PLEBISCITE

By V. LINGAMURTY

Plebiscite is a most significant method adopted for the reorganisation of states as well as governments, for the abolition of an existing system or for the creation of a new system. It has been commonly held as an ultra-democratic device and a means for the expression of popular sovereignty. Strange as it may appear, the plebiscite method has been hailed and adopted as an instrument of decision by democrats as well as dictators. A historical investigation of its results reveals that it enabled the creation of democratic states and also placed dictators in power; it was instrumental for the creation of Republics as well as Empires. Plebiscite thus acted as a two-edged sword and has done good and bad alike. Its results depended largely on the political climate under which it was put into operation. Plebiscite as such can hardly produce good results, as if by a miracle. The good or the bad results that it produces depend on the conditions under which it is applied. So it is necessary to view it only in relation to the time and place of its application.

One of the baffling problems in politics is the absence of precise terminology, the same word being used in different meanings by different writers and at different times. In the past the word “plebiscite” was understood as one enacted and established by the plebeian members of the community and not by the whole body of people. The present usage of the term is borrowed from the French. In modern politics it means a vote of all the electors in a country or given area taken on some specific question. It is a device to secure a direct popular vote on any matter of great political importance, to determine the destiny of a country. It has further come to mean “a public expression, with or without binding force, of the wishes or opinion of a community.” So plebiscite is not legal in its character. “Though not binding, it generally determines the policy of the government.”¹ Plebiscite differs from referendum. While the popular vote under the former may not be legally binding on the government, under the latter it is binding. Moreover, referendum is concerned with general legislation while plebiscite is used “for creating a new and more or less permanent political condition.” ² So while referendums may be held frequently plebiscites are held on few occasions in the history of a country. “Its essential characteristic, as distinguished from referendum, is this: a plebiscitary vote decides a specific question, ad hoc and a pro hac vice.” ³ In Europe its use has been almost wholly political and national. But “it is sometimes used in England to decide questions of municipal rates or other local questions and extensively in the Dominions and the United States on certain local or state questions.” ⁴

It is the traditional opinion that plebiscite as an instrument of direct democracy brings democracy to the door-steps of the people. Those that fervently advocate it hold the opinion that all power belongs by: Nature and of right to the people, and it will be true and effective only when it is exercised directly by them. “The water must be drawn fresh from the spring among the rocks, not from the brook in its lower and perhaps polluted course.” ⁵ It is a device which opens a window into the heart of the multitude. Further, there is a practical advantage. The judgment of the whole people is a final judgment from which there is no appeal. Hence all controversies or differences of opinion among the contending parties can be put an end to.

One of the chief problems in politics is the variance between the apparent and the real. Methods that are most advocated are least practised, for they appear attractive on paper and prove unworkable in practice. Plebiscite is one of such. Democracy may prove dangerous if it means direct decision by the people over complicated and controversial problems. The mass of voters are unfit to express their views on difficult problems which require careful study and calm action. The busy ignorant voter possesses neither the knowledge nor the time to deal with important issues. Democracy in its true sense should be understood as government of the people under the leadership of the best and the wisest. Dr. Arnold Toynbee argues that progress and change are due to the work of “creative individuals” who form a small minority in society. So for the successful working of democracy we require right leaders having “vision, moderation, perseverance and patience.” ⁶ “It (direct democracy) may even be said to be contrary to the genius of democracy...Democracy requires a degree of solidarity which enables the few to act for the many, because the many have confidence in, as well as control over, the few...The representative principle belongs to the very being of democracy.” ⁷

Direct participation by the people in the affairs of the state is unsuited to the modern times. A new ideology is necessary to a new age and the application of old methods under changed conditions way prove anachronistic and dangerous. In the present age few problems are purely local in their nature as the inter-state relations are inextricably interlocked. As politics ceases to be local in its character, the people of a particular locality cannot be the determinants of the Destiny of the place. For example, in the wider interests of India the people of Goa cannot have the liberty of deciding the question of accession. The merger of Foreign settlements like Goa must be viewed from the administrative and not purely from the political standpoint. Speaking of the French possessions in India, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru remarked, “the question of taking a referendum in three or four villages in the middle of India as to whether they should be in the Indian Union or not is rather odd, as if three or four villages in the heart of India or any village in the heart of a country can decide that international question.” ⁸

The applicability or usefulness of methods like plebiscite have to be judged from the new political forces that have come into prominence. The 20th century is an Age of Propaganda, and political parties are the chief instrument of propaganda. The parties constitute such a vital organ in the body politic that the voice of every state today is not so much the voice of the people as that of the dominant party in the state. Modern governments are only party governments. In the legislature, party mandate carries greater weight than public opinion in the enactment of laws. Members in the legislature as well as the people at large think and act on party lines. As such plebiscite becomes farcical. It is not public opinion but party opinion that prevails. While dealing with the methods of direct democracy Mac Iver observed that every democracy requires and develops a party system, and methods of direct democracy “are of little avail in respect of questions on which party lines are already formed.” ⁹ Political parties and pressure groups in a modern state hardly provide an atmosphere for sober thinking and calm judgment. It is well remarked that “time was when political parties would place their particular programmes and policies before the public, discuss their relative merits and ask for a dispassionate verdict. That time is no more. The present practice is to raise irrelevant and irrational emotions, to appeal to sub-human collectivist impulses and thus to sway the electorate as a mass, on the one or the other.” ¹⁰ Under the present system of parties, plebiscite is a convenient instrument for the party in power to fulfill its objectives.

Prominent writers on politics today are of the opinion that several of the riddles in politics can be solved by the application of the psychological clue. The modern psychological theories of the “group mind” and “mass psychology” necessitate a revision of the prevailing opinions about the usefulness of methods like plebiscite. The theory of the “group mind” reveals that the mental working of an individual as a member, of a group or a crowd is different from that as an individual person. As an individual, one is amenable to reason, while as a member of a group he is led away by emotions and instincts. The bigger the group the greater is the possibility for emotions to prevail. The “general will” of Rousseau is a theoretical abstraction and what we find in every day life is not public opinion but public emotions. At the time of the public poll people are motivated not by reason but by prejudice fear or selfishness. Prof. Frederick L. Schuman observed that “although the plebiscite method commends itself to idealists, it is fraught with dangers and difficulties. Even when adequate neutral policing is provided and satisfactory suffrage qualifications and electoral procedures are devised, the referendum itself embitters national feeling, creates temptations to bribery, coercion and terrorism on both sides and offers no assurance that the voters will record their permanent national preferences, rather than their fears, prejudices and economic interests of the moment.” ¹¹ The common man is at best capable of choosing a representative; decision over an important problem is beyond his comprehension. What would be the result of a plebiscite in the southern states of the U. S. A. over the racial question? The decree of the people would certainly be at variance from the present policy of the Administration. As the people are led by emotions they decide the same issue at one time in one way and at a different time in a contrary way. In 1935, by a plebiscite, Germany got the Saar territory with 90 per cent of the votes in favour of union with Germany, and in 1947 the same Saarlanders voted for France. In March 1925 the dethronement of King George II of Greece was endorsed by a plebiscite, and in 1935, again by a plebiscite, George II was recalled to the throne. Plebiscite is only an instrument of the politicians and partymen to trade on the emotions and passions of the masses.

While plebiscite as a system is of doubtful value, its applicability in a modern state is not feasible. The machinery of the modern state has become so complicated that the common man can hardly express an opinion over several of the problems connected with the state. It may be argued that the mass of people will have to express an opinion only over general policy and not on administrative details. The former, it is said, is within their competence. But in a modern state, even matters of general policy have grown too technical to be easily understood by the man-in-the-street. For example, how many people can express a sound opinion over an issue like, “should India be a republic or a monarchy?” ¹² People are not only ignorant but also the slaves of sentiment and tradition. So plebiscite may hamper progress. For example, if a plebiscite was taken in Orissa over the abolition of the old feudal system, the popular verdict would have been in favour of its retention. This is amply proved by the success of members belonging to the old feudal families in the general elections. From this it can be said that plebiscite will produce good results only under certain conditions–the time of its application and the nature of the society have to be taken into account.

A historical study of plebiscites held at different times, and in different countries, indicates that they served as a useful instrument for dictators to come into power. On almost all occasions it resulted in the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of dictatorship. In 1802 a plebiscite was conducted in France and it had bestowed the consulate on Bonaparte for life. Napoleon, the child of the French Revolution, turned into its destroyer. He flouted the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity and established a military dictatorship which was sanctioned by a plebiscite. In 1804 by another plebiscite the office of the Consul was made hereditary and a change was made in the title of Napoleon as Emperor. The events during the post-war period (1920-’39) testify to the fact that plebiscite is a weapon for the dictators to sanctify their actions. In 1933 Hitler held a plebiscite over Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations and “ 40½ million Germans voted yes and only 2 million voted no.” ¹³ Thus Hitler could undermine the strength of the great international organisation which was formed to serve as a bastion of peace. In 1928 Mussolini could establish his Fascist dictatorship in Italy by means of a plebiscite. In the Baltic States, Latvia and Estonia, radical democratic constitutions which had been adopted just after the world war I, were overthrown in 1934 and dictatorships were established and they were ratified by plebiscites. The Peace Conference of 1919 proposed the taking of 17 plebiscites to settle different national questions, of which eight were actually held. In several cases the results proved that a plebiscite was nothing more than a farce.

From this it becomes evident that plebiscite by itself does not produce good results. Nay, under unfavourable conditions it may do immense harm. So the proposal to hold a plebiscite over the so-called Kashmir issue has to be viewed in the background of several factors–political, economic and psychological. On Oct. 23, 1947 the ruler of Kashmir announced the accession of the State to India and thereby constitutionally it became a part of the Indian Union. In January 1948 India made a complaint to the Security Council to check the Pakistan raiders over Kashmir and this led to the arrival of the U. N. C. I. P. ¹⁴ into Kashmir. According to the resolution of the U. N. C. I. P., India had to hold a plebiscite after the total withdrawal of the Pak forces from occupied Kashmir. But even to this day Pakistan has not satisfied the condition precedent for the holding of the plebiscite. Nor has the Security Council taken active measures to remove the illegal occupation by the Pak armies of a part of Kashmir, which legally forms a part of the Indian Union. Neither Pakistan nor the Security Council has a constitutional right to ask India to hold the plebiscite; it is for India to decide it. She made a promise ten years ago under certain conditions, and now an entirely different situation exists. Plebiscite is not an academic issue and its value has to be judged with reference to the time, place and circumstances. An offer cannot go on for generations and forever. During the last ten years the face of Kashmir has completely been altered by certain significant developments within and outside Kashmir. The Constitution prepared by the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir came into force on Jan. 26, 1957, and it ratified the accession of the State to India. It can be said that the purpose of the plebiscite has already been served, for according to democratic tradition, the voice of the Constituent Assembly is the voice of the people.

While internal developments make the plebiscite redundant, external conditions have created a very unfavourable climate for its holding. An atmosphere of calm and comradery is the condition precedent for the conduct of any democratic experiment. “Democracy is the child of peace and it cannot live apart from its mother.”¹⁵ Since the past ten years Pakistan has been striving to increase her military might so that she may frighten the Kashmiris and coerce India into submission. She has also intensified insidious propaganda against India to rouse the religious passions and emotions of the people in Kashmir. Advocacy of democratic principles and practice of Fascist methods are only indicative of hypocritical behaviour. Plebiscite under popular passions, in Kashmir or any other part of the world, will produce diabolic effects.

Like all democratic methods, plebiscite also requires certain conditions for its successful operation. In the absence of an educated and enlightened people, sound judgment on great issues can hardly be possible. An illiterate and ignorant people can never shoulder heavy responsibilities. Further, democratic methods generally founder on the rock of popular passions. Dictators like Hitler and Mussolini could thrive by rousing emotions and passions among their people and by creating fear and hatred of other people. Under such conditions democratic methods like plebiscite only strengthen the undemocratic forces. Calm consideration and reasoned thinking which form the basis of democracy are an impossibility in an atmosphere surcharged with tensions and pressures. Conditions of peace and good-will are the sine qua non for a plebiscite.

¹ Quoted by A. C. Kapoor–Principles of Political Science. p. 308.

² Ibid.

³ Encyclopedia Britannica

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Bryce-Modern Democracies. Vol. II. P. 459.

⁶ Arnold Toynbee–Study of History.

⁷ Mac Iver–The Modern State. P.352

⁸ The Mail. March 27, 1954.

⁹ The Modern State. p 353

¹⁰ M. Tharkunde–Adult Franchise and Elections–The Radical Humanist–May 14, 1956.

¹¹ International Politics. P. 292

¹² Mr. E. V. R. Naicker, leader of the Dravida Kazhagam, is said to have stated that the present administration in the country must be replaced by monarchy.–The Mail–July 7, 1958.

¹³ Hayes–A Political and Cultural History of Modern Europe. Vol. II. P. 99l.

¹⁴ United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan

¹⁵ William E. Rappard–The Crisis of Democracy.

Back