was, is the tees off for money to go on a truck the right to no longer. we for us that he's some teach something which must be asset f one. sorry, i don't, i don't mean to cut you off that i just, when i have a few questions i wanna get out of this year, i enjoy to do so. why is it? why did and also say that frogs exploited. after all these african countries, i mean, how did they exactly exploit the country edition low of natural resources and also for some odd to choose when we look at

it look kind of, we see a front french puts a, in, in a way to, to heard the country a 1st for c, you've asked some week in fact we, our intent is that is also something which is really a bad for us to come. and we know that about the, you know, from the get go from, you know, fossil, my niece from, you know, possible you might come in or has come to me. we have some resources that you need, my friends, if anybody that is the the

to the, to kind of a, to do a. ready honesty and he's, well, a few times people don't want you to worry, we phrase any of us. all right, so again, thank you so much for joining us today. here i see a picture of it is that an african asked and civil society activists saturday. bye, thanks again. 20 my barrels of this and news. our don't forget to check out all t dot com or for lot so really interesting. i'd use so that we don't get over here on the news. our will, the back of the top of the hour will more international news. so we'll hope you'll

join us then. ah ah ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see

how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time. time to sit down and talk ah, since the 1st century was held in 1640 in the massachusetts big colonies, reverend them have been the best tool to address constitutional morale, territorial, and other issues directly by the people i'm using on today. the $360.00 view we're going to look at referendums around the globe. and if referendums continue to be the most effective way for society to reminded leaders who actually has the power. ah, a referendum is defined as a direct vote on a law proposal or political issue. now it sounds simple in theory,

like everything else and politics can be made to be extremely complicated. if a political class wishes it to be. now europe counts for 2 thirds of all national referendum held in the world. this is mainly due to switzerland, who alone counts for more than a 3rd of all national referendums, and 2 thirds of referendums, held in a democratic society. now we saw in 2016, a record number of popular direct democracy votes or national referendums around the world. $26.00 countries held national referendums, which was far more than the last record year of $991.00 in 1992 or most of those votes were held as a response to the political developments following the cold war. now the class, the communism in the soviet union, which spurred the use of referendums all around the world. you know, the 1st vote on the case you membership and the columbia piece agreement were 2 of the most significant. and as we saw with the u. k. brexton the vote, one referendum was not enough. another had to take place with the outcome was not

what they really wanted. referendums are not just for large issues which impact the entire country. they also can apply to individual territories, districts, or states. now these references or type of rebellion and in the present, most about social issues which go against the national policy already in place. this is where interest groups can influence government by the threatening to call a referendum. if proposed legislation is not satisfactory or call referendum and hope the people will choose their side. now in the past, this is a tool mainly used by conservative against more liberal policies, which extended government reach. harvard, today's referendums to find themselves mainly about environmental movements and immigration policies. so for more on this, here's our international report. referendum is supposed to be a vote given by work to the people over the government. we have seen this many times

in history. most recently, nearly 4000000 cubans voted in favor of a referendum to legalize the same sex unions an adoption of seal, driven by homosexuals. that preliminary resorts, so 66.87 percent of votes in favor with 33.13 percent against many crease seals as social conservatives of post the amendments. while the islands government once criminalized at homosexuality, this referendum was accepted. the niece of late liter castile, my dear le, has taken the lead in advocating for l. g b t. right. president miguel, the ask a name who has promoted the law celebrated the passing referendum. tweeting out love is now the law, while referendum is supposed to give people power over their government. this past year the you in stepping to stop the referendum from region to seem to separate

from ukraine. the un general assembly is accusing moscow of attempts to illegal annexation and calling a member states to ignore the results of referendums in 4 former east ukrainian regions. on joining russia, the $143.00 to $5.00 boat followed the general assemblies refusal to secret ballads . this was a request by russia due to the intense pressure from the us and its allies to condemn ma school for trying to acquire the regions. brush us, you and i'm boss a lower. celia newman, zia, are you for many countries, may be very difficult to express their views publicly due to the existence of other countries, despite immense pressure for nations doing bratia in voting against the un resolution. this where bela ruth, syria, me could, i was,

and north korea. it is important to note just how many countries chose to abstain from the boat. there were $35.00, including china, india, south africa, pakistan, thailand, cuba, vietnam, armenia, and algeria before launching its special military operation, ukraine. russia recognize the sovereignty of the nest and new guns. people's republics argued give fails to represent and protect people, leaving their residents up to other regions voted by wide margins in public referendum to declare independence and joint russia. precedents loving me to put the team sign only vacation treaties with the for new russian regions. however, the un general assembly can then put these actions as illegal saying the 4 regions are temporarily occupied because of russia's aggression in violation of

a crane stay, rhetorical integrity and sovereignty. the u. s. press are all nations to refuse to recognize the region as part of russia. moscow argue referendums are the only way for the people to exercise their rights and make their own decision on what country they want to be part of and protect himself from their former government. referendums have been use throughout history to make changes by a government system in 1991. for example, banker base ask waters to decide whether or not to reintroduce a parliamentary government. this led to the precedent becoming the constitutional head of state and allowed parliament to elect the president. these also moved the position of prime minister to become the executive head of the country and completely got read of the rule of the vice president says the stern critics have said parliament has failed to become the center point, the bangladesh, political,

and legislative activities. this is because parliament has been this functional and ruling parties will completely bypass it when making los ambrose tennis atlanta. for $360.00 view, back to you, scottie, they came will be back after the break with more on global reference with our the the ah, lisa canter, russian state. total, narrative type as i phone and ignore some scheme div. asking him then that can cause our son's, i'm up for a coup in 55 when. okay,

so mine is 2000 speedy. when else with will van in the european union? the kremlin? yup. machines, the state on russia today and split our t spoke neck, even our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube with me some time. i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to play with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my your show seriously. why watch something that so 5th, i little opinion that you won't get anywhere else work of it. please do have the state department, the c i a weapons, bankers,

multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show stay main street because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just changing the wayne thing . hello, welcome back. during this now it's dr. richard albert federal government at the university of texas. he is at work, focuses on the role of referendums worldwide. he's also the author of a recent edited volume entitled, the limits and the legitimacy of referendums. welcome professor frederick, tell us about your research and what you have found in your work regarding referendums, a read research about constitutional change. so how constitutions all around the world change?

they change by amendment, a change by revision, change by interpretation. they change by revolution. change by replacement, i write about that from a comparative perspective, from a dock trial perspective, historical and also theoretical. so the books that i've written, the books, i've edited the articles that are written all deal with these kind of subjects. with specific regard to referendums, i found some fascinating results in my research about referendums all around the world. let me give you 3 of the results that i've found that to me are quite interesting. one, when you put a referendum question to the people, they're likely to vote yes if it's a constitutional referendum. so about 94 percent of all constitution referendums in the history of the world have been approved by

the people. this is a finding that appears in a book that i recently quoted, it called the limits and legitimacy of referendums to chapter written by zach elkins and alex hudson. a fascinating finding. second thing that's very interesting is that some constitutions around the world actually make it mandatory for referendums to be held in relation to constitutional amendments. very, very interesting. 3rd and final interesting point that i'll mention there are dozens that i can mention 3rd and final that i'll mention just now. even when constitutions do not make it mandatory, or even mention a referendum in their constitutions, when it comes to how to amend the constitution, sometimes political actors all use a discretionary optional referendum when they seek to amend the constitution. so

these are 3 fascinating elements. i think about the use of referendums all around the world. do we see any geographical distribution of referendums throughout the world? did they tend to take place in certain regions or even under certain types of governments? we see referendums all around the world. busy whether or not the country is a common law country or a civil law country, whether it's american or european, whether it's a presidential system or a parliamentary system. referendums really haven't all around the world. now for example, in the united states, there has never been a national referendum, or there are hundreds of state wide referendums to happen all the time. in canada, where i'm from, we've had 3 national referendums, but in many provincial referendums, recently there was a referendum in cuba. there was one if she lay there been some

in ukraine, russia, they're always referendums in switzerland. so they happen all over the world to residence and their results tend to surprise or do we find the polling can usually accurately predict the outcome. the most recent example i can share with you comes from chile. so chile just held a nationwide referendum on whether or not to ratify the proposed constitution leading up to the day of the referendum. it was very close. people weren't sure whether the people would vote yes or no on adopting the new constitution. but i think most analysts believe that the answer would be no, but not by much. and then the referendum was held on september 4th, if i'm not mistaken. and the result came back. surprising and shocking to everyone

. because just how poorly the advanced polls fared in predicting how the people would vote. and so i, i'm not surprised that polls don't get it right. just as i'm not surprised that polls don't get election predictions correctly. we know what happened in 2016 here in the united states, for example, that happens often around the world. so we're referring to is actually considered legitimate. and when are they considered illegitimate? referendums are a powerful tool for authoritarians. they're powerful because authoritarians can abuse them. and they can send a message to the world that the people are standing firmly with them. and that's a problem. it's a problem because when you can abuse referendums in this way, you distort the true views, the true feelings,

the true hopes and aspirations of the people, and you're doing so for 2 purposes as an authoritarian liter. you're doing so for a domestic purpose and you're doing so for an external purpose domestically your rigging, the rules of the vote and breaking the outcome of the vote to signal to your people that they stand with you as the leader. you're also doing so for the world, this is like a public relations campaign to show the world that the people are standing with you . and so even if you're departing from the norms of international law, from the norms of democratic governance, when you hold a referendum and you rigged the rules so that it suggests that the people are standing with you as the leader. the world sees that and you as the authoritarian leader, wants the world to believe that you have the support of your people. now we know better. we know better when authoritarian leaders misuse and abuse referendums. we

know what they're doing, but that doesn't obviate the reality that the people in the country may not know. and that's a problem. okay, professor to screen us. are you actually ever surprised by the result of a referendum? i'm, i'm never surprised about the results of referendums because i don't purport to know where the people believe. that's why we're all referendums. you asked earlier about what makes a referendum legitimate? i think a couple of things need to go into the design of a referendum in order for us to be confident about the outcome. so there are inputs that you put into the design of the referendum and then the output is the result. so some things that you must input into the design in order to be confident of the legitimacy of the outcome. one, the people have to go into the ballad box to vote. fully informed and aware of the

consequences and implications of their vote. that was not the case and breasted, for example, right, that's why you had a lot of people suggesting that there should be a 2nd confirmatory vote after the 1st of all, because a lot of people were shocked after they voted. yes, rex it in the likely this means we're leaving the to you. this means that i have maybe to get a new job. and so to design of the referendum has to be such that the people are fully aware of the consequences and implications of a vote either yes or no. in order to help do that, those who are holding the referendum have to be willing to fund an informational campaigns that's best done by having an independent 3rd party institution that's responsible for managing, administering, and running referendums in some countries. this is a electoral branch that operates independently of the political actors who are

elected. that's the best way to do it. but you see this. busy electoral branch of electoral body, this independent body would go around and hold these roving informational sessions for people in different parts of the country to learn about the referendum stakes about everything that it entails and to ask questions. another thing that i think is useful to design a referendum is to fund opposite sides. so you have money, public monies are available to a yes campaign with its own spokespersons and representatives, and a no campaign with its own spoke to persons in representatives. so that's also very important. one more thing for design of the actual question itself must be such that it's seen as fair referendum and psychology very,

very closely connected because you can phrase a question in a way that leads you to a particular kind of answer. and so it's very important that in the phrasing of the referendum question, the question be posed in a, whether it's neutral, impartial, and crystal clear. so these are just 3 things that i think are important as inputs in the design of a referendum that can then lead you to be confident in the outcome of the referendum in terms of its legitimacy. there are many other things that we can talk about when it comes to the design, but those are 3 very important things. so what is the future of referendums globally moving forward into the 21st century, what we see more or less of them and how will they be used? i predict 2 things about the future of referendums in all the world. one is that when new constitutions are written, you are going to see more and more constitutions require. the use of

referendums, in connection with amending the constitution, revising the constitution, and replacing the constitution to you're going to see increasing recourse to referendums all around the world. whether or not existing constitutions make referendums a requirement. and this is because there is an irresistible siren song that referendums, i think i issue to leaders. it's an irresistible call to go to the people to ask them for their input to get that input and then close yourself. as the leader in a veneer of sociological legitimacy, the kind of sociological legitimacy that comes only from the will of the people as expressed in a direct vote. which is what a referendum is. so those are my 2 predictions about the future of referendums in

the world. if you don't like them, it's too bad because we're going to see a lot more of them everywhere in the world. well, thank you, professor richard albert to professor government at the university of texas. many countries like to say their use of rough random's solidifies their country is a democracy. and in many cases it is a good benchmark. while many referendums do occur underneath democratic regimes throughout history, authoritarian regimes have also had their share of referendums from napoleon to nazi germany, to romania and so forth. just like with elections. those and power can limit opposing views, controlled choice for strict voters and produce false results or even dismiss if those results are not to their liking. while telling the outside they to our democracy because they let the people have the power of choice. however, usually those cases, it is obvious going into the referendum as well as with the results. there is

little credibility, but the accusation of a false referendum can be just as insulting to the voters as well. and back from those in power upset with the results of a referendum, especially if it's overwhelmingly against their position, discrediting the process is the only tool left to try and justify their position in africa. only 9 of the $92.00 referendums, which had been held have failed to produce a 90 percent. yes. vote. one of the biggest changes in india history was a referendum to abolish the monarchy, which was held in 1975 and overwhelmingly support of 97.5 percent of voters resulted in 6 them becoming in india state. what has actually wonder though when results referendum where the people voted are so overwhelmingly to one side. what did you say about those who are against? who side are they exactly. i am sky. he is in this has been your 360 view. other

news which matters to you until next. huh. ah. ah, i think ukraine mm. does exist, should exist. and it is precisely the best option i suspect for its future is to find that amalgam of the cultures that are within it and turn it into something unique and flourishing. vibe to that would define it in distinction but not conflict, but simply the difference between itself and its neighbor.

so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical time. time to sit down and talk with one son, admiral, who is your printer. what go more shrill from what they should end up unit 73. 1 was a unique organization in the history of the world. what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing sure, when billed the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program

that the world had ever known. a production issue or show that they're not able to when you saw new rochelle, he one more mom she no longer thought this meant a much sale. i mean, i understood, i wish to know. i got a whole new i know you didn't or got one more push to know it's i had a nice oh boy. good to go or what the on this well she my and new. i don't know. i can send more

a year. you're not a a our, the u. s. i think it's in the middle east lake, iraq. i'm travel around the world class display drawing a time on monday. a sunday. yeah. with the us and israel conduct the thing party here, form of the policy to help with going through the interview very with is well and as a national committee instead of just especially at this moment, that is a new government that is existing. it's new policies, a lot of me.