Democratic success or failure?
Democratic success or failure?
复制标题
民主是成功还是失败？
DOI：
10.1111/newe.12131
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Curtice J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Curtice J
工党政府第一次上台时，这个装置被广泛认为是一种可以用来推进“进步”改革的工具，比如在苏格兰和威尔士引入权力下放，改变下议院选举制度。然而，欧盟公投的结果提醒我们，举行这样的投票也可能为“进步派”不太愿意接受的变革铺平道路。事实上，尽管支持（或反对）任何宪法条款的理由往往是根据其假定的实质性后果来制定的，但这并不是评价任何决策程序的不适当标准。这样做只是复制了有关实质性问题的辩论，例如，就欧盟公投而言，留欧派的支持者得出结论，认为欧盟公投是个坏主意，而脱欧派的选民或多或少不可避免地得出结论，认为这是一个好主意。得出这样的结论很难增进我们对全民投票进程的优点和缺点的理解。
Labour government first came to power, the device had widely come to be regarded as an instrument that could be used to progress the cause of ‘progressive’reform, such as the introduction of devolution in Scotland and Wales and changing the electoral system used in elections to the House of Commons. However, the outcome of the EU referendum reminded us that holding such ballots can also pave the way for changes that ‘progressives’ find less palatable.In truth, although the case for (or against) any constitutional provision is often framed in terms of its presumed substantive consequences, this is an inappropriate criterion against which to evaluate any decision-making procedure. Doing so simply replicates the debate about the substantive issue in question, such that, in respect of the EU referendum for example, Remain supporters are led to the conclusion that the EU referendum was a bad idea while Leave voters more or less inevitably conclude that it was a good one. To come to such a conclusion hardly advances our understanding of the merits and demerits of the referendum process.