The institution of popular veto: experience of selected foreign countries

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

This article examines the legislation of foreign countries regarding mechanisms of direct democracy, particularly the institution of popular veto. A historical analysis of the development of this instrument in European law has been conducted. The methodological basis of the publication consists of scientific methods based on the requirements of objective and comprehensive analysis of socio-political and legal phenomena, which include direct democracy in foreign countries. The research methodology is founded on general theoretical principles and approaches to determining the initial parameters of the formation and development of popular veto as a form of direct democracy. To achieve scientific objectivity in the results, the author used a full range of general scientific and special research methods widely applied in the modern science of constitutional law. It has been established that although modern forms of direct democracy emerged relatively recently, the concept of popular veto has roots in ancient civilizations as a means of limiting the abuse of power. Initially, the right of veto was exercised not directly by citizens, but by authorized persons on behalf of the people, who could reject laws that contradicted fundamental norms. It is argued that although popular veto was first enshrined in French constitutional law, Switzerland is considered its birthplace, where this institution received genuine development and was first implemented in practice in 1831. The evolution of popular veto is closely linked to the development of Swiss statehood; however, the immediate impetus for its implementation was granting citizens direct voting rights and the right to participate in referendums. Initially, popular veto was applied at the level of individual cantons, and in 1874 it was enshrined in the Swiss Constitution at the national level. According to the constitutional procedure, a specified number of voters can officially express disagreement with an adopted law within a set period, after which it must be submitted to a nationwide referendum for approval or repeal.