Direct Democracy (2013) Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia (original) (raw)

Let the people rule? Direct democracy in the twenty-first century

The biggest contemporary challenge to democratic legitimacy gravitates around the crisis of democratic representation. To tackle this problem, a growing number of established as well as new democracies included direct democratic instruments into their constitutions enabling citizens to directly influence democratic decision-making. However, there are many different empirical manifestations of direct democracy and their diverse consequences for representative democracy are still an understudied topic. The aim of this volume is to fill this gap in a comparative endeavour.

Direct Democracy: Chances and Challenges

This paper discusses several problems of direct popular decisions that are often overlooked in political and scientific debates. In the first part, we consider problems related to the functioning of direct democracy. As a political system, it only makes sense if there exists a continuous process and not if only occasional single questions are brought to a referendum. Then, the relation between direct democracy and the rule of unanimity is discussed, a subject of special relevance to the European Union, before we consider the role of quorums. In the second part, some areas are considered in which conflicts might arise. Results of initiatives might be incompatible with individual human rights or might endanger fiscal sustainability, and referenda might impede economic reforms. All these problems, however, do not justify a general rejection of direct popular rights. Thus, we conclude by listing several points that should be observed to safeguard the well-functioning of direct democracy.

Direct Democracy for a Future World

What is the place and role of direct democracy in today’s world that is being shaped by a multitude of globalization processes and in a time of multiple crisis, and what is the potential of it for a future world? Being committed to direct democracy, I consider these questions relevant. This essay is the result of my attempts to find answers. The first part draws a picture of globalization and the resulting double crisis of capitalism and humanity which we are facing today. Mankind’s recent ascendence to a biogeological force has created an unprecedented situation. It is not only mankind but the entire Earth community that has become the last effective survival unit for humans. The human species is at a crossroads and we are facing the challenge to safeguard the survival of humankind. It is in this context that direct democracy has to find its place. The second part explores the role of direct democracy, which provides tools for resistance and transformation, by looking at the use that is and has been made of it. Struggles against privatization of water in different continents show how direct-democratic tools of varying quality operate as means of resistance against corporate power. Looking through the lense of their common features the diverse struggles against privatizations appear as parts of an emerging global movement aiming to prevent and reverse the enclosure of commons in opposition to predatory corporations and their politicians. Switzerland provides a unique example to study the functions and effects of direct democracy. Swiss citizens have the right to shape their constitution/society as they wish and their realism and political imagination are the only limits. Having well-designed direct-democratic tools is necessary, but not sufficient: their use is determined by consciousness. Examining a number of citizens’ initiatives and referendums in Switzerland provides information about the transformative potential of direct democracy. Two grassroots initiatives stand out as radical: the initiative for an unconditional basic income and the initiative for monetary reform. Water, basic income and money can be seen as commons, and so can (direct) democracy, which is a special commons insofar as it is a necessary ingredient of commoning in general and a creator of commons. The concept of commoning gives theoretical unity to a broad spectrum of socio-political struggles that prefigures the making of a free society. The crisis of humanity means: “Man(kind) has entered into another law” (Friedrich Dürrenmatt). We must learn to see the world with new eyes. We must choose which way to go.

Strengths and weaknesses of direct democracy —

2013

Throughout the world, democracy is now the accepted form of government for the people. Government and Parliament are responsible for running the state, but they are elected by the people and their democratic legitimacy derives from this. However, this is a limited model of democracy. The participation of the citizens is essentially confined to the act of voting, an act with two key implications. First, because the Parliament represents the majority of those who vote, it ensures democratic legitimacy and a willingness on the part of the citizens to accept collectively binding decisions. Second, elections at regular intervals enable the electorate to vote out the governing majority if it is disappointed with its policies and bring the opposition to power. This simple model of electoral democracy has proved extraordinarily successful. Indeed, there are voices that maintain that it is precisely because of the restrictions inherent in this form of democracy that the current global wave o...

An Interactional Model of Direct Democracy - Lessons from the Swiss Experience

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2008

Direct democratic decision-making has often been associated with populism, irrationality, and oppression of minorities as it requires allegedly "cognitive overstrained" citizens to decide on complex political issues often brought forward by special interest groups. The usage of popular initiatives in particular in the State of California seems to provide conclusive evidence for all of these shortcomings. Due to its constitutional arrangement and its diverse structure, Switzerlandwhich historically served as a blueprint for introducing instruments of direct democracy at the statelevel during the progressive area in the United States-offers a unique case to assess these claims: More than half of the world's referenda held at the national level during the 20 th century have taken place in Switzerland. At the same time, the Swiss Federal Constitution provides for limited constitutional review only, excluding Federal statutes and international law from judicial control. Based on the lessons from the Swiss experience, this paper argues not only for a more realistic approach to popular decision-making but for a more differentiated understanding of the general term "direct democracy" by pointing at the often neglected importance of the interface between institutions of direct and indirect democracy. At the same time, it cautions against simplistic demands for "popular constitutionalism". In sum, this paper champions what I call an interactional model of direct democracy.

Does direct democracy really work? A review of the empirical evidence from Switzerland

Przegląd Politologiczny, 2014

Discussions about direct democracy and its advantages and risks are often superficial, invoke stereotypes and ignore empirical data. This article tests seven common criticisms of direct democracy by referring to the Swiss experience. Evidently, Swiss democracy is not a copy/paste model, but has developed in a specific historical and institutional setting. It is obvious that both conservative as well as left-wing critics overemphasize their case against direct democracy by (wilfully) neglecting the evidence. Direct democracy does not lead to anarchy. The common people can make reasonable decisions. Minorities are not more discriminated against in direct democratic systems than in representative ones. Money plays a role in direct democracy, as it does in representative systems. Direct democracy slows down reforms, but it also makes them steadier and more sustainable. Direct democracy brings contentment to its citizens. Finally, direct democracy is not ideologically predisposed. It is a mechanism to revert policies back to the median voter.

The Promise and Perils of Direct Democracy: An Introduction

Politics and Governance

Direct democracy promises politics that improve links between citizens and their representatives, and satisfies popular demand for increased engagement. In practice it may fall well short, given limited citizen capacity, poor information from campaigns, and ill-designed processes. The articles here represent the opportunities that direct democracy offers for the study of these promises and perils.

Measuring the Potential of Direct Democracy Around the World (1900-2014)

To what extent is direct democracy achieved in current polities? To answer this question, I develop an index, Direct Democracy Practice Potential (DDPP), which is applied to 200 polities worldwide. This index results from the aggregation of the scores of four types of mechanisms of direct democracy: popular initiatives, popular referendums, obligatory referendums, and authorities’ plebiscites. This index measures: (1) how easy it is to initiate and approve each type of popular vote and (2) how consequential that vote is (if approved). Ease of initiation is measured by: (a) the existence of a direct democracy process, (b) the number of signatures needed, and (c) time limits to collect signatures. Ease of approval is measured by quorums pertaining to: (a) participation, (b) approval, (c) supermajority, and (d) district majority. Consequences are measured by: (a) the legal status of the decision made by citizens (binding or consultative), and (b) the frequency with which direct popular votes have been used and approved in the past.