Use of Direct Democracy in the Jura Conflict

Abstract

The Jura conflict provides a useful example for studying the impact of modern direct democracy in a conflictual established-outsiders relationship. The first part of this article examines the functions and effects of direct democracy in general and in theory. When considering the effects of direct democracy on politics, the formation of state and society, the political habitus, and the public sphere, it is important to distinguish between the different types of procedures – initiative, referendum, plebiscite – and the different forms that they can take. Against false accusations of tyranny levelled at direct democracy, it must be stressed that well-designed direct democracy makes decision-making more democratic. This is not to deny the possibility and existence of abuse of democratic power; however, abuse should be attributed to the real causes. The second part of this article looks at the Jura conflict as an example of how direct democracy has worked in practice. In the course of the Jura conflict direct democracy turned out to be an indispensable tool of conflict regulation, and indeed conflict resolution, which is still ongoing. In describing the events emphasis is placed on the role played by direct democracy, its functions and effects in practice against the background set out in the first part of the article. The Jura conflict shows that there is a democratic alternative to (ethnic) nationalism. Whatever the ultimate solution will be, it has to pass the test of a democratic decision at the ballot box by all the citizens of the region. To begin with, however, it is necessary to clarify the concept of direct democracy.