THE ONLY two jurisdictions where the results of citizens’ assemblies were put to referendum in recent years both resulted in voters rejecting the propositions put to them.
Separate referendums were held in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario following citizens’ assemblies held in 2004 and 2006.
The assemblies, which resemble the proposed constitutional convention although no politicians were involved, were convened to deliberate on proposed changes to the electoral system.
Both recommended substantial reform.
While the majority required for acceptance, at 60 per cent, was higher than that required in Irish referendums (50 per cent plus one vote), both amendments failed to be adopted.
In British Columbia it fell short by only 3 per cent, with 57 per cent of voters supporting the change.
However, in Ontario the changes were decisively rejected by the electorate, with only 37 per cent supporting the reform.
In an academic paper on the experience, written by political scientists from the University of Toronto led by Prof Lawrence le Duc, a number of factors were behind the defeat based on polling information.
The most important single reason given by No voters for their decision was “lack of information”.
Other factors included a strong urban/rural divide.
It also stated that an “important single element in the campaign was the mainstream print media, which strongly and vociferously opposed the assembly process, the referendum, and the reform proposal virtually from the beginning stages. It was also critical of the government-funded campaign which interpreted its mandate very narrowly.”
It added: “Experience in other countries shows that political parties often tend to favour institutional reforms when in opposition, but lose their enthusiasm for them when in government.”
It came as a Government spokesman was unable to confirm or deny that academic and former RTÉ presenter Dr John Bowman had turned down an invitation to become chairman of the convention.
Last week the Government missed its latest deadline for setting up the much-delayed convention but refused to say what had caused the latest delay.
At the weekend the Sunday Business Post reported that Dr Bowman had declined the invitation, which was the reason for the delay.
When a query was put to the Government spokesman last night to confirm if this was true, he said he had no answer to the query.
Earlier this autumn the Government said that the assembly, made up of 66 citizens and 33 politicians, would hold its first meeting by the end of September.
It is now expected that the convention will not be in a position to deliver its final report until well into 2013 – over two years after the Government came to power and at least 12 months after the Coalition’s promised date of March 2012 for the convention to have completed its work and to have reported to Government.
In the programme for government the convention’s mandate was to review the Dáil electoral system, reducing the presidential term to five years, provision for same-sex marriage, reviewing the clause on women in the home, removing blasphemy from the Constitution and reducing the voting age from 18 years.
However, in its first phase the convention will discuss only two topics: the presidential term and reduction of the voting age.
There has been criticism of the convention for its inclusion of politicians but exclusion of experts in political science and law.
It has attracted negative comment for what has been described as its narrowness of scope and lack of ambition.
