order effects, and the political advantage rests with the “No” camp.