The%20soul%20of%20Direct%20Democracy:%20Legitimation%20by%20communication%20The%20potentials%20of%20Direct%20Democracy%20to%20democratize%20Democracy

1
The soul of Direct DemocracyLegitimation by
communication The potentials of Direct Democracy
to democratize Democracy

• A presentation for Dutch MPs under
  post-EU-Referendum traumata
• by Andreas Gross (Switzerland)
• Director of the Scientific Institute for Direct
  Democracy in St.Ursanne and Swiss MP Member of
  PA of Council of Europe
• Ambassade van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in
  Bern
• 29 th of april 2006
• www.andigross.ch info_at_andigross.ch

2
1. Actual approach2. History of DD3.
Cornerstones of DD4. Design requirements5.
Central achievements6.Misunderstandings,
Conclusions, CH-Improve-ments and lessons from
the 1.6.05
3
I. We should overcome the banalisation of the
term Democracy

• Democracy enables us to be free.
• Freedom enables us to act together on our common
  life ( Life is not a destiny )
• Democracy constitutes the rules, rights and
  procedures to prevent conflicts to be solved
  violently
• Democracy is the only source for legitimate
  power

4
Representative democracy is an essential part
of Democracy. But it should not have the
monopole of D.

• Indirect Democracy enables you to vote your
  representatives
• Direct Democracy enables you to vote on important
  issues you dont want to leave to your
  Representatives

5
Direct Democracy is about people voting on
issues (Constitut. or legislat. changes)

• The Right to Vote on important issues creates a
  particular culture of democracy and changes the
  political and the communicative culture of a
  country
• (More substance, more alternatives, more
  differentiation, more deepness, more knowledge)

6
Direct Democracy makes politics more
communicative

• Citizens will try to convince each other
• In order to be convincing they have to listen
  and to speak with each other
• Public Discourses get more substance
• People see, hear and learn more
• A learning society may solve problems quicker
  and more in the interest of the people.

7
II.Modern DD was not made in CH - it was only
most practised in CH

• Assembly selfruling traditions in New England
  States 17.cent.
• Modern Referendum is a innovation of the French
  Revolution 1793
• Citizens Initiative An innovation of french and
  german Radical Democrats 1830ff

8
Modern DD was in CH and US an opposition
productBy the people for the people

• Liberal founders of modern CH from 1848 were
  elitists
• Many people feel themselves not representated by
  their parliament
• They created peoples movements who asked for the
  last word

9
III. The 3 cornerstones of modern Direct
Democracy

• Secret vote by ballot-box, mail or internet No
  assemblies
• Some citizens decide when all citizens may
  decide No plesbiscites
• Issues (const./legisl. Reforms) No personal
  decisions

10
DD is a set of participatorial citizens rights -
much more than just a referendum

• Const.Referendum (1848)
• Optional legislat. Referendum (1874)
• Const.pop.Initiative (1891)
• Threaty Referendum (1921/77/03)
• General/legislat. Initiative
• Konstruct.Referendum
• Financial Referendum

11
IV. Which are the basic (principal)products of
Direct Democracys best practices?

• Individ. / collective communicationdeliberations
  
• Multiple deliberations
• Collective learning potentials
• political openess et legitimate polity
• Identification with the DD process ( Democratic
  patriotism )

12
DD on local and regional level is a condition to
restore confidence in democracy in order to
constitute DD on the national level and Democracy
on the transnational and global level

• ? DD reduces apathy
• DD reduces cynism
• DD restores trust in yourself and others
• ? DD reduces the personalization of politics and
  opens the public sphere to the essential
  questions of the society and our times

13
V. The quality of the design of the process
determines the quality of the outcome and the
quality of the side - effects

• The design of the process is essential for the
   usefulness  of DD for any community.
• Each level (local, regional,national,
  transnational) requires a special design

14
Ex. for high quality DD-Design (I) Free
signature gathering

• Allows to address unknown fellow citizens
• Increases serious deliberation opportunities
• Protects anonymity
• Facilitates the meeting of other social groups
• Enforces the overcoming of preducies

15
Ex. for high quality DD-Design (II) Low
signature requirements

• DD is an instrument for those who are not
  powerful
• It helps to integrate minorities and diversity
• All hear and sea more when its easier not to be
  overlooked
• The Polity is more open and accessible for new
  ideas
• Unsolved problems may be less overlooked

16
Ex. for high quality DD-Design (III) No special
majority qualifications (quorums)

• Those, who take part, decide
• No invitations to play against the spirit of DD
• You have to convince, when you want to win
• The majority of those, who participated, decide

17
Ex. for high quality DD-Design (IV) No by
passing of the Parliament

• ID and DD are complementary
• ID and DD have to build up a cooperative culture
• Mutual Counterproposals increase the options
• Institutional deliberations increase
• the institutional learning and respondsivnes

18
VI. What DD is not

• Quick fix and fast food
• An instrument to rule the people
• No consultation or public relation
• No internet-forum

19
Wrong arguments against DD

• Too slow
• Too complicated
• Only digital answers
• Desinterest of citizens
• People are too busy

20
How the Swiss DD might be improved

• Public financing of the political parties
• More professional parliament
• Transparent and fairer campaigning
• Communal democracy houses
• More pluralistic regional and local press
• Building of transnational democracy

21
Lessons from the disappointing 1.6.2005
experience

• Too late, too few, too centralised,too official
• Ambiguity of the project
• More EU-self-criticism and
• dem/transnat/reform impetus is needed
• The society has to be engaged
• DD is more than a Plebisc.Referendum
• Once in a year is not enough