[ad_1]
But especially at the beginning. The referendum as one of the forms of direct democracy is enshrined in the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the most important questions in the life of the State and society must be resolved by referendum. Some of these issues (amendments to the most important provisions of the Constitution) are specified in the Constitution itself, but its list is not exhaustive.
Other issues are considered important and will be resolved by referendum in cases where the Seimas announces the referendum on its own initiative or after citizens have raised 300,000. signatures (this number of auto-collected signatures indicates that the problem would be significant).
I do not see any preconditions for lowering this poster or extending the six-month period for collecting signatures, which is a fairly reasonable number and time, especially if the possibility of electronically signing the referendum initiative is implemented.
Sigismund Gedvila / 15min photo / Voting in Lithuania
In a democracy, direct and representative democracy cannot be opposed, both forms of democracy are designed to express the will of the Nation, so they complement each other rather than deny each other.
The opposition of direct democracy (referendum) to representative democracy (parliament as representation of the Nation) is one of the characteristics of political populism. Political populism is also characterized by an excessive emphasis on the will of the Nation, elevating its direct rule above the law and the Constitution.
Therefore, talking about more frequent referendums, especially without even delving into the questions that might be asked, is just a political populism that undermines the purpose and role of the representation of the Nation. In this way, populists tend to divert attention from the really important political agenda.
Not surprisingly, these populist ideas are not typically found in Western democracies. The so-called popular rule (narodovlastije) is emphasized in Russia and other countries under its influence: it was on this principle that the Constitutional Court of Russia last year justified the establishment of an authoritarian regime and deviations from the established constitutional amendment procedure.
A democratic state would not be sustainable if it allowed the destruction and denigration of minority identities
However, in a democracy, the Constitution is the agreement of the Nation, so the will of the Nation is implemented not in violation, but in compliance with the Constitution, respecting the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law. This agreement on the rules of coexistence is not the legitimacy of the majority dictatorship, but rather the conciliation of the majority government with the interests of the protection of minorities and respect for the inherent dignity of every human being. A democratic state would not be sustainable if it allowed the destruction and denigration of the identity of minorities, depriving them of the human rights that they acquire at birth and that no state can grant.
Therefore, according to the Constitution (as interpreted by the Constitutional Court) it is not possible to hold referendums on all issues. There can be no referendums that propose the renunciation of the country’s independence, the democratic form of its government, or the denial of natural human rights.
The essence of constitutionalism is not only the establishment of state power, but also the determination of its limits, including those that no political or national majority can transcend. One of these limits is respect for the inherent dignity of every human being. By the way, the Constitution reflects the European standard of referendums in this regard: the Venice Commission, the most authoritative body of experts on constitutional law, has repeatedly stated that the referendum cannot be asked to challenge the values of the Council of Europe. of law, democracy and human rights.
From human dignity arises the right of every person to live in the family they want
Here we come to a referendum on the idea of same-sex couples. A referendum aimed at banning same-sex couples a priori it would be unconstitutional. The referendum cannot deny the human dignity of people of the same sex who want to start a family and live a family life. Nor can a referendum discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or identity.
According to the Constitution, equal protection must be provided to all families and, therefore, to those created by same-sex couples. From human dignity arises the right of everyone to live in the family in which they want, whether with a person of the same sex or with a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, a referendum cannot discriminate at the level of the association in such a way that it is limited to persons of the opposite sex. Such a referendum under the Constitution is impossible, no matter how popular the populists are. And the idea of discrimination in the field of family relations is very close to the Russian doctrine of spiritual clutches (duchovny skrepy).
The paradox of the slave formulated by John Stuart Mill means that man has the freedom to decide, in addition to the right to renounce that freedom. Paraphrasing the Lithuanian problems, the Nation is free to solve all problems in referendums, except those that lead to its suicide as a political unit and the destruction of democracy.
Teacher. Dainius Žalimas is former president of the Constitutional Court
[ad_2]
