Direct Democracy in Europe: Developments and Prospects (Direct Democracy in Modern Europe)

Direct Democracy in Europe: Developments and Prospects (Direct Democracy in Modern Europe) [Zoltán Tibor Pállinger, Bruno Kaufmann, Wilfried Marxer.
Table of contents

When you click on a Sponsored Product ad, you will be taken to an Amazon detail page where you can learn more about the product and purchase it. To learn more about Amazon Sponsored Products, click here. Would you like to tell us about a lower price? If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support? Learn more about Amazon Prime. Read more Read less. Prime Book Box for Kids. Sponsored products related to this item What's this? Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. Improving Our Standard of Living: A book about improving the human condition.

Topics include poverty, inequality, sustainability, corruption, life extension, religion, and more. The Dandelion Insurrection Study Guide: Learn the nonviolent tools of Gandhi and King and apply them in your community.

A practical guide to making The Dandelion Insurrection real! Feeling stressed and overwhelmed with anxiety? Get effective tools in your arsenal to beat procrastination, get more done and claim your life back!


  • Man Walks Into A Bar 2.
  • direct democracy | Definition, History, & Facts | leondumoulin.nl.
  • Bertrum & Goldstein: Book I of the Table of Knights & The Seven Systems;
  • Direct Democracy in Europe: Developments and Prospects - Google Книги.
  • direct-democracy-in-europe-developments-and-prospects.

Architecture of a Technodemocracy: The Way To Lasting Success: What if you are able to master your inner state on consistent basis? Accelerate your thinking abilities through mental models used by super-achievers. A step by step practical guide to implementing stoic philosophy and face the modern life challenges with joy and wisdom. Review "Funktioniert direkte Demokratie nur in kleineren, konsensbasierten Systemen?

Direct Democracy in Modern Europe Paperback: Be the first to review this item Amazon Best Sellers Rank: In a more general perspective, the ensuing introduction or practical use of direct-democratic institutions originated from three major types of developments:. Modern democracy most often developed not from the starting point of assembly democracy but, under absolutist or feudal conditions, from people gradually claiming a larger share of political representation and extension of representative voting rights.

Thus, in many countries and theories, these principles have been tied to and absorbed by a narrow notion of representative democracy rather than being used to support a more comprehensive concept of democracy. Normative theory of direct democracy still rests basically on popular sovereignty, freedom, and political equality, with Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the outstanding theorist of unanimous consent of the people for a free republican constitution and subsequent forms of participation.

During the 19th century, these principles were increasingly challenged, or they were deprived of their substance beyond representative institutions.

So, in many countries, direct-democratic institutions have not been established or implemented since representative elites developed a strong interest in monopolizing power. In addition, pragmatic theories contended that direct democracy could not work under space and time conditions of large modern states.

With this background of historical and theoretical restrictions, the normative theory of direct democracy cannot exclusively rest on popular sovereignty, which is also claimed by representative democracy. More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative party democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome.

One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis.

Editorial Reviews

For instance, as political scientist George Tsebelis notes, referendum voters can be seen as an additional veto player. Some authors contend that direct democracy may undermine representative democracy, while others focus on the deliberative functions for a democratic public sphere and the capacity for integrating citizens in the democratic process.

One can also assume that basic types or forms of direct-democratic procedures may result in different consequences. Direct democracy comes in a variety of institutional forms, with the common feature of procedures focusing on popular votes on political issues. Their main forms can be distinguished by the actors who start the procedure. Mandatory referendums have to be held when a referendum vote is required by law e.


  • Workplace Diversity: Does Not Mean Equal Opportunity, Equal Growth, and Equal Advancement?
  • Product details?
  • History and theoretical context.
  • .
  • Direct Democracy in Europe: Developments and Prospects - Google Книги!

Referendums of governmental authorities take place when a president, cabinet, or legislature decides, under preregulated conditions or ad hoc, to call a popular vote on a particular issue. Sometimes, a minority of a legislature also is entitled to demand such a vote.

Direct democracy

A popular vote may be binding according to the simple or specific majority or turnout requirements for a valid vote or may be defined as only consultative or advisory. Some jurisdictions provide an agenda initiative that allows citizens with the support of a minimum number of signatures to place a particular issue on the agenda of a government or legislative authority.

Such proposals have to be considered by the authority addressed, but they do not lead to a referendum vote. There are some ambiguity and controversy as to whether procedures with a focus on directly electing or recalling holders of public office executive positions, legislators may be meaningfully included in the concept of direct democracy. These procedures refer, in fact, to the institutional system of representative democracy and its typical processes and, therefore, are not at the core of debates on direct democracy.

However, there may be some differences in the degree to which voters have a direct influence on the final outcome of an electoral procedure e. In recall procedures, interrupting routine patterns of fixed office terms may stress the aspect of citizens reclaiming control of office functions.

In practice, recall options of executive office holders are much more common than of members of legislative bodies or of complete legislatures. Procedural types of direct democracy should be distinguished according to the main initiating actor of a procedure because they typically show different features regarding the agenda setter, the contents and wording of the proposal, the function of the ballot vote in terms of legitimation, innovation , and so on. Governmental authorities initiating a referendum vote generally seek legitimation for policies on the government agenda, will regularly advocate an affirmative vote, and will have many ways of influencing process and outcome, including official communication resources.

Therefore, the term plebiscite is often used, even more so when they are employed by autocratic or dictatorial regimes that cannot be called democratic at all. Mandatory referendums also very often originate from governmental authorities entitled to bring forward proposals for which ratification by a referendum vote is required, particularly in the case of constitutional amendments or matters of state sovereignty, territory, or identity. Thus, whereas a popular vote on such specific subjects is required by law, the agenda and the substance of the referendum proposal are most often determined by governmental authorities.

In such a setting, the political initiative comes from social or minority forces, whereas governmental authorities are likely to be in a defensive position and want to defeat the proposals in a referendum vote. Except for ad hoc referendum calls by governmental authorities, procedures of direct democracy, particularly citizen-initiated procedures, are regulated in various aspects. The area of admissible subject matters may be very restrictive; the number of signatures required for qualifying an initiative for a ballot vote may range from about 1 percent to one-third of eligible voters; and the time allowed for collecting signatures may be very short.

Global Passport to Modern Direct Democracy | International IDEA

Requirements for the validity of a popular vote may also vary from a majority of voters to qualified or double majorities or to specific turnout quorums. Usage will clearly be restrained by high initiating or validity requirements, and initiating actors with strong resources will be privileged.

Yet a higher level of approval may support the legitimacy of a vote. Provisions for direct-democratic instruments as well as their usage are distributed rather unevenly across continents, countries, and different levels of states. On the national level, procedures and usage are most frequent in Europe and Latin America , whereas in Africa, Asia, or North America their number is small. Switzerland traditionally has the most elaborated system of direct democracy at the national, cantonal, and municipal levels. More than one of the instruments of direct democracy are also provided for and practiced on the national level in Uruguay and, more recently, in some of the Eastern European countries such as Latvia and Lithuania.

On the national level in most other countries, basically one specific instrument stands out. In Austria the national parliament can call a vote used only once. In in the Fifth Republic of France, the president was given the right to call a referendum on important matters of sovereignty and state structure; one-fifth of the National Assembly in combination with 10 percent of the electorate can also do so.

In many countries, governmental authorities call referendums not on a preregulated but on an ad hoc basis. The subjects of these referendums have included accession to the European Economic Community or to the European Union EU , independence or national unity in Canada, and ratification of a new constitution or of an agreement for conflict or constitutional settlement in Bolivia, Chile, Kenya, Russia, Spain, and South Africa. The level of regional states within federations also offers important examples of direct democracy.

In the United States and in Germany, initiatives and referendums are available and frequently used on the municipal level as well. In systems of representative democracy, the introduction of instruments of direct democracy is not very likely, since they are regarded as undermining established power structures. The historical origins of direct-democratic institutions can be distinguished in typical paths:. From the first two paths, initiative instruments with lower requirements quite often emerged, whereas national independence often coincided with requirements stressing majoritarian unity.

The origins of referendums called by governmental authorities are much more dispersed, since they are mainly regarded as under government control and, thus, less dangerous to the governmental system. Issues of state independence, but also accession of states to supranational organizations such as the EU, very often are dealt with in government-initiated or in mandatory referendums. Discussions on direct-democratic institutions deal with several issues. The strongest normative grounds for direct democracy are the democratic principles of popular sovereignty, political equality, and all the arguments for participative democracy that support the idea that all citizens should have the right not only to elect representatives but also to vote on policy issues in referendums.

Since assembly democracy cannot be an option in modern societies outside Switzerland , direct-democratic institutions are regarded not as a full-scale system alternative to representative democracy but as a supplement to or counterweight within democratic systems with major representative features. Nevertheless, the institutional difference and competition between representative and direct-democratic processes lie at the core of the controversy whether direct democracy contributes to undermining representative democracy or can offer enrichments of democracy.

In general, representative democracy is often seen as superior because general elections give citizens an encompassing choice between alternative governments and complex and coherent programs, because governments and parliaments have greater capacity for informed decisions including expert judgment, and because representatives can be held accountable for their decisions.

Variety of forms and system environment

Arguments in support of direct-democratic instruments refer to various aspects:. Finally, if a larger share of citizens do not participate, but abstain from voting, legitimation problems in referendum votes may arise. In some jurisdictions, regulations respond by requiring a qualified majority for a valid vote in the form of turnout or approval quorums. One should keep in mind that government-initiated and government-controlled referendums may in many respects show distinct features from citizen-initiated procedures.

Government-driven instruments tend to be more influenced by policy projects and campaign capacities of central political authorities. Citizen-initiated procedures are more open for minorities, participation, innovation, and government control, yet they are less likely to succeed in the ballot vote. Nevertheless, as a process, they tend to offer a greater potential for supplementing and balancing the institutional shortcomings and power structures of representative democracy. Particularly in times of political crises, direct democracy can provide an important function in offering channels for reactivating popular sovereignty as the fundamental value and force of democracy.


  • Search form.
  • Reckless Angel?
  • .

This power of preserving the sources of popular sovereignty alone makes it worth while to keep direct democracy going under routine conditions of democracy. We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles. You can make it easier for us to review and, hopefully, publish your contribution by keeping a few points in mind. Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval.

Why Socrates Hated Democracy