Comparative Direct Democracy: a Study of Institutions and Individuals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 12-1-2013 Comparative Direct Democracy: A Study of Institutions and Individuals Donald D. Mirjanian University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Comparative Politics Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Repository Citation Mirjanian, Donald D., "Comparative Direct Democracy: A Study of Institutions and Individuals" (2013). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/5363922 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARATIVE DIRECT DEMOCRACY: A STUDY OF INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS by Donald D. Mirjanian Bachelor of Arts in Political Science University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2006 Master of Arts in Political Science University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2008 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy – Political Science Department of Political Science College of Liberal Arts The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas December 2013 Copyright by Donald D. Mirjanian, 2014 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE COLLEGE We recommend the dissertation prepared under our supervision by Donald D. Mirjanian entitled Comparative Direct Democracy: A Study of Institutions and Individuals is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy - Political Science Department of Political Science John Tuman, Ph.D., Committee Chair David Damore, Ph.D., Committee Member Michele Kuenzi, Ph.D., Committee Member Thomas Wright, Ph.D., Graduate College Representative Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph.D., Interim Dean of the Graduate College December 2013 ii ABSTRACT Comparative Direct Democracy: A Study of Institutions and Individuals By Donald D. Mirjanian Dr. John Tuman, Examination Committee Chair University of Nevada, Las Vegas Do institutions matter? This dissertation examines the role of institutions in the context of comparative direct democracy. Through an institutionalist framework, this study considers how the context in which the mechanism of direct democracy is first introduced has an impact on later usage, and how individuals operate when constrained by those very institutions. In particular, I examine the cases of Italy, France, Uruguay, and Venezuela and find that the inclusion of direct democracy mechanisms (most commonly, the referendum device) is more likely to occur when previously excluded “out-groups” participate in constitutional formation. In addition, I find that institutional design is an important (but not a universal) factor in understanding referendum outcomes (in particular, in explaining frequency). Finally, I argue that the rational choice perspective does not fully explain individual level motivations of political elites, and that an interweaving of prospect theory and the cybernetic theory of decision-making better explains how elites operate when constrained by institutions. Along the way, I develop a theoretical approach that may be utilized to better evaluate direct democracy outcomes across political systems. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with a sense of gratitude and humility that I offer thanks to the Department of Political Science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas as a whole. Over the years, each member of the department has played a role in my academic development, and I thank them for their service. In particular, I would like to thank the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. John Tuman, for his unwavering support and guidance. Dr. Tuman has also mastered a most difficult art: knowing when to give a doctoral student who has let his dissertation lay dormant a little “push” and knowing when to let that same doctoral student have a little extra “line” to push himself. Certainly, the remaining members of my dissertation committee, Drs. David Damore, Michelle Kuenzi and Tom Wright also deserve my gratitude, and for many more reasons than I can list here. Indeed, a special thanks to Dr. David Damore, who (whether he knows it or not) has had a profound effect on my research methods as well as my teaching style; such an influence will be with me throughout my future career. Of course, within the Department of Political Science, I cannot offer enough thanks to Susie and Melissa, without whom this dissertation would be nothing more than an idea in the back of my mind. In addition, there are no words to describe the gratitude I have for my family. They have been supportive in every way imaginable. Though it is our responsibility as parents to teach our children in the best way we know how, it is my five children who have taught me that there should be no boundaries when setting goals, and no limits when pushing towards those goals. And finally to my wife, Kristin, who is a source of eternal inspiration to make life just a little better every day. iv DEDICATION To my children: Celeste, Kylie, Shelbee, Adam, and Dominic – like the sun in the sky, you make everything brighter. I offer here evidence that you can achieve anything your beautiful minds can envision and I urge you to prove it to yourselves. I love you! v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv DEDICATION .....................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................2 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................27 Constitutional Formation and Referendum Politics .......................................................35 Institutional Design, Turnout, and Outcomes ................................................................50 Campaigns, Parties, and Elite Cues ................................................................................61 CHAPTER 3 DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN ITALY AND FRANCE ...........................73 France .............................................................................................................................93 CHAPTER 4 DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN URUGUAY AND VENEZUELA .........121 Venezuela .....................................................................................................................140 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................167 Limits of Study and Suggestions for Future Research .................................................178 APPENDIX A DIRECT DEMOCRACY CASES IN ITALY … ................................185 APPENDIX B DIRECT DEMOCRACY CASES IN FRANCE … .............................189 APPENDIX C DIRECT DEMOCRACY CASES IN URUGUAY .............................190 APPENDIX D DIRECT DEMOCRACY CASES IN VENEZUELA .........................191 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................192 VITA ................................................................................................................................202 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Overview of Variables for Matched-Pair Study ........................................24 Table 3.1 Impact of Key Variables on Direct Democracy Outcomes in Italy… ..................................................................................................111 Table 3.2 Impact of Key Variables on Direct Democracy Outcomes in France ................................................................................117 Table 3.3 Impact of Key Variables on Direct Democracy Outcomes in Italy and France… ..............................................................119 Table 4.1 Impact of Key Variables on Direct Democracy Outcomes in Uruguay ...............................................................................................163 Table 4.2 Impact of Key Variables on Direct Democracy Outcomes in Venezuela….........................................................................................164 Table 4.3 Impact of Key Variables on Outcomes in Uruguay and Venezuela … .....................................................................................166 Table 5 Impact of Key Variables on Direct Democracy Outcomes across Cases … .......................................................................179 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION