By DARLINGTON CHILUBA
A REFERENDUM, by a slightly loose definition is a call on the (voting) public to decide on a matter or related matters of importance.
Most constitutions have a clause explaining the necessity for a referendum when certain matters of national importance arise.
Instead of waiting for a full election in which that important matter could be diluted or cushioned by other issues that arise during elections, a referendum becomes a better effective option. Dictators and democrats alike are not opposed referenda.
Democratic politics rely on referenda to get a better picture of the national temperature on key issues. Real listening governments create debate around such key issues and use dialogue to convince or connive.
Ultimately, the public will have their say because there must be debate and intelligence to converse with conviction and patience among citizens.
What must be understood is that it is the prerogative of any government to call for a referendum on a matter of importance to their leadership, their stronghold or general electorate.
It is also the prerogative of the public to be left free to make their decision according to how they perceive the benefits or losses of the matter raised via referendum.
At the very least, it is wishful to assume that politics will avoid misinformation or manipulation of this process. If a matter is important to the leadership of the ruling party, then every tactic to achieve this goal will be utilised as expected, and hopefully within the ambits of law.
In a democracy, politics is about ideational and policy debates that can become aggressive because belief systems are often different.
What is not expected is the intimidation and silencing of political opponents from public debate by (mis-) using the police system, for example. This is best left to dictatorships. In fact, dictatorships mainly use referenda to accurately identify their enemies for possible retribution.
Conversely, intelligent politics use such data to understand and attend to those diverse national expectations from a knowledge standpoint.
What must be observed is that politicians can be conduits for disseminating good or bad information. This also means that the public can be misled to make emotional and uninformed decisions through a referendum or general election.
But equally true is the opposite, that when progressive politics takes lead, the public feel valued and a part of the vision.
One of the ways nations make sure that the public is valued is to have a responsive constitution that is anchored on resilient institutions. If government loses a referendum, for example, they must respect the outcome of that referendum.
An example is where the British ruling party lost the referendum to keep the United Kingdom within the European Union (EU) in 2016, through what was called Brexit. There are few other less popular examples.
The point is that a referendum that avoids direct contact with the public must be treated cautiously. While it is true that ruling parties could lean to such strategies, people power (democracy) can be manipulated for only so long before public consensus forms dissent against political machinations.
The Zambian local environment is rife with such examples. Between 1972 and 1990, almost three decades, the constitution of Zambia represented the wishes of a single vision against the broader consensus of the majority of citizens.
Parliamentary privilege was granted based on allegiance and obeyance to the then head of State. At the turn of the decade, public consensus and dissent was harmonised skilfully into a democratic movement that restored the necessity for representative elections.
Resultantly, the 1991 constitution was reflective of people power and the importance of consulting the nation for essential constitutional decisions; instead of just informing them.
Of the seven presidents, six have led the country a combined total of 30 years after the introduction of democracy. During this time, the most poignant lesson is that power ultimately rests with people.
While a referendum can deal with single salient issues, the electorate will always decide on whom they bestow constitutional leadership with and that is unquestionable regardless of the perceived sternness or style of leadership demonstrated by the incumbent leader.
The will of the people always prevails.
