The double crises of todays democracies: Too indirect and too national we need more direct and more

1
The double crises of todays democraciesToo
indirect and too national -we need more direct
and more transnational democracies

• An introduction to a debate at the National
  Centre for Research on Europe at the University
  of Canterbury
• by Andreas Gross (Switzerland)
• Director of the Scientific Institute for Direct
  Democracy in St.Ursanne and Swiss MP Leader of
  the Social-Democrats in the Parliamentary
  Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)
• Christchurch, 19 th of June 2008
• www.andigross.ch info_at_andigross.ch

2
An overview of my presentation

• I. The banalisation of todays democracy/ies
• II. The (utopian) project of Democracy
• III. What more Direct Democracy would really mean
• IV. How transnational Democracy would look
  EU-Constitution and global democracy
  without a global state
• V. Could the Council of Europes experience serve
  as a source of inspiration for the global
  democracy building ?
• VI. Where is New Zeeland in all this ?

3
I. We should overcome the banalisation of the
terms Freedom and Democracy

• Democracy is more then a choice
• it enables us to be free.
• Freedom means, to act together
• on our common life
• ( Life is not a destiny )
• Democracy constitutes the rules,
• rights and procedures in order
• to prevent conflicts to be solved violently

4
II. The (utopian) project of Democracy

• To be able to participate in all decisions
• which concerns you !
• (procedural (design/institutional) challenge)
• Freedom is not a privilege !
• Democracy has to deliver to -
• enable all to be capable to act and to be free

5
III.Representative democracy is an essential
part of Democracy. But it should not have the
monopole of Democracy !

• Indirect Democracy (ID) enables you to vote your
  representatives
• Direct Democracy (DD) enables you to vote on
  important issues you dont want to leave to your
  Representatives
• The citizens should be able to decide, when they
  want to decide themselves - this would also make
  representative Democracies more representative !

6
The democratization of Democracy is an ongoing,
never ending processEvery democracy is
unfinished,DD is a little bit less unfinished
than ID !

• Democracy was reduced to represent. Democracy in
  a time, where most people couldnt read or write
  and were enable to make political judgments !
• Today modern citizens know often as much about
  politics as MPs They feel frustrated that ID
  excludes them and reduces them to objects instead
  of the subjects of politics.
• A society in which citizens feel excluded looses
  a enormous amount of creative potentials, misses
  collective learning options and undervalues
  itself !

7
A bit more Direct Democracy means that you share
more power with the citizens, the only source of
legitimate political power

• Nobody should have so much power, that he or she
  has the privilege not to have to learn...
• Sharing the political power, that means, giving
  2 of the citizens the power to ask for a
  Referendum on a law voted in the Parliament or a
  legisl.change they propose to the society, means
• Everybody has to listen more -
• Everybody tries to convince and to discuss
• Politics become softer, more inclusive and more
  communicative !

8
In order to avoid a alienation between the civil
society and its political system , Direct
Democracy has to be carefully designed !

• No quick fix Everybody (Citizens, MPs,
  administ., society) needs and gets the time they
  need
• A Referendum is a process over 2 - 4 years
• 1 year for the citizens, 1 year for GovParl.,
  1/2 a year for the Public debate and campaign !
• In order to share the power and not to be
  exclusive and make the system responsive you
  should ask more than 1 of the electorates
  signatures for a Referendum and not more than 2
  for a popular proposition (Initiative)
• No quorums They kill communication !

9
In a carefully designed DD you have to understand
real change as a collective learning process

• Everybody has the right to propose where and how
  he or she thinks changes are needed (Open Agenda
  Setting and Attention providing)
• More public debates and private discussions (the
  soul of DD) create a much better informed society
• The invitation to decide, creates a sense of
  belonging (Integration)
• The right to participate, reduces distances and
  increases identifications (Democratic
  patriotism)
• After you participated in the decision making,
  you are best qualified to implement the decision

10
IV. DD on local ( regional) and national level is
a way to restore confidence in democracy in
order to constitute Democracy on the European
and global level

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

11
Today the nation-state is too big for the small
things - to small for the big issues -Democracy
is today similar to the ruder of a boat,which
lies in the water, but the ruder does not touch
the water anymore!

• Thats why the EU/UN do not only need more
  democracy in order to be able and to get the
  legitimacy to do more and better,
• but democracy needs also Europe and the Globe,
  when it wants to deliver in a time of global
  markets !

12
Democratization of the EU means We have to
contribute to overcome the input part of the EU
legitimacy deficit, whose effects are dramatic

• No citizen participation (Feelings of
  Powerlessnes)
• Elite domination (Social Distance(D))
• Centralistic and bureaucratic (strc D)
• No common public sphere (comm D)
• No common identity (Cultural D)
• No feeling of togethernesness / common
  belonging (emotional D)

13
Lets not forget The quality of Direct
Democracy (DD) depends of its design - a well
designed DD contributes to

• Communication and Deliberation
• Sharing of power
• Public and individual learning
• Citizens acting and more transparency
• Integration of diversity by civic participation
• Legitimacy by convincing
• More identification, less distances
• More openness for other policies and actors

14
V. For building a global democracy we have to
choose between , or combine different
possibilities

• Getting inspired by the European Human Rights
  Convention (EHRC) with its individual right to
  bring your state to a international Court, but
  globalize and enlarge it (Non-state-powers, more
  then the classical freedom rights...)
• Make a global constitution which gives to every
  person a status without founding a world-state
  and destroying the citizenship in and the
  nation-state itself.
• Build a second/third chamber of MPs/NGOs in the
  UN-General Assembly, in order to give the People
  of the world really a representation...

15
V. Where is NZ in all this ?

• How much Direct Democracy you got with the
  Citizen Initiated Referendum (CIR) - not
  bin-ding, agenda-setting only, no new legal norm
  ?
• How big is the distance between citizens and the
  MPs - how representative is the
  NZ-representative democracy - does your political
  system realize the democratic potentials of your
  society ?
• How much motivation have the Nzders to act for a
  global democracy ? How much the Government would
  support them ?