Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Political Science
Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration

Direct Democracy in Europe: Potentials and Pitfalls

Profile image of Arndt LeiningerArndt Leininger

2015, Global Policy

https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12224
visibility

…

description

30 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Diagnoses of a democratic recession or ‘hollowing out’ of democracy are numerous and varied but usually encompass the following symptoms: a decline in turnout and other forms of political participation; policy making that is increasingly detached from ordinary citizens and their preferences; and an erosion of trust in government and satisfaction with democracy among citizens – all of which ultimately challenge the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Direct democracy is one of the most prominent, far-reaching and popular remedies proposed in response to such diagnoses. It, by allowing citizens to directly vote on questions usually decided by representatives, seems intuitively appealing as an obvious extension and deepening of democracy. In this article I survey the potentials but also pitfalls of an increased institutionalization of direct democracy and use thereof in the countries of the EU focusing on the three key aspects identified above: representation, turnout and citizens’ political support.

Related papers

The role of direct democracy in the European Union
Lars Feld, Gebhard Kirchgaessner

In this paper, the introduction of direct-democratic decision-making in all EU decisions is considered when it is feasible without prohibitively increasing decision-making costs. We start with the contractarian argument that each constitution is a contract joining the citizens of a state and requires as such the explicit agreement of (a majority of) citizens. Thus, the future European Constitution as well as future changes of it should be decided by the European citizens. After a discussion of the pros and cons of direct democracy, the ability of direct democracy to help creating a European demos is discussed. Consequently, we propose a mandatory (required and binding) referendum on total and partial revisions of the European Constitution. In addition, we propose a constitutional initiative, a statutory and a general initiative as well as a fiscal referendum for financially important projects.

View PDFchevron_right
Direct Democracy: Chances and Challenges
Gebhard Kirchgaessner

This paper discusses several problems of direct popular decisions that are often overlooked in political and scientific debates. In the first part, we consider problems related to the functioning of direct democracy. As a political system, it only makes sense if there exists a continuous process and not if only occasional single questions are brought to a referendum. Then, the relation between direct democracy and the rule of unanimity is discussed, a subject of special relevance to the European Union, before we consider the role of quorums. In the second part, some areas are considered in which conflicts might arise. Results of initiatives might be incompatible with individual human rights or might endanger fiscal sustainability, and referenda might impede economic reforms. All these problems, however, do not justify a general rejection of direct popular rights. Thus, we conclude by listing several points that should be observed to safeguard the well-functioning of direct democracy.

View PDFchevron_right
The impact of direct democracy on policy change: insights from European citizens’ initiatives
Yannis Papadopoulos

Policy & Politics

Scholarship about both politics and policy tends to represent tools of direct democracy as veto points that are used to prevent policy change. In this study, we move beyond this unidimensional view and explain the conditions under which instruments of direct democracy can be conducive to policy change. We investigate both the direct and indirect effects of citizens’ initiatives to show that, under certain conditions, these can provide an opportunity for incremental yet potentially transformative policy change. We offer a systematic and comparative assessment of the policy effects generated by a set of European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs). ECIs provide an ideal setting for uncovering the potential indirect policy effects since they are not legally binding. Interestingly, some ECIs had tangible effects on EU policies, and these effects materialised over time and at different levels of the EU’s political system, and can be regarded as building blocks for potentially transformative pol...

View PDFchevron_right
Direct Democracy in Europe
Wilfried Marxer

2007

View PDFchevron_right
More or less equality? Direct democracy in Europe from 1990 to 2015
brigitte geißel

Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft

Within the last decades, western democracies have experienced a rise of inequality, with the gap between lower and upper class citizens steadily increasing and a widespread sentiment of growing inequalities also in the political sphere. Against this background, and in the context of the current "crisis of democracy", democratic innovations such as direct democratic instruments are discussed as a very popular means to bring citizens back in. However, research on direct democracy has produced rather inconsistent results with regard to the question of which effects referenda and initiatives have on equality. Studies in this field are often limited to single countries and certain aspects of equality. Moreover, most existing studies look at the mere availability of direct democratic instruments instead of actual bills that are put to a vote. This paper aims to take a first step to fill these gaps by giving an explorative overview of the outputs of direct democratic bills on multiple equality dimensions, analyzing all national referenda and initiatives in European democracies between 1990 and 2015. How many pro-and contra-equality bills have been put to a vote, how many of those succeeded at the ballot, and are there differences between country groups? Our findings show that a majority of direct democratic bills was not related to equality at all. Regarding the successful bills, we detect some regional differences along with the general tendency that there are more pro-than contra-equality bills. Our paper sheds new light on the question if direct democracy can serve as an appropriate means to complement representative democracy and to shape democratic institutions in the future. The potential of direct democracy in fostering or impeding equality should be an important criterion for the assessment of claims to extend decision-making by citizens.

View PDFchevron_right
Direct Democracy in the EU –The Myth of a Citizens’ Union. CEPS Paperback, November 2018
Jacek Kucharczyk

2018

The European Union has a democracy problem. The polycrisis that has plagued the EU for years has led to a cacophony of voices calling for fundamental change to the integration project. Yet despite the shock of the Brexit referendum and the electoral upsets caused by nativist parties across the continent, few of the plans for EU reform include concrete proposals to address the perennial democratic deficit. This book looks at how the relationship between citizens, the state and EU institutions has changed in a multi-layered Union. As such, it focuses more on polity than on populism, and does not engage deeply with policy or output legitimacy. Building on the notion of increasing social, economic and political interdependence across borders, this book asks whether a sense of solidarity and European identity can be rescued from the bottom up by empowering citizens to ‘take back control’ of their Union. Direct Democracy in the EU: The Myth of a Citizens’ Union is part of the 'Towards...

View PDFchevron_right
How is Democracy Applied within the EU: Combining Elements of Traditional and Innovative Democratic Practice
Hrvoje Butkovic

Politicka Misao, 2011

The EU represents a new and complex political system which, according to numerous social scholars, suffers from the so-called democratic deficit. The basic argument behind this claim is that citizens lack control of the EU because, within its political system, national parliaments of member states possess only limited powers which have not been adequately compensated through steady empowerment of the European parliament (EP). Starting from this notion, the paper will explore the application of various concepts of democracy within the political system of the EU. First and foremost, it will analyse representative democracy in the EU, which stands as a foundation of all contemporary democratic systems. However, the paper will not stop at representative democracy, but it will also look at participatory, direct and deliberative democracy as applied within the political system of the EU. These concepts of democracy can only be viewed in relation and as an addition to representative democracy, but their application is very important for the EU due to limited possibilities for developing representative democracy at the supranational level. The paper will argue that, with regard to participatory and deliberative democracy, the EU can be viewed in many respects as a showcase for the national level, because it successfully developed various mechanisms related to implementation of these concepts. Particular attention will be paid to the Lisbon Treaty, which clarified many uncertainties that previously burdened the application of democracy within the EU. It will be argued that with the Lisbon Treaty the classic argument about the EU's democratic deficit lost some of its appeal, because this treaty transformed the EP from secondary to equal participant in the EU's legislative process.

View PDFchevron_right
Referendums in Western Europe – A Wave of Direct Democracy?
Maija Setala

Scandinavian Political Studies, 1999

The aim of this article is to analyze the explanations for the increased number of referendums in Western European states. Bogdanor has explained this by the unfreezing of political alignments and institutions. After classifying referendums in 18 Western European states, it will be observed that especially the number of referendums introduced by citizens has increased wherever they are constitutionally provided, that is, in Italy and in Switzerland. Referendums in these two countries contribute most of the overall increase in the number of referendums in Western Europe. Moreover, the number of referendums concerning European integration have increased, also in states that do not have the referendum as an integral part of their political system. When it comes to the unfreezing of institutions, it must be pointed out that after the 1970s there have been no constitutional reforms which would have signi¢cantly increased the use of referendums.

View PDFchevron_right
Charting the rise (and fall?) of Direct Democracy in the European Union: How comparative federalism can help us understand the interplay of direct democracy and European integration
Mario Mendez

2009

for their comments. We also thank two anonymous referees for their extensive and insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Responsibility for any remaining errors and omissions rests entirely with the authors.

View PDFchevron_right
The future of democracy in Europe: trends, analyses and reforms
PHILIPPE SCHMITTER

CENTRAL …, 2006

This paper is a short version of a "Green Paper" that the author wrote for the Council of Europe, with Alexandre Trechsel. It includes a theoretical introduction which lays out the contemporary dilemmas of "Western-Liberal-Representative Democracy" and the trends that are affecting it. While the focus is on the national level, much of the analysis applies even more strongly to the EU level. Among the 29 recommendations for reform in the Green Paper the author inserts a detailed treatment of those specific reforms that he believes should be of greatest concern to the European Union. He pays special attention to the matter of EU "referendums and initiatives".

View PDFchevron_right

References (75)

  1. Aarts, Kees and Jacques Thomassen. 2008. "Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?" Electoral Studies 27(1):5-18.
  2. Achen, Christopher H. 1977. "Measuring Representation: Perils of the Cor- relation Coefficient." American Journal of Political Science 21(4):805.
  3. Achen, Christopher H. 1978. "Measuring Representation." American Jour- nal of Political Science 22(3):475.
  4. Aguiar-Conraria, Luís and Pedro C. Magalhães. 2010. "Referendum design, quorum rules and turnout." Public Choice 144(1-2):63-81.
  5. Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press.
  6. Altman, David. 2010. Direct Democracy Worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Altman, David. 2012. "Does an Active Use of Mechanisms of Direct Democ- racy Impact Electoral Participation? Evidence from the U.S. States and the Swiss Cantons." Local Government Studies 39(6):739-755.
  8. Armingeon, Klaus and Kai Guthmann. 2014. "Democracy in crisis? The de- clining support for national democracy in European countries, 2007-2011: Democracy in crisis?" European Journal of Political Research 53(3):423- 442.
  9. Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy. University of California Press.
  10. Bernauer, Julian and Adrian Vatter. 2012. "Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy." European Journal of Political Research 51(4):435-468.
  11. Bessette, Joseph M. 1997. The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democ- racy and American National Government. University of Chicago Press.
  12. Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan. 2002. "Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government." British Journal of Political Science 32(2):371-390.
  13. Burden, Barry C. 2005. "Institutions and Policy Representation in the States." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5(4):373-393.
  14. Butler, David and Austin Ranney, eds. 1994. Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Auflage: First edition ed. Washington, D.C: Amer Enterprise Inst Public Po. Centre for Research on Direct Democracy. 2014. "Direct Democracy Database.".
  15. Crouch, Colin. 2007. Post-democracy. Reprint ed. Cambridge [u.a.]: Polity Press.
  16. Dalton, Russell J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Dalton, Russell J and Martin P Wattenberg. 2000. Parties without partisans : political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  18. Dalton, Russell J., Wilhelm P. Burklin and Andrew Drummond. 2001. "Pub- lic Opinion and Direct Democracy." Journal of Democracy 12(4):141-153.
  19. Di Giacomo, Fabio. 1993. La décision des abstentionnistes. In Citoyenneté et démocratie directe, ed. Hanspeter Kriesi. Zürich: Seismo.
  20. Diamond, Larry. 2008. "The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State." Foreign Affairs (March/April 2008).
  21. Donovan, Todd and Jeffrey Karp. 2006. "Popular Support for Direct Democ- racy." Party Politics 12(5):671-688.
  22. Dryzek, John S. 2002. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Crit- ics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.
  23. Dyck, Joshua J. and Nicholas R. Seabrook. 2010. "Mobilized by Di- rect Democracy: Short-Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geog- raphy of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections*." Social Science Quarterly 91(1):188-208.
  24. Easton, David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry Into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.
  25. Easton, David. 1965. A Systems of Analysis of Political Life. First edition edition ed. John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Feld, Lars P. and Gebhard Kirchgaessner. 2001. "Does Direct Democracy Reduce Public Debt Evidence from Swiss Municipalities." Public Choice 109(3):347-370.
  27. Freitag, Markus and Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen. 2010. "Stumbling block or stepping stone? The influence of direct democracy on individual par- ticipation in parliamentary elections." Electoral Studies 29(3):472-483.
  28. Frey, Bruno S. and Alois Stutzer. 2000. "Happiness, Economy and Institu- tions." The Economic Journal 110(466):918-938.
  29. Gamble, Barbara S. 1997. "Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote." Amer- ican Journal of Political Science 41(1):245-269.
  30. Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. "Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives." American Journal of Political Science 40(1):99-128.
  31. Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton University Press.
  32. Golder, Matt and Jacek Stramski. 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Elec- toral Institutions." American Journal of Political Science 54(1):90-106.
  33. Gray, Mark and Miki Caul. 2000. "Declining Voter Turnout in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950 to 1997 The Effects of Declining Group Mo- bilization." Comparative Political Studies 33(9):1091-1122.
  34. Hagen, Michael G., Edward L. Lascher and John F. Camobreco. 2001. "Re- sponse to Matsusaka: Estimating the Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy Responsiveness." The Journal of Politics 63(04).
  35. Hajnal, Zoltan L. and Paul G. Lewis. 2003. "Municipal Institutions and Voter Turnout in Local Elections." Urban Affairs Review 38(5):645-668.
  36. Hero, Rodney E. and Caroline J. Tolbert. 2004. "Minority Voices and Citizen Attitudes about Government Responsiveness in the American States: Do Social and Institutional Context Matter?" British Journal of Political Science 34(01):109.
  37. Hug, Simon. 2004. "Occurrence and Policy Consequences of Referendums: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Evidence." Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(3):321-356.
  38. Hug, Simon. 2005. "The political effects of referendums: An analysis of institutional innovations in Eastern and Central Europe." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 38(4):475-499.
  39. Hug, Simon. 2011. "Policy Consequences of Direct Legislation in the States. Theory, Empirical Models and Evidence." Quality and Quantity 45(3):559-578.
  40. Hug, Simon and Franziska Spörri. 2011. "Referendums, trust, and tax eva- sion." European Journal of Political Economy 27(1):120-131.
  41. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. "Democracy's Third Wave." Journal of Democ- racy 2(2):12-34.
  42. IDEA. 2013. "Direct Democracy Database.". Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe. 2014. "Direct Democracy Nav- igator.".
  43. Kriesi, Hans-Peter. 2007. The Participation in Swiss Direct-Democratic Votes. In The Dynamics of Referendum Campaigns. An International Per- spective, ed. Claes H. de Vreese. Palgrave Macmillan.
  44. Lacey, Robert J. 2005. "The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Initiative Salience on Voting, 1990-96." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5(2):168-181.
  45. LeDuc, Lawrence. 2003. The politics of direct democracy: referendums in global perspective. Peterborough: Brooadview Press.
  46. Lupia, Arthur. 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections." The American Political Science Review 88(1):63-76.
  47. Lutz, Georg. 2007. "Low turnout in direct democracy." Electoral Studies 26(3):624-632.
  48. Mair, Peter. 2013. Ruling The Void: The Hollowing Of Western Democracy. London; New York: Verso.
  49. Marques de Bastos, Guilhermina. 1993. La selectivité de la participation. In Citoyenneté et démocratie directe, ed. Hanspeter Kriesi. Zürich: Seismo pp. 167-188.
  50. Matsusaka, John G. 2001. "Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative." Journal of Politics 63(4):1250-1256.
  51. Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  52. Matsusaka, John G. 2005a. "Direct democracy works." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(2):185-206.
  53. Matsusaka, John G. 2005b. "The eclipse of legislatures: Direct democracy in the 21st century." Public Choice 124(1-2):157-177.
  54. Matsusaka, John G. 2010. "Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantita- tive Approach." Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5(2):133-167.
  55. Matsusaka, John G. and Nolan M. McCarty. 2001. "Political Resource Al- location: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives." Journal of Law, Eco- nomics, and Organization 17(2):413-448.
  56. Mendelsohn, Matthew and Fred Cutler. 2000. "The Effect of Referendums on Democratic Citizens: Information, Politicization, Efficacy and Tolerance." British Journal of Political Science 30(04):669-698.
  57. Norris, Pippa. 1999. Critical Citizens : Global Support for Democratic Gov- ernment: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford University Press.
  58. Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cam- bridge University Press.
  59. Olken, Benjamin A. 2010. "Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Ev- idence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia." American Political Science Review 104(02):243-267.
  60. Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press.
  61. Powell, G. Bingham. 2004. "The Chain of Responsiveness." Journal of Democracy 15(4):91-105.
  62. Schlozman, Daniel and Ian Yohai. 2008. "How Initiatives Don't Always Make Citizens: Ballot Initiatives in the American States, 1978-2004." Political Behavior 30(4):469-489.
  63. Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic innovations: designing institutions for citizen participation. Theories of institutional design Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press.
  64. Smith, Mark A. 2002. "Ballot Initiatives and the Democratic Citizen." Journal of Politics 64(3):892-903.
  65. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle and Adrian Vatter. 2012. "Does Satisfaction with Democracy Really Increase Happiness? Direct Democracy and Indi- vidual Satisfaction in Switzerland." Political Behavior 34(3):535-559.
  66. Szczerbiak, Aleks and Paul Taggart. 2004. "The Politics of European Ref- erendum Outcomes and Turnout: Two Models." West European Politics 27(4):557-583.
  67. Thomassen, Jacques and Carolien van Ham. 2014. "Failing Political Repre- sentation or a Change in Kind? Models of Representation and Empirical Trends in Europe." West European Politics 37(2):400-419.
  68. Tolbert, C. J. 2005. "The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout." American Politics Research 33(2):283-309.
  69. Tolbert, Caroline J., Daniel C. Bowen and Todd Donovan. 2009. "Initiative Campaigns Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization." American Politics Research 37(1):155-192.
  70. Tolbert, Caroline J., John A. Grummel and Daniel A. Smith. 2001. "The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States." American Politics Research 29(6):625-648.
  71. Torgler, Benno. 2007. The Impact of Direct Democracy and Local Autonomy on Tax Morale in Switzerland. Working Paper 06-2007 Institute of Local Public Finance.
  72. Trechsel, Alexander H. 2007. "Inclusiveness of Old and New Forms of Citi- zens' Electoral Participation." Representation 43(2):111-121.
  73. Universität Bern. 2014. "SWISSVOTES -Die Datenbank der eid- genössischen Volksabstimmungen.".
  74. Wagner, Alexander F., Friedrich Schneider and Martin Halla. 2009. "The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe -A panel analysis." European Journal of Political Economy 25(1):30-41.
  75. Weck-Hannemann, Hannelore and Werner W. Pommerehne. 1989. "Einkom- mensteuerhinterziehung in der Schweiz: Eine empirische Analyse." Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 125(4):515-556.

Related papers

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: ADVANTAGES, LIMITS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN A DIVIDED SOCIETY
Alexandru-Ionuț Drăgulin

Revista Română de Studii Eurasiatice, 2019

One of the most important research directions on the European Union is the direct democracy as a qualitative standard of the political regime. The involvement, in various forms, of citizens in the decision-making process at the European level is a subject that can be analysed from multiple perspectives. With the introduction of the European Citizens' Initiative in the Lisbon Treaty, the Union has had its first form of direct democracy. The most important principle of a participatory democracy is bringing more possibilities to participation and expand the forms in which citizens can express their political opinions. This article critically examines the procedure of the European Citizens' Initiative, based on two concepts intensively used in the studies related to this field: institutional accountability and checks-and-balances. The proposed hypothesis is that the success of the respective mechanism of including citizens in the adoption of public decisions, is conditioned by the compliance-by the central structures of the Union-of the two conditions listed above. On the other hand, the efficiency of citizen's involvement depends on their social cohesion and on the identification of the common factors that can bring different communities together.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a More Legitimate Form of Direct Democracy in the European Union
Francis Cheneval

2016

Page| 1 This is a policy brief in the bEUcitizen policy brief series. The bEUcitizen projectfunded by the European Union-set out to identify, investigate, discuss, and ameliorate the barriers to the active use of rights (and knowledge of duties, the concomitant to rights, in so far as there are any) by European citizens. The project aimed to provide a comparative overview and classification of the various barriers to the exercise of the rights and obligations of European Union citizens in the member states. Simultaneously, the project analysed whether and how such barriers can be overcome and the future opportunities and challenges the European Union and its member states face to further develop the idea and reality of European Union citizenship. Drawing on research conducted during the bEUcitizen project 1 , this policy brief explores existing as well as possible future mechanisms of plebiscitary and Direct Democracy in the European Union. The underlying premise is that democratic decision-making devices should be legitimacyenhancing. Legitimacy is a degree of acceptance of the polity, the government, and of its decisions by the citizens. Factual acceptance is not sufficient. The latter needs to be determined under justifiable conditions, minimally described as: access to alternative information, transparency, formal participatory equality 1 See bEUcitizen report Taking stock of the European Citizens Initiative: Current dynamics

View PDFchevron_right
Dilemmas of Direct Democracy: The European Union from Comparative Perspective
Vicky Triga

In recent decades Europe's political landscape has been marked by a notable rise in the use of mechanisms of direct democracy such as the referendum and the citizens' initiative. Our focus in this article is on the national referendums that are directly connected to the European Union (EU) integration process. These types of referendums are increasingly recognised by the scholarly community as the source of institutional instability across the wider EU polity. To explain the nature of this empirical puzzle is this article's main objective. However, instead of pursuing intra-EU comparisons, as does much of the literature, we adopt a comparative perspective on the EU that involves the explicit comparison with other polities. In doing so, we bring to the fore a neglected dimension in the study of EU referendum politics: the operation of federal political institutions. We contend that cross-polity comparison of EU forms of direct democracy with other polities reveal insights that suggest a number of institutional models to overcome the sources of the present instability.

View PDFchevron_right
DIrect DemocrAcy In europe: current DIScuSSIonS
Zoltán Tibor Pállinger

2014

In the last two decades direct democratic practices have spread globally. this development has enriched both scientific and political discourses. this increase is mostly attributed to processes of democratisation, european integration and the growing problems of democratic representation in an increasingly heterogeneous world of politics.1 the development of Hungary’s system of direct democracy fits this pattern because it is closely linked to the country’s democratisation and european integration, and the instruments were also used to overcome impasses created by representative politics.2 However, in this article emphasis is put not on Hungarian developments (which will be treated in the other articles of this volume) but on the broader discussions in europe which form the background against which developments and discussions in Hungary can be evaluated. the proliferation of direct-democratic instruments, however, was not met by adequate conceptual and theoretical progress. the fir...

View PDFchevron_right
Existing Direct Democracy Tools in the EU: The European Citizens' Initiative as an Improvable Effort
Simona Pronckute

Bring Back the Citizens! How to revive democratic participation for a citizens-led Europe, 2016

Direct democracy gives citizens an extraordinary opportunity to participate in the legislation process and grants them a maximum of political self-determination. Today the concept of direct democracy primarily refers to popular voting on specific issues and citizen empowerment. The Direct Democracy Navigator categorises the following instruments as tools of direct democracy: (i) Initiatives (citizen-initiated and veto-initiatives); (ii) Obligatory or mandatory referendums; (iii) Plebiscites. At the EU level, the preamble of the Lisbon Treaty stipulates the fundamental goal of promoting European democracy by providing the EU citizens with the opportunity to participate in the development of the EU, in order to “enhance the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union”. The Lisbon Treaty also recognises various forms of democratic participation in the EU and the importance of direct democracy. More specifically, article 11.4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) gives EU citizens the opportunity to invite the European Commission to make a legislative proposal with the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). Theoretically, the ECI can be defined as an important instrument of direct democracy, aiming to increase the EU’s legitimacy and foster the participation of European citizens at the European level. Nevertheless, a lot can be done to improve its impact on the quality of European democracy. This article argues that its shortcomings should serve as a learning tool to further improve instruments of direct democracy at the EU level.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Voter Turnout
  • Global Policy

    • Cited by

    When do consultative referendums improve democracy? Evidence from local referendums in Norway
    Jan Klausen

    International Political Science Review, 2019

    Consultative referendums may provide crucial information about public opinion but have received little attention in the literature compared with their binding counterparts. In this article, we analyse 221 Norwegian local consultative referendums on municipal amalgamation using the Venice Commission’s code on referendums. Much of the referendum literature suggests that consultative referendums are in fact binding. The municipal councils followed the outcomes of the referendums in most cases, but 14% chose to go against it. While the overall impression is that the outcomes of consultative referendums are seen as binding, the data indicate that ballot design may affect voters’ choice as well as council decisions. Although many democratic standards were met, the wording of questions and alternatives on the ballot paper were problematic in a number of cases – reducing the democratic value of the citizens’ advice.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved