In a referendum or plebiscite, many of the complex questions related to allocating of broadcasting time fall away. The choice is a straight yes or no. Since the question will not have been asked before, there can be no question of taking into account previous voter opinion on the matter. Equality and equity coincide: both sides should have equal time to put across their arguments.
This was the conclusion of the UN Technical Team on the 1993 Malawi Referendum:
In the case of government-owned media it is customary that equal access, both in terms of timing and length of broadcast, should be given to the competing sides.[1]
Such also was the practice in, for example, the 1988 Chile plebiscite on the restoration of democracy.
However, things may be slightly more complex. Commonly, more than one party may line up on each side of the referendum debate – indeed, sometimes parties may be divided within themselves. Who, then, has a right to speak for each side?
In 1979, a Scottish court had to determine just such an issue in a referendum on devolution of political power. Both the main UK parties were divided on the issue, with members campaigning for both sides in the referendum debate. Broadly speaking, three main parties in Scotland lined up in favour of devolution and one against. The court concluded, nevertheless, that the Yes and No camps should have equal time - party support was irrelevant.[2]
Yet more complex issues will arise if different groups support the same proposition in a referendum but from a different perspective and organized in different campaigns. In that case, some of the normal allocation criteria used in elections will have to be brought into play to determine how much broadcasting time each group is allocated. However, the overall principle of equality between the two sides will not be affected.
[1] Report of the UN Technical Team on the Conduct of a Free and Fair Referendum on the Issue of a One Party/Multiparty System in Malawi (15-21 Nov. 1992), para. 27.
[2] Wilson v. Independent Broadcasting Authority, 1979 SLT 279.
