“Direct democracy – an introduction”

1. “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

2. Subjects • Democracy and the referendum • The democratic person • Direct democracy in Switzerland • Social consequences of direct democracy • Arguments against direct democracy

3. 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

4. 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”

5. 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, …

7. Classical rights on the popular assembly • Equality rule • Right of initiative • Majority Rule • Mandate rule

8. 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”

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Direct democratic states? • Switzerland • 24 American states • German states (o.a. Hamburg, Bayern) • Italy: rejective referendum • Ireland: obligatory referendum • Denmark: obligatory referendum

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. The democratic person - 4 Obvious relation between authoritarian persons and the representative system. Direct democracy is the natural enviroment for democratic, ‘self-realizing’ persons.

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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%)

22. 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)

23. Arguments against direct democracy General: • Arguments against referendums are usually argumenst against democracy as such • Honest comparison between representative system and direct democracy

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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