Transcript Referendumdemocratie

“Direct democracy
– an introduction”
Presentation by Arjen Nijeboer of the forthcoming
book:
“Direct democracy – Facts and arguments
about the introduction of initiative and
referendum”
by Jos Verhulst w/ Arjen Nijeboer
Conference “Euromediterrean experiences in direct democracy:
deepening Europe’s democracy” – Barcelona, 23-24 February 2006
Subjects
1.
2.
3.
4.
Democracy and the referendum
The democratic person
Direct democracy in Switzerland
Social consequences of direct
democracy
5. Arguments against direct democracy
What is democracy?
• Democracy means “government by
the people”; the people are sovereign
• J-J Rousseau: laws have authority
because they are social contracts
between free and equal citizens
Other -cracies




Timocracy: the rich govern
Meritocracy: a moral elite governs
Theocracy: God governs
“Particracy”: the political parties govern
Belgian prime minister Verhofstadt, advocate of initiative and
referendum: “We live in a particracy, not a democracy”
But how do people make social
contracts?
Get together > Popular assembly!
• Ancient Greece (Pericles)
• Up to Middle Ages: Belgium,
Netherlands, Germany, Austria
Iceland, Spain, ….
• Still in Switzerland, Eastern US
states, …
Classical rights on the popular
assembly
•
•
•
•
Equality rule
Right of initiative
Majority Rule
Mandate rule
But as time progresses…
 Marketplace gets too small
 Too many decisions
So the popular assembly decides: a
small number of us should form a
permanent forum,
“a parliament”
An enforced mandate is no
mandate
• Citizens give a mandate to the parliament
on their own terms
• If they want to, citzens should be able to
take back their mandate on specific issues
• If they have to give a mandate against
their wishes, it is… theft
Does the majority of citizens want
possibility to decide themselves?
Yes:
 Germany: 84% (Kaina)
 UK: 84% (Telegraph)
 France: 82% (SOFRES)
 Netherlands: 80% (SCP and NIPO)
 USA: 68%, majority in all US states (POA)
Interesting: USA: the more referendums are
held in a state, the higher the percentage
of I&R advocates
Modern democracy
Two equal channels:
 Representative channel (parliament)
 Direct-democratic channel
Relation between the two channels?
 The parliament has the mandate to decide
as long as people do nothing
 If people collect xxx signatures, then the
mandate for this specific issue goes back to
the citizens, who decide directly
Main thesis:
The system of initiative and referendum is a modern form
of popular assembly.
It has all the features of the popular assembly.
But it is suitable for large states, large number of
decisions, and has a secret vote
In Swiss cantons, the step from popular assembly to
initiative and referendum was made consciously
Equality between parliament and
referendum:
 Referendum may be about any issue the
parliament is competent on
 Binding vote
 Normal majority decides – no turnout
quorums (mandate principle!)
 Citizens can launch own proposals (popular
initiative)
 Not too high signature quorum, free signature
gathering
Direct democratic states?






Switzerland
24 American states
German states (o.a. Hamburg, Bayern)
Italy: rejective referendum
Ireland: obligatory referendum
Denmark: obligatory referendum
The democratic person - 1
 Arguments against direct democracy not
only rational: instincts rooted in
fundamental distrust of other people
 Opponents to DD believe that people will
use DD to crush minorities, to take
unresponsible decisions which are very bad
for the general interest, etc.
 So opponents have a very specific theory of
motivation: individual is motivated
primarily by self interest; society is jungle
dominated by the strong (social darwinism)
The democratic person - 2
 The “jungle” view is not substantiated by
the evidence!




Blood doning in USA
Tax evasion in Switzerland
DD and minority rights in Switzerland
DD and taxes in USA
 However, “jungle” view is very dominant
because of materialism in science
 Even volunteers describe their commitment in
terms of self-interest, while this is not rational if
you look at actual behaviour
The democratic person - 3
 Abraham Maslow: democratic (DP) versus
authoritarian personality (AP)
 AP tend to see people in a hierarchy; those that are
higher and those that are lower; DP sees persons as
equal
 AP expects bad behaviour from people, DP expects
good or neutral behaviour
 AP generalizes superiority and inferiority in persons,
while DP sees these qualities related to very specific
talents and character traits
 AP craves for power because it is necessary to
survive in the jungle; DP does not need (much)
power
 AP sees other people as means to and end, objects to
be manipulated; DP respects other people
The democratic person - 4
Obvious relation between authoritarian
persons and the representative
system.
Direct democracy is the natural
enviroment for democratic, ‘selfrealizing’ persons.
Switzerland
 Obligatory referendum (1848):
constitutional changes, treaties
 Rejective referendum (1869): all
laws, 50.000 signatures
 Popular initiative (1891): all topics
except some fundamental human
rights, 100.000 signatures
 No plebiscites
Switzerland (2)
 200 referendums/year (all levels)
 531 federal referendums (1848-2004)
 187 obligatory
 152 rejective
 192 popular initiative
 Average turnout > 50% (elections: 40%!)
 Citizens are cautious:
 Popular initiatives: 10% adopted
 Rejective referendums: 50% of laws adopted
 Obligatory referendums: 73% of constitutional
change/treaty adopted
Switzerland (3)
2-4 national voting days/year
“Double yes”
Referendum booklet
Postal voting
Political radio/tv advertising banned
Vote on initiative may take several
years
 Initiative may be withdrawn (33%)






Proven effects of direct democracy
• More debate, more knowlegdable
citizens (Benz & Stutzer)
• More social capital, less tax evastion
(Frey)
• Better policy, higher economic growth
(Feld & Savioz)
• More efficient government, lower
budget deficits (several)
• Happier citizens! (Frey)
Arguments against direct
democracy
General:
• Arguments against referendums are
usually argumenst against democracy
as such
• Honest comparison between
representative system and direct
democracy
Arguments against direct
democracy (2)
 “Citizens aren’t capable”
 How can stupid citizens elect wise
parliamentarians?
 Rising education; modern work life requires
much skills
 Parliamentarians and citizens are both
generalists – both use information shortcuts
(NGO endorsements, scientists, media)
 People are sovereign – I have the right to waste
my own money
Arguments against direct
democracy (2)
 “Citizens are selfish – abolish taxes
but raise expenditures”
 DD lead to higher state expenditure
before WW II, to lower state expenditure
after WW II (Matsusaka)
 Tax raises are sometimes approved,
sometimes blocked
Arguments against direct
democracy (3)
 “Special interests win because of
money (California)”
 Gerber: influence of money is limited
(absent with initiatives)
 Switzerland: ban on political TV/radio
ads
 Matsusaka: comparison of polls to
initiatives shows: DD always compatible
with majority wish
Arguments against direct
democracy (4)
 “Minority rights will be threatened (death
penalty)”
 Polls: every minority wants DD
 Almost same internal division on minority issues
between members of ethnic minority and
majority
 Frey: no evidence in CH for destruction minority
rights through DD
 Death penalty both instituted (California) and
abolished (Ireland) by referendum. USA versus
Europe
Book avaliability
 In the course of 2006
 6 to 12 translations (spanish, english, german, french,
italian, dutch, polish, …)
 Spanish version in cooperation with Mas Democracia
(www.masdemocracia.org)
 Free online versions
 Check www.democracy-international.org