|
|
The Golan Heights and the Facts - A Special Majority and a Referendum: Democracy Bolstering Mechanisms
The following Full-Page Ad was published by The Ariel Center For Policy Research in Ha'aretz daily on March 21, 2000. The focus on Special Majority aims at a crucial process, which may determine the fate of the Golan Heights. Is a Special Procedure for Ratification of a Dramatic Change, Such as a Territorial Concession, Acceptable in Western Democracies? FRANCE: Charles De Gaulle conducted two referenda for the ratification of the relinquishment of Algeria (which was part of the French territory!): the first one a year and a half before signing the Evian Agreement and the second one immediately thereafter. De Gaulle claimed that a simple majority would represent a minority of eligible voters, failing to generate broad support, giving rise to a large and embittered opposition, and sowing discord in the nation. De Gaulle insisted on a special majority. According to article 53 of the French Constitution, "No cessation, no exchange, no annexation of territory is valid without the consent of the population concerned." Likewise, a majority of 60% in both chambers of Parliament is required for any change in the Constitution. BRITAIN: The Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1976 stipulates that "Northern Ireland shall not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the electorate of Northern Ireland." UNITED STATES: Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution determines that a territorial change in any of the 50 states of the U.S. requires a "double majority" (in the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress). Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution states that the ratification of international treaties requires two thirds of the Senate. AUSTRALIA AND SWITZERLAND: Any change in the Constitution necessitates a "double majority" in referenda: a majority of voters as well as a majority of votes in four of the six states of Australia or twelve of the twenty-two cantons of Switzerland. The "double majority" is equivalent to 60-65% of the legislatures. According to David Butler and Austin Ranney's Referendums Around the World - The Growing Use of Direct Democracy (Macmillan, 1994, pp. 2-3), referendum procedures are applicable to changes of constitution or territory. HOLLAND, BELGIUM, NORWAY: Any change in the Constitution requires a simple majority in both chambers of Parliament before election, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Parliament following elections, so as to prevent a fortuitous majority and to forge broad agreement. SWEDEN: A simple majority in a referendum and a simple majority in Parliament, before and after election. THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THE RELINQUISHMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY IN: Norway (article 1), Spain (article 2), Italy (article 5), Portugal (article 3), Turkey (article 3-4), Singapore (article 6), Venezuela (article 8), etc. *Special majorities are the common practice in demographically-homogeneous societies, with no relevance to racism. *A special majority protects the citizen against rash legislation that is enacted by a slim, tenuous majority. *A special majority constitutes a check against the Executive branch. IS A SPECIAL MAJORITY (50%+1) ALSO APPROPRIATE FOR ISRAEL? A special majority has greater weight in Israel due to the dominance of the Executive, the weakness of Checks and Balances and of the Legislature (Knesset), and the fact that Israel has a unicameral system. A special majority nurtures in-depth discussion in the Knesset. It certainly encourages in-depth discussion in a referendum. DOES A REFERENDUM JEOPARDIZES, OR BOLSTERS, DEMOCRACY ? "There are only five major democracies that which have never had nation-wide referendums. They are India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States, (The referendum has, however, been widely used at State level in the United States)." (The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Science, Prof. Vernon Bogdanor, editor and international expert on the subject, Oxford University, 1992). "Issues which are critical to national existence require as broad a basis of national support as possible ... A referendum isolates the extremists... can prevent a dangerous civil conflict ... A referendum does not jeopardize the representational system of government. It challenges an excessively rigid party system, as the one in Israel ... A referendum is part of the system of Checks and Balances ... It brings the people closer to party activities and legislative processes ... " (Prof. Bogdanor, Referenda in Israel, Israeli Institute of Democracy, 1993, pp. 63-67). DO A SPECIAL MAJORITY IN THE KNESSET AND IN A REFERENDUM FORM AN OBSTACLE TO PEACE? Article 23 of the proposed Human Rights Act for Israel calls for a majority of two-thirds at the Knesset for any change in a Basic Law. Is it not appropriate to apply a similar majority to a change in the status of the Golan Heights, which involves fateful implications? The future of the Golan is a controversial issue that affects the security, sovereignty, ideological, and legal status quo! A narrow majority (50% + 1) on such a critical issue, as the status of the Golan Heights, runs counter to democratic conventions in the West. A peace agreement should be based on broad public agreement and on long-term parliamentary support (e.g. peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan). Whereas a narrow majority for ratification of an ordinary law may cause a reversible, a narrow majority for a change in the status of the Golan could cause an irreversible damage. ***A special majority constitutes an obstacle to "Peace Now At Any Price." It calls for an in-depth examination of the issues, and for the recruitment of broad public support. A special majority promotes a Durable Peace. |