Referendum (pronounced ref-uh-ren-duhm)
(1) The principle or practice of referring measures
proposed or passed by a legislature or executive authority to the vote of the
electorate for approval or rejection; the submission of an issue of public
importance to the direct vote of the electorate.
(2) A measure thus referred.
(3) The vote on such a measure.
(4) A poll of the members of a club, union, or other
group to determine their views on some matter.
(5) In historic diplomatic use, a diplomat’s official's
note to their government requesting instructions.
(6) In legal & diplomatic use (as ad referendum (To reference)), an
indication that although the substantive issues have been agreed, some
differences on matters of detail need still to be resolved.
1847: From the Latin referendum (something to be referred;
that which ought to be announced), neuter future passive participle (gerundive)
of referre (to bring back), the
construct being the verb ferre (to
bear, bring, carry) + re- (here used
to mean “back”). It was an inflection of
referendus, gerundive of referō (I announce). Modern use appears to have begun in 1847 to
describe the voting process used by the Swiss cantons (provinces) to validate
certain laws passed by a legislature and use extended to the English-speaking
world in 1882.
The re- prefix was from the Middle English re-, from the circa 1200 Old French re-, from the Latin re-
& red- (back; anew; again;
against), from the primitive Indo-European wre
& wret- (again), a metathetic
alteration of wert- (to turn). It displaced the native English ed- & eft-. A hyphen is not normally
included in words formed using this prefix, except when the absence of a hyphen
would (1) make the meaning unclear, (2) when the word with which the prefix is
combined begins with a capital letter, (3) when the word with which the is
combined with begins with another “re”, (4) when the word with which the prefix
is combined with begins with “e”, (5) when the word formed is identical in form
to another word in which re- does not have any of the senses listed above. As late as the early twentieth century, the
dieresis was sometimes used instead of a hyphen (eg reemerge) but this is now
rare except when demanded for historic authenticity or if there’s an attempt
deliberately to affect the archaic. Re-
may (and has) been applied to almost any verb and previously irregular
constructions appear regularly in informal use; the exception is all forms of “be”
and the modal verbs (can, should etc).
Although it seems certain the origin of the Latin re- is the primitive
Indo-European wre & wret- (which has a parallel in Umbrian re-), beyond that it’s uncertain and
while it seems always to have conveyed the general sense of "back" or
"backwards", there were instances where the precise was unclear and
the prolific productivity in Classical Latin tended make things obscure. The Latin prefix rĕ- was from the Proto-Italic wre
(again) and had a parallel in the Umbrian re-
but the etymology was always murky. In
use, there was usually at least the hint of the sense "back" or
"backwards" but so widely was in used in Classical Latin and beyond
that the exact meaning is sometimes not clear.
Etymologists suggest the origin lies either in (1) a metathesis (the
transposition of sounds or letters in a word) of the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn) or (2) the primitive Indo-European
ure- (back), which was related to the
Proto-Slavic rakъ (in the sense of
“looking backwards”).

The "Brexit" referendum in June 2016 in which citizens in the UK voted (narrowly) to leave the EU (European Union) was one of history's more bizarre self-inflicted political injuries. Then in the country, Lindsay Lohan revealed herself to be a "remainer" and on X (then known as Twitter) provided a real-time commentary on the count. She did try to help and may have concluded "forgive them for they known not what they do".
The word referendum illustrates the difference between
the Latin constructs known as gerunds & gerundives and their English
equivalents. In Latin, gerunds are
neuter singular nouns formed from verbs by appending -ndum to the stem whereas
in English, gerunds are verbal nouns formed by adding an -ing. The Latin legendum (reading) is for example formed
from the verb legere (to read) while the English gerund is reading (read +
-ing). Because English gerunds are
nouns, the preceding pronouns should take the possessive form (“we noticed him reading”
(present participle)) but “we enjoyed his reading of that passage” (gerund). By contrast, the Latin gerundive has the same
form as a gerund but is used as an adjective and can take any number (singular
or plural) and gender. According to the
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), there exists in English some sixty words which
are unchanged from the original Latin (gerundives & gerunds) in a ratio of
about two to one. Some two-dozen are Latin
phrases, noted from their continued use in legal jargon (such as capias ad respondendum (to enforce
attendance at court) while the remainder are often from Medieval or Church
Latin, unknown to Classical Latin. Curiously,
the OED was (at least earlier) ambivalent about whether referendum comes from a
gerund or a gerundive but most agree a gerund it is and thus would have no plural
in Latin so the rules of English plural construction would apply, creating referendums.
Were it a gerundive, the alternative plural
in English could be referenda and that has attained some popularity but most
authorities think this usually a misunderstanding based on the treatment of
nouns (eg stadium & stadia).
The meaning has of course shifted. In Latin, a referendum was “a question to be
referred to the people” but in modern European political discourse it was
appropriated to describe the mechanics of the vote itself. Had the original conventions of Latin be
adhered to by those who followed. Such a thing would have been “a reference”
but referendum is well understood and the original sense is now covered by the ubiquitous
“terms of reference” and the preferred plural form is doubtlessly referendums
although referenda is heard so often it may well have become an alternative
unique to English. Variations do exist: a neverendum is political slang for something which a
government is never likely to submit to a vote and technically, a preferendum is
a referendum in which more than two items or persons are being voted upon.
In modern use, plebiscite has a similar meaning in modern
use and by many is used interchangeably.
It was from the Latin plebiscita,
which originally meant “decree of the Concilium
Plebis (Plebeian Council)”, the popular assembly of the Roman Republic. English gained the word from the Middle
French plébiscite, from the Latin plebiscita from plebs & plebis (the
common people) and the construct of the Latin plēbīscītum (decree of the plebs) was plēbī (for plēbis & plēbēī genitive singular of plēbs & plēbēs) + scītum (“resolution,
decree”, the noun use of neuter of scītus,
the past participle of scīscere (to
enact, decree) (originally, to seek to know, learn)), inchoative of scīre (to know). Despite some imprecision in modern use, there
are places where some distinction is (at least to some extent) maintained, usually
with a referendum being a vote binding upon a government whereas a plebiscite
is merely indicative. The initiative
(usually in the form ballot initiative) is related in that it refers to a
process (usually signatures on a form of petition) by which a matter may be
submitted to a referendum.

Watched by
an approving comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; Soviet foreign minister
1939-1949 & 1953-1956), comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953)
casts his vote in the 1937 election for the Supreme Soviet. To the left, Comrade Marshal Kliment Voroshilov (1881–1969) watches Comrade Nikolai Yezhov (1895–1940, head of the NKVD 1936-1938).
Those
voting in 1937 may have had high hopes for the future because, read literally,
the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union (adopted 5 December 1936) described a
democratic utopia. Unfortunately, within
months, comrade Stalin embarked on his Great Purge and turned his country into
a kind of combination of prison camp and abattoir, many of those involved in drafting
the constitution either sent to the Gulag or shot. In 1937 the CPSU (Communist Party of the
Soviet Union) was declared to have won 99% of the vote so it was not an
exceptional result but the photograph is unusual in that it’s one of the few in
which the usually dour comrade Molotov is smiling. It was comrade Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924;
head of government of Russia or Soviet Union 1917-1924) who dubbed Molotov “stone ass”
because of his famous capacity (rare among the Bolsheviks) to sit for hours at
his desk and process the flow of paperwork the CPSU’s bureaucracy generated. Precise in every way, Molotov would correct
those who suggested Lenin’s moniker had been “iron ass” but, disapproving of “shameful
bureaucratism”, he may have used several variants in the same vein
and in another nod to Molotov’s centrality in the administrative machinery of
government, he was known also as “comrade paper-clip”.
On paper, between
1936-1991, the Supreme Soviet was the highest institution of state authority in
the Soviet Union (1922-1991) but was in reality a “rubber stamp parliament” which existed only to ratify, adding a
veneer of legality to laws sent down by the executive, controlled exclusively by
the CPSU although it was valued for photo-opportunities, enthralled delegates
always seen attentively listening to comrade Stalin’s speeches. On election night comrade Stalin was quoted
in the Soviet press as saying: “Never in the history of the world have there been such
really free and really democratic elections -- never! History knows no other example like it...our
universal elections will be carried out as the freest elections and the most
democratic compared with elections in any other country in the world. Universal elections exist and are also held in
some capitalist countries, so-called democratic countries. But in what atmosphere are elections held
there?… In an atmosphere of class conflicts, in an atmosphere of class enmity.” The statement often attributed to comrade
Stalin: “It's not who votes that counts,
it's who counts the votes” probably was apocryphal but indicative of how he
did things and his psephological model has been an inspiration to figures such
as Saddam Hussein (1937–2006; president of Iraq 1979-2003) and Kim Jong-Un (Kim
III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).
Mr Putin’s (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) use of referendums as an attempt to add a legal gloss to Moscow’s annexation of parts of the Ukraine are an
example of the way dictators often are most concerned with the appearance of
lawfulness in what they do. As a general
principle, for an annexation to be valid under international law it requires
(1) that the borders be exactly defined, (2) that the nation asserting control
be capable of defending the territory, (3) that the population is substantially
in accord with the change and (4) that recognition is granted by the
international community (these days through the mechanism of the United Nations
(UN)). Given the military situation on the ground, it seems unlikely any of these pre-conditions had been met at the time Mr Putin conducted his triumphal ceremonies in the Kremlin. The substantial majorities
reported as being in favor of annexation in referendums conducted in September
2022 were an echo of the result of the 2014 Crimean status referendum which
(according to the Kremlin) validated the earlier Russian occupation.

In this, Moscow’s referendums were to some extent similar
to the infamous referendum conducted by the Nazis in 1938 to validate the
Anschluss (joining) with Germany.
Although the reported result had some 99% voting
in favor, it was not a vote which could be considered in any way free or fair although
it may be a majority might have been achieved, based on the response of the
population when the occupation was executed.
In some ways, the exaggeration of the yes vote by the Nazis worked to Austria’s
long-term advantage, the improbability of the published result allowing the creation
of the post-war narrative of Austria as the first of the Nazi’s victims rather
than a nation which welcomed the incorporation. The voting papers were headed
Referendum and Greater German Parliament and the question was:
Do you agree with the reunification of
Austria with the German Reich that took place on 13 March 1938 and do you vote
for the list of our Leader Adolf Hitler? The choice was
Yes or
No.

When the political cartoonist David Low (1891-1963) drew his take on the Anschluss referendum, he
called it a plebiscite (a word which better describes how things were done by the Nazis) and suggested (rightly) the Duce was as complicit as the Western democracies. Depicted marching unwillingly to cast their "Ja" ballots are (left to right) Édouard Daladier (1884–1970; prime minister of France in 1933, 1934 & 1938-1940), then UK foreign secretary Lord Halifax (Edward Wood, 1881–1959), Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940; prime minister of the UK 1937-1940) and Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943). Under a smiling (complete with halo) portrait of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) sits the corpulent and bemedaled Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) while behind the ballot box stands the diminutive Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945). The military figures are used by Low as symbols of German militarism and Göring's contented smirk was well-deserved because, more even than Hitler, he was the driving force in the Anschluss.
Much has changed since 1945 but the recommendations for the best way for the West to handle the Kremlin today are exactly the same as those included in a paper called Facts and Tendencies in Wartime, 1944, written by Ronald Matthews (1904-1963), while Moscow correspondent (1942-1944) for the Daily Herald :
"It is of absolutely paramount importance that the Western powers should be able to give Russia at the end of the war... a sense of security. Though I think it is just as important from all points of view that they should be able to do so without making concessions to her which they feel to be unjustified. Such concessions would make only for further rankling ill-feeling; nor do I think the Russians will ever really trust us till we show firmness as well as conciliation in our dealings with them. I may be wrong but I cannot help feeling that the effects of our giving in to them on points on which we feel we are right is doubly unfortunate. First, it loses us their respect (the Russians respect and respond to tough bargaining). And, secondly, it may well give them not confidence in us, but a sense that we are temporarily buying them off, just as the Germans and they bought each other off in August 1939 (ie the Nazi-Soviet Pact)".