The idea is that if enough citizens sign a proposal – 700,000 is being suggested – it could trigger a referendum. Subjects could include the creation of new laws, abolishing an existing law or even dismissing a politician.
A similar scheme, called a référendum d’initiative partagée, already exists but requires 4.5million signatures and the agreement of 185 MPs. It has never been used.
The RIC idea has 80% support, according to a poll of 1,967 people by Harris Interactive.
Switzerland and Italy, as well as some American states, operate similar schemes and are held up as models by the gilets jaunes.
Setting up the RIC might be more complicated in France. We spoke to politics lecturers about the pros and cons.
PROS
Christophe Bouillaud, Sciences Po Grenoble.
The RIC would be welcome in our institutional system.
Everyone could ask direct questions and this would compensate for our political system, which gives great power to the president when his party has a majority in the National Assembly.
For years, and not only in the case of Emmanuel Macron, presidents have been elected by a minority of registered voters.
However, when the National Assembly represents the presidential majority, the president can make many decisions and these can differ from the popular demand.
So RIC proposals to allow other minorities to have a say are a good idea.
Actually, in the Fifth Republic [the current one] as imagined by de Gaulle, ideally the executive power should represent the majority. However, he established two rules: one where the president could dismiss the Assembly [so the people can vote again] and one where the president can ask for a referendum, but the subsequent governments did not use them.
What is more, when Jacques Chirac asked for a referendum in 2005 on a European constitution, he asked French people to vote yes – and they did not. He then stayed on, whereas de Gaulle would have quit. RIC referendums would ensure the government respects decisions of the numerical majority.
For real democrats, a referendum is always a good thing. And the more open they are to different subjects, the more efficient they are.
There is a lot of hypocrisy from people who oppose the RIC because they know it could work but prefer to only mention referendums which were unsuccessful (eg. led to complications).
A RIC would change a lot of things. But the upper middle-class – the backbone of Mr Macron’s support – do not want working classes to put them in a situation of minority so, in my view, the RIC won’t happen, not with our current government. It’s like asking them to cut their own hands off.
The party in power has nothing to gain from the majority of people expressing themselves.
CONS
Raul Magni-Berton, also of Sciences Po Grenoble, does not oppose the RIC but outlines difficulties that could arise.
It is a bit like asking me to choose between democracy [the RIC] and auto-cracy [no RIC]. It is hard to put the pros and the cons on the same level.
Politically, it is true that the RIC will allow people to have more rights. Citizens will be better informed because they have to answer questions and they will be more motivated to look for information on the subject. They will participate more and will be more satisfied.
When a RIC is proposed, studies show that there is no major devastating effect and even some positive economic effects. The public debt is often reduced.
In reality, the RIC proposal is nothing new for France. In 2016, a survey found that 70% of the French population was in favour of the idea.
In 2017, during the presidential elections, six candidates out of 11 included it in their programmes.
In the current public debate, there are lots of fake “cons” but there are also true cons that nobody speaks about.
For example, the RIC gives more power to bureaucracy. It would be the civil service that would apply the new laws and they are appointed, not elected, so the system becomes less democratic.
Then, people tend to vote “no” more often than “yes”, so a lot of laws would not get through. If we want to make more laws, you might think the RIC would prevent this, as it is said to be a system which does not really approve change.
This is true to some extent but there is also a little inaccuracy here.
Some big decisions have been taken thanks to referendums. For instance, in 1914 in the United States, Oregon chose to abolish the death penalty using one.
I chose this example but there are many more, such as child labour and the eight-hour working day. Important decisions like these happen but are rare as they have to be based on a consensus.
On the other hand, some people argue that RICs might create too many changes and that things get worse in countries which continually change their laws. These countries do not improve and business constantly has to adapt to new laws.
Changing everything on impulse would be a problem. Citizens would have to use the RIC responsibly.
