Referendums are sometimes touted as the highest form of democracy. But a Dutch one that just rejected closer politics and economic ties between the European Union (EU) and Ukraine shows plebiscites have drawbacks.
First, they can fall victim to voter apathy. Only 32 per cent bothered to vote in the Netherlands on April 6, barely above the 30 per cent turnout minimum required for the vote to be valid. When turnout is low, referendum results lie in the hands of those who have trenchant views, and who tend to find it easier to mobilise die-hard supporters. This can lead to distorted results that misrepresent actual political preferences.
The second problem is such plebiscites are far too often hostage to discontent about unrelated issues. The rejection of the EU-Ukraine deal by a margin of nearly two-to-one probably had little to do with qualms about the details of the deal, which runs to more than 2000 pages in print. Instead, the question posed was probably conflated with other issues, as has been the case in referendums on EU issues before.
This can be exasperation with the ruling political elite, which usually backs the EU position in referendums, a hazy feeling that faceless European Commission bureaucrats are to blame for domestic ills, misery about economic prospects, or a mix of all three. It certainly was when French and Dutch voters rejected the EU's draft constitution in 2005.
Granted, the economic fallout of this latest vote will be tiny. Ukraine is the EU's 29th largest trading partner, with a mere 0.8 per cent of the bloc's exports sold there. But the lessons of the Dutch referendum also hold true for Britain's June 23 vote on EU membership, where far more is at stake. Younger voters have a stronger preference for staying than their elders, but are less likely to vote. And the temptation to give the political establishment a bloody nose is hardly the preserve of continental Europe.
It's a shame. Referen-dums are a chance for the general public to have more of a say in how their country is run. But some questions may just be too complex for a simple yes or no answer. Even worse, voters can end up answering a completely different question to the one posed.
First, they can fall victim to voter apathy. Only 32 per cent bothered to vote in the Netherlands on April 6, barely above the 30 per cent turnout minimum required for the vote to be valid. When turnout is low, referendum results lie in the hands of those who have trenchant views, and who tend to find it easier to mobilise die-hard supporters. This can lead to distorted results that misrepresent actual political preferences.
The second problem is such plebiscites are far too often hostage to discontent about unrelated issues. The rejection of the EU-Ukraine deal by a margin of nearly two-to-one probably had little to do with qualms about the details of the deal, which runs to more than 2000 pages in print. Instead, the question posed was probably conflated with other issues, as has been the case in referendums on EU issues before.
More From This Section
Granted, the economic fallout of this latest vote will be tiny. Ukraine is the EU's 29th largest trading partner, with a mere 0.8 per cent of the bloc's exports sold there. But the lessons of the Dutch referendum also hold true for Britain's June 23 vote on EU membership, where far more is at stake. Younger voters have a stronger preference for staying than their elders, but are less likely to vote. And the temptation to give the political establishment a bloody nose is hardly the preserve of continental Europe.
It's a shame. Referen-dums are a chance for the general public to have more of a say in how their country is run. But some questions may just be too complex for a simple yes or no answer. Even worse, voters can end up answering a completely different question to the one posed.