Recent Exercises in Swiss Direct Democracy

Swiss approve pioneering legal heroin program

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS – Nov 30, 2008
Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvPQobAzzd8b8rx5Ltg7TxMtz4bAD94PEKD80

GENEVA (AP) — Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved Sunday a move to make permanent the country's pioneering program to give addicts government-authorized heroin.

At the same time, voters rejected a proposal to decriminalize marijuana.

Sixty-eight percent of the 2,264,968 voters casting ballots approved making the heroin program permanent. It has been credited with reducing crime and improving the health and daily lives of addicts since it began in 1994.

Some 63.2 percent of voters voted against the marijuana initiative.

On a separate issue, 52 percent of voters approved an initiative to eliminate the statute of limitations on pornographic crimes against children before the age of puberty.

Olivier Borer, 35, a musician from the northern town of Solothurn, said he welcomed the outcome in part because state action was required to help heroin addicts, but he said legalizing marijuana was a bad idea.

"I think it's very important to help these people, but not to facilitate the using of drugs," Borer said. "You can just see in the Netherlands how it's going. People just go there to smoke."

Parliament approved the heroin measure in a revision of Switzerland's narcotics law in March, but conservatives challenged the decision and forced a national referendum under Switzerland's system of direct democracy.

The heroin program has helped eliminate scenes of large groups of drug users shooting up openly in parks that marred Swiss cities in the 1980s and 1990s, supporters say.

The United States and the U.N. narcotics board have criticized the program as potentially fueling drug abuse, but several other governments have started or are considering their own programs modeled on the system.

The marijuana issue was based on a separate citizens' initiative to decriminalize the consumption of marijuana and growing the plant for personal use.

Jo Lang, a Green Party member of parliament from the central city of Zug, said he was disappointed in the failure of the marijuana measure because it means 600,000 people in Switzerland will be treated as criminals because they use cannabis.

"People have died from alcohol and heroin, but not from cannabis," Lang said.

The government, which opposed the marijuana proposal, said it feared that liberalizing cannabis could cause problems with neighboring countries.

"This could lead to a situation where you have some sort of cannabis tourism in Switzerland because something that is illegal in the EU would be legal in Switzerland," government spokesman Oswald Sigg told The Associated Press.

The heroin program is offered in 23 discreet centers across Switzerland that offer a range of support to nearly 1,300 addicts who haven't been helped by other therapies. Under careful supervision, they inject doses of carefully measured to satisfy their cravings but not enough to cause a big high.

The aim is to help the addicts learn how to function in society, with counseling from psychiatrists and social workers.

Sabina Geissbuehler-Strupler of the right-wing Swiss People's Party, which led the campaign against the heroin program, said she was disappointed in the vote.

"That is only damage limitation," she said. "Ninety-five percent of the addicts are not healed from the addiction."

Health insurance pays for the bulk of the program, which costs 26 million Swiss francs ($22 million) a year. All residents in Switzerland are required to have health insurance, with the government paying insurance premiums for those who cannot afford it.

The current Swiss statute of limitations on prosecuting pedophile pornography is 15 years. The initiative will result in a change in the constitution to remove that time limit.

Previously only genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorist acts were defined under Swiss law has being without a statute of limitations.

The government had argued that it will be difficult to put the change into practice, partly because of the legal problems of determining the onset of puberty, which varies with each child. Also, the government said, it will be very difficult to prove such crimes in trials many years after the crimes are committed.

The proponents said in campaign literature that sometimes it only becomes possible years later to build a case against a pedophile when other victims "also finally find the strength to bring charges."

"It must therefore be only up to the victim to decide whether it should be forgotten or prosecuted," the proponents said.

PHILIPPINES: Looking to U.S. Direct Democracy as Example

This interesting piece from the Philippines looks to the direct democracy of initiative & referendum at the state level in the United States as an example for the Philippines to follow. - Editor

Direct Democracy

Pinoy Kasi

By Michael Tan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:06:00 11/05/2008

Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081105-170283/Direct-democracy

The media frenzy around the US elections has mainly focused on the presidential race, and for good reason, considering the role American presidents play in charting the world’s future. This election is also particularly significant because we just might see the first African-American president.

But I’ve followed the elections also because they show how democracies work. Beneath the glitter and glamour, presidential elections allow substantive discussions of issues that matter to Americans, and to the world.

Few people are aware of another important part of American elections, that of referendums which allow citizens in some states to make some very vital decisions. In the Philippines, we also have this system of citizens’ initiatives but it hasn’t worked out, so maybe we should look more closely at what goes on in the US.

Burning issues

The issues taken up in these referendums reflect the burning issues of the day for Americans. This year, the most hotly debated propositions to be voted on revolve around abortion and same-sex marriage but there are initiatives around taxes, education, animal welfare and energy. California, for example, has two initiatives around alternative energy, including one that requires utilities companies to generate 20 percent of its power from renewable energy by 2010, 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

The propositions also reflect how liberal or conservative a particular state might be. For example, 26 states have passed DOMASes or “Defense of Marriage Amendments,” which define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. These amendments are intended to block same-sex marriage, which is currently allowed in three states: California, Connecticut and Massachusetts. In this year’s elections, three states—Arizona, California and Florida—will be voting on a DOMAS (note that California already allows same-sex marriage so their new initiative is intended to overthrow that law).

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973 but individual states have been looking for ways to impose restrictions. This year, there are three states with abortion-related initiatives. Colorado has a “Defense of the Person Initiative” which would bestow personhood status from the moment of fertilization, giving the fetus “equal rights of life, liberty and property.” If passed, this act would make abortion a crime equivalent to murder and homicide. South Dakota will vote on a constitutional amendment that will ban all abortions except for rape, incest or to protect women’s health. California has a proposition that will require parents of a minor to be notified, with a 48-hour waiting period, after that notification, before the minor can have her abortion.

It’s a powerful system of direct democracy—direct in the sense that citizens themselves make very important decisions, rather than leaving it to elected officials and legislators. At present, 18 states allow citizens to exercise direct democracy to amend a state constitutions, 22 allow citizens to initiate new laws or statutes and in 25 states, citizens can even overthrow or veto a state statute that has already been passed.

The process usually begins with citizens themselves gathering signatures for a petition to put an issue to a vote. The rules vary from one state to another, requiring a certain number for the petition to finally make it to the ballot. For example, California, for a proposition to revise a law, the number of signatures required to put it to a vote is equivalent to 5 percent of the total votes cast in the last election for the governor. To amend the constitution, the requirement is 8 percent.

Not all these initiatives begin with citizens. Some states have a system where the legislators themselves refer an issue to the public for approval.

It’s not easy to get these propositions to the point of a referendum. Gathering petitions is tedious work, and can be challenged by other citizens’ groups. Law suits have been filed against some of these propositions, effectively stopping them from being voted on.

If the propositions are eligible for a vote, the office of the secretary of the state has to put together materials to help citizens make an informed decision. Information materials (in print, and lately, even in audio for those who are visually impaired) are disseminated, explaining the pros and cons involved. This includes a discussion of the issue itself, but can go on to an extended examination of other implications, for example, the cost of enforcing the new law or lost income in terms of taxes. The materials also list people, groups, even newspapers that have endorsed or opposed the initiative. The main sponsors of the initiative are also put under scrutiny for possible vested interests.

Animal rights

There are many other initiatives that are going to be voted on in this election. As an educator, I was intrigued by Oregon’s Measure 60 where teachers’ classroom performance would determine pay raises.

Massachusetts has a Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative, which would decriminalize small amounts (less than one ounce) of marijuana. Proponents say this would save $130 million a year in court and imprisonment costs, but those opposed, organized as a Coalition for Safe Streets, say such decriminalization would send a wrong message to young people.

Animal rights have become a big issue in the US and are reflected this year by three initiatives. California has Proposition 2, which requires that “calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.” Massachusetts has an initiative that would ban the racing of dogs, specifically greyhounds.

Then there’s Alaska’s Wolf and Bear Protection Act, which went up for a vote a few weeks ago, during the primary elections, and was defeated. This was a referral, sent by state legislators to the public, which would have prohibited “shooting of free-ranging wolf, wolverine or grizzly bear on the same day a person has been airborne.” The law was proposed because hunters have been using aircraft to spot the animals before going after them.

The Philippines has Republic Act 6735, which allows these citizens’ initiatives, but we’ve seen it used repeatedly, from Con-con to Con-ass, by politicians looking for ways to amend the Constitution so they can stay in power. The Action for Economic Reform website has a good, brief critique of the law as “defective legislation,” making the propositions “easy to initiate, difficult to pass.” The problem is informed choice: being able to get enough information and education materials out to voters, rather than letting them be manipulated by politicians.

COLOMBIA: The Referendum that would Allow a Third Term for Uribe in 2010

In a recent post we featured a scheduled referendum in Colombia desiged to protect water rights. Another more contentious initiative that will be put on the ballot next year would amend the country's constitution in order to allow President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third consecutive term in 2010. When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela attempted to include a similar measure on term limits in a referendum package of constitutional reforms, he was widely criticized by his opponents as being an authoritarian dictator. Some are now levelling the same criticism at Alvaro Uribe of Colombia for his refusal to rule out a third term and denounce the referendum. - Editor

Colombia's Uribe eyes one more run

Enjoying great popularity after suppressing guerrilla violence, Colombia's president has declined to discourage a movement to let him run for a third term.

BY JOHN OTIS
Houston Chronicle
Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/latin-america-and-caribbean-politics/story/708316.html


BOGOTA -- Will he or won't he?

Halfway through his second term, Alvaro Uribe, Colombia's wildly popular president, remains coy about whether he will seek a third four-year term in 2010.

Earlier this month, he strongly hinted he would sit out the next election and perhaps attempt a comeback in 2014. Days later, Uribe said he might run in 2010 if his political allies failed to unite behind a single candidate who would continue his hard-line security policies.

Uribe has done nothing to stop a citizen-based drive to change the Colombian Constitution to allow him to run again. For the moment, the charter prohibits presidents from serving more than two terms.

But this month, the Colombian Congress received a petition with more than five million signatures obliging lawmakers to consider a referendum on eliminating the ban on third terms.

''People say that he's doing good work and, if that's the case, he should continue in the job,'' said Carlos Alberto Jaramillo, one of the organizers of the petition drive.

RIDING HIGH

Many analysts believe Uribe would win if allowed to run.

Thanks to a string of military victories against the country's Marxist guerillas, Uribe is riding high in the polls. A Gallup survey puts his job-approval rating at 78 percent.

But critics warn that Uribe could damage his reputation and Colombia's close relations with the United States by seeking three consecutive terms.

Latin America has a history of military dictators. Thus, when democracy spread across the region in the late 1980s and early '90s, the constitutions of many of these nations were rewritten to prohibit presidential re-election.

Uribe engineered one constitutional change that allowed him to run for a second term in 2006. That effort led to allegations that members of his Cabinet had secured congressional support by promising jobs and other favors to legislators.

Going for a third term in 2010 ''would display an authoritarian tendency,'' said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington. ``It would also hurt his legacy which, on balance, has been very positive.''

Uribe has been vague, keeping all of his options on the table and thus avoiding the handicap of becoming a lame-duck leader.

Speaking before a university audience, he said he preferred to promote new leaders and to improve national security during his remaining two years in office and that the reelection issue would be a distraction.

''I think it's much better that Colombians consolidate the policies of democratic security, investor confidence and social cohesion rather than worry about the president remaining in power,'' he said.
Shortly afterward, however, he indicated he would run should the campaign of the would-be successor from his political coalition falter.

But Uribe's maneuvering has prevented Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and other pro-government candidates from launching their own campaigns, which could provide an opening for the opposition.

First sworn in in 2002, then reelected in 2006 by a landslide, Uribe made his mark by improving security in a nation plagued by kidnappings and where left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries held control of huge swaths of the countryside.

ENLARGED ARMY

Uribe added more than 100,000 troops to the armed forces. They have captured or killed key guerrilla leaders while thousands of paramilitaries have disarmed.

The military's most spectacular feat was a July 2 operation that rescued 15 high-profile hostages, including former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three U.S. military contractors.

ECONOMY IMPROVED

Although the illegal drug trade remains robust, improved security has brought more tourism and foreign investment to Colombia and sparked six years of economic growth.

Still, everyone from Uribe's advisers to leading businessmen and his wife reportedly have urged him to step down in 2010.

''We shouldn't confuse the admiration that the business community has for Uribe with the danger of extending his rule longer than is advisable,'' said Luis Carlos Villegas, president of ANDI, an influential business association.

CLOUDS LINGER

Uribe has been weakened by a long-running investigation into ties between paramilitaries and his political allies in the Congress. Nearly 70 legislators, almost all of them pro-Uribe, are either in prison or under investigation, a scandal that has led to calls for the election of a new Congress.

In addition, Uribe has feuded with Supreme Court justices investigating the paramilitary scandal, has traded insults with former Colombian presidents and accused human rights organizations of working with the guerrillas.

''The president should consider taking a break to re-charge his batteries,'' declared a recent editorial in the

Bogotá newspaper El

Tiempo.

TAIWAN: First Civil Referendum to be Held

Kaohsiung to hold island's first civil referendum

Publication Date: 10/16/2008 Section: National Affairs
By Ellen Ko
Source: http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?CtNode=122&xItem=45219

For the first time, a referendum initiated by a civil group rather than a political party will take place Nov. 15 in Kaohsiung City. Voters will be asked whether to cap primary and high school class size at 25 students, according to the Kaohsiung City Election Commission.

The referendum, initiated by the Kaohsiung Teachers' Association, aims to reduce the average number of students in primary and high school classes in the city from the current 30.8 and 33.8 respectively to 25 by 2011. As the first referendum held by a local government and initiated by a civil group rather than a political party since the passage of the Referendum Act in November 2003, this event is considered a landmark in Taiwan's history of direct democracy.

Three national referenda on six proposals have been held since the Referendum Act was first passed. All were highly political issues proposed by the two major political parties, and none achieved the 50-percent threshold of participation to validate.

At the "World of Direct Democracy" global seminar organized by the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe Oct. 1-2 in Switzerland, Hwang Jau-yuan, professor of law at National Taiwan University, called the case a good start of direct democracy in Taiwan. "The referendum in Kaohsiung is a demonstration of bottom-up democracy, which is a good sign for its development in Taiwan," he said. It is worth observing whether the referendum can pass the threshold of 50-percent turnout, he added.

The teachers' association began its campaign in January 2006. It first submitted the collected signatures in January 2008 in the hope that the referendum could be held in tandem with the presidential election in March. But the Kaohsiung City Election Commission reviewed the names and concluded that the association failed to garner enough valid signatures to meet the requirements for public endorsement--54,643 names or 5 percent of the eligible voters in the city.

The association quickly re-submitted a new list of signatures. On May 23, the commission announced that the case had officially qualified for a referendum.

By law, a turnout of 50 percent of registered voters, around 570,000 in Kaohsiung, is required to validate a referendum, and half of the votes need to be favorable for the proposal to pass. The association's referendum is expected to cost the city government an estimated US$855,000.

Kaohsiung's Education Bureau has voiced its opposition to the proposal, saying it will increase the city's financial burden. If the proposal is passed, it would mean adding 281 classes and providing 490 more teachers, as well as spending another US$984,600 per year on staff, not to speak of the money needed to build another 874 classrooms, said Chen Chin-yuan, deputy chief of the Bureau. Furthermore, it was argued that the referendum was pointless because the goal of 25 children per class would eventually be achieved through the declining birth rate.

Renn Hwai-ming, director of KTA Education Policy Center, said that the referendum is significant in terms of grassroots democracy as well as educational reform. However, he also admitted that the association is rather pessimistic about the prospects of the referendum. "We missed a great opportunity by not holding it jointly with the 2008 Presidential Election. Though our campaign gathers momentum each day, the interest for public issues and the drive to vote are simply unparalleled during election times," he said. Furthermore, limited by budget, the number of polling stations for the referendum is set at 203, far less than the 848 provided for the 2008 presidential election and the 839 for the last city mayor election, he added, stressing that the turnout would be seriously affected by the commission's arrangement.

"Should the referendum fail, by law we will not be able to raise the same issue again for the next three years. But we think it is still worth trying. At least, we have demonstrated to the public a constructive way of discussing public issues and the real essence of democracy," Renn said.

Write to Ellen Ko at ellenko@mail.gio.gov.tw

COLOMBIA: Upcoming Referendum on Water Rights

Enough signatures have been collected to put a referendum on water rights on the ballot next year in Colombia. This is the result of a strong grassroots effort. The referendum would establish water as a basic right and protect water resources from privatization. Another more contentious initiative that will be put on the ballot next year would amend the country's constitution in order to allow President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third consecutive term in 2010. When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela attempted to include a similar measure on term limits in a referendum package of constitutional reforms, he was widely criticized by his opponents as being an authoritarian dictator. Some are now levelling the same criticism at Alvaro Uribe of Colombia for his refusal to rule out a third term and denounce the referendum. Stay tuned, for we will be posting more about that referendum in the near future. - Editor

Over Two Million Citizens Supported Water Referendum

Bogota, September 15, 2008
Source: http://www.blueplanetproject.net/Movement/BogotaReferendum.html

Approximately one thousand people marched from the National University of Colombia to the National Registry in Bogota to submitt 2,044,267 signatures supporting the Water Referendum. A colourful bus full of children from different schools of the city, like guardians of their future, closed the march. Colombian music performed by young people in stilts gave it a joyful and carnival atmosphere. At 3 pm aqueduct workers, environmentalists, indigenous people, public service supporters, and men and women of various ages entered, like a water torrent, the National Registry, to submit the signatures to the National Registrar. Without speeches and with little formalities, the diversity of expressions supporting this Referendum were shown, through moving statements of women of various ages; a little girl, an indigenous women.

Rafael Colmenares, spokesperson of the National Committee in Defense of Water and Life read the letter to the Registrar.

This popular initiative started two years ago and has managed to join different local, regional and national initiatives in defense of water and life. The second period of collecting signatures started on March 14, 2008. It was a huge challenge; signatures corresponding to at least 5% of the people authorized to vote needed to be collected in six months, approximately 1.4 million signatures. During this six months it was necessary to go to the streets and rivers to carry out the task.

However, it wasn´t difficult to get the support of the people. How can someone oppose to water being considered a fundamental right? Who doesn´t want to protect strategic ecosystems? How can someone accept the threats of water privatization?

Finally, the task was carried out, the Colombian people answered the call for water. Every day, different people approached the tents located at big cities and the regional comittee in defense of water and life to join the campaign, to collect signatures and submit them. This was a way of stating "here we are and will be, we commit to water, to life and to the future of our children and grandchildren".

The National Registry will rule on this issue next month, so we are still alert to the challenges to the Referendum and the movement in defense of water and life. That small river born on February 14^th , 2007, is a huge river now, impossible to dam.

By Tatiana Roa Avendaño, www.censat.org.

EU: Lisbon Treaty Would Bring Trans-border Direct Democracy

The Lisbon Treaty, if approved, contains a provision that would see the current spread of direct democracy in the E.U. achieve a new dimension. If enough signatures are gathered, a referendum can be held on new or existing E.U. laws. This would be the first example of referendum trancending national borders as the votte would be held in multiple countries simultaneously. -Editor

Public to have more say with 1 million EU signature plan

Institutions - 06-10-2008 - 14:17
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/008-38745-338-12-49-901-20081006STO38717-2008-03-12-2008/default_en.htm

"1 million voices, 1 Message, End poverty": German Chancellor Merkel in June '07

Citizens could have a direct impact on EU law if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force if they can gather at least 1 million signatures from across the EU. The treaty would allow citizens to ask for new EU laws or a review of existing ones. MEPs recently discussed how the signatures would be collected, verified and what would be the legal obligation to act.

Discussions by MEPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 18 September come ahead of a report on the subject by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann of the GUE/NGL group. She believes the legal position needs clarification.

Democratic "directness" appreciated

The introduction of such a system by the reform treaty would make it the first example of direct democracy between several different countries.

MEPs heard from many NGO representatives who said the move would make the EU's institutions more open to people. Several speakers thought that not just EU citizens but people who are resident in the Union should also be allowed to take part.

One million signatures represents 0.2% of the EU population. There was some discussion about whether it should be exactly 1 million (for example is 970,000 acceptable?) - and how many countries it should come from.

Don't set hurdle of participation too high

Professor Jürgen Meyer, a former member of the Bundestag said that the 1 million mark gave it weight but did not set the hurdle too high.

There was also some debate about how to collect signatures, how they should be verified and how long people should have to collect them. Whether electronic signatures were acceptable and should people give their address were also issues.

The chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, German Socialist Jo Leinen thought the signature idea would lead to more involvement by people in the running of the EU. He hoped the reform treaty would be adopted before the European parliamentary elections in June next year.

Ms Kaufmann said the initiative opens the door for direct democracy and is a new legal tool. She also said that it was important to draw on the legal traditions across different countries and cultures.

The report is expected by January.

PERU: Mining Referendum in Piura

Peru: Piura Votes, A Dangerous Precedent

Written by Jennifer Moore
Tuesday, 16 September 2008

Source: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1479/1/

One year ago today, a local vote was held concerning possible mining activity in three highland districts in northwestern Peru. The referendum drew thousands of peasant farmers, many of whom traveled for the best part of a day by horse, truck or on foot to mark their ballot “yes” or “no.”

“We are here to say ‘no’ to this mining project,” said one young woman from the El Carmen de la Frontera district, close to the northern border with Ecuador. “And we would like the government to respect the decisions that we are making here.”

“We are defending our water and land for our children and grandchildren,” she stated, speaking to a film crew from Guarango Cine y Video.

This week, people in the districts of Ayabaca, Pacaipampa and El Carmen de la Frontera are commemorating last year’s impressive results: about 60% of the electorate participated and 94.5% said “no.”

But one year later, the government of President Alan Garcia still refuses to recognize the results.

“There is no reason that this project shouldn’t go through,” said Garcia to members of the Zijin Mining Consortium during his trip to China in March.

Zijin is the major shareholder in Rio Blanco Copper S.A. (formerly Minera Majaz S.A.). UK-based Monterrico Metals also maintains an interest in the project that is hoped to reach production by 2011. It could be the start of a large scale mining district reaching across the Ecuadorian border.

Garcia’s statement, however, not only ignores last year’s decision but also dismisses reports from several national institutions that declare the project illegal and in violation of the project’s own environmental plan.

In the lead up to the vote, the Ombudsman’s Office reported that the project was illegal. They cited the company’s lack of the two-thirds approval from assemblies of the two campesino communities on whose land the copper and molybdenum mineral exploration activities would take place, as required by Peruvian law.

In early 2008, the Supervisory Body for Private Investments in Energy and Mines (OSINERGMIN) sanctioned the company for not meeting its environmental commitments to the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

But despite social and environmental red flags, the government has insisted “on radical neoliberal and centralizing policies inevitably [leading] to political polarization and the deepening of social conflicts,” comments Rafael Hoetmer from the Democracy and Global Transformation Program in Lima and one of about two dozen international observers who attended the Piura vote last year.


Stalemate between government and communities

Dialogue broke down between the government and communities after it had just begun. In December 2007, Prime Minister Jorge del Castillo walked out from one of the first meetings with the Front for Sustainable Development on the Northern Border of Peru (FDSFNP) because they wanted the referendum results to be on the agenda.

But the government had already signaled that productive discussions would be difficult. It tried to boycott the referendum and have it declared illegal. It had also signed a stability agreement with the company and included the Rio Blanco Project in a proposed bill to congress designating it and nineteen other mining projects as national priorities. While the bill failed to pass, the conflict continued.

After Castillo walked out, the Front - which represents communities, social organizations and municipalities of Piura as well as potentially affected areas of the neighbouring department of Cajamarca - decided to reaffirm their decision opposing mining and favouring an agricultural-based economy.

In what they called “The March of Sacrifice,” community members walked for six days from the municipality of Ayabaca to the capital of Piura.

“We have been very clear,” Hoetmer wrote, quoting Magdiel Carrión, President of the Provincial Federation of Farmer Communities of Ayabaca (FEPROCCA), “We do not want mining in our communities. It contaminates the water, creates conflicts, and doesn’t even bring us sustainable development.”

“As communities we have our own development model based on farming, ecotourism and our social organization. We have the same rights as the people of Lima and all other Peruvians. Both Peruvian and international law recognises the democratic right of communities to decide their own future.”

The company and criminalization

As part of a broader effort to repress the mining opposition, government and company supporters have criminalized the struggle in Piura.

According to an August report published by the Peruvian Observatory of Mining Conflicts, around 300 people involved in mining conflicts in Piura are currently facing charges. In the most notable case, thirty-five people involved in the promotion or organization of last year’s referendum face allegations of various crimes, including terrorism. According to the Environmental Defender Law Centre (EDLC), the charges have been brought by a “shadowy organization” called the Front of Unity for the Campesino Community of Segunda y Cajas.

"Let’s make no mistake what’s going on here,” comments Lewis Gordon lawyer and director of EDLC, “it’s a politically motivated effort by those who are unhappy about the activities of the leaders and others trying to stop the mine or the mining activities.”

Peruvian critics allege that the Front, whose name refers to one of two peasant farmer communities whose land pertains to the Rio Blanco project, is receiving money from the company and is made up of known company supporters.

The accusations it made were presented as a set of newspaper clippings, which Gordon calls “vague” and “very troubling to the extent that they allege criminal acts, but don’t indicate that the 35 participated or are in anyway connected to those acts other than the fact that those people were part of the anti-mining opposition itself.”

A recent analysis carried out by a group of US and UK lawyers was presented to the Prosecutor responsible for the case and looked at a range of possible charges, including terrorism, based on the facts as they understand them. It concluded that the 35 could not be prosecuted under US or UK criminal law and that prosecuting the individuals based on the current facts would violate international human rights law. Peru has ratified a number of agreements, including the American Convention on Human Rights.

“The real threat of these efforts and the impact they potentially have is to deter people from exercising their rights and to deter a debate on matters of extreme public interest, where everyone should be able to express their views and let the battle of ideas and participation decide the issue, instead of just trying to stop one group from participating in that debate.”

Decreeing collective rights away

A broad array of new legislation passed from January to June 2008 also threatening a more inclusive process pertaining to development in Peru. President Garcia issued over one hundred decrees during this period for the purpose of implementing the new Free Trade Agreement with the US. “At least forty decrees concern issues related to peasant and native communities and natural resources,” reports the UK-based Peru Support Group (PSG).

In part these imply “that the 'prior agreement' of the landowner regarding how property will be used - for instance, for mining - is no longer necessary,” says the bulletin from PSG. “Companies…could develop activities by simply gaining approval of the Ministry for Energy and Mines (MINEM).”

“Peasant communities, or other owners, would therefore no longer decide the fate of their lands.”

In August, indigenous groups led a twelve-day strike in the Peruvian Northern Amazon in protest of these laws. Ulises Garcia observes that their demands “are effectively in defense of the right to consultation,” noting a relationship to the struggle taking place in Piura.

Garcia is the son of Godofredo Garcia Baca, who was assassinated shortly before the first local vote over mining took place in Tambogrande in 2002. Tambogrande is an agro-export area in the lowlands of Piura. He continues to support ecological networks that assisted in the more recent vote in the eastern highlands.

The Amazonian protests concluded when Peru’s Parliament repealed two laws that were, according to Pulsar News Service, seen to be “opening the door for privatization of ancestral territories.” Garcia calls it “a victory for this struggle.”

A peaceful and democratic solution

The conflict in Piura emerged in 2004 and had already led to the deaths of two area residents when the local vote took place. When the decision to call a local vote was taken, community members hoped that a democratic expression of local opinion could provide a peaceful solution.

But at the moment, Garcia says that the situation in Piura has deteriorated. “Both sides are desperate. There is no development and no peace.”

“The communities in particular,” he says, “are in urgent need of legal support.” In addition to the multitude of charges they are facing, communities have also sued the company for usurpation of their lands. But this case is moving along very slowly.

Tension is also rising in other parts of the region, as companies start to reassert their interest in gold mining in places like Tambogrande, where the 2002 vote resulted in 98% rejection of mining, with the participation of 75% of the electorate.

In fact, the Ombudsman’s Office reported in July that mining has contributed to a rising number of socio-environmental conflicts, which have doubled since last year. About sixty mining-related conflicts now exist across Peru.

On a more hopeful note, Garcia adds that groups have been strengthened by the results of the vote and are “demanding respect for their decision in a peaceful manner.” Over the past year, they have also been working on their own processes of participatory development planning.

But, he assesses, they pose a great risk to the Peruvian government and its model of development, possibly beyond its own borders. He says that “recognition of the results,” in reference to similar votes that have taken place in Argentina and Guatemala, “would lead to the possibility of more votes. Not just in Peru, but in all of Latin America.”

Clarification: The Ombudsman's Office did not actually say that the Rio Blanco Project is "illegal." Rather, they said that MEM had not ensured that legal process was followed in establishing the project, and that it endorsed the evaluacion biental when, had due diligence been exercised, it should not have been approved.

Jennifer Moore is an independent Canadian journalist living in Ecuador.

INDIA: Referendum in Maharashtra

Two articles about a recent referendum in Maharashtra state, India. - Editor

INDIRECT POWER

Wednesday , September 24 , 2008

Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080924/jsp/opinion/story_9875581.jsp

India is a democracy of a specific kind. It is an indirect democracy. The other form of democracy, the direct kind, in which every citizen participates directly in all decision-making, was known to exist in ancient Athens, but most modern variants of it — like in Switzerland — have been abandoned. In India, it has had a revival in the Raigad district of Maharashtra where a referendum has taken place on the special economic zone proposed by Reliance Industries. The referendum covers 22 villages whose inhabitants have grave reservations about parting with their land despite the compensation being offered. This referendum is an exercise in direct democracy, since all the people who stand to lose their land because of the project are being asked to vote. There is no other issue save this, and unlike in an election the people are not voting for a person or a party, but saying aye or nay on just one given issue. The experiment is unique, and it marks a radical departure from the principles of indirect democracy.

The experiment induces a degree of scepticism. For one thing, an extension of this experiment could lead to a complete stoppage of all industrialization projects. All industrial units need a certain amount of land, and this land can only come from people who own and use the land. Some degree of disaffection is embedded and inevitable in the process. But if this disaffection is always to be reckoned with through direct democracy, the overall consequences for the community and the economy may not be beneficial. Any democracy has inherent within it the contradiction between the individual and the collective. The collective is allowed to prevail in a democracy, but in an indirect democracy it does so through elected bodies and not through referendums. If the logic of referendums is accepted, the question could be asked about the use of this instrument only in the case of land disputes. It should be used logically for all issues. This would, of course, lead to a complete collapse of governance. When the Maharashtra government decided to conduct a referendum on the SEZ, it actually took the soft option. As the elected chief minister of Maharashtra, Vilasrao Deshmukh has to decide if his government is in favour of industrialization or not. If it is, he needs to put in place the necessary conditions for industries to begin and flourish instead of abdicating responsibility.

__________________________________________________________________________________

22 villages ‘vote’ in SEZ referendum

Rahi Gaikwad
Source: http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/22/stories/2008092255951200.htm

Pen (Raigad district): In a first referendum of sorts, 22 villages in Pen taluka of Raigad district in Maharashtra cast their ‘vote’ in connection with Reliance Group’s Mumbai Special Economic Zone (MSEZ). They gave their opinion in writing on three parameters — have objections, no objection and others. They could give their point of view or demand.

Forty-five villages are part of the SEZ. Of these, 22, which fall in the Hetawane dam area, do not wish to be part of the SEZ.

They have waged a three-year battle, comprising 40 andolans, culminating in this referendum. The government had sent notifications for land acquisition under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (and not for the SEZ).

Section 6 allows for acquisition for a public interest project. “On August 6, we got a letter from the government asking us to seek the opinion of the people. We waited until now only for the Ganesh festival to get over. The farmers can state their opinion, whatever it may be,” said land acquisition officer Sameer Kurtkoti.

“Villagers who had land titles in their name and their subsequent heirs were nominated to give their written opinion. The lists were prepared when we sent out the notifications. We are referring to the same lists. We have allowed each and every person to vote, even those who may have already sold their land to the company,” said Kurtkoti.

Around 28,000 farmers, including the heirs, were slated to vote, said activist Vaishali Patil of SEZ Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti.

The impromptu nature of the plebiscite showed some cracks. Farmers in Wadhav village were miffed that the process took around 30 minutes per person.

“They have not included the names of the heirs in the list. It just mentions the name of the landowner and says ‘others.’ We have to prove that we are part of the others. This takes time. If one person takes half an hour, when will all the people finish voting in time? There is no stamp of approval. How can we prove whose signature it is? This is just a ploy by the government to thwart the process,” said Praful Mhatre of Wadhav.

Confusion

The confusion over the stamps festered and the resident Collector had to intervene. He assured the farmers that the forms would be taken back to the tehsildar and would be stamped. However, as proof of voting, the forms or statements submitted were signed by officials.

The polling exercise had no formal application forms, only a format. Two kinds of forms were seen in the polling exercise. One set of pink and red forms was prepared by the Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti, which is staunchly opposing the SEZ. Many farmers were seen carrying these.

A small number also had a different form. This one carried a list of demands from increasing the compensation package to one crore, looking after the health and education of their children. Some villagers held that if these demands were fulfilled, they were ready to part with their land.

Those who opposed the SEZ said the SEZ would rob them of their livelihood. They also distrusted the promises and packages. “If they take our land, where should we eat, where should we go and what do we do? Our land is our life,” asked Gajanan Zemse of Borze village.

Balaji Narayan Mhatre (who has reportedly won three prizes in agriculture) of Vashi village spoke of the variety of flora in the village, the fish which is transported to Mumbai and Pune and the abundant harvest of Pen.

With the SEZ, all will be lost. He also pointed out that apart from the farmers, tribal in the neighbouring hills and other talukas also depended on the land for labour.

Green zone

There lies a deep pride in the produce of the land. Raigad is a rice cultivating area and farmers speak of good harvest. The erstwhile saline soil has been converted to fertile arable land over decades.

“Generations have toiled on this land and today it is called a green zone. No one can take this zone,” averred M.N. Thakur of Kaleshri.

Amidst the general stance of opposition, there were some dissidents. Janardhan Thakur from Borze said that earlier he had supported the andolan against the SEZ, but it fizzled out. “We saw that people were giving land at Rs. 10 lakh. To intercept this we placed our set of demands for increased compensation. If Reliance agrees, we are ready to part with the land. However, if the vote goes against the SEZ, we have no objection. We will welcome it.”

“People who have sold their land have done so because of personal adversity. This number is low,” said Laxman Zama Thakur of 24 Gaon Sangharsh Samiti.

Those who have sold their land had infertile land, said some.

Reports of agents giving commissions of Rs. 5,000 per voter were also within the earshot.

While MSEZ caused much bad blood, the Hetawane dam project on the other hand is seen with equal approval. Villagers do not mind parting with some part of the land for canals which, they believe, can only do them some good. With more irrigation, farmers will be able to cultivate rabi crop in addition to the current kharif crop of rice. Zamse, who has already given some of his land for canal building, has no grouse.

Hetawane, a Centre’s undertaking, covers 54 villages. It is aimed at providing drinking water and irrigation. Rows of cement pipes are lying in the villages.

However, not all is well there. Said Patil, “The government, hand-in-glove with Reliance, is planning to divert this water to the SEZ. This is another of its ploys.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

ITALIA: No dal Molin - Chi ha Paura del Referendum Vicentino?

Chi ha paura del referendum vicentino?

Giulio Todescan
[18 Settembre 2008]

Mancano circa quindici giorni alla consultazione indetta dal comune di Vicenza sulla nuova base militare Usa [o meglio: sull’ipotesi che il comune si attivi per acquistare i terreni demaniali dell’aeroporto Dal Molin, dove la base stessa dovrebbe sorgere, destinandoli ad uso civile]. Ma tutto è ancora una volta appeso a un filo: questa volta ciò che potrebbe rimettere tutto in discussione è il ricorso portato presso il Tar di Venezia dal comitato per il Sì al Dal Molin, che contesta la validità della consultazione perché toccherebbe temi di politica internazionale al di fuori delle competenze comunali.

I giudici del tribunale amministrativo si sono riuniti ieri; per oggi era prevista la sentenza; ora fonti del comitato per il sì dicono che bisognerà aspettare fino a domani. Se il Tar desse ragione ai ricorrenti, potrebbe emettere un’ordinanza che sospende la validità della consultazione.

Impedendo così che per la prima volta, a cinque anni dai primi colloqui intergovernativi in cui si discusse della nuova installazione militare, siano finalmente i vicentini a dire la loro su un progetto imposto dall’alto.

Il clima intorno a questa consultazione «postale» [in pratica il comune spedirà a casa dei cittadini una lettera con il quesito, che poi si dovrà consegnare domenica 5 ottobre in appositi centri di raccolta] si sta facendo incandescente. E la posta in gioco è più che mai simbolica, politica. Di fronte a un forte no certificato con regolari schede e urne, il fronte che da due anni spinge per la costruzione di questa colata di cemento ad uso e consumo dell’esercito Usa troverebbe qualche difficoltà in più nel far passare l’inizio dei lavori.

Per questo, negli ultimi giorni, gli attacchi contro la consultazione continuano intensamente sulla stampa locale. Aveva iniziato due settimane fa il premier Silvio Berlusconi, scrivendo una lettera al sindaco Achille Variati in cui gli ordinava di abbandonare la strada referendaria.

Ieri, mercoledì 17 settembre, a parlare è il commissario straordinario per la costruzione della base, Paolo Costa. Un intervento che ha la leggerezza di un pugno sul muso: «Questo referendum è intrinsecamente antidemocratico perché teso a rendere inefficiente la nostra democrazia opponendosi alle istituzioni nazionali, le sole titolate a decidere in materia di politica estera e di difesa per conto dell’intera comunità – così sostiene Costa – Non è un problema di democrazia diretta o di democrazia rappresentativa, è che in materia di politica estera e di difesa il ‘potere del popolo’ si esercita solo attraverso il livello di governo nazionale. Per questo il referendum voluto dal sindaco Variati è un esercizio antidemocratico, poiché cerca di prevaricare l’interesse nazionale in nome di un interesse locale non costituzionalmente tutelato». Insomma, il commissario [europarlamentare del Pd ma dai modi «bipartisan»] recentemente riconfermato nel suo ruolo dal governo Berlusconi definisce «prevaricazione» l’ascolto dell’opinione dei vicentini.

La risposta del sindaco Variati non ha tardato ad arrivare: «Costa la smetta di dire stupidaggini – ha detto Variati – Non è vero che il Comune si sta occupando di affari di politica internazionale. Anche con questa consultazione ci occupiamo di questioni ed aree che riguardano il nostro territorio e agiamo all’interno delle competenze dell’ente locale». «Quanto poi all’affermazione di Costa che la consultazione sia antidemocratica, la ritengo una vera stupidaggine, perché il chiedere un parere ai cittadini è l’esatto contrario di un’azione antidemocratica – prosegue il sindaco – E poi non accetto lezioni di democrazia da chi ha dato, a suo tempo, consigli al governo su come soffocare il dissenso della comunità locale sulla nuova base».

Intanto, i primi camion hanno iniziato a portare via dal sito dell’aeroporto materiali edilizi: lavori propedeutici all’inizio del cantiere vero e proprio.

SWITZERLAND: Direct Democracy Fuels Controversy

The right wing SVP in Switzerland has again launched yet another effort to use Swiss direct democracy to forward their radical views on cultural and immigration issues. All of their recent efforts have been defeated at the polls, showing that direct democracy serves well to strike a balance between factional radicalism and the general will of the majority. (click here to see our previous Switzerland posts for information on recent similar referenda). - Editor

Direct Democracy Against Dada

In Switzerland, a right-wing party is using local referenda to try to de-fund the avant-garde.

Source: http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/28297/direct-democracy-against-dada/

ZURICH—More than half the word’s referenda are said to take place in Switzerland, where voters are invited to weigh in on national, cantonal, and local matters up to four times annually. In large part this is because Swiss citizens can easily petition for a referendum; all they have to do is collect 100,000 signatures in 18 months and the item will be added to the national voting agenda. Generally the issues that get people most riled up are civic matters relating to the military, urban planning, health, and immigration, but several recent referenda have touched on the cultural landscape, and on the ballots this September are two votes that threaten arts venues, both initiated by the right-wing party Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP).

While the SVP views culture, and in particular traditional culture, as an important factor in the well-being of the country, the party campaigns against excessive arts funding and has taken a cynical position regarding contemporary art. Its first target this fall is Zurich’s publicly funded Cabaret Voltaire, the birthplace of Dada in 1916. Founded by artists and intellectuals Hugo Ball, Emmy Hennings, Hans Arp, Tristan Tzara, and Marcel Janco during World War I as a place where any form or tradition of artistic enterprise was welcome, the cabaret reopened in 2004, with significant funding from the Swatch group and the city, as a center for artistic experimentation. Having proved neither commercially viable nor entirely avant-garde, today it occupies a place outside the mainstream art world. The catalyst for the referendum was a controversial casting by sex therapist Maggie Tapert for sex “slaves” to meet the needs of her female clients; the event was moved to another venue and turned out to be a tame affair, but not before the vote was set in motion to determine whether the city should continue the center’s “wasteful” funding. Tapert has decried the vote, saying, “Those who are financing the Dada house want it to be a museum where nothing actually happens. The very things that honor the Dada tradition are frightening to those in power.” The SVP said in a statement, “The people of Zurich are already jaded about the waste of money [on cultural subsidies].”

The second referendum is to take place in the town of Uster, about 10 miles east of Zurich, where the Villa am Aabach faces a similar challenge. Initiated by the SVP along with the Schweizer Demokraten (SD), a conservative party with isolationist tendencies, this vote attempts to revoke funding for the local contemporary art space, allegedly for cost-saving reasons — and despite the fact that the SVP was represented on the jury that recently selected the center’s new artistic directors, Monika Bühler and Michael Gutscher. Bühler and Gutscher’s program was to start in September, but in light of the vote the Villa will remain empty until a decision is made, after which it might reopen in 2009. Since its inception as an art space in 2002, the Villa has hosted the local creative community but also emerging international artists including Ferit Kuyas, Johanna Näf, Rory Macbeth, Paul Harper, and Bettina Carl, and its incumbent directors have proposed a program that would create further links with the local community while maintaining the space’s international perspective. The September 28 referendum will either guarantee funding for three

GUATEMALA: Local Referenda Confront Mining Company with Direct Democracy

This case from Guatemala illustrates the power of direct democracy, here in the form of popular referendum, to assert the will of the people in a democratic fashion over corporate and special interests that may threaten the future of the community and the well being of it's inhabitants. - Editor

Goldcorp: Occupation and Resistance in Guatemala (and Beyond)

Written by Dawn Paley
Monday, 23 June 2008
Source: The Dominion - http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1346/33/

Goldcorp Inc.'s Marlin mine in Guatemala has been a hotbed of controversy since locals became aware of the presence of the company (then Glamis Gold) in their municipalities.

Adding weight to the resistance to the mine is a ruling made public on June 9 by the Constitutional Court in Guatemala, which has found eight Articles (or sections thereof) of the Mining Law to be unconstitutional. (for a full text of the ruling in pdf format click here).

Among the Articles deemed unconstitutional are 19 and 20, which allow mining activities to start while the corresponding paperwork is still being processed, Articles 21, 24 and 27, which allow mining activity to take place to unlimited depths of the subsurface, Article 75, which allows mining companies to discharge water from their tailings pond directly into surface water, as well as Articles 81 and 86.

Goldcorp has refused to comment on the ruling, as they are in this case unable to use their regular discourse about the importance of the "rule of law."

Lawyers and environmentalists in Guatemala hope that the ruling will prevent Goldcorp from discharging untreated water from the tailings pond at the Marlin Mine into local rivers, which the company had planned to begin doing in the next few months.

¡Viva la Consulta Comunitaria, Bajo la Represión!

The municipality of Sipakapa, a Mayan Sipakapense community, held a consulta (community referendum) three years ago this month, rejecting the activities and presence of the company and open pit mining in their territory.

Since the 2005 consulta in Sipakapa, more than 20 other municipalities that have been concessioned in the Guatemalan highlands have held pre-emptive consulta proceses, most recently in Tajamulco.

The consulta was undermined in a 2007 ruling by Guatemala's Constitutional Court -a product of an unconstitutionality suit filed by Glamis Gold against the validity of the consulta- that ruled that the consulta in Sipakapa was legal, but not binding.

The people of Sipakapa have brought their case in favour of the validity of the consulta to the Inter American Court on Human Rights based in Washington DC. Thus far, the case has been accepted by the court.

In San Miguel Ixtahuacan, a Mayan Mam community consisting of about 45,000 inhabitants, a consulta is expected to take place in the next few months.

EU: France and Other States Experiment with Direct Democracy

France and Other States Experiment with Direct Democracy

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,568717,00.html

Paris recently moved to give its citizens the right to decide on major European Union issues like expansion. The move is just the latest in European experimentation with direct democracy.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy narrowly pushed through a reform to France's constitution last week that creates the prospect of more referendums in the future on the key European Union issue of expansion. The fact that the French now have the right to directly vote on one of the EU's most important issues could mean that the union's core project, expansion, will become unpredictable. Under the newly reformed constitution, narrowly approved on July 21, French voters will be allowed to have their say on issues such as future Turkish EU membership.

There are conditions on the new reform, though: Parliament, for example, can put the brakes on any EU referendum. In order to do so, members of parliament in both the lower and upper chambers -- the French National Assembly and the Senate -- must vote with a three-fifths majority either for or against a country's accession. Sarkozy sought to secure the power to decide whether voters should be able to hold a referendum or not for himself; but parliament refused to back down.

Following Ireland's referendum in June -- which saw voters there reject the Lisbon Treaty, the legaleze-filled document that replaced the draft EU constitution (which had in turn been rejected by French and Dutch voters) -- Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer also demanded that future EU treaty changes be decided by referendum. "We think any future changes to the treaty that affect Austrian interests must be decided in Austria by referendum," he said. His remarks, though, did little to save his wobbling government, which collapsed soon thereafter.

In Germany, the federal constitution, or Basic Law, doesn't envision referenda at the national level, but opportunities are increasing for direct democracy at the local level (more...). In Berlin, for example, voters recently rejected a referendum that called for Tempelhof Airport (more...), the historic site of the Berlin Airlift, to be kept open despite the city government's plan to close it.

SPIEGEL has compiled a map on the varying degrees of direct democracy in EU member states. You can click on the graphic above for more details.

dsl/spiegel

LATVIA: Historic Referendum Fails on First Attempt

Latvia joined the list of the many European countries that are expanding direct democracy in the form of more referendums. Although this historic referendum failed for reasons discussed in the following article, had it been passed it would have bestowed the people with further direct democratic powers by allowing them to initiate the dissolution of parliament. - Editor

Latvia: Failed Referendum

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 @ 06:08 UTC
by Elia Varela Serra

Source: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/08/05/latvia-failed-referendum/

As blogger Julian Frisch said, “there are still referenda in the European Union that are not EU-related”. On the 2nd of August a referendum took place in Latvia, on amendments to the Satversme -Latvia's Constitution- that would make it possible for the people to initiate the dissolution of the Saeisma -Latvia's Parliament. This referendum is the result of a long process that was put into motion a few months ago for the first time in Latvian history. Asier Blas, a Spaniard living in Riga, explains it in his blog Cartas del Este [Spanish]:

El primero es reunir unas 10.000 firmas. Posteriormente, estas son comprobadas por Comité Central Electoral, y si estas son verificadas de forma satisfactoria, el Gobierno letón pasa a hacerse cargo de la recogida de firmas habilitando lugares de recogida de firmas en todos los pueblos y ciudades del país para que la gente pueda firmar a favor de la propuesta del referéndum. Si en un mes, el 10% del censo electoral firma, el referéndum se celebra. Al respecto, no está de más recordar que en Letonia hay aproximadamente 500.000 personas de origen ruso o descendientes de rusos que no tienen ciudadanía letona y por lo tanto, no tienen derecho a voto en ningún tipo de elección.

The first [step] is to gather 10,000 signatures. Afterwards, they are checked by the Central Electoral Commission, and if they are verified positively, the Latvian Government is then in charge of it providing facilities for the signature gathering in every town and village in the country, so that people can sign in favor of the proposal for a referendum. If in a month the 10% of the registered voters sign, the referendum takes place. In this regard, we should keep in mind that in Latvia there are approximately 500,000 people of Russian origin or descendants of Russians that don't have Latvian citizenship and therefore don't have the right to vote in any kind of election.

Those 10,000 signatures were collected during the fall and winter of 2007, during the demonstrations against corruption. The blog All About Latvia described one of those protests in a post from October last year titled “We've forgotten we're a democracy”:

Foreigners here observed that to make Latvians come out in such large numbers, you have to really piss them off.

And people are pissed.

When the government played political intrigues in the run-up to presidential elections and people protested outside the parliament and their calls fell on deaf ears, the people patiently took that in.

When the government have ignored signs of overheating economy from the Latvian Central Bank, international credit agencies and local macroeconomic experts, the people patiently took that in.

When the government decided to deal with the Loskutovs factor, attempting to circumvent the law regulating the anti-corruption agency that have been successfully fighting corruption, they’re pissed and they want blood.

Pēteris Cedriņš of the blog Marginalia was one of the 213 000 persons that signed in favor of amendments to the Constitution last April during the one-month signature gathering by the Electoral Commission. He justified it with the following words:

I signed… because I trust our people — our nation — a lot more than I trust our so-called elite. When the Government threatens us with “chaos” — the only response can be that the Government has long been dragging us into a half-light oozing lies and sinister lucre. As Laila Pakalniņa suggested, we — the people — could at least have an instrument with which to respond in extremity.

However, he expressed his concerns about such amendments to the Constitution:

… the proposed changes are risky. As experts in the law and politics have pointed out, rallying the people to “throw the bums out” will probably always be pretty easy. The next time we choose from our 60-odd parties in a flurry of kompromat, slick advertising and shady financing, assuming that the people are given this power, it's possible that someone can fund a “throw the bums out” campaign the next day. In this country, smaller than many a city, “political technologies” can be employed like shots in the dark, from guns without serial numbers.

A few days ago Veiko Spolitis of the Baltic blog wrote a post about the pros and cons on the referendum, from a newspaper article that asked several politicians to give their views on the matter. He concluded by saying:

…so called political elite in this country with rather few exceptions really think that their voters are stupid, and thus the politicians are locked into their imaginary power bubble.

However, in spite of the general excitement about the referendum and the hopes that many Latvians had put into the positive change in the political scene of their country that it was supposed to bring, it ended up being declared invalid because of an insufficient turnout. For a referendum to have validity in Latvia, no less than 756,000 registered voters must take part in it, while only 627,530 voters came to the polls on Saturday. Vitaliy Voznyak of the blog The 8th Circle commented on the disappointing results:

The low turnout, around 40%, doomed the grassroots effort.

Nevertheless in a country with 1.5 million eligible voters when 607,901 of its citizens so directly register their discontent with political behavior of their politicians, those in Saeima better straighten out.

Even if they did not succeed, Latvians have laid out an example for others in the Baltic region and beyond on participatory democracy, an example that hopefully will be followed elsewhere.

Pēteris Cedriņš of Marginalia attributed the low turnout to the sunny weather:

Summer in Latvia is short and sweet, not conducive to traipsing to polling stations — many people head for the countryside on the limited number of balmy weekends. Still, with 995 of 998 precincts reporting, 608 202 persons voted in favor of the amendments, 18 831 against.

That means, however, that the “servants of the people,” as our Members of Parliament so love to describe themselves, can relax and return to misrule unhindered

A few weeks ago All about Latvia had already predicted the turnout dilemma:

…the August 2 referendum, when Latvians decide for what they care more – their country or their summer holidays. For holiday-loving Latvians, it’ll be a tough choice to make.

For Baltic Features, the sun helped avoid the worst case scenario for the government:

Thank god it was a sunny day on Saturday, which persuaded enough people to have a day at the beach instead of a day kicking the administration out.

Why? Because whoever is at the helm for the next few months is going to preside over the most painful period in Latvian history since independence was won back in 1991. Unemployment will soar, homes will be repossessed, prices will continue to rise and it’s now too late to do anything about it thanks to the government’s dithering.

It’s not pleasant to want the worst case scenario to unfold - real people will experience real pain - but unless it happens there’s a nasty chance the usual suspects may have been able to rehabilitate themselves by the time the next general elections come around.

Photo of the Latvian Parliament by khoogheem

THAILAND: Referendum Bill Progresses

If passed, this bill would allow Thais to vote in refererendums, but they will not have the power to initiate them. This power would be reserved to the Prime Minister. While this would be a step towards more participatory democracy, a more substantial and deeper adoptation of the initative & referendum process will be essential if the Thai people hope to obtain truly direct democracy. - Editor


Referendum bill progresses

MONGKOL BANGPRAPA

Friday June 13, 2008


Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/13Jun2008_news13.php

A 42-article draft bill on a referendum, which could open the door to constitutional amendments, passed its first reading in the House yesterday after seven hours of debate. Government and opposition MPs voted unanimously to accept the bill, drafted by the Election Commission (EC), for review.

An extraordinary committee comprising EC representatives has been formed to vet the draft legislation which must be enacted within one year after promulgation of the charter.

Before the draft bill was tabled for a vote, EC member Prapun Naigowit briefed MPs on key points.
The draft bill empowers the prime minister to decide on the topic to be put to a referendum, and whether a referendum is held to help give the government an overview of public sentiment over a critical issue, or to find a resolution.

If a referendum is organised to find a solution, a majority vote will be valid when more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes.

Where a referendum is held to obtain an overview, the majority vote will be valid when one-fifth of eligible voters cast their votes.

Even though the government and opposition MPs accepted the bill, they are still likely to lock horns over its content.

People Power party MP Sukhumpong Ngonkham opposed a provision about the required number of voters.

He said the draft bill seemed to give more attention to those who did not cast votes than those who did.

Democrat party MP Chinnaworn Boonkiat said the bill represented true participatory democracy, and he agreed with the required number of voters.

But he questioned whether the bill was drafted to appease Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej who proposed a referendum to decide whether constitutional amendments should proceed.

Democrat MP Warong Dejkiwikrom said having a referendum over the simple question or topic alone was not enough.

TAIWAN: Referendum Process Needs Strengthening

Although a Referendum Law was passed in Taiwan in 2003, it has yet to take hold as a common form of participation. While referendums have been held on important issues, participation has been weak and the legal validity of each referendum was compromised because of low turnout. The lack of public participation may be a symptom of an over-worked population, or it may be the result of little confidence in the veracity of efforts by untrustworthy public officials, but the ultimate consequence is a perpetual cycle of disconnect between government and people that must be addressed in order to make the referendum process an effective mechanism for direct democracy. As the author states, all players should be making a concerted effort to strengthen the process. - Editor

Working to strengthen the role of plebiscites

By Chen Lung-Chu

Sunday, Jun 22, 2008, Page 8

Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/06/22/2003415371

Before the Referendum Law was passed in 2003, Taiwan had already held referendums at the local level. Since a committee protesting the construction of a fifth naphtha cracker plant by CPC Corp, Taiwan in Houchin, Kaohsiung City, held the nation's first referendum in 1990, there have been other referendums on various public issues.

In 1994, a referendum was held on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Kungliao Township in Taipei County. In 1995, another referendum on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and a referendum on road construction in Sijhih (¦Á¤î) were held in Taipei County. Other referendums that year included another on nuclear power in Taipei City, one on the construction of Yongkang Park in Taipei City and one on the exploration of Daliao Township in Kaohsiung County.

In 1997, a referendum was held on the reconstruction of Liaoting Community in Chiayi County and in 1998 a major investment project proposed by Bayer AG was put to a referendum in Taichung County.

The same year, a plebiscite was also held in Tainan City on Taiwan's future.

All of these referendums lacked a legal basis, however, so the results were not legally binding. The results of the referendum on the construction of Yongkang Park, however, were recognized by the Taipei City Government as binding.

Since the Referendum Law was passed, six nationwide referendums have been held. In 2004, two plebiscites were held, one on increasing the nation's purchase of anti-missile weaponry and one on negotiations with China on the establishment of a peace and stability framework. In January, two referendums were held in tandem with the legislative elections: the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum on recovering the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets and the KMT-proposed referendum on giving the legislature investigative powers.

Two more plebiscites were held in conjunction with the presidential election in March, both on seeking UN membership.

Although the results of each of the six referendums were affirmative, all were invalid because the total voter turnout fell below the legally specified minimum.

Before the Referendum Law became reality, it was impossible for the public to directly communicate their opinions on important issues to the government. It was not easy to pass this law. Without the efforts of academics, experts, civic organizations and the general public, legally binding direct democracy would never have been possible. However, the referendum system has repeatedly fallen victim to vicious political power struggles, which has led to boycotts that have taken advantage of the high threshold for valid results.

This has shown the deficiencies in the legislation, which must be amended in order for the act to serve its purpose: allowing the public a vehicle to communicate their will on crucial matters.

The government, political parties and the public each have an important role in deepening the nation¡¦s democracy. The government has the obligation to promote referendums and inform the public about them in a fair and transparent manner. Political parties need to throw their weight behind an amendment to the legislation rather than boycotting referendums for their own ends. The public, meanwhile, has a duty to exercise its rights when there is a plebiscite.

Together, the government, political parties and the public should strive to expand the role of referendums in the nation's democracy.

MEXICO: PEMEX Privatization Rejected in Referendum

This past Sunday in Mexico a referendum organized by the opposition PRD party of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was held in Mexico City and 9 other Mexican States. The 'citizen consultation' was an attempt to employ direct democracy to the question of President Calderon's proposed measures that would allow partial privatization of Mexico's state owned PEMEX oil company. The measures would allow foreign oil companies to partner with PEMEX in future exploration and development. Although turnout was lower than expected, the non-binding referendum resulted in a resounding NO to the privatization efforts. The hope of the PRD is that the vote will both enlighten the people about the need for more direct democracy while at the same time influencing lawmakers who are currently debating the changes to energy policy. Here are two pieces from the LA times on the subject. The first gives a summary of the results of the referendum and the second provides some more backround information. - Editor

Mexican voters oppose Calderon's plan for oil industry

In the capital, more than 80% issue a resounding 'no' to the proposal to allow private firms a greater role. In the nine states that also voted, more than 90% give the plan a thumbs down.

By Marla Dickerson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 29, 2008

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-mexvote29-2008jul29,0,417576.story

MEXICO CITY -- Turnout was light, but voters in a nonbinding referendum gave an overwhelming "no" to President Felipe Calderon's proposal to give private firms a bigger role in Mexico's government-controlled petroleum industry.

More than 80% of those who cast ballots Sunday in Mexico City opposed the plan, according to the official tally of the federal district released Monday. The results were even more lopsided outside the capital, where nine of Mexico's 31 states also participated. With about two-thirds of the ballots counted, more than 90% of those voters gave the president's proposal a thumbs down.

Slightly more than 1.5 million people cast ballots Sunday. Organizers had been hoping for a turnout twice that size in the greater Mexico City area alone.

Orchestrated by the opposition Democratic Revolution Party, the so-called Citizen Consultation was the first of three public referendums to be held throughout Mexico over the next month to gauge public opinion on pending energy reforms.

The results have no official bearing on legislation being hashed out in Congress. But the left-leaning PRD is gambling that strong public opposition will force lawmakers to back off proposals to open portions of the state petroleum monopoly to private or foreign firms.

Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, a PRD member and potential presidential candidate in 2012, praised the event as a way for ordinary Mexicans to be heard on a matter vital to the nation's future.

"The will of the people that was expressed freely is clearly opposed" to the president's legislation, Ebrard said.

Critics lambasted the event as a politically motivated stunt to embarrass Calderon in the middle of heated negotiations. Members of the president's National Action Party had charged that one of the two questions on the ballot was worded to elicit a "no" response, making the results a foregone conclusion.

The head of Pemex, the state-owned oil company, dismissed the significance of Sunday's results.

"The turnout was limited . . . the conclusions were expected," said Director-General Jesus Reyes Heroles.

Mexico is the world's sixth-largest petroleum producer, and the industry is the nation's largest taxpayer. But output and proven reserves are sliding badly after years of government neglect. Pemex lacks the expertise and capital to tap Mexico's deep-water crude deposits. Mexican law prohibits foreign and private firms from investing in the energy sector.

Calderon in April sent legislation to Congress that would loosen some restrictions on Pemex, enabling it to team up with foreign oil companies to extract the nation's undersea oil. His plan also calls for more private investment in areas such as refining and storage.

Opponents say Calderon's real objective is to privatize Pemex, a charge the president denies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mexico's capital, 9 states vote on nation's oil industry



By Marla Dickerson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 28, 2008

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-mexoil28-2008jul28,0,7669056.story

MEXICO CITY -- A bitter debate on how to rescue Mexico's troubled state-owned oil company went directly to the people Sunday as residents of the capital and nine states voted in a nonbinding referendum on President Felipe Calderon's plan to open some portions of the petroleum industry to outsiders.

The vote, organized by the opposition Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, has no official bearing on energy legislation making its way through Congress. But opponents of Calderon's reforms hope a decisive "no" vote will force legislators to back off.

The balloting was the first of three so-called Citizen Consultation referendums over the next month that will eventually cover Mexico's 31 states and federal district. Organizers were gearing up for as many as 2 million people to cast ballots in the capital alone Sunday, although a light turnout was reported at some polling places.

Mexico City's historic center was bustling with poll workers wearing T-shirts emblazoned with "I decide," the referendum's slogan. A six-piece band performed "The oil isn't for sale," a popular refrain among Mexicans wary of privatizing Pemex, the state oil company.

A mix of urban youth, working people and seniors, some wearing sombreros and traditional garments, lined up at the outdoor polling stations. Some said they viewed participation as a civic duty.

"The petroleum . . . belongs to the people and to the Mexican nation," said Rafael Mendoza Villeda, an agricultural consultant. "We are defending the oil that's at the heart of the country."

Shoemaker Jose Picon Fuentes said he doubted that Mexico's industry could be strengthened with more private-sector help. "The people want the oil to stay in the hands of the state," he said.

Foreigners "are going to obtain the earnings and take them all," he said.

The PRD has promoted the referendum as an exercise in direct democracy and a way for ordinary citizens to have a voice in a vital issue.

Critics have dismissed the event as political theater directed by leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the PRD candidate who lost to the conservative Calderon by a razor-thin margin in 2006. Many voters in Mexico City were expected to be party members or employees of the capital's PRD-controlled government. Media reports suggested some were being pressured by their bosses to participate.

The wording of the two questions on the ballot was drafted by academics from respected Mexican universities. But Calderon's National Action Party has charged that at least one of the questions is structured in such a way as to elicit a "no" response from voters.

Pemex is the world's No. 6 oil producer, a major supplier to the United States and the Mexican government's largest taxpayer. It's also a powerful symbol of national sovereignty.

Mexico annually celebrates the 1938 nationalization of its petroleum resources. Booting foreigners from its oil patch, chief among them America's Standard Oil, was one of the country's proudest moments.

But legislators for decades treated Pemex like a cash machine, siphoning its revenue while reinvesting little in exploration and development. Now Mexico has less than a decade's worth of proven reserves remaining. Pemex lacks the expertise and capital to drill deep-water wells, which can cost more than $100 million.

Through the first six months of this year, Mexico's total oil production averaged 2.86 million barrels a day, the lowest output since 1996.

Calderon in April introduced legislation that would allow Pemex to team up with foreign oil companies to extract Mexico's undersea oil. His plan also calls for more private investment in areas such as refining and storage. Opponents say Calderon's real objective is to privatize Pemex, a charge the president denies.

PRD lawmakers paralyzed the House and Senate chambers with a two-week sit-in to prevent a speedy vote on Calderon's reforms. They were helped by brigades of working-class women who camped outside the buildings to prevent legislators from rival parties from entering.

A pro-Calderon group countered with television spots comparing Lopez Obrador to Hitler, Mussolini and the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who shut down their nations' legislatures.

The standoff ended with an agreement to hold hearings in which dozens of experts testified on many issues related to Pemex. The public remains deeply divided. A poll conducted this month by the national daily Reforma showed that 48% of those surveyed supported Calderon's legislation, while 52% were either opposed or undecided.

The Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled Mexico for seven decades, has come forward with its own energy reform proposal. The plan puts stricter limits on the role of the private sector than the president's version.

Analysts say the PRI's involvement is a sign that a compromise will probably be reached when lawmakers return from their summer recess. But some doubt that any reform crafted to appease bickering politicians will be enough to turn around Pemex.

And at a time when other Latin American governments are asserting greater control over natural resources, persuading Mexicans to loosen their grip on their petroleum won't be easy.

"Everyone in Mexico knows that Pemex needs to change," said Enrique Bravo, Latin America analyst at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk consulting firm.

But with oil selling near record prices "it's hard, politically speaking, to convince people that they should share it with private companies," Bravo said. "That's a tough sell."

marla.dickerson@latimes.com

Times staff writer Deborah Bonello contributed to this report.