War referendum

In the midst of our era, where new generations shape politics and fresh wars rage, such laboriously constructed constitutional republics with democratic elections appear as a fragile framework. The news is filled with conflicts that politicians escalate with cold calculation, while many peoples freeze in fear. For a long time, I have pondered what more could be done to strengthen our constitutional republics, and today I have conceived a new idea: the war referendum.

This would be a measure that not only strengthens democracy as such but also preserves it from self-destruction. The truth, clear as day, is this: It is not the peoples who want wars, but the elites who conduct them—in the name of the peoples, yet without their voice. A war referendum would change this by forcing every government, before any bellicose decision, to consult the people on whether they desire the path of blood and destruction. Already Kant, in his treatise *To Perpetual Peace*, recognized that wars should only be declared if the citizens who bear their burden consent. Why? Because the people feel the consequences—the fallen sons and daughters, the economic hardship, the lost freedoms. A war referendum would institutionalize this: Before any military intervention, the government must hold a referendum. The question would be straightforward: “Do you wish to wage this war against ...?” Only with a 75 percent majority, to preclude manipulations, could the state proceed. This mechanism is no pacifist dream but a dialectical necessity: Democracy risks degenerating into a farce without such safeguards. The war referendum addresses another crucial issue—the alienation that defines our time. Marx described how humans in the industrial age are alienated from their own labor; I perceive in contemporary constitutional republics a profounder political alienation underway, that of the people from their sovereignty. The people elect representatives, yet these decide on war and peace without consulting the people. Recall 2003, when millions protested against the Iraq War, yet Bush and Blair acted undeterred. A war referendum would bridge this chasm. It would compel governments to create transparency, present arguments, and convince the people—an act of discourse ethics. It would fortify the republic by protecting it from imperial adventures that cost human lives, devour resources, and undermine freedoms. Rousseau's ideas live on in this concept: the general will of the people, not that of elites, is the true sovereign. And on questions of war, elected representatives should be required to inquire the people's will anew or lack the right to decide unilaterally. Representatives are, after all, more protected—economically and in terms of their lives—for they sustain their existence through taxation and do not themselves march into wars.

One might object that referendums are manipulable or too slow in crises. Yet I rebut: in the age of digitalization, they can be conducted swiftly, and any manipulation is minimized through educational campaigns and open debates. In Switzerland, where referendums are routine, this works well. In larger constitutional republics, referendums are not favored, and I myself deem them unnecessary for most decisions, but I draw the red line at matters of war. Introducing war referendums would moreover rouse the people from passivity, molding them into mature citizens.

This would be an act of self-determination that can save the republic by strengthening it from within. Tocqueville foresaw the danger of the tyranny of the majority, yet here the majority becomes a shield against the tyranny of the few. And if the people want a war, then so be it—we humans are not butterflies, after all and in a democracy, the will of the people prevails. However, I am fairly certain the opposite will emerge. After all, most parents will probably wish for their children, as do I for mine, a world without war.

This war referendum is my advocacy for a vibrant democratic culture in modern constitutional republics. Let us reconsider the alternative? If the citizens do not decide whether a war is waged, who then decides?