Abstract

Discussions about direct democracy and its advantages and risks are often superficial, invoke stereotypes and ignore empirical data. This article tests seven common criticisms of direct democracy by referring to the Swiss experience. Evidently, Swiss democracy is not a copy/paste model, but has developed in a specific historical and institutional setting. It is obvious that both conservative as well as left-wing critics overemphasize their case against direct democracy by (wilfully) neglecting the evidence. Direct democracy does not lead to anarchy. The common people can make reasonable decisions. Minorities are not more discriminated against in direct democratic systems than in representative ones. Money plays a role in direct democracy, as it does in representative systems. Direct democracy slows down reforms, but it also makes them steadier and more sustainable. Direct democracy brings contentment to its citizens. Finally, direct democracy is not ideologically predisposed. It is a mechanism to revert policies back to the median voter.

Highlights

  • For many years, the alleged crisis of democracy in general and the democratic “deficit” and legitimacy gap of the European Union in particular, have been intensely debated topics (Schmidt, 2002; Thomassen, Schmitt, 2004; Wagschal, 2007; Guastaferro, Moschella, 2012)

  • It can be said that discussions about direct democracy often resemble debates about a phantom

  • “Proxies” are created for the respective argumentative needs and political points of view. These “proxies” or “doubles” (Woodruff, 2006) have nothing to do with real direct democracy

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The alleged crisis of democracy in general and the democratic “deficit” and legitimacy gap of the European Union in particular, have been intensely debated topics (Schmidt, 2002; Thomassen, Schmitt, 2004; Wagschal, 2007; Guastaferro, Moschella, 2012). There is empirical evidence that citizens in a direct democracy are more content than their peers in similar representative systems because they have further opportunities to influence the political process and have their voice heard (Stutzer, Frey, 2000; Frey et al, 2001). Not all these findings have been perceived by some researchers, by politicians, and by the broader public. They will be addressed below in more detail and confronted with empirical evidence from Switzerland

Direct Democracy destabilizes the political system
Direct democracy discriminates against minorities
Direct democracy is biased towards the higher social strata of society
Money buys direct democratic decisions
Direct democracy leads to neoliberal policies
Findings
Summary
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call