OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH

1. To study and know about Direct and Representative Democracy.

2. To study the advantages and disadvantages of both forms of democracy,
3. To know the practical functioning of Direct democracy by a case study of a place
where it is practised.
4. To compare both forms of democracy.
5. To finally come up to a conclusion whether which form of democracy is best suited
in what circumstances.
 Research Methodology

This paper relies on the secondary sources for the comparative study between the two types
of democracies. As the name suggests, this paper is a result of comparisons done on various
grounds including but not limited to comparison of the outcomes of the forms of democracy
in various countries and the rate of success thereof.
 ABSTRACT

Switzerland, the most well-known exponent of direct democracy, has held almost five
hundred popular ballots at the federal level since direct legislation has been embodied in the
modern Swiss constitution of 1848. Legislation by direct vote rather than by elected
representatives has also become an essential part of the political system in some U.S. states:
at the beginning of the century, a number of states with California (1911) the prominent state
have adopted law-making through ballot initiatives and state-wide referenda.

This paper studies the determinants and the consequences of direct and representative
legislation from a positive point of view. The citizens can either resolve the issue through a
direct ballot or, alternatively, elect one citizen as their representative who subsequently
determines the policy for the jurisdiction. The topic of the project is highly debatable issue
hence the nature of project is also to take into account the different views and finally
comment on what’s best suited for what. Hence, the above hypothesis makes a strong case
and a scope for research to which this paper shall endeavour to achieve.

KEYWORDS: Direct democracy, Representative democracy, policy-making, discretionary

power, referenda, recall
 What is Direct Democracy ?

In direct democracy, people decide on policies without any intermediary. Depending on the
particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use
of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials, and conducting trials. Two
leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.

Semi-direct democracies in which representatives administer day-to-day governance, but the

citizens remain the sovereign, allow for three forms of popular action: referendum
(plebiscite), initiative, and recall. The first two forms—referendums and initiatives—are
examples of direct legislation.

A 'compulsory referendum' subjects the legislation drafted by political elites to a binding

popular vote. This is the most common form of direct legislation. A 'popular referendum'
empowers citizens to make a petition that calls existing legislation to a vote by the citizens.
Institutions specify the timeframe for a valid petition and the number of signatures required,
and may require signatures from diverse communities to protect minority interests. This form
of direct democracy effectively grants the voting public a veto on laws adopted by the elected
legislature, as is done in Switzerland.

A 'citizen-initiated referendum' (also called an initiative) empowers members of the general

public to propose, by petition, specific statutory measures or constitutional reforms to the
government and, as with referendums, the vote may be binding or simply advisory. Initiatives
may be direct or indirect: With the direct initiative, a successful proposition is placed directly
on the ballot to be subject to vote (as exemplified by California's system).With an indirect
initiative, a successful proposition is first presented to the legislature for their consideration;
however, if no acceptable action is taken after a designated period of time, the proposition
moves to direct popular vote. Such a form of indirect initiative is utilized by Switzerland for
constitutional amendments.
A deliberative referendum is a referendum that increases public deliberation through
purposeful institutional design.

Power of recall gives the public the power to remove elected officials from office before the
1
end of their term

1
Bogdanor, V., & Brady, H. E. (1994). Referendums around the world: The growing use of direct
democracy. American Enterprise Institute.
Switzerland: “the gold standard for democracy ”

More than its snow-capped mountains and nifty, collapsible army knives, Switzerland is
perhaps best known for its system of democracy. Known as "direct" democracy, it’s a legal
framework that enables all Swiss citizens over the age of 18 to vote on how the country is
run.

The system has some high-powered admirers. France’s newly elected President Emmanuel
Macron has said he wants a similar system of referendums in place for French voters. But it
can also produce unexpected results, such as a veto on the building of minarets or a proposal
for all cars to be banned from the roads on Sundays.

Here are a few other facts about Switzerland’s political system:

 Switzerland has a population of 8.2 million people, of which 24% are foreign
nationals, spread across 26 cantons.

 The fundamental principle of direct democracy is that all citizens take part in
decision-making and there’s a strong respect for minorities. Unfortunately, this wasn’t
extended to women, who were not given the vote until 1971 (and even until 1991 in
the case of one canton).

 In the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, the People’s Assembly (Landsgemeinde) still

chooses its representative in the Council of States by a show of hands.

 The government, also called Federal Council, is the executive power. It is composed
of seven Federal Councillors from several Swiss political parties, which are elected by
the Federal Assembly every four years and share the duties of a head of state. Federal
Councillors rotate and every year one takes on the role of president.

 The Swiss political scene is dominated by four main parties: the Swiss People’s Party,
the Social Democrats, the Liberals and the Christian Democratic Party.
  In recent years, the Green Party has emerged, as well as a small number of minority
parties. The “Anti PowerPoint Party”, for example, was a political party in
Switzerland that worked to decrease the use of PowerPoint in professional
presentations. They claimed that PowerPoint software was economically harmful.

 Popular votes can be held up to four times a year. The Federal Council decides a
couple of months in advance which proposals will be voted on and releases the dates
of the votes even earlier. Currently all the dates have been fixed from now until 2034.

A rich backstory

The democratic roots of Switzerland travel in many directions and cross several centuries.
During the Renaissance, humanists striving for freedom from Rome offered different
interpretations to religion that were closer to the needs of people and political independence.
The three main reformist streams – represented by John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli and Erasmus
of Rotterdam – also show the roots of direct democracy in the country’s religious past, as
they veer from an intransigent theology to an open and humanistic outlook.

Centuries later, Friedrich Schiller celebrated the fight for Swiss independence from foreign
occupiers in his masterpiece William Tell, which underpins a bottom-up democracy.
Meanwhile, some cantons such as Ticino decided to join the Confederation just to enjoy
religious freedom after the Napoleonic wars.

Switzerland’s Federal Constitution was completely changed in 1874. The importance of the
cantons was lessened in favour of the country’s central administration. People moving
between cantons were given full voting rights after three months, which was beneficial to
those moving from rural areas to big cities at the time, and referendums at a federal level
were introduced. The revision of the constitution had to be voted on too, of course, and was
approved with 63% of the vote.

The instruments of direct democracy

There are three instruments of direct democracy, all types of referendum: mandatory, popular
initiative and optional. A vote must be held on any amendment to the constitution resulting in
a mandatory referendum. A double majority, meaning the consent of a majority of the people
and of the cantons is required to amend the country’s constitution.

Citizens can launch a popular initiative to demand a change to the constitution. Any Swiss
citizen who is eligible to vote can sign a popular initiative and a group of at least seven
citizens (the initiative committee) can launch their own popular initiative. Before a vote is
held on a popular initiative, the initiative committee must collect 100,000 valid signatures in
favour of the proposal within a period of 18 months.

The Federal Council and Parliament will recommend whether the proposal should be
accepted or rejected. For the proposal to be accepted a double majority is needed. If it is
accepted, new legislation or an amendment to existing legislation is normally required to
implement the new constitutional provision.

Popular initiatives were introduced at federal level in 1891. Two hundred popular initiatives
have been voted on since then, but only 22 have been accepted. In 2016, a popular initiative
to give everyone in the country a basic income made it to the referendum stage, but was
rejected by 76.9% of voters. A popular initiative proposing six weeks of holiday a year for
workers was also rejected at the polls.2

One of the closest votes in recent history was in 2002 in a popular initiative referendum,
started by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. Less than 50.1% of voters rejected proposals
to curb the number of asylum seekers entering the country – just 3,000 more than those who
were in favour of the initiative.

Power to the people

2
Frey, B. S. (1994). Direct democracy: politico-economic lessons from Swiss experience. The
American Economic Review, 84(2), 338-342.
While parliament passes new legislation and amendments to existing legislation, citizens can
call for a referendum on new laws and against certain international treaties. This right to
request an optional referendum is an important element in Swiss direct democracy.

For such a referendum to be held, either eight cantons must request it (this is a cantonal
referendum) or 50,000 signatures from eligible voters must be collected within 100 days. The
new law comes into force if a majority of those voting say yes (a simple majority). If the
majority vote no, the current law continues to apply. This type of referendum was introduced
in 1874. Since then, 180 optional referendums have been held, 78 of which have been
unsuccessful.

But how do Swiss citizens feel about this democratic system, which relies on greater
involvement from the electorate? Roughly 65% of Swiss citizens are satisfied with their
government, according to Cheryl A. Fain’s book Modern Direct Democracy in Switzerland
and the American West. Nevertheless, according to Idea International, Swiss voter turnout in
2015 amounted to just 48.4% of the eligible electorate.

But Stefan Rey, from the Institute of Political Science at Zurich University, claims that
democracy gives people more satisfaction, even if they don’t exercise their rights. Direct
democracy has a curious effect on voter turnout – it seems the more of a voice people have,
the less often they turn out to vote.3

3
World Economic Forum’s study on Switzerland’s political system
 DIRECT DEMOCRACY VS. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

Why might voters prefer to make their own decisions (direct democracy) rather than delegate

those on representatives (representative democracy)? Our aim in this paper is to determine

which of these two democratic systems is the regime preferred by the electorate.

Some part of the society openly expresses its opposition to the implementation of direct

democracy practices such as referendums. The most recurring argument is the lack of

information that the ordinary citizen has when she has to make a decision. Instead, this part of

the society argues that decisions should be made by politicians, since they are more likely

to have appropriate information to make a wise decision. In essence, what these people
defend

is the establishment of a representative democracy in which voters delegate decisions on

representatives.

It is often claimed that politicians may have private information that would contribute

to increase the overall welfare of society. However, arguing that representative democracy

has advantages over direct democracy because of this fact might not be as clear as it seems.

We suggest two main reasons. First, not all voters necessarily have to be interested in the

improvement of the general welfare. This idea is in line with the distinction between the

theories of public-regardingness and selfishness in voting behaviour. While the first theory

highlights the importance of seeking the good of the community as a whole, the second one
emphasizes the search for personal benefits. The second 4reason is that there is no guarantee

that every representative will use such superior information to increase the common welfare,

that is, politicians may pursue their personal interests to the detriment of the general interests

of the population.

In direct democracy, voters directly cast their ballots for one of the two alternatives, whereas
in representative democracy, they choose a representative, who will then decide which policy
to implement. One of the two policies is socially correct, that is, the policy that would be
appropriate to implement from a neutral perspective. For example, l and r may represent left-
wing and right-wing policies respectively and the socially correct policy be the one that,
given the economic situation of the country, would allow a long-term GDP growth. Agents
may be biased towards one or the other policy, so they may differ by the policy they like the
most. Furthermore, they receive additional non-negative utility in case the socially correct
policy becomes implemented. The socially correct policy is determined by a random shock.
Voters are uncertain about the optimal policy whereas representatives are experts who
observe the shock. 5

CONCLUSION

4
Why Delegate? Comparing Direct and Representative Democracy ISSN 1989-6908
5
The Promises and Dangers of Direct Democracy: A Historical Comparison », Siècles
[Online], 37 | 2013, Online since 30 September 2013, connection on 12 October 2018. URL : http://
journals.openedition.org/siecles/1072
Direct democracy provides an alternative to non-consensual politics, free from corrupting
influence of concentration of powers. In the contrary, detractors argue that direct democracy
can lead to chaotic policy interests and ironically lead to increased role of moneyed interests
in the voting process. Does these arguments prove that, “the road to held was paved with
good intentions”?

Direct democracy gives power back to the people. Getting to vote once every 5 years may
impair the people to stop the corrupt practises, but the features such as ‘recall’ in direct
democracies allow citizens to decide the fate of the state. But contrary that view, there is a
strong unrebutted view that Using Representative Democracy is the only way of ensuring the
rights of minorities as the masses will think about the needs of the majority.

There’s a belief that Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action
were needed, decisions could be taken quickly. Contrary to that, some thinkers believe that
Representative democracy ensures the long-term betterment of a country. As a lot of strategic
planning is required for country’s long-term growth.

People today are apathetic and distrustful about politics, which is very unhealthy for a
democracy, hence direct democracy is an alternative which can retain the faith of people in
democracy as there are no intermediaries. Representative democracy forms a more stable set
up- is another view in contrary to that.

Direct democracy gives power to people by by-passing other organisations. Governments are
constant . Representative democracy better caters to a bigger electorate. In a democracy,
everyone's opinion should be equal, because there are no right or wrong beliefs and
representative democracy can ensure that.

While, these views exist this is also the fact that places where direct form of direct democracy
is practised, are relatively small and have an informed population which may take conscious
actions knowing their consequences.

Therefore, for a state with less population, direct democracy may ensure excellent
governance. While the same cannot be said for a bigger population.