Unfortunately, I think it's a slightly blunt tool. According to this
legal dictionary (may or may not be correct or apply to all jurisdictions)
"The power of referendum does not permit the people to invalidate a law that is already operative but suspends or annuls a law that has not yet gone into effect. In this sense, referendum is similar to a governor's
Veto power. Also, by referendum the people may reinstate an act that the legislature has expressly repealed."
So, for example, here in Australia they have enacted some really bastard surveillance laws which have essentially destroyed our privacy. They rushed it through in the Christmas lull, and now that's enshrined, something like a RIC would not allow us to repeal that law.
Enjoypolo - I didn't watch all the videos you posted on the Citizen Ateliers, do any of them speak to this issue?
Totally agree with you Rani. Etienne Chouard, who's a prominent figure in the movement, calls it the
Prince's Referendum, a fake one, because:
1) it's legitimacy isn't backed by anything concrete (you can make people say yes to anything with framing), and thus can be used against the people.
2) A notorious case in 2005, when France voted
No to ratify the EU's constitution treaty, that ultimately was signed in three years later (Lisbon Treaty) despite the wishes of its people. As far as I know, it's the same case in the UK with Brexit today.
So in both cases, the sovereignty was abused because referendums aren't really legitimized.
But so a true no-strings-attached RIC, would potentially remediate that by being a constitutional guarantee. What I mean by that, is RICs exist in many countries, like Italy, as well in the US in some states, like California, or Oregon. But the caveats (at least in Italy) is: you can RIC on any subjects, except taxation. So it's the short end of the stick; another scam.
However, the examples from
Oregon are quite fascinating. Edit: I just found out Arizona, California, Massachusetts and Colorado also have similar Citizen Initiatives Reviews (CIRs).
I do think that's a model that can be adapted for various
types, and across various scales.
Another big topic is information control, and who/how to manage the flow of information, in such a way that it doesn't fall under a parasite control (like the situation now where few billionaires own most of the media). Total government control media isn't my cup of tea either (and China is a not leading by good example in this matter either). And frankly, I'm not sure what's the best solution, but that's why this movement, through citizen ateliers are powerful places for dialogue and co-operation.
Actually, I find this forum/community quite similar to a citizen atelier, in fact, doing similar work by discussing these issues, and building on top of each others perspectives.
And it will take time, no doubt, but without waxing too poetic, the fact that our minds are entangled with such ideas already is effecting change in the field.
EDIT: I wanted to add though, that there are many great propositions for media control, such as the idea for the creation of a publicly-funded organ of information that would hold
contradictory debates for 6 months (or less, or more) once a RIC has been catalyzed. No advertisements, and publicly accessible channel so that most people can follow. This is just one example, many others.
This reminds me of Robert David Steele's
Open-Source Everything manifesto, in that by crowdfunding the raw brain-power of world population, we can make drastic improvements, in intelligence, but elsewhere.
