The soul of Direct Democracy: Legitimation by communication The potentials of Direct Democracy to democratize Democracy A presentation for Dutch MP’s 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@andigross.ch

1. Actual approach 2. History of DD 3. Cornerstones of DD 4 1. Actual approach 2. History of DD 3. Cornerstones of DD 4. Design requirements 5. Central achievements 6.Misunderstandings, Conclusions, CH-Improve-ments and lessons from the 1.6.05

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

Indirect Democracy enables you to vote your representatives; 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 don’t want to leave to your Representatives

Direct Democracy is about people voting on issues (Constitut 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)

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.

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

Liberal founders of modern CH from 1848 were elitists Modern DD was in CH and US an opposition product: By 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”

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

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

Individ. / collective communication&deliberations IV. Which are the basic (“principal”)products of Direct Democracy’s best practices? Individ. / collective communication&deliberations Multiple deliberations Collective learning potentials political openess et legitimate polity Identification with the DD process (« Democratic patriotism »)

DD restores trust in yourself and others 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

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

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

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 it’s easier not to be overlooked The Polity is more open and accessible for new ideas Unsolved problems may be less overlooked

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

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

An instrument to rule the people No consultation or public relation VI. What DD is not: Quick fix and fast food An instrument to rule the people No consultation or public relation No internet-forum

Wrong arguments against DD: Too slow Too complicated Only digital answers Desinterest of citizens People are too busy

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

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