Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...

a municipality close to Reutlingen, there was also a citizens’
initiative against a similar bunker. The local CDU did not
call a boycott there. The result was that 57% of the electorate
took part in the referendum and 90% of the voters
rejected the building of the bunker. The citizens’ initiative
was therefore successful in this instance. In another municipality,
Schramberg, the citizens’ initiative against the local
bunker plans was also successful, despite a call from the
CDU to boycott it. On this occasion, the text of the CDU’s
call for a boycott was prematurely leaked, so that the bunker’s
opponents still had time to respond and counter the
manoeuvre. The local newspapers also published criticisms
of the CDU’s boycott call. In the end, 49.25% of the electorate
in Schramberg participated in the referendum; the
minimum 30% turnout quorum was achieved and 88.5%
of the voters were against the bunker.
A boycott can also be conducted along organisational lines. A
well-known example comes from the town of Neuss, where
the first municipal referendum in Nordrhein-Westfalen was
held on 3 September 1995. The subject was the building,
close to the town hall, of a hotel which would destroy some
of the town centre’s green belt. The CDU majority succeeded
in getting the public vote to fail because of the participation
quorum of 25%. It is generally known that when referendums
in large towns concern building plans in a single specific
district, relatively few people will vote, because they do
not feel personally affected by the issue or have the impression
that a lack of knowledge of the local situation means
they cannot judge properly (a referendum in Antwerp on
the design of the municipal square in Ekeren, for instance,
will attract very few voters from other districts such as the
South or Hoboken, the majority of residents of which will
have never even been to Ekeren in person). The municipal
council of Neuss used a series of measures to discourage
the voters. Postal voting was not allowed (although for the
council elections 15% of the votes were submitted by post).
Instead of the 100 polling stations that were provided for
the council elections, only 30 locations were opened for this
vote. Result: only 18.5% of the electorate took part in the referendum.
Of these, it is true that almost 80% were against
the municipal council’s hotel plan, but because the quorum
was not achieved, the citizens’ initiative was declared void.
In Belgium, on 10 April 1995, a law was implemented that
provided for non-binding and non-compulsory referendums
at municipal level. A participation quorum was set at
40% of the electorate. If less than 40% of the electorate participate
in the referendum, the ballots must be destroyed
uncounted.
Although the referendums were non-compulsory and nonbinding
and, moreover, a very high signature threshold of
10% was imposed, this led to initiatives in a number of
towns. In 1996, in the municipalities Genk and As in Limburg,
the citizens requested a referendum on the construction
of a commercial complex on the site of an abandoned
mine. In the As municipality, the municipal council decided
to decline the referendum, but a vote was held in Genk on 13
October 1996. Only 37.47% of the electorate turned out for
the vote and, in the name of Belgian democracy, the ballots
were not counted but were destroyed. Middle-class organisations
and an extreme left-wing party had called on people
not to vote. The first referendum held under the new law
was immediately a victim of a successful call for a boycott.
20
In Gent, on 14 December 1997, a citizens’ initiative referendum
was held on the city council’s planned construction
of the so-called Belfort car-parking garage in the city centre.
The city council had decided in advance that it would consider
the result as binding, but the SP and the VLD, which
formed the majority coalition in Gent, called on the voters
to boycott the ballot. On this occasion the boycott failed by
a small margin, because 41.12% of the electorate turned out
and of these 95% voted against the car park.
In Sint-Niklaas, on 28 June 1998, a referendum was held
on the construction of an underground car park. As in
Gent, the quorum was just met: 40.28% of the electorate
turned out. Of these 92% voted against the car park. The
vote was a touch-and-go affair because the largest party in
Sint-Niklaas, the Christian Democratic CVP and the local
NCMV (traders’ organisation), had called on people not to
vote. “The referendum is a bad formula. Whoever votes ‘yes’
only ensures that those who vote ‘no’ achieve the required
40%. The ‘yes’ voter would do better to stay at home”, according
to local CVP chairman Julien Vergeylen (Gazet van
Antwerpen newspaper, 17 June 1998). The socialist leader,
Freddy Willockx, said: “The problem is that because of the
CVP’s call for a boycott we do not have an objective picture
of what the people really want. There were probably some
70% to 80% of the Sint-Niklaas voters effectively against
the car park, but we will never know that with certainty”
(Gazet van Antwerpen, 29 June 1998).
Although the participation quorum was subsequently lowered
(and the signature threshold raised), after these and
other dubious experiences there have since been very few
initiatives.
Italy has provided the most recent perverse examples. On
18 April 1999, a referendum was held there on reforming
the electoral system. The reforms were supported by most
of the political parties; 49.6% of the electorate turned out
and of these 91% voted for the reforms. But the voters had
taken all their trouble for nothing: because the participation
quorum of 50% was not quite reached, the reforms did
not go ahead. An interesting fact: in the south of Italy, the
mafia had actively called for a boycott and the 40% turnout
to the south of Naples was far below the national average.
The mafia decided that their candidates were more easily
elected using the existing electoral system, and manipulated
the participation quorum so that the mafia won against
a public majority of more than 90%.
Unhappily, such boycott campaigns occur regularly in Italy.
The latest example is the referendum of 12 and 13 June
2005, in which four proposals for the liberalisation of the
highly restrictive law on assisted fertility for women were
voted on. With the support of Pope Benedict XVI, the president
of the Italian bishops, Cardinal Ruini, aptly named in
this case, actively called for a boycott. “Cardinal Ruini finds
not voting the best way to reject the proposals. After all,
a referendum is only valid when at least half of the electorate
votes. Given the fact that it was already established
that those who would vote ‘yes’ would clearly be in the majority,
by voting ‘no’ Catholics would only help to achieve
the quorum and thus unwillingly reinforce the ‘yes’ camp;
this was the reasoning”, as reported by the news website
KatholiekNederland.nl (www.katholieknederland.nl/actualiteit/2005/5/nieuws_568842.html).
And Ruini’s strategy