Step 1: CIR and Laws

Step 1: Put Political Power into the Hands of the People

People in every country should have a practical and continuing right to propose, approve, reject and repeal laws, and to hold their elected representatives accountable between elections.

Today, we usually exercise political power indirectly. We elect representatives every few years, but political parties and parliaments largely control which laws are introduced, which issues are debated and which proposed constitutional changes are put to the people. Citizens Initiated Referendums, commonly called CIR, would give the people a direct way to place a properly supported proposal before the electorate for a binding vote.

What is a Citizens Initiated Referendum?

A Citizens Initiated Referendum is a democratic process that allows a citizen or group of citizens to propose a change to public law. If the proposal meets clear legal requirements and receives enough verified public support, it must be put to the people for a vote.

This does not mean that every suggestion immediately becomes a national vote. A responsible CIR system must require a clear proposal, genuine public support, independent checking, balanced public information and enough time for proper debate. Only then should the electorate make the final decision.

The Principle Behind Step 1

Sovereign political authority belongs to the people. Representatives are elected to serve the people and must remain answerable to them.

FuturePlan does not depend upon finding perfect politicians. It proposes a structure in which citizens retain the power to correct government when representatives or institutions stop acting in the public interest.

Different Countries, Different Starting Points

Every country has its own constitution, laws and democratic procedures. Some allow citizens to initiate laws or constitutional changes, while others allow the public to vote only on proposals first approved by parliament or government. FuturePlan’s principles must therefore be adapted lawfully to the system operating in each country.

Australia provides one example. Section 128 of the Australian Constitution allows voters to approve or reject a proposed constitutional alteration at a referendum, but it does not give citizens the general power to initiate that proposal themselves. A proposed alteration ordinarily begins in the Commonwealth Parliament. The people have the final vote, but Parliament generally controls which constitutional proposals reach them.

Where this democratic power is missing, FuturePlan proposes giving citizens the right to initiate a properly supported proposal and require that it be put to a public vote. The precise legal method, support threshold and voting requirements would be determined according to each country’s constitutional framework.

Australian example: read the Australian Electoral Commission’s explanation of section 128 and referendums.

Why CIR Matters

Direct Democratic Control

Citizens would no longer be limited to choosing representatives every few years. When sufficient public support exists, the people could propose a new law, reject or repeal an existing law, or propose a constitutional change.

Continuing Accountability

Governments would know that unpopular or harmful decisions could be challenged through an orderly public process. This would make accountability a continuing obligation rather than something considered only at election time.

Greater Transparency

Every qualifying proposal should be published with its full wording, expected effects, costs and arguments for and against it. This would bring important public decisions into the open and make it harder for legislation to be determined entirely through closed political negotiations.

Responsibility Belongs with the Decision

Greater power also brings greater responsibility. Citizens would need reliable information, time to consider the consequences and a transparent record of how each proposal was developed. CIR is not government by opinion poll. It is a structured process for informed public decision-making.

How a FuturePlan CIR Proposal Would Work

1. A Citizen Proposal

Any eligible citizen or group could prepare a proposal for a new law, the amendment or repeal of an existing law, or a constitutional alteration. Each proposal would need to address one clearly defined subject so unrelated measures could not be bundled together.

2. Independent Preliminary Review

An independent body would check that the proposal is clearly written, deals with one subject, identifies its likely legal and financial effects, and follows the constitutional rules applying to that type of decision. Its role would be to ensure clarity and legality, not to reject a proposal merely because the government disagrees with it.

3. Verified Public Support

The proposal would need to gather a defined number of verified signatures within a stated period. Local, regional and national proposals could have different thresholds. This would demonstrate genuine public interest and prevent the voting system from being overwhelmed by proposals with little support.

4. Open Information and Public Debate

Before voting begins, citizens would receive the exact proposal together with plain-English explanations, an independent assessment of its likely effects, and fairly presented arguments from supporters and opponents. Funding and organisations campaigning for or against the proposal would be publicly disclosed.

5. A Public Vote

After a proper period for public consideration, eligible citizens would vote. The voting threshold would depend upon the proposal. An ordinary law might require a majority of valid votes, while a constitutional alteration or another fundamental change could require a higher or broader level of support.

6. Binding and Verified Implementation

If the proposal receives the required support, the result would be binding. Government institutions would be required to implement it within a defined period. An independent legal process would verify that the law as implemented faithfully reflects what the people approved.

Protecting Rights and Preventing Abuse

Majority rule by itself is not enough to create a just system. A majority should not be able to remove the fundamental rights of an individual or minority simply because it has greater numbers. The CIR framework must therefore operate within clear constitutional protections and the principle that people are free to exercise their rights provided they do no harm to others.

• One subject per proposal: voters must not be forced to accept an unwanted measure in order to approve an unrelated one.
• Clear legal wording: citizens must know precisely what a successful vote will change.
• Protected fundamental rights: proposals must respect established protections for life, liberty, property, equality before the law and due process.
• Transparent campaigning: the identity and funding of major campaign participants must be disclosed.
• Meaningful support thresholds: a small organised group should not be able to force continual national votes without demonstrating broader public interest.
• Reasonable voting intervals: substantially identical rejected proposals should not be repeatedly resubmitted without a defined waiting period or evidence of materially changed circumstances.

Recalling a Representative

Citizens should not have to wait until the next general election to remove a representative who has seriously failed to perform their duties or has lost the confidence of the electorate. FuturePlan therefore proposes a formal recall process.

A recall would not be triggered by a few complaints or an unfavourable opinion poll. A petition would first need a substantial number of verified signatures from voters in that representative’s electorate. If the required threshold were reached, the electorate would vote on whether the representative should remain in office. Clear thresholds and limits on repeated recall attempts would protect representatives from frivolous or malicious campaigns while preserving the people’s ultimate authority.

CIR Establishes the Right; Step 2 Provides the Technology

Step 1 establishes the democratic right of citizens to initiate and decide public proposals. Step 2 explains the digital voting system that could make participation more accessible, timely and secure.

The right must not depend upon one particular application or technology. Citizens who cannot or do not wish to vote digitally must still have an accessible and secure way to participate. Technology should serve democracy; it should not define or control it.

International Experience

Switzerland

Switzerland demonstrates that direct citizen participation can operate successfully alongside representative government. At the federal level, 100,000 eligible voters can support a popular initiative to amend the Swiss Constitution. If the requirements are met, the proposal is put to a national vote and must receive both a majority of voters and a majority of the cantons.

The Swiss system is not identical to FuturePlan. It does not provide continuous voting on every issue, and its federal popular initiative applies to constitutional amendments rather than ordinary federal laws. However, it provides valuable evidence that citizens can take a direct and responsible role in major national decisions.

Read the Swiss Government’s explanation of federal popular initiatives.

United States

There is no national citizens initiative process in the United States, but many states and local jurisdictions use initiatives, referendums or recall procedures. The rules differ considerably between jurisdictions. Their experience provides useful lessons about public participation as well as the need for clear drafting, transparent campaign finance and safeguards against misleading proposals.

A Foundation for Continuing Democracy

FuturePlan seeks to move democracy beyond the idea that the people’s role begins and ends at an election. CIR would give citizens an orderly and binding way to initiate change, correct government decisions and require representatives to remain accountable.

The objective is not constant voting for its own sake. It is to ensure that political authority remains with the people and can be exercised whenever an issue has sufficient public importance and support.

Common Law Courses available at CommonLaw.Education