Plebiscites are a favorite tool of dictators, occasionally useful for democratic societies but in themselves hardly the defining quality of modern democracy. There were no “plebiscites” in our Founding Constitution or in U.S. federal law historically, but historic plebiscites did take place in Nazi Germany and other dictatorships.
As we used to joke about communism: “One man, one vote, one time.” A real democratic Republic depends on a multiparty system with responsible parties and leaders, guarantees for private property and minority rights, traditions of peaceful and regular transfers of power (not “lifetime presidents”) , democratic norms, free speech, a free press, free non-party-controlled non-state enterprises — none of which exist in Russia, China, North Korea, the Islamic Republic, etc.
“Free societies” require far, far more than “plebiscites.”
There isn't a single dictatorial country that allows or has ever allowed for plebiscites - that I talk about "free" plebiscites is understood. And not some forced upon "peoples statement" as in e.g. N-Korea.
As for your US example - just a mere constitution doesn't guarantee a "real" democracy, if plebiscites are not the basis of "making laws" and decisions by a respective government.
The general provision and requirement of a plebiscite in view of amending, introducing and relinquishing of a law - is the only safeguarding mechanism in politics, that is essentially controlled by the people. Anything else is simply and only controlled by the respective parties and their respective lobby's for at least 4 years.
The only thing a fake democracy offers - is to cast a vote once every 4 years, and then having to watch and accept as to whatever the respective government decides/implements in those 4 years. Even making political alliances amongst those parties that supposedly represent different ideologies and policies - just for "politicians" and Lobbyists to pass a law that solely suits them.
Therefore if someone voted for e.g. the Republicans or Democrats in a national election - did he/she also give consent that his/her "representative" is free to vote in favor of an opposition parties program aka law initiative?
What US or German citizen was ever asked to cast a ballot, to decide upon e.g. migrant policies? NONE
Whilst Swiss people decided upon that issue via a plebiscite !!! therefore they do not have a pressing migrant issue.
Swiss people even decide onto the fines regarding parking and speeding tickets - right up to defense spending's incl. what supplier or weapon system is to be chosen. Why isn't there a single Swiss Army combatant outside of Switzerland? because the people aka the plebiscite voted against sending them out.
How many US or German citizens were asked if they are in favor of sending their national armed forces outside of their national territory?
NONE.
Therefore the introduction aka "requirement" for a plebiscite, is the primary tool to uphold a "true" democracy. And politicians that are aware of this "tool" are therefore required to make a "convincing" case for their respective law ideas to the "people" - and not just pass/enforce them through a corrupt and manipulation riddled Parliament/ Congress/Senate.
In conclusion, the only party that I would ever be willing to vote for - is the one that beholds a plebiscite clause. Till then I will prefer to vote for an autocratic system such as Singapore and China - who both clearly decide in favor for their respective populations best interests.
I can guarantee you, that if the Chinese or Singaporean government would blatantly disregard and ignore their peoples wishes and demands - as in the USA or e.g. Germany - there would be a massive and violent revolution in both countries. Especially in China, since Chinese people in contra to Western bullshit articles, are far more aggressive and self-determined then Westerners, and do NOT simply follow like sheep, the CPC.
As a matter of fact, both the PAP in Singapore and the CPC in China are instructed to "convince" their respective population about the positive aspects of a law - and not just pass them ad-hoc as they like, see e.g. USA or Germany.
This "social point awarding" system, has been thoroughly
explained for years towards the Chinese population before introduction - and therefore the majority accepts, that someone who does not adhere to general laws and does not respect nor contribute towards the general societies accepted values - does not deserve the same e.g. pension or social subsidies as one who acts in favor, contributes towards and respects a societies values.
The only problem Westerners have, they are simply unable and unwilling to define their own societies values and morals. But instead propagate and cling onto the ludicrous fantasy - "everybody is equal" and are "free" to vote for fake democracies.
Sure Trump and Biden are equal - right?, and a Negro with a University diploma is equal to a European Hillbilly who dropped out of Senior High - right? and a 67 year old American who worked all his live and is now jobbing at a 7/11 to make up for his measly pension is equal to a person who spend most of his live in a prison - right?
Okay, back to NATO
Which brings about the question, which citizen of a NATO member was ever asked to cast a vote for joining or not joining? Same goes for the NATO eastward expansion.
