Personal tools
Direct DemocracyDirect democracy is the term used to describe particular forms of voting within any democratic system. The term direct democracy is commonly used to refer to three distinct types of vote: referendums, citizen initiatives and recall. The common characteristic of these mechanisms is that they all place more power directly in the hands of voters, as opposed to elected representatives.Direct democracy is therefore often seen as conflicting with representative democracy, in which voters elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. In contrast, under direct democracy, voters can themselves make decisions about specific policies or issues. Broad arguments are advanced in favor of and against direct democracy. This Encyclopedia topic looks at three different forms of direct democracy, explains how direct democracy mechanisms are designed and administered, and outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Referendums
"Referendum" is the term given to a direct vote on a specific issue, in contrast with votes cast at elections, which are made in relation to parties or individual candidates and generally reflect voters' preferences over a range of different issues. Referendums may be held in relation to particular circumstances (e.g., to amend a country's constitution) or in relation to particular political issues (e.g., whether or not to join an international organisation) but are in general held in relation to issues of major political significance. The terms used to define referendums may differ in different countries; the following are the most common types of referendums held in countries across the world.
Types of referendumReferendums fall into one of two main categories: the mandatory referendum or the optional referendum. Mandatory referendum A mandatory referendum is a referendum that must be held in certain circumstances, or in relation to certain issues. The outcome of a mandatory referendum is usually binding. Mandatory referendums may be required in relation to pre-determined issues. Typically, these are issues of major national significance, for example joining a supra-national organisation (as in Switzerland). In addition, in many countries, proposed amendments to the constitution must be affirmed by a referendum. Alternatively, mandatory referendums may be required in pre-determined situations. One example is in a Presidential system, where in the case of disagreement between the President and Legislature, a referendum may be required to resolve the dispute. The requirement for mandatory referendums is usually specified in a country's constitution or other law. Optional referendum The second category of referendum is the optional referendum. These are referendums which do not by law have to be held, but can be initiated by the government, and in some cases by other parties. Optional referendums may or may not be binding. A government can decide to initiate a referendum on a major political issue. It might do so because public pressure for a referendum forces it to hold one, or it might choose to hold a referendum because it is divided on the issue at hand. Optional referendums initiated by the government have been held frequently in Europe on the issue of European Union integration (although in some cases, such referendums have been mandatory because they involve an amendment to a country's constitution). These referendums may not be legally binding, although it may be politically difficult for a government to ignore the outcome. In addition, in some countries, Parliament or a Parliamentary minority may also be able to call a referendum. A further type of optional referendum is the abrogative referendum. Abrogative referendums are held when citizens force a vote on a piece of new law passed by the legislature, usually by collecting a certain number of signatures in support of a vote, see citizen initiatives. In some countries, abrogative referendums can also be used in relation to existing legislation. If the law is defeated in a vote on the issue, it may be required to be repealed or amended.
Design featuresThere are therefore key design features that help to define different types of referendums. The first and perhaps most important is how the referendum fits within a country's overall legal system; are referendums mandatory under a country's constitution or other laws? Is a referendum required to be held, or has it been initiated by the government, legislature, or citizens? A second key feature is the issues in relation to which referendums can be held. If the circumstances in which referendums can be held are clearly specified in a country's legal framework, the issues on which referendums will be held will be known. Typically, these will relate to issues of major constitutional or political significance, such as a country's constitution, sovereignty, or international relations. A large proportion of referendums held in Europe, for example, have been connected to the issue of European integration. However, where referendums are optional, the subject matter on which they are held may vary. Without restrictions, abrogative referendums could relate to any issue that is the subject of legislation. Some countries that provide for holding referendums therefore place restrictions on the issues that can be the subject of referendums. In Uruguay, for example, referendums cannot be held in relation to fiscal policy or laws relating to the executive, whilst in Colombia, political amnesty is barred from being the subject of a referendum.
IssuesA number of issues arise in regard to the politics, administration and logistics of holding a referendum. Combination of polls When a referendum is held, it must be decided whether or not it is to be combined with another poll (e.g., an ordinary general election), or whether the referendum is to be held separately. It is sometimes argued that combining polls can increase the risk that voters will confuse separate issues (e.g., the performance of the incumbent government can be confused with the issue on which the referendum is being held). However, from an administrative point of view, it may be more cost effective to hold a referendum at the same time as an election. The referendum question A second important issue relates to the wording of the referendum question. Studies suggest that the wording of the question can have an important effect on the outcome of a referendum; who determines the exact question that appears on the ballot is therefore significant. Is the government responsible for framing the question, even in cases when the government initiates the referendum and therefore has an interest in designing the question to increase the chances of achieving its own desired outcome? Does the Electoral Management Body have oversight of the question? Whoever designs the question, it is important that the question put to voters must be clear and straightforward. For information on the UK Electoral Commission's approach to referendums questions, click here.
Campaign regulationsIn relation to the referendum campaign, campaign regulations may be implemented to try to ensure that there is a level playing field between organisations campaigning for and against the referendum. These might include limits on campaign expenditure although in some countries, these may be deemed unconstitutional; see United States) and/or controls on the acceptance of campaign contributions. Alternatively, public funds may be allocated to campaign groups to ensure a minimum level of campaign spending on each outcome. The role of the government and provision of information The role of the government in a referendum campaign can also be important. Is the government allowed to campaign for the outcome it supports (in Ireland, the government is not allowed to campaign); does it distribute its own promotional material or run government broadcasts outlining its views? Similarly, is there a neutral source of information, separate to the government and referendum campaigners, and/or are there requirements providing for the dissemination of non-partisan information about the issue to voters? Does the Electoral Management Body have a role in providing information to voters? If information is provided through a neutral channel, who can put information into this channel? Voters may be more inclined to trust information from sources other than campaigners, and a source of information that is perceived to be neutral will be important to many voters. For an example information booklet from Ireland, please click on the link below: The Referendum on Irish Citizenship
Turnout/majority requirementsFinally, a critical issue is when a referendum is judged to have passed. In some countries, a referendum will pass if a simple majority of voters vote "yes." In others, a referendum vote is only binding if a specified turnout threshold is reached: a recent referendum in Taiwan was defeated because turnout did not reach the minimum threshold required. Finally, some countries require a double or super majority to pass (e.g., when a referendum must achieve an overall majority and a majority in a number of states for it to pass, or when the yes vote must achieve a certain percentage of the overall vote), or an overall majority of registered electors (rather than voters who actually turnout to vote). Clearly, the requirements for a successful referendum have an impact on the likelihood of whether a referendum passes or not. For information on the requirements for Australian referendums to pass and details of successful Australian referendums, click on the link below: 1999 Referendum Reports and Statistics
Arguments for and against referendumsSeveral arguments are advanced in support of and in opposition to referendums. Supporters of the use of referendums argue that, in the context of increasing voter apathy and disenchantment with traditional forms of democracy, direct democracy can help to re-engage voters with politics and democracy. Another argument advanced in favour of referendums is that they can be used to resolve political problems, particularly for incumbent governments; where a governing party is divided over an issue, for example, holding a referendum can help reach a solution on the issue without splitting the party (one example of this is the 1975 UK referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EC, over which the ruling Labour government was deeply divided). There are also a number of arguments made against the use of referendums. One is that it weakens representative government by undermining the role and importance of elected representatives. Another is that voters do not always have the capacity or information to make informed decisions about the issue at stake, and instead may make ill-informed decisions based on partial knowledge or on the basis or unrelated factors such as the economy or support for the government. This trend may be exacerbated in the case of referendums on complex issues such as constitutional change or international treaties, with which voters are likely to be unfamiliar. Opponents of referendums also argue that, if the executive has the power to determine when referendums are held, they can be used as a political tool to suit the needs of the governing party rather than in the interests of democracy. They also claim that, since in many countries turnout at referendums is lower than at national elections, the argument that referendums increase the legitimacy of political decisions does not stand up. However, experts in Switzerland (where a number of direct democracy votes take place each year) believe that, although turnout at referendums is around 45%, more than 45% of electors participate in direct democracy, since different voters participate in the different votes that interest them. Next: Citizen Initiatives
Citizen Initiatives
Citizen initiatives provide for the inclusion of constitutional or statutory proposals on the ballot at an election if enough signatures are collected in support of the proposal. The number of signatures required to place an initiative on the ballot varies, but is usually a proportion of the number of voters who voted at the most recent election, or a fixed number of registered voters. Depending on the design of the initiative process, if the ballot measure is passed by voters, it may become part of the state or country's law. The initiative process therefore provides citizens with an opportunity to directly frame the laws and/or constitution under which they live. Use of the initiative process varies substantially across different countries and in different regions within them. The following are examples of common types of citizen initiative and the design features that distinguish them.
Types of citizen initiativeConstitutional Constitutional initiatives can be used to propose amendments to a country or stateÕs constitution. The number of signatures required to place a constitutional measure on the ballot is usually higher than the number required to place other types of measure on the ballot. Statutory Using a statutory initiative, citizens can propose statutory measures to be placed on the ballot. A lower signature threshold is usually required for this type of initiative. Direct If an initiative is a direct initiative, then the measure that is circulated in petition or placed on the ballot automatically becomes law if it is approved by voters, without any involvement by the legislature. Indirect In contrast, indirect initiatives allow for the involvement of the legislature in framing the laws that arise from the initiative process. This involvement might take a number of different forms. In some countries or states, when a petition has met the required threshold, the legislature is able to formulate its own proposal to go on the ballot as well, to offer voters an alternative between the citizen initiative and the legislature's response. Alternatively, the legislature may have a role after a measure has passed, e.g. if a ballot is approved by voters, the legislature may have some scope to amend the measure. Abrogative referendums/recall There are two other types of direct democracy mechanisms which are commonly labelled as initiatives, because they are invoked when citizens collect enough signatures in support of a measure. These are the abrogative referendum and the recall. Details about these mechanisms can be found in the sections on referendums and recall.
IssuesIn order to start an initiative, proponents of the measure are required to collect the signatures of a small, specified number of supporters of the initiative and file it with the relevant government office (in some countries and states, the requirement is as low as 25 signatures). Once an initiative has been filed, its proponents must begin the process of collecting the relevant number of signatures required to get the initiative on the ballot. If and when the relevant number of signatures are collected, the initiative is normally included on the ballot of the next election in the appropriate jurisdiction. A number of important issues arise in relation to process of preparing, circulating and approving a citizen initiative. The significance of each of these issues varies, however, according to the relevant constitutional and political context. Ballot title Once a proposition is filed, the first key issue is the wording of the ballot title to be circulated in petition and which will appear on the ballot. Typically, the ballot title will be a short summary of the proposed measure. The proposed measure will normally have been drafted by the individual or group proposing it, or by a legal team engaged by them, whilst the ballot title will normally be drafted by the office responsible for overseeing the administration of the initiative process. Agreeing the ballot title can be a long process, since whilst administrators aim to ensure that the ballot title clearly and accurately reflects the measure being proposed, proponents seek to put forward a title that maximises the chances of it being passed. Well funded initiative campaigns may file various versions of the same proposition then conduct opinion polls to assess the relative popularity of each, in order to ensure the proposition that is taken forward stands the highest chance of success. Signature collection and verification After an initiative has been filed and the ballot title agreed, the proponents of an initiative are required to gather a specified number of valid signatures within a specified time period from the date on which the initiative was filed. The number of signatures required varies; clearly, the lower the signature threshold or the longer the time allowed for signature collection, the more likely it is that the initiative will qualify for the ballot. Signatures must normally be collected from registered voters; usually, a proportion of signatures collected will be found to be invalid, so proponents must collect a number of signatures in excess of the actual threshold. Signature verification is undertaken by the department responsible for administering direct democracy and will normally be undertaken on a random sampling basis. The signature collection and verification process does not always run smoothly (see the recall section). A sample of petition forms from the US state of Oregon can be found at the link below:
Campaigning and the provision of information During the petition circulation stage and in particular once an initiative has qualified for the ballot, proponents and opponents of initiatives will run campaigns for and against the measure. As with a referendum campaign, in some places, campaigning is regulated; contributions or expenditure may be capped. In others, however, there may be difficulties in implementing campaign controls because of the constitution; in many US states, for example, courts have ruled that expenditure limits are unconstitutional, because campaign expenditure has been equated with freedom of speech, which cannot be restricted. This has become a contentious issue because of concern in the US over the role of money and the initiative industry (see below). In addition to campaigns run by organisations campaigning for or against the initiative, the administration responsible for overseeing the initiative process will often publish an information pamphlet providing voters with information about the proposal. Typically, this might include a statement from the pro- and anti- campaigners, as well as a non-partisan analysis of the measure produced by the government. It might also include statements from other individuals and organisations who support or oppose the measure. Details of how campaigners can arrange to place a statement in an information booklet in Oregon, and an example of a Californian voter information guide, can be found on the links below: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/forms/sel405.pdf http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop_summary.html Number of initiatives on the ballot Because there are not normally any limits on the number of initiatives that can be included on a ballot, it may be the case that there are multiple initiatives on any given ballot. The number of initiatives on a ballot normally depends simply on the number of initiatives that have qualified for the ballot in the relevant period before the election (some initiative proponents will deliberately time petition circulation in order to ensure that the initiative appears on the ballot for one particular election rather than another) In the US state of Oregon, there were 26 different initiatives on the ballot at the 2000 Presidential election. The link below provides an up to date record of the initiatives that have qualified for the Californian state ballot at the 2004 US Presidential election: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2004General The initiative industry In a number of US states in particular, concern has been expressed that the use of citizen initiatives is increasingly professionalized, and that the "initiative industry," rather than citizens, determine which measures make it onto the ballot. Professional firms can assist with virtually all aspects of the initiative process, including: initial drafting of the initiative; opinion polling and focus group research; negotiation over the ballot title; securing endorsements to be used in campaigning; petition circulation; proposing counter-initiatives; and campaigning for the initiative once it has qualified. One area of concern to some observers has been the use of paid signature collectors to circulate the initiative in an effort to qualify the measure for the ballot. This is perhaps because the use of companies acting for profit to collect signatures arguably seems most at odds with the concept of citizen backed initiatives which are promoted by volunteers who believe in a measure. It is almost accepted in some countries that, without the assistance of professional signature collectors, it will be virtually impossible to get an initiative on the ballot, meaning that only well-financed campaigners are able to get initiatives to the ballot. Some US states have tried to legislate against this by banning the use of paid signature collectors, or requiring professional firms to pay collectors by the hour rather than per signature. This has been ruled unconstitutional in some states, however. Counter-initiatives In some places where citizen initiatives are proposed frequently, one trend is for opponents to propose a counter-initiative as a means of opposing the original initiative measure. This tactic can be successful in that the existence of two related but opposing initiatives increases voter uncertainty and confusion about an issue, increasing the likelihood that voters will simply oppose both measures. Use of this tactic may be effective for opponents of specific initiatives, but it also increases the number of initiatives in circulation and potentially on the ballot. Role of the legislature, government officials and courts The role of the legislature, government officials and courts in relation to citizen initiatives tends to be strictly defined and rather limited. As outlined above, there is a role for the legislature in relation to indirect initiatives, where there may be an opportunity for it to amend initiative measures, or propose their own alternatives. However, in cases where the design of the initiative process does not provide for the involvement of the legislature, the only reviews that are permitted by the state in relation to initiative proposals is whether or not they comply with the administrative requirements imposed, i.e., are there enough proponents, have enough valid signatures been gathered? A further administrative task is to draft and agree the summary of the ballot title. In some places, where there are strict controls on the number of issues that an initiative can deal with, administrators might also be responsible for checking that the initiative proposal deals only with one issue. In systems where initiatives need to be translated into more than one language, administrators might also be responsible for confirming whether the translation of the initiative proposal means the same in all the relevant languages. However, other than these legally defined administrative tasks, there is often no role for officials or the courts in reviewing the constitutionality of initiative proposals, for example, the compatibility of the proposal with human rights measures. In some US states, this has led to a situation in which a significant proportion of initiative measures are struck down by the courts after they have been passed by voters.
Advantages/disadvantagesIn addition to the general advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy (i.e. reducing the democratic deficit versus undermining representative government, see referendums) there are a number of perceived advantages and disadvantages specific to citizen initiatives. Advantages It is argued that the simple existence of the initiative mechanism acts as a check on the activities of the legislature. This is because legislators are more likely to introduce certain reforms and measures if the initiative mechanism exists, because it is likely that if they do not, an initiative on the issue will be launched. One example is that US researchers have shown that US states that use the initiative process are more likely than those that do not, to have introduced governance reform policies (e.g., term limits, campaign finance controls). Another indication of this is the number of initiatives that are introduced but subsequently withdrawn in Switzerland, because the introduction of the initiative has in itself forced the legislature to address the issue. It is therefore claimed that the initiative process makes legislatures more responsive. Disadvantages One often cited disadvantage of citizen initiatives is that they result in badly drafted law, since (except in the case of indirect initiatives) the wording of the measure as initially proposed ends up as statute if the measure is passed. It is argued that the failure to use the expertise provided by government lawyers and officials who are familiar with the drafting process leads to laws that can be meaningless or ineffective, or have to be re-drafted, because the individuals or lawyers who draft the measures are not experienced in legislative drafting. Additionally, in some cases, statute created by the initiative process is found to be unconstitutional. A further disadvantage is the sheer number and complexity of issues that voters are expected to vote on. It is argued that it is impossible for voters to make informed decisions when they there are a substantial number of initiatives on the ballot, and that the likelihood of simple A frequent criticism of citizen initiatives is that they are only really accessible to well-resourced organisations and interests, and that the process is therefore hijacked by special interest groups promoting their own interests. Empirical evidence about the success of well-financed interest groups is mixed: some research has suggested that money does not in fact have a major effect on the outcome of citizen initiatives, whilst other studies have highlighted the role of money, in particular in defeating initiatives. However, there can be no doubting the importance of professional firms in the initial stage of the initiative process, in particular in terms of signature collection. A common criticism of citizen initiatives (and other forms of direct democracy) is that they enable the "tyranny of the majority." This term refers to the electoral power of majority groups in society being used to restrict of hinder the rights of unpopular minority groups. Critics argue that without the moderating influence of the legislature, legislation may be passed which actively targets the rights of groups within society which are unpopular. However, research undertaken in the US has produced different conclusions about whether initiatives do actually restrict the rights of minorities or not.
Possible reformsIn places where it exists, the citizen initiative process is generally an accepted feature of the political system. However, many people familiar with the initiative process have outlined possible reforms to refine the initiative process. Most possible reforms of the citizen initiative process focus on reducing the importance of money in the process and/or ensuring that voters are best able to make informed decisions about initiatives. Reducing the importance of money Various reforms could be enacted to limit the role of money in the initiative process. In relation to signature collection, banning the use of paid signature collectors and/or payments per signature, or requiring signature collectors to identify whether or not they are paid collectors or volunteers, might reduce the importance of professional firms in the process. Another alternative is to require a fixed proportion of signatures to be collected by volunteers, although this might be hard to regulate. In terms of the campaign, imposing campaign or contribution limits reduce the significance of campaign funding, although in some places these may be constitutionally difficult to introduce. Subsidies for less well-funded campaigns might be one way of trying to ensure that well-financed campaigns are not able to completely outspent less well-financed opposition campaigns. Minimising complexity of issues To ensure that voters are able to make better informed decisions about ballot initiatives, it has been proposed that the number of initiatives on the ballot is limited, the argument being that it is impossible for voters to make informed decisions about complex issues when they are faced with several initiatives on the same ballot. Other proposals include limiting the reading-age level of the ballot title, or restricting the number of words in the title, to ensure that initiatives are presented in as clear and straightforward terms as possible. Ensuring a role for the legislature and court It has been argued that statutory provisions arising from initiatives could be improved by involving the legislature and/or court in the initiative process. On one level, this could simply mean providing assistance with the drafting of initiatives, which would mean that they are better written. Another improvement to the process would be to allow courts to screen initiatives to judge whether or not they are constitutional. This would prevent initiatives being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional after they have been passed by voters. Alternatively, it would also be possible to give the legislature a more significant role in the initiative process, effectively turning it into an indirect process. As indicated above, such reforms could include allowing the legislature to draft its own proposals in response to initiatives and allowing the legislature to make minor amendments to initiative statutes. Next: Recall
RecallRecall is the name given to a mechanism by which voters can end an elected official's period of office before the next scheduled election for the office. Combining elements of the initiative process and a normal candidate election, a recall initiative is launched when a recall motion is filed with the relevant administration. Proponents are then required to gather a specified number of signatures in support of the recall measure. Typically, the number of signatures required will be a proportion of the votes cast for the officer who is the subject of the recall at the last ordinary election to that office. If and when the recall petition acquires enough valid signatures, the issue is put to voters at a ballot to determine firstly, whether or not the officer in question should be recalled and secondly, who should replace the officer if the recall measure is successful. The recall mechanism is the least common of the three direct democracy mechanisms. Although many US states include provision for the recall in their constitutions, the mechanism is not used at national level. Provision for the recall mechanism outside the US and at national level is rare, even in countries where direct democracy is widely used (e.g., Switzerland).
Design issuesRestrictions on which officers the mechanism applies to Where a country or state's constitution provides for use of the recall mechanism, relevant legal provisions will need to specify which elected officials the mechanism can be applied to. Only in Venezuela does the recall mechanism apply to a country's elected head of state. However, in most US states, the recall mechanism can be used to recall all elected state officials, from local and county officials up to the office of Governor. Judges may also be the subject of recall campaigns. In some states, some on-elected officials such as administrative officers can also be recalled. Restrictions on applying the recall mechanism In some places that have adopted the recall mechanism, officers can only be recalled if it can be demonstrated that they have acted improperly (e.g. the US state of Minnesota, where the grounds for recall of an elected official are serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office). In others, there are no requirements for officials to have acted improperly or incompetently, and the simple fact of enough signatures being collected is enough to force a recall vote. Number of signatures required to force a ballot The number of signatures required in order to hold a recall ballot clearly has a significant effect on the likelihood of being able to do so; the fewer the number of signatures required, the more likely it is that a vote on whether an officer should be recalled will take place. At the 2003 California recall, recall proponents were required to gather signatures of 12% of the vote for Governor at the last election in a period of 160 days. Many other US states require 25% of voters to support a recall; California's threshold of 12% is the lowest in the States. Verification of signatures As with the citizen initiative mechanism, the requirement to produce a specified number of signatures in order to hold a ballot creates the need to collect and verify signatures. Signatures are normally only valid if they are collected from individuals who are registered to vote in the jurisdiction of the officer who is the subject of the recall. Verification of signatures is undertaken by the office administering the recall initiative. The importance of the signature collection and the verification process is demonstrated by the high profile Chavez recall initiative in Venezuela, where the National Electoral Council initially ruled that a large number of signatures collected by recall proponents were ineligible. For news stories in English about the Chavez case, please click on the links below: http://www.eluniversal.com/2004/05/06/06A457503.shtml Combining the votes on the recall and a successor One feature of the recall mechanism which varies in different places is whether, once a recall petition has collected enough valid signatures, the recall ballot is combined with the vote for a replacement officer if the recall be successful. In some places, the votes are combined, meaning that voters have to vote on two issues: firstly, whether or not the officer in question, and secondly, who should replace the officer if the recall is successful. In such cases, if the recall vote is defeated, the vote on a successor is irrelevant and is ignored. However, if the recall vote passes, the candidate who achieves the most support on the second vote is elected as a successor to the recalled officer. Alternatively, an initial ballot on whether or not to recall the officer is held, and only if the recall vote is passed is a second vote on a successor held. There are arguments for and against each of these alternatives. One argument against combining the votes is that the combination might confuse voters about the process, and that it prevents voters from focusing solely on the recall issue. Arguably, when voters make a decision about whether to support the recall, they should be able to focus on the issue at hand and the performance of the incumbent, without the distraction of possible successors. On the other hand, combining the two votes leads to cost savings and increases administrative efficiency. A further issue is that combining the recall and successor vote could mean that the vote for (i.e. to retain) an incumbent who is successfully recalled is actually higher than the plurality vote in favour of the successor, which could give a legitimacy problem. This scenario might be avoided by using voting systems such as the Alternative Vote or Supplementary Vote. However, this would mean that a combined vote would become increasingly complicated for voters. The recall in a party based electoral system More generally, there is a question of compatibility of recall with the electoral system. If the electoral system is candidate-based, there is no problem. If however it is party based, should the voters have the right to recall a specific representative nominated by a party? Would there be a difference between representatives chosen by the voters under open list proportional representation? In general, in list systems, does the party or the voters fill the vacancy caused by a successful recall?
Advantages and disadvantages of the recall mechanismProponents of the recall mechanism argue that it acts as a discipline on elected officials, in that elected representatives will be less likely to make unpopular decisions if it may make them more likely to be the subject of a recall campaign. However, the same argument is also used against the recall: opponents argue that the recall mechanism completely undermines representative government by making elected officials afraid to make unpopular but necessary decisions. A further argument in favour of direct democracy is that it provides voters with the continued opportunity to make a democratic decision about who governs them, since they do not have only one opportunity every three to five years to elect the people who will represent them, but retain a degree of control over the decision for the duration of the office. However, it is claimed by opponents of the recall that the mechanism could be used irresponsibly, and that it could be used by political parties as a political weapon against rival incumbents. The claim that the recall mechanism was being used as a political tool was made by many Democrats against Republican party activists in relation to the 2003 California Recall. Next: Total Recall - the election of Schwarzenegger in California Total Recall - the election of Schwarzenegger in California
Gray Davis was re-elected Governor of California in November 2002. However, within less than a year he had been ousted from his post and replaced by a man previously more famous for his acting and his muscles. So how did it come to be hasta la vista for Governor Davis in such a short space of time?
The recall mechanism in CaliforniaHistory Like many other US states, Californian democracy provides for the use of the recall mechanism. Adopted into the Californian constitution in 1911, the recall mechanism is a process by which the electorate can seek the removal of elected public officials before the end of their terms of office. Prior to 2003, the recall mechanism had been used in California on numerous occasions. Several local government officials have been recalled, and four state legislators have been recalled, in 1913, 1914 and 1995 (twice). However, whilst previous state Governors have faced some level of recall attempt in the last 30 years, Governor Davis was the first Governor to face a recall election. Launching a recall initiative To launch a recall initiative, proponents are required to file a notice of intention with the California Secretary of State's Office. The notice must include a statement explaining in no more than 200 words why the proponents are seeking a recall, and must give the names, signatures and addresses of either a minimum of 10 people or the number of people required to have signed the nomination of the officer who is subject to the recall, whichever is the greatest. Proponents of the recall must be registered voters within the electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall. Within a week of the notice being filed, the officer in question is given the opportunity to make a 200 word statement in response to the initiative. Circulating the petition Once the notice has been certified by the Secretary of State, proponents are required to collect a number of signatures equivalent to 12% of the votes cast for the officer the last time the office was on the ballot. Signatures must be collected within 160 days, and the petition must be circulated in at least five Californian counties. In the 2003 recall, the recall petition was certified for circulation on 25 March 2003, giving proponents until 2 September 2003 to collect 897,158 signatures. Signatures are only deemed to be valid if they are from voters registered in the electoral jurisdiction of the officer who is the subject of the recall; similarly, only such registered voters are qualified to circulate the recall petition. Reporting and verifying petition signatures Proponents of the recall are required to file the petition with the election official in each county in which the petition is circulated. Whilst the petition is being circulated, county election officials are required to report to the Secretary of State on the progress of the petition; the first report must be submitted within 30 days of the recall being initiated, and every 30 days thereafter. The report must advise on the number of signatures collected in the most recent 30 day period, the total cumulative number of signatures collected, and the total number of valid signatures collected. County election officials are not required to begin verifying signatures for validity until 10% of the total number of signatures required have been collected. Once the verification process begins, a random sample of signatures must be checked. Where more than 500 signatures are reported at any one time, either 3% of signatures submitted or 500 signatures must be checked, whichever is the smallest. The recall election
In California, the recall and the vote for a successor to replace the officer should the recall succeed are included on the same ballot. The officer facing recall is not entitled to stand as a candidate for re-election. Therefore, if in the first vote the incumbent officer receives the support of more than 50% of the electorate, the recall is defeated and the second vote is irrelevant. However, if a majority vote to recall the officer, the candidate who receives most votes is elected. At the 2003 recall election, there were also two state wide initiatives on the ballot. This differs from other US states and other countries, where once a petition has qualified, a separate yes/no vote on whether or not to recall the officer will be held before a vote on a successor is held. Critics of the Californian process argue that this causes confusion for voters. In addition, it also raises the possibility that if an officer is recalled, his successor could be elected with a less legitimate democratic mandate: for example, if an officer is narrowly recalled on a vote of 51% in favour, 49% against, but the winning candidate on the second vote receives the support of 37% of voters, the new Governor arguably has the support of 12% fewer voters.
The 2003 recall campaignThe case against Gray The campaign against Gray Davis was initially launched by an organisation called the People's Advocate, an anti-tax organisation headed by Ted Costa, the official proponent of the recall effort. The main charge against Gray was that he had mismanaged the Californian economy, creating a budget deficit of over USD 30 billion and the need for large tax increases. The efforts of the People's Advocate were supported by a number of Republican Party activists and by other California political parties such as the Libertarian Party and the American Independent Party. In May, the recall campaign was boosted when Republican Congressman Darrel Issa launched his own recall effort, Rescue California, backed by significant funding and the expertise of political strategists. Rescue California was instrumental in collecting signatures for the recall petition, organising its efforts on a professional basis and claiming to have collected around 70% of the valid signatures submitted. Opponents of the recall included labour leaders and public sector employees, and were led by an organisation called Taxpayers Against the Recall. They argued that using the initiative would set an expensive precedent, and that recall should only be used in the case of abuse of office or corruption. The announcement of the election The recall petition was certified for petition on 25 March 2003. By the middle of July, recall proponents claimed to have gathered 1.6 million signatures, well in excess of the 897,158 needed to secure the recall ballot. On July 23, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley verified that 1,356,408 of the signatures were valid. The following day, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante announced that the recall ballot would be held on October 7. Candidates for the election One notable feature of the 2003 recall election was the large number of candidates who stood for election. Nomination procedures for a recall election are required by the constitution to be virtually the same as for a normal election to the office of Governor (except that papers have to be filed no less than 59 days before the date of the recall election). Candidates at the 2003 recall were therefore required to collect 65 nomination signatures and pay a USD 3,500 fee (or submit USD 10,000 in lieu of the fee). The low threshold for nominations meant that 135 individuals stood as replacement candidates, thus ensuring an extremely long ballot for voters to consider. The Republican and Democrat parties The most prominent of the candidates was undoubtedly Arnold Schwarzenegger, film actor and husband of a member of America's most famous political dynasty, Maria Shriver, niece of assassinated President John F Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. Following considerable speculation about whether he would join the race to succeed Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger, a Republican, used an appearance on the Tonight Show on 6 August to announce his candidacy. His entry into the race prompted other high-profile Republican candidates to drop out of the race to be Gray's successor. The Democrats faced a more difficult position in choosing whether or not to stand a replacement candidate. On the one hand, their main aim was to win the recall ballot and defeat the recall proposition. It was argued that achieving this result would be helped by the presentation of a united front, with no Democratic candidates for successor. However, an alternative argument was formulated along the lines that, should the recall succeed, it was necessary to have a Democratic candidate on the ballot as a potential successor. The debate was settled when, on August 7, Cruz Bustamante entered the race to offer a prominent Democratic candidacy. The campaign controls Different controls applied to the recall element of the campaign, and the campaign to promote replacement candidates. The issue of recall is treated by campaign finance law in California as equivalent to a ballot measure, whilst the question of a successor is treated in accordance with controls on normal candidate elections. In practice, this meant that whilst Governor Davis was not subject to any contribution limits on the amount of money he could accept in trying to defeat the recall measure, replacement candidates were subject to contribution limits of USD 21,200 and an expenditure limit of USD 10,624,000. The outcome of the recall process At the election on October 7, the measure to recall the Governor was passed by a vote of 55.4% against a no vote of 44.6%. Of the replacement candidates, Arnold Schwarzenegger achieved 48.6% of the vote (more than had supported Davis), his nearest rival Crus Bustamante achieving 31.5%. Governor Gray Davis was duly recalled, and Governor-elect Schwarzenegger sworn in on 17 November. The total cost of running the recall election, including providing voters with a state voter information guide, was estimated to be just under USD 70 million.
Useful linksState information and voter guide
Campaign sites Independent websites
Next: Swiss Direct Democracy Swiss Direct Democracy
When it comes to direct democracy, Switzerland is usually cited as the country that is the closest to having a directly democratic system of
History and backgroundDirect democracy has a long standing tradition in some of the Swiss cantons, going back as far as the fourteenth century. When Switzerland became a federal state in 1848, direct democracy instruments were introduced at the national level as well. The federal constitution introduced the principle of holding a mandatory referendum in order to change the constitution, as well as the popular initiative for a total revision of the constitution. Further rights of referendums were introduced in 1874, and the popular initiative for a partial revision of the constitution in 1891. Between 1848 and February 2004, 517 referendums were held, whilst between 1892 and May 2004, 244 initiatives were proposed.
Forms of direct democracy - federal levelNumerous different direct democracy mechanisms can be used at federal level in Switzerland. The mechanisms fall into two broad categories: referendums and initiatives - there is no provision for use of the recall in Switzerland. Each mechanism can be used to achieve different results, and has different design features. Referendums Unlike in other countries, in Switzerland it is not the government that decides if a referendum is held on an issue; the circumstances under which referendums are used are clearly prescribed within the country's constitution. The first type of direct democracy mechanism is the mandatory referendum, i.e., a referendum that the government must call in relation to certain important political issues. These are:
The first three kinds of mandatory referendums require a double majority to pass; that is, they must achieve a popular majority (a majority of the votes cast at the referendum) whilst at the same time achieving a majority vote in a majority of the cantons. The latter three, which take place as part of the initiative process, only need a popular majority. Optional referendums can be held in relation to new or amended federal acts and/or international treaties. The optional legislative referendum is held in relation to all federal laws and urgent federal laws which are due to be valid for more than a year. The optional referendum on international treaties is held in relation to international treaties that are of unlimited duration and may not be terminated, and international treaties that provide for membership of international organisations or contain legislative provisions that have to be implemented by enacting federal laws Optional referendums are called if 50,000 signatures are collected in support of a referendum within 100 days, or if eight cantons request a referendum, and pass with a popular majority. Until 2004, an optional referendum has never been successfully requested by a group of cantons; the first referendum initiated by the cantons was held on 16 May 2004. Initiatives Initiatives can be used to propose changes to the federal constitution. In addition, in 2003 Switzerland adopted a new form of initiative, to be used in relation to more general statutory provisions. Once an initiative is filed, a specified number of valid signatures (i.e. signatures of registered voters) are required in order to force the Federal Council and Parliament to consider the initiative and to hold a referendum on the initiative proposal. Amendments to the constitution can be proposed using two different initiative mechanisms. The popular initiative for a partial revision of the constitution provides voters with the opportunity to propose a draft revision to part of the federal constitution. 100,000 voters must sign an initiative in order for a referendum to be held on the proposal. The popular initiative for a total revision of the constitution also requires the support of 100,000 voters in an initiative. In both cases, the signatures must be collected within 18 months of the initiative being filed. From late 2006, the general popular initiative will be available to Swiss voters. This mechanism can be used to force a referendum on the adoption of a general proposal that will be incorporated on a constitutional and/or legislative level, providing that 100,000 signatures are collected in support of the initiative. Until 2006, initiatives in Switzerland can be submitted as a general proposition or in the text that would be adopted if the initiative measure is successful. However, after the implementation of the general popular initiative, the popular initiative for a partial revision of the constitution will only be accepted in the form of a written text proposition (general propositions in relation to the constitution should be made using the general popular initiative). In response to initiatives which meet the required signature threshold, the Swiss Parliament advises the people on whether to adopt or reject the proposal. In addition, the government is also able to formulate a counter-proposal that is included on the ballot. The "double-yes" vote allows voters to approve both the original initiative and the government's response to it, and indicate which of the two measures they prefer. The measure which receives the most support is passed.
Forms of direct democracy - cantonal levelUse of direct democracy is even more extensive in Switzerland's 26 cantons (i.e., state authorities). However, use of direct democracy varies between the cantons; between 1970-2003 Zurich held 457, whilst Ticino held just 53 (the canton of Jura held just 45 referendums, but was only formally established (by referendum) in 1979). In addition to the referendum and initiative mechanisms used at federal level, the following mechanisms are also used in some or all of the Swiss cantons. Unlike at federal level, the legislative initiative has for some time provided voters in all cantons with the opportunity to propose additions to laws. In some cantons, the administrative initiative can be used to demand that certain work is undertaken in public administration (e.g., building a new school or a new road). In addition, some cantons provide for the initiative to launch a canton initiative, an initiative to force the canton to table a motion to the Federal Assembly. All the Swiss cantons provide for legislative referendums on legislation passed by the cantonal parliament; however, in different cantons, these may be mandatory or optional. Administrative referendums may be held on major public projects that will incur high levels of public expenditure (and may lead to increases in taxes); these are sometime called fiscal referendums. Lastly, administrative referendums may be held on the non-fiscal issues of public administration listed above.
Characteristics of the use of direct democracy in SwitzerlandTurnout Swiss voters are given the opportunity to vote in federal referendums on average four times a year. Typically, voters will also vote on a number of cantonal and local issues on the day of a federal ballot. Over the second part of the twentieth century, turnout at federal referendums fell from around 50-70% to an average of around 40%; this mirrored a similar decline in turnout at federal elections from 80% to around 45%. One suggestion is that this comparatively low turnout is due to the sheer number of votes that the Swiss are able to vote in; however, it is argued by many that a far higher proportion of the population is politically active than appears so from the figure of 40%, since it is not always the same 40-45% of voters who vote at each opportunity. Issues Given the numerous opportunities for using direct democracy in Switzerland, it is perhaps not surprising that the variety of issues on which referendums are held is extremely wide. Since 1990, referendums have been held on such diverse issues as:
Impact of direct democracy Undoubtedly, direct democracy has played a key role in shaping the modern Swiss political system. Yet it is important to question the actual impact of direct democracy on the legislative issues that, in other countries, are the responsibility of elected representatives. On one reading, it could be argued that the impact has been limited: in the first century of using the initiative (1891-2004), just 14 initiatives were passed in Switzerland. Yet to consider this statistic alone ignores the considerable, indirect impact of direct democracy. Although the majority of initiatives fail, the fact that there has been an initiative, and therefore a campaign, increases publicity surrounding the issue in question and public knowledge of it. This may well increase pressure on the government to introduce measures dealing with the issue, even if it is not required to by virtue of a successful referendum. An initiative might therefore be successful in achieving some of its proponents' aims, even if it is not successful in the sense of having passed. This trend explains why many initiatives are filed but subsequently withdrawn; because sometimes a government chooses to act before an initiative reaches the referendum stage. A further impact of the direct democracy mechanisms within Switzerland is that the government is forced to seek a wider consensus about the statutory (and constitutional) measures that it seeks to introduce than is the case in a purely representative system. In a representative system, the party of government may, in the absence of a large majority, have to develop cross-party consensus on an issue in order to ensure that the measure is approved. In the Swiss system, the possibility of an optional referendum forces the government to ensure consensus with groups outside of Parliament so as to prevent the possibility of such groups seeking to overturn the new legislation. Conversely, the significance of direct democracy in the Swiss system is often cited as the reason for the weakness of Swiss political parties and the relatively low significance attached to normal elections. This is because, given the prominence of direct democracy, political parties are not solely responsible for controlling the federal agenda. In addition, direct democracy often raises cross-cutting issues on which members of political parties might not be in agreement.
Useful links and sourcesSwiss federal chancellery and information DVD
Next: Contributors ContributorsContributors to Focus on Direct DemocracyFocus on direct democracy was produced by Ellie Greenwood, whilst on secondment to International IDEA from the UK Electoral Commission. The work was undertaken as part of IDEA's project on the global use of direct democracy. The project is considering how the use of direct democracy can enhance democratic systems, and aims to produce a series of tools outlining options for the design of direct democracy institutions. |
A recent high-profile recall case involving a prominent figure has increased public exposure to the recall mechanism. In California, the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor after a successful recall campaign to oust Governor Gray Davis.
Once the Secretary of State certifies that the petition has qualified, the Lieutenant Governor is required by the California Constitution to set the date of the recall election. The election must be held in the period between 60-80 days after the date on which the Secretary of State certified that the petition qualified, unless there is a state-wide election within 180 days of that date (in which case the Lieutenant Governor has the option to hold the recall election on the same day).
government. Although Switzerland retains features of a representative democracy (e.g. it has an elected Parliament), various forms of direct democracy are used frequently at national, cantonal and local (commune) level. This case study focuses on the mechanisms and use of Switzerland's direct democracy.
