cluelessresearch.com

Sunday, October 23rd, the Brazilian electorate flocked to the polling booths to vote in favor or against the prohibition of the commercialization of weapons and ammunition in the country. 64% voted against the prohibition, while 36% voted in favor. 97% of the electorate cast a valid vote. 1.39% cast a blank vote and 1.68 a null vote. More than 95 million voters participated in the popular consultation. Unquestionably, this massive popular participation gives the impression that this experiment of direct democracy was a success. But is that really the case?

In addition to the comfortable lead nationwide, the vote against the prohibition won in every single state. What explains this victory in face of the astronomically high levels of violence in Brazil, documented both by the media as well as by scholarly research? Especially because a leading cause of deaths in Brazil is through weapons. Furthermore, what does this result tell us about the role of direct popular participation in democratic governance?

First of all, it must be clear that the referendum of October 23rd does not define the specifics of any law. It only stipulates a general guideline for future laws that will have to be drafted and approved by Congress. It does constrain the final outcome of the law; commercialization cannot be prohibited. However, the extent of restrictions is not touched upon and can easily be added to the final law. Two question that comes to mind: What is the use of this referendum? What has it accomplished?

Let’s consider this last question first. The only effect of the referendum was to generate the debate about something that is, in fact, very distant from the life of most Brazilians. Differently from the debate about the possession of guns in the US, which is an issue strongly defended by specific organizations, such as the NRA, in Brazil there is no such debate. It was the referendum that (artificially) created a debate that never was central amongst the Brazilian electorate.

Having said this, how can we explain the victory of a position in favor of weapons? Is it because Brazilians love their guns? No, the result was a consequence of poor advertising by those in favor of the prohibition. Instead of pointing out to the high numbers of accidental deaths caused by guns and to the relationship between weapons and domestic violence, those favorable to the prohibition emphasized a demonstrably weak relationship between social peace and the number of weapons. At the other end of the debate, it was easy for those against the prohibition to argue that citizens need guns to protect themselves against very well armed robbers. In addition, the prohibition of the commercialization of weapons would not diminish crime, given that most weapons that criminals use are all obtained through illegal arm trafficking. In sum, the real impact that guns have on ordinary citizens’ everyday lives, accidental deaths or domestic violence, especially against women, was never central part of the debate.

What does this tell us about direct popular participation through referenda and plebiscites? It tells us that the best organized campaigns, independent of their content, are more likely to win. In the US, several progressive policies, especially related to affirmative action, have been reversed through referenda, simply because defenders of more conservative positions are better funded or offer better defined campaigns. The actual merit of the subject is not really considered. This is especially true on topics that are really not part of the daily concerns of most part of the population and that do not affect them directly. Referenda on such topics bring issues to local political agendas in a very artificial way. In fact, such themes should be left to political debate by democratically elected representatives in parliaments. That is what they actually get paid for.