Direct Democracy

12 Key excerpts on "Direct Democracy"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Random Selection in Politics

  • Lyn Carson, Brian Martin(Authors)
  • 1999(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  3 Direct Democracy Democracy is a concept that means many things to many people (Lum- mis 1996: 14-19). It is generally seen as a good thing, and therefore peo- ple want to describe their preferred system as "democratic." Political scientists say that the concept of democracy is "essentially contested" (Connolly 1983), which means that the rules for using the concept are open to varying interpretations and there is no definitive way of resolv- ing disagreements over usage. In practice, the meaning of democracy cannot be agreed upon because contesting groups have interests in dif- ferent meanings. To help pin down a meaning, it is conventional to preface "democ- racy" with an adjective. For example, "electoral democracy" and "rep- resentative democracy" refer to political systems in which people vote for representatives who make decisions. "People's democracy" is a bit trickier. It has been used by state socialist governments to describe them- selves, such as the German Democratic Republic (the former East Ger- many) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). These Communist regimes consider themselves democratic because the ruling Communist party is supposed to be the embodiment of the peo- ple's interests and aspirations. Obviously, it pays not to take every label referring to democracy at face value. "Direct Democracy," also called "participatory democracy," is a mode of self-rule in which people are directly involved in decision making. 40 RANDOM SELECTION IN POLITICS This form of democracy is "direct" because people are directly involved; it is "participatory" because people themselves participate in making decisions. In contrast, representative government is "indirect" democracy because people choose representatives who make decisions, and is non- participatory since people do not participate directly in making deci- sions.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Understanding Democratic Politics

  An Introduction

  • Roland Axtmann(Author)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  Direct Democracy But what of Direct Democracy? Political scien-tists tend to define this term in two quite different ways. First, it refers to face-to-face decision-making in an assembly (or forum, more broadly) of citizens, without the elec-tion or use of representatives. Thus, it has an important element of proximity (citizens or members of a community actually gathered together) and, of course of directness (the people make decisions for their community together, directly, without formal mediation). At various points in history, types of what is sometimes called ‘ assembly democracy ’ have been practised, beginning most notably in the ancient Athenian city-state in Greece more than 2,500 years ago. This type of Direct Democracy – anything that approximates the Athenian experience reasonably closely – 54 Concepts is quite rare today. The most prominent con-temporary example may be the Landes-gemeinde or face-to-face assemblies by which the affairs of certain Swiss cantons are gov-erned (and in some cases have been for cen-turies). In New England in the USA, a long tradition of face-to-face town meetings con-tinues to today. The second major sense in which political scientists refer to Direct Democracy is in the form of the referendum , sometimes called ‘ref-erendum democracy’. A referendum is a vote on an issue in which the outcome or decision is reached directly by the people’s vote. The decision is not taken by representatives or anyone else other than by the body of voting citizens themselves. Referendums have, for example, become more common in the mak-ing of major constitutional decisions in recent years in the UK and in the European Union. The ratification of European Union treaties, such as those of Maastricht and Nice which advanced the deepening and extension of the EU, were ratified by referendum in many member states; Danish referendums in partic-ular have become passionate, close-fought affairs on the European issue.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Contemporary Europe

  • Richard Sakwa, Anne Stevens(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  Political decisions are made by elected representatives on behalf of the represented. How citizens express their political preferences: direct versus representative democracy Democracy, as one textbook author (Heywood, 1997, p. 66) notes, ‘links government to the people’ and adds that ‘this link can be forged in a number of ways: government of, by and for the people’. It is clear that most modern democracies in Western Europe are not governed directly by the people themselves. There are obvious practical reasons for this: many citizens do not have the time, expertise, experience and political judgement to make politi-cal decisions on complex issues themselves. In poli-tics as in all other organizations, delegation of powers to specialists (e.g. elected politicians or civil servants) can be highly beneficial for the citizens. Although there is considerable variation between individual democracies, only a handful of European constitutions allow ‘the people’ to partic-ipate directly and continuously in decisions over public policy, usually in the form of referendums (see below). All European democracies are repre-sentative democracies where elected officials usually act as ‘agents’ who ‘represent’ the interests of a ‘principal’, namely the citizens. Direct participation through referendums Nevertheless, many European democracies do allow some elements of direct popular participation in issues of public policy. The extent to which this is the case varies considerably. In Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Italy referendums are now used regularly to decide on policy issues. In countries such as Germany or the UK, they are never or only rarely used. In many European countries, popular pressure for stronger citizen involvement in policy making through referendums has increased since the 1970s.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Democracy in Theory and Practice

  • Frederick G. Whelan(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Direct voting on ballot measures. Direct Democracy is usually thought of as decision-making by issue-voting in an at-large membership assembly on the ancient Athenian or town-meeting model, which entails participation in the form of attending the meeting in addition to voting on proposals. Since this method can only be practiced in a small group, it is often assumed that representative democracy must prevail in large groups and especially in state-level political democracy. Democrats in the liberal-constitutionalist tradition have accepted representation without qualms and have regarded indirectness of decision-making not as a necessary evil of large states but as a desirable corrective to the defects of Direct Democracy. Proponents of the latter, by contrast, have regarded representative democracy as involving a lower quality of civic participation and thus as diverging from the core meaning of democracy.

  The possibility of government (especially legislation) by initiative and referendum, however, offers a test of the desirability of the direct mode of decision-making. In a referendum and related procedures, the citizens of a polity vote directly on a proposal (also called a proposition or ballot measure) that has been put to them; this could be the ratification of a constitution or of a constitutional amendment, enactment of a statute, annulment of a legislative statute, a local fiscal decision such as a bond issue, ratification of a treaty, or the recall of an elected official. The proposal is put on the ballot by one of two constitutionally prescribed procedures. In an ordinary referendum it is “referred” to the voters by the government; otherwise it may originate in a petition from ordinary citizens. The latter procedure, in which a certain number of signatures in favor of conducting a referendum on a given question or proposed law must be collected, is called an initiative in the US and is doubly direct, providing a way for voters to bypass their elected legislature altogether. Initiatives invite active participation in the petition drive, but otherwise referendums merely involve voting, although directly on issues.19

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 15 Jan |Learn more

  Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe

  Improving the Quality of Democracy?

  • Brigitte Geißel, Marko Joas, Brigitte Geißel, Marko Joas(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Verlag Barbara Budrich

    (Publisher)

  179 Deliberation and Aggregation in Different Forms of Direct Democracy Maija Setälä Introduction Institutions of Direct Democracy allow citizens to participate directly in raising issues on the political agenda and making decisions on these issues by voting. The most important institutions of Direct Democracy are popular initiatives and referendums. 99 In most systems of representative democracy, direct democratic institutions have played only a marginal role, whereas in a few cases they have actually shaped the overall functioning of the political system. What are the benefits and pitfalls of direct democratic procedures? In terms of the evaluative framework outlined in this book, particular attention is paid to the extent to which direct democratic practices enhance deliberative and inclusive decision-making and enlightened citizenship. Deliberative democrats have often expressed concerns about practices of Direct Democracy. The most important criticism is that these forms of partici-pation are based on the aggregation of people’s preferences rather than on de-liberation. Votes expressing preferences are counted in referendums, and pop-ular initiatives and petitions involve the collection of a certain number of sig-natures. Furthermore, direct democratic practices do not necessarily support public deliberation either in parliaments or in the wider public sphere, and some direct democratic procedures in fact replace or undermine parliamentary deliberations. This chapter analyses the forums and sequences of deliberation and aggre-gation in different procedures of Direct Democracy, that is, in so-called gov-ernment-initiated referendums and different forms of referendums that can be used to veto parliamentary decisions. Furthermore, also different practices of popular initiatives are analyzed, both initiatives dealt with in parliaments (agenda initiatives) and those leading to a referendum (full-scale initiatives).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Developing Democracies

  Democracy, Democratization, and Development

  • Michael Böss, Joergen Møller, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Michael Boss, Joergen Moeller, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Michael Böss, Joergen Møller, Michael Boss, Joergen Moeller, Svend-Erik Skaaning(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Aarhus University Press

    (Publisher)

  Direct Democracy is not a substitute for representative democracy. It is not a system that should be used on a daily basis, but – as we shall see – a last resort; a democratic safety valve to be used on rare occasions. It provides – as we shall argue – a means of rebooting the political hard disk. If all else fails, we turn off the computer and restart it. The same is true for politics. But would it work? Needless to say, we cannot answer this question within a short chapter, but the empirical evidence suggests that the answer may be affirmative. An empirical assessment of Direct Democracy While referendums are widespread in Western democracies, such initiatives are rare. There have been several referendums in Western Democracies. However, since the Second World War, no countries in the Western World – with the exception of Switzerland – have used the legislative initiative at the national level. And, in Switzerland, voters have only been allowed to initiate constitutional changes which required the signatures of at least 100,000 citizens. 18 This changed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Swiss extended the provi-sions for such initiatives to include ordinary legislation, and provisions for similar initiatives were introduced in the Ukraine, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia and Lithuania. Voters in Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia, as well as in Italy and Slovenia, also have the right to demand a referendum on a decision made by the government. Furthermore, citizens in New Zealand and several German Länder have been given the right to initiate legislation, a right that had been enjoyed (and, some would say occasionally abused 19 ) in roughly half of the US states. While such initiatives in the Eastern and Central European countries have rarely succeeded due to harsh turnout requirements, there are some examples of high-profile legislation enacted as a result of a citizen-initiated process.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Land Use Planning

  The Ballot Box Revolution

  • Roger W. Caves(Author)
  • 1991(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Both the need for representative government and concerns about the alternative to it continued to be addressed. There were continued concerns that the issues to be decided were too complex or technical for the voters. Ford (1924, p. 287) ob-served that Direct Democracy devices (i.e., initiative, referen-dum, or recall) reduce the responsibilities of representative bodies in a way that amounts to a division of the authority en-trusted to them. Lucas (1976) wrote of why government should be unenthusiastic about public participation. He noted that public participation clogs the system and submerges the important messages with irrelevant noise (p. 154). Overall, Adrian and Press (1968, p. 108) observed that opponents to di-rect democracy, or the use of the initiative or referendum, voiced the following complaints: It confused legislative responsibility, lengthened an al-ready overly long ballot, created a bad psychological effect upon the city council, expected more than was reasonable from an uninformed and uninterested electorate, would promote radicalism and a disrespect for property rights, was opposed to the best principles of Americanism (since the Constitution is based upon representative, and not direct, democracy), and would allow well-organized interest groups representing a minority of the population to exer-cise an inordinate advantage. Nevertheless, there is a strong following for Direct Democracy. 8 LAND USE PLANNING Direct Democracy Allowing citizens to vote directly on issues represents the antithesis to representative democracy. Tagged legislation by popular vote by Bowman and Kearney (1986, p. 114), di-rect democracy allows citizens, through various devices, and depending on the area, to decide a number of issues. Citizens, through the initiative, are allowed to propose legislation and to vote for its passage or defeat.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Referendum Democracy

  Citizens, Elites and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns

  • M. Mendelsohn, A. Parkin, M. Mendelsohn, A. Parkin(Authors)
  • 2001(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  67 3 Political Parties in Direct Democracy Ian Budge Democracy today is essentially party democracy; that is, it is constituted by the competition between parties to gain votes and form govern- ments. Though parties run candidates for office, the latter get elected less on their individual appeal than on the party endorsement. At the same time parties put forward more or less integrated sets of policy priorities as the program which, if elected, their nominees will carry through. This not only provides a necessary degree of policy coordination in government, it also enables parties to be held responsible for program implementation at the next election. Because electors presumably vote for the policies they most prefer, parties serve as crucial intermediaries in the (rough) translation of majority wishes into government policies – a central claim of democracy. By bringing candidates for legislative and executive office into the same organization and disciplining them to ensure their united action and common responsibility, modern parties have subverted traditional theories of individual representation and constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers. Nevertheless, they still operate within the forms and institutions of representative democracy, even if its conventions have changed. The question we address here is what difference will Direct Democracy, with its focus on deciding policy through direct votes of the people, make to parties which have traditionally played an au- tonomous role in defining and brokering such policies? Our concern to answer this question is sharpened by the hostility shown by many proponents of Direct Democracy towards political parties. Rousseau’s (1762/1973) distrust of ‘partial interests’ corrupting the General Will is well known. Similar suspicions motivated the Pro- gressives who instituted popular referendums and initiatives in many American states during the early years of the twentieth century. They

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Direct Democracy Or Representative Government? Dispelling The Populist Myth

  • John Haskell(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The movement for term limits accurately reflects the outrage activists and ordinary citizens of the right and a sometimes nebulous center feel. Term-limits advocates believe that, for all intents and purposes, congressional elections are a fraud. The elected representatives perpetuate their positions of power by catering to the special interests that fund their campaigns, and they often support policies opposed by most of the people or, conversely, oppose ideas, such as term limits, that the people over-whelmingly like but that would threaten their very existence.

  Direct Democracy is a vital step in giving power back to the people. Initiatives and referenda, at both the state and federal levels, are precisely the radical prescription that will enable people to go over the heads of the unrepresentative political class to implement policies that the entrenched interests oppose. But most important, the initiative process allows the people to put in place term limits, which would end the corrupt linkages between interest groups, members of Congress or state legislatures, and bureaucrats, all of whom pursue policies that advance their narrow interests or their careers.

  O'Keefe and others perceive a war going on over term limits. At the same time as the people are speaking out in no uncertain terms in support of this reform, the elite is doing everything it can to stymie the effort. The leadership in Congress, while paying lip service to the movement, failed to go the extra mile to get a term limits amendment through the House in 1995.25 All across the country elected representatives are increasing the obstacles to getting term limits and other measures on state and local ballots.26

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Common Futures

  Social Transformation and Political Ecology

  • Alexandros Schismenos, Yavor Tarinski(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Black Rose Books

    (Publisher)

  II. Theoretical Outlines of Direct Democracy Yavor Tarinski Democracy as a Regime of Self-Limitation [F]or the impulse of mere appetite is slavery, while obedience to a self-prescribed law is liberty. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1 THE PHILOSOPHER Cornelius Castoriadis has often been credited with saying that “democracy is the regime of self-limitation.” 2 But since for him the only true democratic form is Direct Democracy, this claim might seem a bit odd. Direct Democracy has come to be conceived by many, including sev-eral critics, as a regime that disconnects society from laws and regulations, resulting in its depolitization and degradation. This concept has understand-ably raised concerns about what would be the outcomes of the more excessive actions of the masses. The essence of Direct Democracy however, as presented by Castoriadis, differs considerably from such chaotic and nihilistic logics. For him, the primary meaning of the term democracy is political, being before all a regime in which all citizens are capable of governing and being governed—with both terms (democracy and self-limitation) thus being inseparable. Democracy, in other words, is understood as a form of explicit societal self-institution, through reflectiveness and self-limitation. According to Castoriadis, democracy is not mere process for collective decision-making that can exist in parallel to or within non-democratic oligarchic frameworks, as proposed by thinkers like Jürgen Habermas or Chantal Mouffe. 3 For him, democracy is rather the basis of the project of autonomy—a social condition in which society recognizes no external limits to its instituting power. That is, unlike different forms of what Castoriadis

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Citizenship and Contemporary Direct Democracy

  • David Altman(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  part iii REFORM 6 Why Adopt Direct Democracy? Much More Than a Simple Vote Do citizen-initiated mechanisms of Direct Democracy matter? Do they really make a difference to how the political game is played? This chapter tackles these questions and argues that it is crucial to look beyond immediate results, that they do indeed make a substantial difference regardless of who the winners are, what policy they support, or what their ideological leanings are (as studied in the previous two chapters). Though common wisdom tends to evaluate citizen-initiated mechanisms of Direct Democracy based on their results, elect- oral outcomes are just one aspect to take into consideration when studying the multifaceted world of Direct Democracy. This chapter argues that citizen-initiated mechanisms of Direct Democracy have important spillover effects that affect the overall democratic life of a polity, even if the results do not favor those who triggered the vote. These effects occur in two major arenas: the political system itself (by generating incentives for political consensus, moderating circumstantial majorities, and expanding the political playing field) and the relationship between representa- tive institutions and the citizenry (by augmenting policy congruence, women’s empowerment, civic participation and satisfaction with democracy, and by broadening the topics subject to popular consideration). This chapter proceeds as follows. First, it describes the impact CI-MDDs have on the political system as a whole, particularly in the realms of consensus building and the expansion of the political arena beyond representative insti- tutions. Second, it tackles how their mere existence affects the relationship between representative institutions and citizenship.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Representative Democracy

  Principles and Genealogy

  • Nadia Urbinati(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • University of Chicago Press

    (Publisher)

  { O N E } Representation and Democracy In that it is both an aspect of electoral behavior and a mech-anism for determining government’s responsiveness to the public, representation has acquired the status of a demo-cratic institution in political science. This despite the fact that political representation is not associated exclusively with democracy (it predates modern democratic states and exists in states that are not democratic); in fact, its relation to democracy is permanently subject to debate. Yet the pic-ture becomes more complicated when we move from polit-ical practice and survey analyses to political theory. Indirectness in politics has never enjoyed much cur-rency in democratic theory. Direct rule was generally seen as paradigmatic because it entails a fusion of “talking” and “doing” in political action and the full participation of all citizens in the decision-making process. 1 Rather than nam-ing a political order, “today, in politics, democracy is the name of what we cannot have—yet cannot cease to want.” 2 The modern “discovery” of representation has not seriously challenged this paradigm. Participatory democrats disdain representation because it justifies a vertical relation between the citizens and the state and promotes a passive citizenry and an elected aristocracy. 3 Procedural theorists of democ-racy give representation merely an instrumental justifica-tion and see it as a useful “fiction” that applies the division of labor to governmental functions. 4 Democratic theorists give representation a cold recep-tion because it refers to political processes that are internal 17 C H A P T E R O N E to the state, rather than to a form of democratic participation. Indeed, its democratic credentials come from election in time1 and time2 , events that tell us representation’s inception and termination, not its life span.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book