In the past years, more than initiatives have been put to referendums. Some of the issues surrounding the related notion of direct democracy using the Internet and other communications technologies are dealt with in e-democracy and below under the term electronic direct democracy.
More concisely, the concept of open source governance applies principles of the free software movement to the governance of people, allowing the entire populace to participate in government directly, as much or as little as they please. Direct democratic participation is generally open to all with citizen status and who are above the voting age. Citizenship, however, is often restricted as the example of the Ancient Greek polis democracy proves. Today many migrants, who live in their new home countries for many years, are still restricted from voting.
Many countries also deprive convicted felons from voting rights. The deliberative character of direct democracy has changed quite a lot over the millennia. In the Ancient Greek polis democracy, all those with citizen status gathered and discussed and decided on political matters directly. Poleis were small and decentralized enough to make the face-to-face engagement of all formal citizens possible.
This ideal is still preserved in some Swiss cantons, where citizens of a village gather and deliberate face-to-face. In large-scale modern democracies, this is not possible. That does not mean, however, that deliberation does not take place. During referendum campaigns or in the process of gathering signatures for petitions , citizens deliberate in smaller, more private circles, with their friends and families. Print media and television yield enormous power in this process as they mediate what is said by experts and politicians to "ordinary citizens".
This channel mostly works one way: top-down. Social media like Facebook and Twitter make the interaction of citizens with a greater—while still restricted and selective—public possible.
Posting or commenting on political content is a way of deliberative political engagement that differs from traditional forms in many ways: messages tend to be shorter and more visualized and the audience does not include all citizens but a selected group usually encompassing a couple of hundred people.
Nevertheless, new media has opened new channels of horizontal communication in contrast with old media. Many direct democracy advocates complain about high quantitative barriers like quotas that keep referenda from succeeding. Moreover, in many countries, referenda can only be initiated by governments, not by citizens.
Nevertheless, direct democratic instruments appear to have an effect on how democratic systems work. The easier it is for citizens and oppositional parties to initiate referenda or petitions, the more governments appear responsive to citizens' interests even before such direct democratic instruments are employed.
The effect of anticipatory obedience, while always present to a certain extent in modern democracies as elected office holders are afraid to be punished at elections, is enhanced through instruments of direct democracy. So even while many referendum initiatives fail either because not enough signatures can be gathered in the time provided or not enough citizens take part in the voting act of the referendum quorum or not enough citizens vote in favour of the suggested initiative, modern democracies employing direct democratic mechanisms appear to be more democratic than those without.
While the positive aspects of direct democratic instruments become apparent in the descriptions above, criticism is uttered as well:. Indonesian Direct Democracy Experiment.
This entry is missing citations. Please help us verify its content by adding footnotes. Wikipedia - Direct democracy. On an entry page there are three fields that are filled with user-generated free form text.
When an entry is published for the first time, we machine-translate the Open Text fields into all of the other supported languages.
From this point on, the Open Text fields exist as fully separate i. This is but to be expected, given the tremendous differences in history, political culture, and economic context in these divergence places located on two continents. Yet, to paraphrase Pierre Nora, the essential task of the intellectual is to demonstrate the complexity of what seems simple and the simplicity of what seems complex. From such diversity in direct democracy a relatively simple distinction between the American and European cases seems to emerge: that of the extent to which the influence of money has intruded into the political process.
Constitution, in particular its First Amendment, along with the phenomenon of American constitutionalism, that has led to maintained public support for the Constitution-anchored political system, even as it seems to move considerably away from its Early Republic and Jacksonian-era origins.
In France, campaign advertising is tightly regulated. The only mail voters receive is an official platform statement of each party sent together at a specified time in a single, unmarked brown paper envelope. In contrast to the plethora of political billboards in the United States, in France only official campaign posters, with strict guidelines as to their size and the amount of text and image allowed, are displayed on official bulletin boards near each election site.
Although some candidates complain that their voices are not sufficiently heard, in general they have relatively equal access to the media through journalists or official forums, but neither they nor anyone else may purchase advertising time.
This does not mean that cases of excessive influence or of political corruption do not exist. However, the absence of campaign advertising means that the economic pressures exerted on the political system do not directly involve voters, but are largely contained in the sometimes covert relationships between powerful individuals or groups and political parties or elected officials.
The lack of advertising, along with relatively generous government financing for political campaigns, also translates as a reduced cost of campaigning in France that opens the possibility for small political parties not only to participate in, but occasionally to win elections. Supreme Court has increasingly interpreted this passage in the First Amendment to the U.
Constitution as protecting campaign contributions as an expression of free speech. This has been particularly the case after Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, designed especially to regulate and limit campaign financing and advertising. Federal Election Commission, the Court has dismantled many of the restrictions on political spending in election campaigns, essentially by arguing that the First Amendment protects the rights of corporations, labor unions, or any other American group or individual to participate financially with no limits in election campaigns as a form of free speech.
In this way, powerful economic interests participate directly in electoral politics at the national, state, and local level, and in all forms of elections, whether for candidates, initiatives, referenda, or recalls.
Concerned Progressives regularly decried political corruption as a threat to American democracy and called for greater citizen involvement in politics and increased citizen education as to the actual workings of their republic, especially as spelled out in its framework, the U. In , Solicitor General James M. This is due, not to any conscious hostility to the spirit or letter, but to the indifference and apathy with which the masses regard the increasing assaults upon its basic principles.
Specifically, it can and should interpret the Constitution in a way that works for the people of America today. It has supplied stability and continuity to a degree the framers [of the U. The decisions made by the Supreme Court in recent years have led to an increase in the influence of financing on campaigns and the abuse of the democratic process by powerful players.
Laws do only need to find a majority of the national electorate to pass a referendum, not a majority of cantons. Referendums on more than a dozen laws per year are not unusual in Switzerland. Frequent referendums on minor changes to the federal or cantonal constitutions, new or changed laws, budgets etc, - referendums on constitutional changes are mandatory - referendums on laws are "facultative" only if 50, citizens, i.
While referendums concerning budgets are not possible on federal level they are common on communal level. It depends on the 26 cantonal constitutions whether they are mandatory, facultative or possible at all. Popular Initiative : , citizens roughly 2. The federal parliament is obliged to discuss the initiative, it may decide to recommend or to reject the initiative or it may propose an alternative. Whatever they choose to do, all citizens will finally decide in a referendum whether to accept the initiative, the alternate proposal or stay without change.
0コメント