“The Referendum on the Peace Agreement: Legal Risks, Government Responsibility and Consequences for Society.”, — write: www.pravda.com.ua
The argument of the politicians is very simple – the people should directly solve the fateful issues of the state. Agree, it sounds beautiful, democratic and very convincing. But it is also especially attractive in the conditions of war, when society is tired and longs for simple answers to complex questions.
But is everything perfect in this political rhetoric? Obviously not. After all, any decision made has another side—responsibility for it. That is, the government aims to transfer responsibility for the strategic decisions of the state to the citizens.
Advertising:
Who will be responsible for peace There is a popular opinion that the peace agreement is a symbolic document on one sheet. However, this is not the case at all. It is about dozens of pages of legal, security, territorial and financial obligations that determine the future of the country for years to come.
To reduce consideration of such obligations to one issue in the ballot means to simplify the complex reality, create space for wording manipulation, and avoid public discussion about the content of the agreement.
Can society be responsible for such a decision?
The key question is not whether the people have the right to express their position. He certainly has.
The question is different: should the government transfer responsibility for strategic decisions to citizens?
Representative democracy exists precisely so that elected bodies make complex decisions, bear political responsibility for them, explain them to society and be responsible for the consequences.
When responsibility is blurred through a referendum, a dangerous situation arises: there is a solution, but there is no one responsible.
At the same time, a false impression is created, as if direct democracy is higher than representative democracy. Legally, this is nonsense. After all, these forms are equivalent.
A referendum is a form of direct participation of citizens in decision-making, but it cannot go beyond the Constitution and cannot replace the powers of the President or the Verkhovna Rada.
Moreover, the referendum on the peace agreement does not answer the key questions: what exactly is being signed, what risks the state is taking and who will be responsible for the consequences.
The peace agreement is an international treaty, not a domestic political issue of direct democracy. No provision of the Constitution envisages the possibility to decide the issue of signing or the terms of the peace agreement through a referendum.
Risks of a split In public communication, the referendum is often presented as an instrument of “highest legitimacy”. He said, if people put a tick in the ballot, then this decision is correct and cannot be appealed. Any dispute with him immediately amounts to treason of democracy.
However, from the point of view of constitutional law, such a proposal is not only legally incorrect, but also potentially dangerous for the state system.
Unfortunately, the legitimacy of a referendum is often not based on citizens’ deep understanding of the essence of the problem and ways to solve it, but on the effectiveness of the work of political technologists and the emotional mood of society at a specific moment in time.
A separate danger is the scenario in which the referendum will still take place, and the result will be adopted with a minimal difference of votes. In this case, instead of a “social consensus”, the country may get an even deeper split. Some citizens will perceive the decision as imposed, doubtful or unfair — especially if the issue concerns territories, security guarantees or international obligations. Obviously, this creates risks not only of political, but also of social destabilization, weakening of trust in institutions and undermining of internal unity, which is extremely important for the country in the post-war period.
Another critical risk is insufficient voter turnout. If more than 50% of citizens do not participate in the referendum, it simply will not have legal force. In this case, the state will not receive a solution, but another reputational failure, which was preceded by loud statements, spent resources, and public expectations.
This scenario is quite realistic. By information of the Central Election Commission, voter turnout in local elections on October 25, 2020 was only 36.88%. Despite the fact that these last national elections in Ukraine took place in peacetime, without martial law, mass displacement of citizens and security restrictions.
The peace referendum debate is not just about legal procedures. This is about the quality of democracy and the accountability of the authorities.
True democracy is not to utter loud slogans about the “will of the people”, but to adhere to the Constitution and the principles of transparency of decisions and accountability of government to society. This is when strong institutions work, which are not afraid to take responsibility for their decisions, and do not hide behind populist slogans.
Peace is too serious an issue to turn into an electoral experiment.
Iryna Korzhenkova
A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.