Referendum Initiative
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 2 Politische Bildung und Studien in Südtirol Centro sudtirolese di formazione e studi politici Zenter de stude y de formazion politica dl Südtirol South Tyrol's Center for Political Studies and Civic Education Impressum When citizens decide by themselves An introduction to direct democracy © Thomas Benedikter February 2021 Author: Dr. Thomas Benedikter Proofreading: Dr. Hanna Battisti Editor: POLITiS - South Tyrol’s Center for Political Studies and Civic Education, Weinstr. 60 - I-39057 Eppan – Tel. +39 324 5810427 [email protected] - www.politis.it ISBN 978 88 7106 515 1 The CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence used by POLITiS stipulates that copying and distribution are only permitted if the name of the author is mentioned, if the distribution is not for commercial purposes and if no editing, alteration or modification is made. You are free to copy and distribute the work under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author. Non commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No derivative works: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. More Information: www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 3 Thomas Benedikter When citizens decide by themselves An introduction to direct democracy With a preface by Andreas Gross POLITiS e-book 4 Content Preface (Andreas Gross) 7 Developing the citizens’ political creativity and commitment 1 Happier with direct democracy? 11 What does ‘direct democracy’ actually mean? 2 The unfinished democracy 19 The plebiscite: a popular vote ordered from above 3 The myth of the incompetent citizen 31 Populism and direct democracy 4 A veto right in the hand of the citizens: the referendum 42 The petition in a modern guise 5 When citizens initiate laws: the popular initiative 49 Italy: Unnecessary ‘citizens’ draft bills’? 6 The design of direct democracy 61 Postal voting 7 Who takes the field? The actors of direct democracy 74 The media and direct democracy 8 The performance of direct democracy: quality and 85 effects A decalogue against the turnout quorum 5 9 Will elected politicians be dismantled? Objections to 97 direct democracy Direct versus deliberative democracy 10 Switzerland: the cradle of direct democracy 119 Which reforms for the Swiss ‘popular rights’? 11 Direct democracy also in the European Union? 134 The costs of representative politics and direct democracy 12 Direct democracy at the service of a more sustainable 147 tax system Participatory budgeting 13 A model on the rise: direct democracy in the world 160 A century of direct democracy in California 14 Digital democracy and direct democracy 172 With CONSUL to digital citizens’ participation 15 Conclusion: Citizens can decide for and by themselves 187 Space for utopia - Direct democracy in 2040 Basic glossary 196 References and further resources 201 The author and the editor 206 6 Cover foto: The Landsgemeinde of Canton Glarus in Switzerland, 3 May 2009 Since 1403, the men of the canton of Appenzell-Innerrhoden have been meeting every last Sunday in April, armed with sabres, to decide on new cantonal laws. Since 1990, in the Canton of Glarus also women (without sabres), who have been voting in Switzerland in general since 1971, have also been allowed to vote. The traditional 'Landsgemeinde', a legislative assembly of the canton's citizens in the open air. It still exists in the canton of Glarus and in Appenzell-Innerrhoden. This form of assembly democracy, which was typical for medieval Switzerland, has, however, been replaced in all the other cantons by referendums at the ballot box or by post. In a large number of Swiss communes, general communal assemblies are held every year, in which the citizens vote directly on essential issues of their commune's policy. Source of the picture: WIKIPEDIA, http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/extra/mydiscuss/display/16944106 Author: Marc Schlumpf Tables and figures 1 Popular referendum rights (direct democracy) – Overview 2 Referendum and initiative: the procedures 3 Popular votes at federal level in Switzerland 1848-2012 4 Popular votes around the world 5 The 30 “top countries” for the application of direct democracy 6 Citizens’ initiatives worldwide 7 Popular referendums around the world 7 Preface Developing the citizens’ political creativity and commitment By Andreas Gross If a young man of 18 was discovered to be a great football talent, but instead of playing he could only once a week choose which match to watch as a spectator while watching players mostly less good than him, it would be a frustrating experience for him, and local football would let a great sporting potential shrink. The same is true today for most citizens in Italy and in many other countries. Many citizens are politically well-prepared, well-informed, can assess political developments, can form a well-founded opinion and would like to cooperate on political issues. However, because they do not want to join a party, they feel excluded from everyday political activity. Every five years they can choose from a very limited number of parties, groups with limited responsibility for keeping their promises made before the elections. Between two elections, which are rare and ephemeral moments of democracy, decisions are made only about them, never with them. This is frustrating for the individual citizen, it excludes him from political life, it limits individual and collective political learning processes. It does not allow society to unfold the potential for creativity and free political engagement that is present in every society. The consequences are fatal. Citizens, who already feel excluded or undervalued by democracy at regional and national level, will lack the strength and the will to actively confront the great democratic challenges of the next 20 years: the establishment of a truly democratic system, at national but also at transnational level. A plea for more referendum rights in the hands of the citizens is never a plea against representative democracy. This would be a major misunderstanding, often deliberately peddled in political debate. Elements of direct democracy make the representative democracy even 8 more representative, since members of parliament in this way know best who they represent, what the citizens they are called upon to represent think and prefer. Direct democracy is also not to be confused with plebiscitary democracy, as is often the case in order to discredit institutionalised referendum rights. In fact, there is an essential difference: in direct democracy, we have a qualified minority of citizens (in Zurich less than 1 percent of those entitled to vote, in Switzerland generally between 1 and 2 per cent, in California with its 39.5 million inhabitants between 3 and 5 percent) who have the right to bring laws or changes to the Constitution decided by parliament to a popular vote, and they can also submit their own proposals for ordinary and constitutional law. In a system with plebiscite voting, these rights are vested only in a few institutional bodies: in France in the president of the republic, in Australia in the parliament, in Denmark the Constitution lays down exhaustively on which issues the citizens must be consulted. Finally, in dictatorial systems, despots such as Napoleon III, Hitler, Pinochet and so on appropriated this privilege in order to gain some legitimacy they did not have on the basis of the consent of a democratically elected parliament. As a rule, plebiscitary elements are not very democratic and only complement an authoritarian system of government. Direct-democratic rights, on the other hand, are rights that complement representative democracy, increase citizens' freedom of action, demonopolise political decisions, distribute part of the political power and profoundly transform political culture. It is decisive that a minority of citizens can request such a popular vote at any time by following the procedure laid down, i.e. the right to question all fellow citizens on a specific issue or rule, before it comes into force as a legal norm. This is the pivot for transforming political culture, i.e. the right of a minority of citizens to be able to address all citizens with a precise and specific question. It is direct democracy that provides this right, which allows political minorities to articulate their own proposals. They can 9 put issues on the public agenda that would otherwise be ignored or passed over in silence. This also transforms the structure of the media and the political debate itself. If everyone has a voice in politics, everyone must feel interested and taken seriously. Because democracy does not only mean the right to articulate an opinion, it should also allow a serious proposal to be heard, discussed, taken into consideration. Direct democracy reduces hierarchies because it increases the possibilities of binding political action by citizens. Because many more people are politically active, there is more public debate on many different issues and in many different places. And this means that many more people can inform themselves, understand and participate. So it is justified to say that a society with direct democracy can develop its political potential better than a political system in which only politicians rule. We all know that this is precisely the challenge if we want to create a lifelong learning society with a more participatory democracy. The Swiss experience with direct democracy since 1866 has shown precisely this: anyone who considers direct democracy to be a democratisation of democracy must pay close attention to its concrete regulation in institutional and procedural terms. Unlike the regulations currently in force in many countries, the number of signatures to be collected must be small and the method of collection must be simple.