Given two recent cases where citizens initiated referenda led to noticeably liberal social policy outcomes (for a change), I wonder how long social conservatives realise that they were sold a pup when they signed up to the extreme right’s favourite populist plaything.

I’m referring to two particular instances. In November 2008, Washington state became the second US state to introduce regulated physician assisted suicide, while in Switzerland, sixty percent of the populace voted to maintain a prescription heroin programme that maintained the health and wellbeing of IV drug using heroin addicts. While our Maxim Institute made some note of the medical heroin case on its Real Issues page, I am mystified why it side-stepped the question of ‘citizens’ referenda as a means to extend the programme, or why the Christian Right isn’t commenting about the Washingston state euthanasia referendum result.

Evidently, citizens referenda can have socially liberal uses, which may mean that social conservatives find themselves in the following dilemma. Let’s assume that the death with dignity movement starts to snowball in terms of further referendum successes. At some point, I imagine that the conservative Catholic elements of the Christian Right will start to get nervous about the use of CIRs to promote a ‘culture of death’ as they put it. They’ll start to wonder if they were so wise to back their myopic fundamentalist counterparts when it comes to citizens referenda against same-sex marriages, if it can be used to achieve outcomes that are antithetic to the teachings of their church. In the case of Switzerland, anti-drug organisations might feel similarly nervous.

Does the Washington euthanasia reform result and the Swiss prescription heroin decision mean that I was wrong about my own opposition to citizens referenda? Nope. CIRS are populist attacks on the extension of citizenship rights and responsibilities to others, and are profoundly anti-democratic. They are no substitute for representative democratic institutions that take the opportunity to thoroughly debate their legislative projects through the avenue of legislatures, select committee hearings and parliamentary submissions. While I’m discussing this, may I record my approval of Maxim’s questioning of National’s current epidemic of urgency on bills that deserve far more democratic input?

Is banning same-sex marriage really worth the pandora’s box that might well be unleashed when it comes to the use of the same populist tactic against social conservative objectives and goals?