1. 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

2. 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

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. 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

5. 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)

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. 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”

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. 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 »)

12. 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

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 it’s 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. 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

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