Meaning of Direct Democracy: Definition, Principles and Forms

The definition of democracy, and this comes straight from our good old school civics classes, which, I think is as portent a starting point as any, is Abraham Lincoln’s: “democracy” is government of the people, by the people, for the people. In other words, it is political self-government. Logically then the purest form in which this idea could be materialized has to be direct democracy. But before we jump to this conclusion we need to look at the core idea behind democracy itself and see in what way direct democracy comes across as a structural expression of that idea versus other instruments or variations.

Theo Schiller ^[1] describes the following five principles of democracy:

1. Basic human freedoms and rights.

2. Political equality/equal political participation.

3. Open power structure.

4. Rationality (transparency, efficiency).

5. Effectivity.

Schiller^[2] further says that of these principles, political equality is the most “democratic” one; it means that each citizen is the source of all legitimacy and has the right to participate in decision-making. As any political system, democracy needs institutions and structures to act effectively in the political interest of all people. These can be institutions of direct democracy or of representative and responsible government. Quite often, absolute models of direct democracy and of representative democracy are polarised against each other. However, institutions can only be judged according to their relative capacity (relative value) to realize the intended principles. Some tensions between the various principles are likely when it comes to the choice of institutions.

The most debated tension is that between political equality (equality of participation) and rationality/efficiency plus effectivity. ^[3] This tension may be explicated as follows:

a) Representative government needs the equal right to vote for representatives as a democratic minimum. But beyond that, the principle of equality in political participation is not being met. Representation can only be justified as democratic for reasons of efficiency and effectivity of decision-making processes (time, costs, information processing etc.). Indeed, representative institutions imply relevant risks, particularly that of the elitist closing of the power structure, that of interest selectivity, and that of impairing the opportunities for popular political participation.

b) Direct democracy as an institution (defined as initiative and referendum) gives all citizens the right to decisive voting on political issues and therefore comes as close as possible to the principle of political equality. However, the numbers of citizens engaged, issues of territorial extensions and resulting problems of communication will lead to efficiency deficits in direct democracy. General political communication and deliberation on issues may not reach the intensity they may reach in small organisations or meetings. However, in the citizens’ arena of direct democracy, a large number of citizens can obtain a high level of information and reflect on important arguments, which usually does not happen through democratic representative bodies.

The 2009 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy – organized by two global non-oartisan, non-profit organizations viz The Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe (IRI Europe) and the Korea Democracy Foundation (KDF) dealing exclusively with the challenging issue of a democratized democracy categorizes all modern forms of direct democracy into the following^[4]

1. The Initiative. The initiative is the right of a minority, normally a specified number of citizens, to propose to the public the introduction of a new or renewed law. The decision on the proposal is made through a popular vote. Note that the agenda initiative fits into this type of procedure only with respect to its initial phase. What happens next is decided by a representative authority. Under this catergory we have the following sub-categories:

a. Citizens’initiative (popular initiative): This procedure is initiated by a prescribed number of eligible voters. The sponsors of a popular initiative can force a referendum vote on their proposal (assuming that their initiative is formally adopted); they may also withdraw their initiative (if there is a withdrawal clause). This procedure may operate as a means of innovation and reform: it allows people to step on the gas pedal. In principle, initiatives enable people to get what they want.

b. Citizens’initiative + authorities’counter proposal: The authorities have the right to formulate a counter proposalwithin the framework of a popular initiative process. Both proposals are then decided on simultaneously by popular vote. If both proposals are accepted, the decision on whether the original proposal or the parliament’s counter-proposal should be implemented can be made by means of a special deciding question.

c. Agenda initiative (popular initiative proposal): The agenda initiative is the right of a specified number of eligible voters to propose to a competent authority the adoption of a law or measure; the addressee of this proposal and request is not the whole electorate but a representative authority. In contrast to the popular initiative, it is this authority who decides how to handle the proposal. An agenda initiative can be institutionalized in a variety of ways; for example, as an agenda initiative without popular vote, as an agenda initiative followed by a consultative or binding plebiscite, or as a popular motion “(Volksmotion”). The popular motion can be the equivalent of a parliamentary motion; if adopted, it can also be treated as a popular initiative (this is the case in the canton of Obwalden).

d. Authorities’minority initiative: The authorities’ minority initiative is initiated by a minority of a representative authority (e.g. one third of the parliament), who can put its own proposal on the agenda and let the people decide on it.

a. Referendum A referendum is a direct-democratic procedure which includes popular vote on substantive issues (ballot proposal) such as, for instance, a constitutional amendment or a bill. The voters have the right to either accept or reject the ballot proposal. The procedure is triggered either by law (i.e. obligatory referendum) or by a specified number of citizens (i.e. popular referendum) by a minority of a representative authority (i.e. authorities’ minority referendum).

b. Popular or citizen-initiated referendum. This procedure refers to the right of a specified number of citizens to initiate a referendum and let the whole electorate decide whether a particular law should be enacted or repealed. This procedure acts as a corrective to the parliamentary decision-making process in representative democracies and as a check on the parliament and the government. The people (i.e. those with the right to vote) have the right to rule on decisions made by the legislature. Whereas the popular initiative works like a gas pedal, the popular referendum gives people the option to step on the brake.

c. Popular referendum + counter-proposal. This procedure combines a popular referendum against a decision by an authority with a referendum on a counterproposal. If both proposals are accepted, the decision between the two can be made by means of a deciding question.

d. Referendum proposal. Referendum proposal refers to the right of a specified number of eligible voters to propose the calling of a popular vote. The proposal is addressed to a representative authority (usually the parliament - local or national) who then decides on further course of action.

e. Obligatory referendum. A law (usually the constitution) requires that certain issues must be presented to the voters for approval or rejection. A conditional obligatory referendum means that a specified issue must be put to the ballot only under certain conditions (e.g. if more than half but less than four-fifths of the parliament accept the proposal). An unconditional referendum occurs without exceptions.

f. Authorities’ minority referendum This procedure refers to the right of a minority of a representative authority to put a decision made by the majority of the same authority before the voters for approval or rejection. This procedure enables the minority group to step on the brake and give the final say to the voters.

g. Authority controlled popular vote (Plebiscite). A public consultation controlled “from above,” a plebiscite is a procedure in which “powers that be”(e.g. the president, prime minister or the parliament) decide when and on what subject the people will be asked to give their opinion. Usually, such polls are merely consultative (i.e. their results are not formally binding on the parliament or government). In reality, plebiscites serve as instruments which those in power use in an attempt to reinforce or salvage their own power with the help of the people.

Although the Global Forum on Direct Democracy has not listed it, some authors and commentators consider recall as an instrument of direct democracy. Like Biran Beedham says, “Another instrument of direct democracy is the “recall”, a process by which the voters can dismiss an elected politician before his term of office has expired if they do not think he is doing the job well enough. It is used in California, where it recently led to the removal of a rather plodding governor and so enabled Arnold Schwarzenegger to take his place. Some Latin American countries employ the power of recall, and a few of Switzerland’s cantons also possess it. Yet the recall procedure is a rather diluted form of direct democracy. It cancels the election of a representative, but it then leads to the election of a new representative in his place. It does not directly step into the business of law-making, as real referendums and initiatives do”. ^[5]

Evolution of Direct Democracy: From Athens to Zurich

The earliest known direct democracy is said to be the Athenian democracy in the 5th century BC, although it may be argued that it was not a true democracy because women and slaves were excluded from it. The main bodies in the Athenian democracy were the assembly, composed by male citizens, the boule, composed by 500 citizens chosen annually by lot, and the law courts composed by a massive number of juries chosen by lot, with no judges. The Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that, decisions were made by the assembled people, but also in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and law courts controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business. Modern democracies do not use institutions that resemble the Athenian system of rule. ^[5]

Modern-era citizen lawmaking began in the towns of Switzerland in the 13th century. In 1847, the Swiss added the "statute referendum" to their national constitution. They soon discovered that merely having the power to veto Parliament's laws was not enough. In 1891, they added the "constitutional amendment initiative". The Swiss political battles since 1891 have given the world a valuable experience base with the national-level constitutional amendment initiative In the past 120 years, more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum.

The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of these initiatives; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government. Another example is the United States, where, despite being a federal republic where no direct democracy exists at the federal level, almost half the states (and many localities) provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures" or "ballot questions") and the vast majority of the states have either initiatives and/or referendums. ^[6]

In Switzerland, the facultative referendum was instituted in 1874, giving 50,000 citizens (today) the right to call for a popular vote on any legal act passed by Parliament. In 1891, the constitutional amendment was introduced whereby (today) 100,000 citizens can submit an amendment and have a referendum unless Parliament accepts the proposal. Between 1898 and 1918 in the United States, in 22 states the Populist movement against corporate oligarchies secured the institution of initiative and referendum (and quite often also recall provisions). In later years, this number of states increased to 27. All states except Delaware also have the mandatory referendum for amendments to the Constitution (more on this in the article by Dane Waters). ^[7]

In many European countries, the period immediately following World War I saw the opening of major democratisation developments and the setting up of democratic constitutions, often as breakthroughs in the equal electoral voting right (for men and, in most cases, also for women). In several states, democracy was supported by provisions for initiative and referendum or safeguarded by mandatory referendum for constitutional amendments. Here are some examples:

• Denmark: constitutional referendum mandatory (1915);

• Germanyʼs Constitution of 1919 included provisions for initiative and referendum. Of the many initiatives, only very few reached the ballot due to a high signature threshold (10 % of registered voters), and none could successfully meet the 50% turnout requirement. The Presidentʼs option to call referendums on parliamentary legislative acts or on the budget has never been used;

• Estonia practised several constitutional referendums 1932-36;

• Ireland safeguarded her constitution of 1937 with a mandatory referendum;

• Latin America - some countries assisted their breakthrough to democracy by means of direct democracy, e.g. Chile, which instituted and practised a constitutional referendum in 1925, as did Uruguay on several occasions after the authoritarian periods of 1917-1946.

Today United States of America is experiencing an increasing trend towards direct democracy. The initiative process operates in twenty-four American states, and almost all states have a version of the referendum.33 At the local level, over half of all American cities, covering about seventy percent of the national population, are estimated to have an initiative process. Nearly all American cities have the referendum. ^[8]

But of course the best example of direct democracy is Switzerland where 50,000 signatures on a petition--roughly 1% of the total number of qualified voters--are enough to insist that parliament must submit a proposed new countrywide law to a vote of the whole people. Twice that number of signatures will put a brand-new idea for a law, an initiative, to the people’s decision, even if the government is against it.

The issues addressed through direct democracy are as notable as the frequency of its use. Across United States, ballot propositions tackled profound issues of individual rights and public policy. In recent decades, Californians passed controversial measures that drastically cut property taxes, ended racial preferences, protected the environment, and funded stem cell research. In 2000, Colorado voted on propositions addressing abortion, medical marijuana, gun ownership, and education funding. Between 1998 and 2008, citizens in nearly thirty states passed measures banning same-sex marriage, including California, where the measure at issue, Proposition 8, prompted demonstrations and an ongoing legal battle. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, eight states in 2006 passed propositions restricting eminent domain. ^[9]

Direct Democracy Vs Representative Democracy: So what’s really the difference?

A poll conducted by Gallup International in 2005 among 50,000 people in 60 countries found that 63% of them thought their political leaders dishonest, 60% reckoned that they had too much power, 52% that they behaved unethically, and 39% that they were not competent to do their jobs. The sting was even sharper because in every respect those polled thought that businessmen were less bad than politicians. The greatest cynicism was in Latin America, Africa and the Indian subcontinent. But even in western Europe, the most tolerant area, 46% thought their politicians dishonest (and it was 76% in Germany). Only in France were voters more willing, by a margin of about 10 percentage points, to tip their caps to the people at the top. ^[10] The growing cynicism amongst people about politicians who are supposed to represent their interests has translated into an ever growing inclination to the instruments of direct democracy.

The power to select representatives and punish them retrospectively through de-selection, in the system of representative democracy gives electors a certain influence in enforcing their interests. In between the elections however the representatives are free to vote in the public policies they and not what the electors want. Direct democracy on the other hand involves electors in directly selecting the policies which suit them. In this comparison direct democracy emerges quite clearly as the more democratic alternative. Recognition of this is what has driven movements for radical constitutional reform which aim at institutionalising direct policy-voting in the shape of referendums and initiatives. ^[11]

Cooter and Gilbert^[12] point out to a significant difference in the two models of democracy. Direct democracy and representative government differ fundamentally in this respect: Direct democracy encumbers political bargaining,while representative government facilitates it. Hundreds of thousands of scattered citizens cannot effectively bargain with each other over public policies, yielding on one issue in exchange for support on another. By contrast, legislators can bargain and compromise with one another by taking advantage of their small numbers, as well as committees, agendas, procedural rules, and political parties. In the language of economics, the transaction costs of bargaining are much higher in direct democracy than in representative government. Consequently, political bargaining usually produces better results in the legislature than in the initiative process.

Representative model works in large countries essentially on the system of political parties which has no role in direct democracy as people do not need to conform with popular opinions. Typically radical populist movements seek to exclude parties and other intermediary institutions from direct democracy seeing them as intrinsically bound up with the representative system – barriers to rather than facilitators of popular expressions of opinion Some political commentators^[13] have argued that this is ironic since parties in the modern period have been the agents which transformed representative democracy from a system for electing proxy decision-makers into one which puts policy-decisions directly before the electorate. They have done this by disciplining their Parliamentary representatives into acting as a single voting block committed to the medium term policy programme central to their efforts to attract votes. Candidates are no longer elected on their personal merits but on the basis of their willingness to support the policy programme. One can question to what extent this assumption hold good in reality. In addition to party cohesion which is always a matter of doubt, representatives may also compromise in order to achieve other objectives, by passing combined legislation, where for example minimum wage measures are combined with tax relief. In order to satisfy one desire of the electorate, the representative may have to abandon a second principle. In direct democracy, each issue would be decided on its own merits, and so "special interests" would not be able to include unpopular measures in this way.

Advantages and dis-advantages of Direct Democracy:

A principal feature of direct democracy is that it limits the influence of numerically small but politically powerful pressure groups. The direct vote of the citizens reduces the influence of special interest groups by automatically weighing the interest of the smaller group against that of the majority.

The most potent form of direct democracy, voters' initiatives, is today practiced primarily in Switzerland and at the state level in the United States. Some proponents^[14] of direct democracy argue that citizens there typically end up paying less taxes. The Swiss who have the best system of direct democracy enjoy the highest income and the lowest taxes of Europe.

Table I Swiss and European taxes

Country	Total tax receipts as % of GDP	Highest rate central gmnt. income tax
Switzerland	32.5	13.2
United Kingdom	37.3	40.0
European Community average	40.8	53.1
OECD average	38.4	49.0

Source: OECD in Figures June/July 1991

In America, the most famous of all initiatives was Proposition 13 in California in 1978. In spite of opposition from both political parties and most public officials, the voters decided to cut property taxes by 57%, from USD 12 billion to USD 5 billion and restrict increases in the future. Similar proposals were later enacted in other American states.

By its very nature direct democracy and especially the initiative, tends to unbundle decisions since it enables individual citizens to vote separately on each issue. Bundling tends to reduce the general welfare. Any system that enables unbundling is thus a superior system. Direct democracy allows unbundling and is thus superior to a purely representative system.

The UNDESA Conference gives a useful comparison of the arguments for and against direct democracy. ^[15]

Criticisms of Direct Democracy with Counter- Arguments to Them

	CRITICISMS	RESPONSE
1	General Elections already let citizens choose between alternative governments and programs	Many issues are not discussed at General Elections so if the people are to decide they need to vote on them directly
2	It is impossible to have direct debate and voting in modern democracies	Even postal ballots and the print media let alone two-way communication devices allow interactive debate and voting among physically separated citizens
3	Ordinary citizens do not have the education, interest, time, expertise and other qualities required to make good political decisions	Politicians do not necessarily show expertise and interest. Participation expands citizen capacities. Citizens currently spend a lot of time informing themselves about politics through TV and radio
4	Good decisions are most likely to be produced where popular participation is balanced by expert judgment. This is representative democracy where citizens can indicate the general direction policy should take but leave it to be carried out by professionals	Expertise is important but not infallible. In any case it can inform popular decisions. Modern representative (party) democracies are heavily imbalanced against popular participation.
5	Those who vote against a particular decision do not give their consent to it, particularly if the same people are always in the minority.	The problem is general and not confined to direct democracy. Voting on issues one by one gives minorities more voice.
6	No procedure for democratic collective decision-making can be guaranteed not to produce arbitrary outcomes.	Such problems are generic to democratic voting procedures. Voting on dichotomous questions one by one (the usual procedure in popular policy consultations) does however eliminate cyclical voting and guarantees a median.
7	Without intermediary institutions (parties, legislatures, governments) no coherent, stable or informed policies will be made. Direct democracy undermines intermediary institutions including parties.	Direct democracy does not have to be unmediated. Parties and governments could play the same role as in representative (party) democracies today.

Democracy: Does direct democracy uphold democratic principles?

a) Direct democracy promotes democratic principles. Initiatives, recalls, and referenda are the ultimate opportunity to the citizens to say "Hang on a minute, this is not in my interest at all", and for citizens to directly shape the policies that affect them. This is the ultimate form of democracy, and is certainly more democratic than a pure representative democracy.

b) Political parties are unfortunate consequence of rep. democracy. The formation of political parties is considered by some to be a "necessary evil" of representative democracy, where combined resources are often needed to get candidates elected. However, such parties mean that individual representatives must compromise their own values and those of the electorate, in order to fall in line with the party platform. In direct democracy, political parties have virtually no effect, as people do not need to conform with popular opinions.^[5]

c) Direct democracy checks the tendency toward package deals. Given that voters decide on single issues instead of a package of policies that might not fully be in the voters' interests, the people are freer to choose what is the best for them. In a representative democracy, however, these package deals are usually comprehensive programmes that are altered after the elections are held. That means that politicians from the parties that form a government are free to choose which part of each package works the best - for them.

I. Accountability: Does direct democracy improve accountability?

a) Rep democracy is less accountabile than direct democracy. Once elected, representatives are free to act as they please. Promises made before the election are often broken, and they frequently act contrary to the wishes of their electorate. Although theoretically it is possible to have a representative democracy in which the representatives can be recalled at any time; in practice this is usually not the case.

b) Direct democracy avoids appointment of unaccountable officials. Elected individuals frequently appoint people to high positions based on their mutual loyalty, as opposed to their competence. And, these appointed officials are not appointed by citizens and cannot be recalled by them. In a direct democracy, these officials would be elected by, and could be recalled by, citizens. This means that these officials are much more accountable to citizens and the democratic process.

II. Corruption: Does direct democracy help combat corruption?

a) Direct democracy generally reduces the risks of corruption. The concentration of power intrinsic to representative government is seen by some as tending to create corruption. In direct democracy, the possibility for corruption is reduced.

b) Rep government can lead to conflicts of interest. The interests of elected representatives do not necessarily correspond with those of their constituents. An example is that representatives often get to vote to determine their own salaries. It is in their interest that the salaries be high, while it is in the interest of the electorate that they be as low as possible, since they are funded with tax revenue. The typical results of representative democracy are that their salaries relatively high

CONCLUSION:

Politics,” Ambrose Bierce once said, is” a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles, the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” So believe the proponents of direct democracy who sought to remedy the perceived corruption and stagnancy of legislatures by empowering the citizenry itself to make laws. There’s an intuitive goodness and logic in the premises of direct democracy. Unhappily though this supplement to representative democracy is not itself free from attack. Bierce himself noted one potential problem with it when he defined “referendum” as “a law for submission of proposed legislation to a popular vote to learn the nonsensus of public opinion.”

In recent years, the worldwide use of direct-democratic instruments have been shaped by a series of powerchallenging popular votes in Asia, Europe and Latin America. We have seen the totalitarian regimes of Egypt and Libya tumble down and out of their years of frozen history in what can only be called massive surges of direct democracy though the ways in which they panned out may not exactly subscribe to the stated methods of direct democracy. But we are surely witnessing the unfolding of the most exiting times for systems of political governance that people world all over want to choose for themselves.

REFERENCES:

1. Direct Democracy in Modern Democratic Evolution, Theo Schiller, International Symposium on Initiatives, Referendums and Direct Democracy(2003)

2. Ibid, Session -1, p-3

3. Ibid, Session- 1, p-4

4. Global Direct Democracy Passport, Global Forum on Direct Democracy, Seoul, Korea(2009) The Case for Direct Democracy, Brian Beedham(2006)

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

6. Ibid.

7. Direct Democracy in Modern Democratic Evolution, Theo Schiller, International Symposium on Initiatives, Referendums and Direct Democracy(2003)

8. A Theory of Direct Democracy and Single Subject Rule, Robert Cooter & Michael Gilbert, Columbia Law Review, Volume 110, April, 2010, p-695

9. Ibid, p-697

10. The Case for Direct Democracy, Brian Beedham(2006), p-1.

11. Direct and Representative Democracy: Are they necessarily opposed? , UNDESA International Conferenec on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, Australia( August 14-17,2005)

12. A Theory of Direct Democracy and Single Subject Rule, Robert Cooter & Michael Gilbert, Columbia Law Review, Volume 110, April, 2010, p-689

13. Direct and Representative Democracy: Are they necessarily opposed? , UNDESA International Conferenec on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, Australia( August 14-17,2005)

14. http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm

15. Direct and Representative Democracy: Are they necessarily opposed? , UNDESA International Conferenec on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, Australia( August 14-17,2005)

§ http://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/democracy.php

§ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

§ http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/dirdemoc.html

§ http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm

§ http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021106.pdf

§ http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Direct_democracy#Electronic_direct_democracy

§ debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Direct_democracy

Received on 26.09.2011

Revised on 20.10.2011

Accepted on 20.12.2011