 |
 |
Dr. Michael Macpherson, PSAMRA/Integral Studies, Berlin FRG There are some "yardsticks" for democracy. I think that the simplest and most fundamental is the word itself. People rule. Any deviation weakens the principle (e.g. people elect others to rule). I'm pretty sure that there are measures of democracy in the literature, e.g. in the work of David Held. Direct democracy has been measured and scaled. There is empirical work which relates direct democracy to economic performance of a region, and to "happiness" of citizens. A recent comparison of direct democracy in 35 european countries is available from the Initiative and Referendum Institute, Amsterdam. "Resourceful lobby organisations" more frequently influence representative democracy than direct democracy. Experts have argued that it's easier for, say, a company to change government policy than to sway a whole electorate. It's not the "elements of direct democracy" which are disempowering, quite the contrary, they are empowering. There are many reasons for apathy, non-involvement in politics and disempowerment. Also, in most European countries, we are inexperienced in taking public responsibility into our own hands and need practice. That said, my current view is that the US american style of direct democracy with many "ballot issues" is more open to abuse than the more deliberative style to be found in Europe (e.g. some german Lands, Switzerland), which brings parliaments into the process and debate at a quite early stage. I wrote earlier "in those countries where the people have NO RIGHT (or no effective right) to referendum on vital matters of state - most EU countries and candidate countries are in this category - there is a serious deficit of democracy". Relying partly on the yardsticks which I have mentioned above and on my own study of democracy and prospects for same in Britain, I stick to the evaluation. As experienced Swiss citizens tend to say, there are some problems with our direct democracy, but it's better to keep it than to throw it out. I am fascinated by your remark about interactions of direct and indirect democracy with "civil" society. Would be interested to discuss how to research those. David May wrote: > 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 > Sincerely, Michael Macpherson