Whether or not a certain polity has institutionalised binding referenda does not
automatically allow an evaluation of a demoratic deficit. To my knowledge there
are no absolute yardsticks that allow to say which combinations of direct and
indirect democracy are more democratic than others.
In fact, under certain circumstances, elements of direct democracy can be
disempovering, e.g. when resourceful lobby organisation can (mis)use referenda
for their purposes or when you have a berlusconilike entanglement of media,
economic interests and political interests. Another threat to direct democracy
are the attempts to use arguemnts that are foreign to the decission. This
happened in the EU-referenda in Ireland (e.g. abortion is foreign to the Nice
treaty) and frequently happens in Denmark.
In conclusion, any evaluation takes place on the background of specific
yardsticks. Michael Macpherson can see "a glaringly obvious democratic deficit"
only when having binding referenda is by definition more democratic than not
having binding referenda. This yardstick is contestable and has to be contested
if it is really as simplistic as I present it here.
From my point of view, the crucial question is the specific implementation of
the various elements of direct and indirect democracy in the light of other
forms of political participation through civil society. Although I personally
support a wider use of direct democrcy, closing the eyes on the potential
threats does not help any further.
David May
M J Macpherson wrote:
> Is the concept "democratic deficit" scientific? If so, then it may be
> measurable and, in a discussion list (we're not submitting papers to a
> journal here), a rough estimate such as "glaringly obvious" can be
> appropriate.
>
> Perhaps you did not notice that I was using a figure of speech; I tried
> to emphasise my point by apposing "glaringly" to "limelight".
>
> Although this is a scientific list, you do not make a substantial point
> about the topic, democracy. Also it seems that you falsely interpret
> what I wrote. I do not propose replacing indirect democracy with direct
> democracy but to complement the former with elements of the latter. Do
> you have arguments against that? I would be happy to discuss in a civil
> manner.
>
> I notice that your e-mail address reads .cz. In the Czech Republic a
> referendum will probably soon be held in which the people will decide
> whether to join the European Union or not. I am concerned about a
> deficit of democracy in Britain (and elsewhere). The British do not have
> the right to bind their government in a referendum. An academic wrote
> that this is because they are "subjects" and not "citizens". (See "Legal
> basis of national referendums" http://home.snafu.de/mjm/natref1.html )
>
> Michael Macpherson
--
-----------------------------------------------------
David May
AMID
Academy for Migration Studies in Denmark
Aalborg University
Fibigerstræde 2
DK-9220 Aalborg-Øst
Denmark
Tel: ++ 45 / 9635 9203
Fax: ++ 45 / 9815 1126
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.humsamf.auc.dk/~may/
|