Sending Back Referendum to the “Bird Cage”: the DPP Would Inevitably Suffer from the Move

 Sending Back Referendum to the “Bird Cage”: the DPP Would Inevitably Suffer from the Move

Source: China Times

February 15, 2019

Referendum (or plebiscite) elections realize direct democracy and may complement the inadequacies of representative politics. Despite the fact that countries that adopt the referendum system often meet serious problems because of confusion and predicaments caused by the referendum, such as Catalonia’s referendum in Spain in 2017 and the Brexit referendum in the UK, both created serious sequelae, with predicaments unresolved up to now, the democratic value of referendums should not be erased. The fact that referendums have become a problem lies not in the referendum itself, but in the fact that certain political parties and politicians misuse and abuse it for the sake of self-interest, taking a further step to destroy the sacred value of referendums.

The DPP has been manipulating referendums to the extreme; last year, it met with a backlash of vox populi in the nine-in-one local elections combined with referendum elections; now taking the reverse path, it wants to limit referendums, precisely proving its very nature of lacking democratic ingredients.

We cannot deny that for the erection of the referendum election system of the Republic of China, the DPP was the primary mover. However, citizenry of awakening colorlessness should ask themselves a question: were it not for harboring the wishful thinking of political separatism, were it not utilizing referendums to mobilize the public to vote, guiding the voting direction, would the DPP have so enthusiastically pushed for referendums? For Trong Chai, a vanguard of the Taiwan independence movement, who earned the title of "Referendum Trong" and Chen Shui-bian, who realized "referendum elections combined with general elections," history witnessed their accomplishments of putting referendums in practice, also witnessing the ulterior motive for referendum, or the impure motive of launching referendum for other aims. Nevertheless, last year's local elections allowed referendum proposals to blossom, bearing plentiful fruits; the forerunners of the DPP should be credited with this great achievement. However, just as we enjoy harvesting, the original vanguards, on the other hand, want to restrain referendums; what an enormous irony in history.

Last year, 7 plebiscite proposals out of 10 were adopted; it was a slap in the DPP’s face by the vox populi. After the elections, the DPP and the Central Election Commission (CEC) under the Cabinet actively pushed for the revision of the law; among the proposals, although some were for perfecting the referendum system, for instance, extending the lead time from 1-6 months to 3-6 months, and co-sponsorships could only be submitted in one time, some of the revision opinions want to send the referendums that have already flown out of the bird cage back to the cage, attempting to no longer allow them to soar and fly in the vast open skies. Among them, the most obvious is that the referendum elections may be held separately from general elections, assigning legal responsibility for shouldering unsubstantiated co-sponsorships to the proponent of the referendums, as well as reviving the review mechanism under the competent government agency on the content of referendums.

The "Plebiscite Act" indeed must be perfected; last year's elections combining plebiscite elections were the first time held after the bars were lowered in the "Plebiscite Act," symbolizing Taiwan's direct democracy taking a big step forward, covering a wide spectrum of 10 plebiscites, including energy, food safety, gender and sovereignty, and the main text of the plebiscite proposals was complex and difficult to understand, among which disputes even appeared over misgivings of unconstitutionality and contradictions of other relevant laws even appeared. Some plebiscite proposals were ridiculed as "empty in content." To enable plebiscite to become a true spirit and force to deepen the people's direct law-making, many adjustments have to be made.

Nevertheless, what we want to see is that precisely because the plebiscite elections were combined with the general elections, it allowed the enthusiastic participation of the public so that 7 plebiscite proposals successfully passed the hurdles, and the turn-out rate for plebiscite elections averaged 55.23%. This is a marvelous record after the Plebiscite Act struggled out of the bird cage, with participation so enthusiastic, it was undoubtedly the first touchstone for the success or failure of the plebiscite elections. If the plebiscite elections are decoupled from the general elections, then the participation will definitely cool down, then the democratic significance and participation value realized by the plebiscite game played on the part of a group of a few radical figures would be greatly reduced.

Lowering the bars for co-sponsorship and adoption in the Plebiscite Act is an important step for practising direct democracy. Despite the fact that in the plebiscite elections this time, various misgivings abounded; for instance, the lead time for preparation was too short, causing insufficient communication, and the main text was complex in meaning, challenging the standard of the voters’ Chinese language, as long as the co-sponsorships reached the target, it would pass the hurdle, human rights were denigrated to be hijacked by a majority vote. All these doubts sounded reasonable, all have to be carefully considered for adjustments after clarifications, allowing plebiscites to become a mature approach for citizen law-making, and at the same time rectify the government through direct vox populi.

Referendums not only demonstrate direct vox populi through the results of the elections, but also through the course of referendum debates, let the public get a better understanding and clearer thinking of public policies; thus, the legal provision that plebiscite proposals, from clearing the bars to election, the lead time of 1 month to 6 months is indeed a little hurried. It is necessary to extend it to three months, so as to allow political parties and civic organizations to have sufficient time to publicize their ideals, and then through the right of initiative or referendum on laws already enacted, to exercise referendum in order to demonstrate vox populi.

"Can human rights be a subject matter of referendum?" This is another question raised by the plebiscite elections this time. For instance, Constitutional Interpretation No. 748 of the Council of Grand Justices points out that the Civil Code is "unconstitutional" as it has not protected same-sex marriage; because we can protect the right of same-sex marriage through the referendum, but we cannot, through referendum, deprive their right to marry.

As to the fact that previously, the Plebiscite Review Committee under the Cabinet could zero in on whether the content of the plebiscite proposal is in violation of the law or Constitution, as well as whether the body of the text contained unclear language or improper content, and conduct reviews of the content, even had the authority to approve or disapprove the plebiscite proposal, now these provisions have been repealed. Certain DPP figures now advocate the restoration of the “guardianship mechanism”; this could easily allow the government to limit plebiscite proposals, which would definitely be a no-no. If there were a government agency that could wield the authority to kill referendum proposals, then the essence of democracy would vanish into thin air.

If the DPP wants to have its way in any case based on the interests of its party, at will eliminating or amending plebiscites to be its political tools, then the collapse of the referendum system as well as the demise of democracy would be imminent.

Attachment : none