Direct democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A Landsgemeinde, or assembly, of the canton of Glarus, on 7 May 2006, Switzerland.

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of most currently established democracies, which are representative democracies.

Overview[edit]

In a representative democracy, people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives.[1] 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.[2]

Compulsory referendum subjects the legislation drafted by political elites to a binding popular vote. This is the most common form of direct legislation. 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.[2] This form of direct democracy effectively grants the voting public a veto on laws adopted by the elected legislature, as is done in Switzerland.[3][4][5][6]

Power of initiative allows members of the general public to propose 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).[2] 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.[2]

Power of recall gives the public the power to remove elected officials from office before the end of their term.[7]

History[edit]

The earliest known direct democracy is said to be the Athenian democracy in the 5th century BC, although it was not an inclusive democracy: women, foreigners, and slaves were excluded from it. The main bodies in the Athenian democracy were the assembly, composed of male citizens; the boulê, composed of 500 citizens; and the law courts, composed of a massive number of jurors chosen by lot, with no judges. There were only about 30,000 male citizens, but several thousand of them were politically active in each year, and many of them quite regularly for years on end. The Athenian democracy was direct not only in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also in the sense that the people through the assembly, boulê, and law courts controlled the entire political process, and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.[8] Modern democracies, being representative, not direct, do not resemble the Athenian system.

Also relevant to the history of direct democracy is the history of Ancient Rome, specifically the Roman Republic, beginning around 509 BC.[9] Rome displayed many aspects of democracy, both direct and indirect, from the era of Roman monarchy all the way to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the Senate, formed in the first days of the city, lasted through the Kingdom, Republic, and Empire, and even continued after the decline of Western Rome; and its structure and regulations continue to influence legislative bodies worldwide. As to direct democracy, the ancient Roman Republic had a system of citizen lawmaking, or citizen formulation and passage of law, and a citizen veto of legislature-made law. Many historians mark the end of the Republic with the passage of a law named the Lex Titia, 27 November 43 BC, which eliminated many oversight provisions.[9]

Modern-era citizen lawmaking began in the towns of Switzerland in the 13th century. In 1847, the Swiss added the "statute referendum" to their national constitution. They soon discovered that merely having the power to veto Parliament's laws was not enough. In 1891, they added the "constitutional amendment initiative". Swiss politics since 1891 have given the world a valuable experience base with the national-level constitutional amendment initiative.[10] In the past 120 years, more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendums. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of these initiatives; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government. (See Direct democracy in Switzerland below.)[3][4][5][6]

Some of the issues surrounding the related notion of a 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.[11]

Examples[edit]

Ancient Athens[edit]

Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 500 BC. Athens was one of the very first known democracies. Other Greek cities set up democracies, and even though most followed an Athenian model, none were as powerful, stable, or well-documented as that of Athens. In the direct democracy of Athens, the citizens did not nominate representatives to vote on legislation and executive bills on their behalf (as in the United States) but instead voted as individuals. The public opinion of voters was influenced by the political satire of the comic poets in the theatres.[12]

Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (508–507 BCE), and Ephialtes (462 BC) all contributed to the development of Athenian democracy. Historians differ on which of them was responsible for which institution, and which of them most represented a truly democratic movement. It is most usual to date Athenian democracy from Cleisthenes, since Solon's constitution fell and was replaced by the tyranny of Peisistratus, whereas Ephialtes revised Cleisthenes' constitution relatively peacefully. Hipparchus, the brother of the tyrant Hippias, was killed by Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who were subsequently honored by the Athenians for their alleged restoration of Athenian freedom.

The greatest and longest-lasting democratic leader was Pericles; after his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolution towards the end of the Peloponnesian War. It was modified somewhat after it was restored under Eucleides; the most detailed accounts are of this 4th-century modification rather than of the Periclean system. It was suppressed by the Macedonians in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but the extent to which they were a real democracy is debatable.[13]

Switzerland[edit]

In Switzerland, with no need to register, every citizen receives the ballot papers and information brochure for each vote, and can return it by post. Switzerland has various directly democratic instruments; votes are organised about four times a year.

The pure form of direct democracy exists only in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.[14] The Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy).[14] The nature of direct democracy in Switzerland is fundamentally complemented by its federal governmental structures (in German also called the Subsidiaritätsprinzip).[3][4][5][6]

Most western countries have representative systems.[14] Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy. On any political level citizens can propose changes to the constitution (popular initiative), or ask for an optional referendum to be held on any law voted by the federal, cantonal parliament and/or municipal legislative body.[15]

The list for mandatory or optional referendums on each political level are generally much longer in Switzerland than in any other country; for example any amendment to the constitution must automatically be voted on by the Swiss electorate and cantons, on cantonal/communal levels often any financial decision of a certain substantial amount decreed by legislative and/or executive bodies as well.[15]

Swiss citizens vote regularly on any kind of issue on every political level, such as financial approvals of a school house or the building of a new street, or the change of the policy regarding sexual work, or on constitutional changes, or on the foreign policy of Switzerland, four times a year.[16] Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, on 103 federal questions besides many more cantonal and municipal questions.[17] During the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums.[14]

In Switzerland, simple majorities are sufficient at the municipal and cantonal level, but at the federal level double majorities are required on constitutional issues.[10]

A double majority requires approval by a majority of individuals voting, and also by a majority of cantons. Thus, in Switzerland a citizen-proposed amendment to the federal constitution (i.e. popular initiative) cannot be passed at the federal level if a majority of the people approve but a majority of the cantons disapprove.[10] For referendums or propositions in general terms (like the principle of a general revision of the Constitution), a majority of those voting is sufficient (Swiss Constitution, 2005).

In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss adopted the idea of double majorities from the United States Congress, in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the states.[10] According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. Kris Kobach claims that Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations. Kobach states at the end of his book, "Too often, observers deem Switzerland an oddity among political systems. It is more appropriate to regard it as a pioneer." Finally, the Swiss political system, including its direct democratic devices in a multi-level governance context, becomes increasingly interesting for scholars of European Union integration.[18]

Paris Commune[edit]

In 1871 after the establishment of the Paris Commune, the Parisians established a decentralized direct system of government with appointed organizers to make sense of the largely spontaneous uprising. While it still refused women the right to vote, they were heavily involved in the consensus before votes took place. Everything from the military to when meetings took place was democratized, and such decentralization and aforementioned democratization led many members of the First Internationale to regard the Paris Commune as a stateless society.

Due to the short lifespan of the Commune, only one citywide election was held and the structures necessary to facilitate future organized elections on large scales was largely nonexistent. However, the influence of direct democratization in the Paris Commune is not to be understated.

United States[edit]

In the New England region of the United States, towns in areas such as Vermont decide local affairs through the direct democratic process of the town meeting.[19] This is the oldest form of direct democracy in the United States, and predates the founding of the country by at least a century.

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in tyranny of the majority. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says,

Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

[...]

[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.[20]

John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said: "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."[21]

Despite the framers' intentions in the beginning of the republic, ballot measures and their corresponding referendums have been widely used at the state and sub-state level. There is much state and federal case law, from the early 1900s to the 1990s, that protects the people's right to each of these direct democracy governance components (Magleby, 1984, and Zimmerman, 1999). The first United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of the citizen lawmaking was in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 in 1912 (Zimmerman, December 1999). President Theodore Roosevelt, in his "Charter of Democracy" speech to the 1912 Ohio constitutional convention, stated: "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."[22]

In various states, referendums through which the people rule include:

  • Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed constitutional amendments" (constitutionally used in 49 states, excepting only Delaware – Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
  • Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed statute laws" (constitutionally used in all 50 states – Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
  • Constitutional amendment initiative is a constitutionally-defined petition process of "proposed constitutional law", which, if successful, results in its provisions being written directly into the state's constitution. Since constitutional law cannot be altered by state legislatures, this direct democracy component gives the people an automatic superiority and sovereignty, over representative government (Magelby, 1984). It is utilized at the state level in nineteen states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota (Cronin, 1989). Among these states, there are three main types of the constitutional amendment initiative, with different degrees of involvement of the state legislature distinguishing between the types (Zimmerman, December 1999).
  • Statute law initiative is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated petition process of "proposed statute law", which, if successful, results in law being written directly into the state's statutes. The statute initiative is used at the state level in twenty-one states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989). Note that, in Utah, there is no constitutional provision for citizen lawmaking. All of Utah's I&R law is in the state statutes (Zimmerman, December 1999). In most states, there is no special protection for citizen-made statutes; the legislature can begin to amend them immediately.
  • Statute law referendum is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated petition process of the "proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law", which, if successful, repeals the standing law. It is used at the state level in twenty-four states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989).
  • The recall election is a citizen-initiated process which, if successful, removes an elected official from office and replaces him or her. The first recall device in the United States was adopted in Los Angeles in 1903. Typically, the process involves the collection of citizen petitions for the recall of an elected official; if a sufficient number of valid signatures and collected and verified, a recall election is triggered. In U.S. history, there have been three gubernatorial recall elections in U.S. history (two of which resulted in the recall of the governor) and 38 recall elections for state legislators (55% of which succeeded). As of 2017, it is utilized at the state level in nineteen states and the District of Columbia; a larger number of states allow the recall for local officials and school board members. In most states, a recall petition campaign may begin for any reason; eight states require specific grounds for recall.[23]

Zapatistas[edit]

Territories held by the Zapatistas in Mexico also employ elements of direct democracy. At a local level, people attend a general assembly of around 300 families where anyone over the age of 12 can participate in decision-making, these assemblies strive to reach a consensus but are willing to fall back to a majority vote. Each community has 3 main administrative structures: (1) the commissariat, in charge of day-to day administration; (2) the council for land control, which deals with forestry and disputes with neighboring communities; and (3) the agencia, a community police agency. The communities form a federation with other communities to create an autonomous municipalities, which form further federations with other municipalities to create a region. The Zapatistas are composed of five regions, in total having a population of around 300,000 people.

Rojava[edit]

In Syrian Kurdistan, in the cantons of Rojava, a new model of polity is exercised by the Kurdish freedom movement, that of Democratic confederalism. This model has been developed by Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, on the basis of the Kurdish revolutionary experience and traditions, and of the theory of Communalism developed by Murray Bookchin[24]. At the opposite of the Nation-State model of sovereignty, Democratic confederalism rests on the principle of radical self-government, where political decisions are taken in popular assemblies at the level of the commune, which will send delegates to the confederate level of the district and the canton[25]. This bottom-up political structure coexists with the democratic self-administration, as organized in the Charter of the Social Contract adopted by the cantons of Rojava in 2014. These two structures constitute a situation characterized as one of dual power by David Graeber, though a peculiar one as they are both formed by the same movement[26].

Compared to other experiences categorized as ones of direct democracy such as OWS, the Rojava experiment presents only several elements of direct democracy, namely the organization of the self-governing communes in popular assemblies where everybody can participate, the confederation of these communes through imperative and recallable mandates, the rotation of charges (often biannually) and the absence of a centralized power[27]. In theory, Öcalan describes the principle of Democratic Confederalism as follows: "In contrast to a centralist and bureaucratic understanding of administration and exercise of power confederalism poses a type of political self-administration where all groups of the society and all cultural identities can express themselves in local meetings, general conventions and councils."[28]. In practice, Rojava is organized on a system of "Four Level Councils": the Commune, the Neighborhood, the District, and the People's Council of West Kurdistan. Each level nominates delegates for the next level with imperative mandates as well as recallable mandates[27].

As democratic autonomy rests on the equal political engagement of members of the community, the Kurdish women's movement aims at changing the historical exclusion of women from the public sphere as well as at educating women, creating space where they can participate and produce their own decisions[29]. This commitment to women's liberation is instantiated in the principle of dual leadership and 40 percent quota and in the many political spaces created for women's education as well as their political and economic emancipation[30]. Women are therefore fully included in the project of direct democracy. In order to contribute to their political emancipation, Kurdish women created a new science, Jineologî or "women's science", in order to give to women access to knowledge, the very foundation of power in society[31]. Moreover, political emancipation is not seen as sufficient to ensure women's liberation if it does not rest on the possibility of women for self-defense. Therefore, Kurdish women created the Women's Protection Units (YPJ) which forms, along with the People's Protection Units (YPG), the Kurdish armed forces.

The Rojava cantons are governed through a combination of district and civil councils. District councils consist of 300 members as well as two elected co-presidents- one man and one woman. District councils decide and carry out administrative and economic duties such as garbage collection, land distribution and cooperative enterprises.[32] `

Occupy Wall Street[edit]

Rallied under the slogan “We are the 99%” to protest against the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of the 1%[33] (Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, By the 1%, and For the 1%”), Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was also a political project of experimenting how a group could organized itself under the paradigm of direct democracy. The commitment of OWS to direct democracy stems from an understanding of social change as prefigurative politics, which consists in putting the means of social change in coherence with its ends and in the enactment of its political vision through mechanisms of direct democracy[34]. Indeed, OWS followed mechanisms of direct democracy to organize the encampment, to prepare the direct actions and to form collective claims. Largely inspired by anarchist principles of absence of coercion, horizontality and non-hierarchy, these mechanisms were already developed and used during the alter-globalization movement, and OWS is in this tradition of neo-anarchism[34].

The main mechanism of direct democracy used during OWS was the General Assembly (GA), which constituted a place of political discussion for people traditionally excluded from the political sphere[35]. The GA allowed anyone to participate in OWS, whether newcomers or original participants, to speak to the entire group, and to be part of the decision-making process. Two “facilitators” (always gender-mixed) animated the meeting by keeping track of the “speaking stack”, composed of anyone who wish to speak (they also used “progressive stacks” to allow people from marginalized groups to have more voice)[36]. As they could gather hundreds of people, general assemblies were often facilitated by hand signals denoting messages that needed to be voiced but did not deserve to interrupt a speaker (consent, objection, lack of understanding, technical/logistical point, clarification, proposition to move forward, language issues, etc.), consultative straw polls (called “temperature checks” to have an idea of what the group thinks at a moment in time, without going through a consensus process) and “human microphone” (the speaker on front of the GA would hear her words repeated by the entire crowd until they reach the people who are the farthest away from the center).

The technique of decision-making within the OWS GA was consensus. Contrary to the majority rule, deciding by consensus entails that no decisions can be made if there is no general consent, preventing the minority to be submitted to the majority's will[37]. Consensus decision-making starts with a proposal for which the facilitators ask for demands of clarification, then for concerns (which can lead to friendly amendments of the proposal), potentially punctuated by consultative straw polls at any of the three steps. Once the proposition is finalized, the facilitators operate the final check for consensus, allowing people either to consent, to stand aside (not taking part for the execution of the decision but not preventing others from doing so), or to block, that is to veto, the proposition; and to justify their chosen position[38].

Democratic reform trilemma[edit]

Democratic theorists have identified a trilemma due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once. These three characteristics are participation – widespread participation in the decision making process by the people affected; deliberation – a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and equality – all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. Empirical evidence from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making.[39][40][41] The most popularly disputed form of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters.[42]

For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either everyone needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as James Fishkin, deliberative democracy is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. Participatory democracy, by Fishkin's definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality, because if widespread participation is allowed, sufficient resources rarely will be available to compensate people who sacrifice their time to participate in the deliberation. Therefore, participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided and often will not therefore be representative of the overall population.[43] Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small, but still representative, number of people from the general public.[7][39]

Fishkin concedes it is possible to imagine a system that transcends the trilemma, but it would require very radical reforms if such a system were to be integrated into mainstream politics.

Electronic direct democracy[edit]

Relation to other movements[edit]

Practicing direct democracy – voting on Nuit Debout, Place de la République, Paris

Anarchists have advocated forms of direct democracy as an alternative to the centralized state and capitalism; however, others (such as individualist anarchists) have criticized direct democracy and democracy in general for ignoring the rights of the minority, and instead have advocated a form of consensus decision-making. Libertarian Marxists, however, fully support direct democracy in the form of the proletarian republic and see majority rule and citizen participation as virtues. The Young Communist League USA in particular refers to representative democracy as "bourgeois democracy", implying that they see direct democracy as "true democracy".[44]

In schools[edit]

Democratic schools modeled on Summerhill School resolve conflicts and make school policy decisions through full school meetings in which the votes of students and staff are weighted equally.[45]

Contemporary movements[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ Budge, Ian (2001). "Direct democracy". In Clarke, Paul A.B.; Foweraker, Joe. Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415193962. 
  2. ^ a b c d Smith, Graham (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 112. 
  3. ^ a b c Hirschbühl (2011a).
  4. ^ a b c Hirschbühl (2011b).
  5. ^ a b c Hirschbühl (2011c).
  6. ^ a b c Hirschbühl (2011d).
  7. ^ a b Fishkin 2011, Chapters 2 & 3.
  8. ^ Raaflaub, Ober & Wallace 2007, p. 5
  9. ^ a b Cary & Scullard 1967
  10. ^ a b c d Kobach 1993
  11. ^ Rushkoff, Douglas (2004). Open Source Democracy. Project Gutenburg: Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing. 
  12. ^ Henderson, J. (1993) Comic Hero versus Political Elite pp. 307–19 in Sommerstein, A.H.; S. Halliwell; J. Henderson; B. Zimmerman, eds. (1993). Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis. Bari: Levante Editori. 
  13. ^ Elster 1998, pp. 1–3
  14. ^ a b c d Vincent Golay and Mix et Remix, Swiss political institutions, Éditions loisirs et pédagogie, 2008. ISBN 978-2-606-01295-3.
  15. ^ a b "Referendums". ch.ch – A service of the Confederation, cantons and communes. Berne, Switzerland: Swiss Confederation. Retrieved 2017-01-09. 
  16. ^ Julia Slater (28 June 2013). "The Swiss vote more than any other country". Berne, Switzerland: swissinfo.ch – the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2015-07-27. 
  17. ^ Duc-Quang Nguyen (17 June 2015). "How direct democracy has grown over the decades". Berne, Switzerland: swissinfo.ch – the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2015-07-27. 
  18. ^ Trechsel (2005)
  19. ^ Bryan, Frank M. (15 March 2010). "Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works". University of Chicago Press. Retrieved 27 April 2017 – via Google Books. 
  20. ^ The Federalist No. 10 – The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued) – Daily Advertiser – November 22, 1787 – James Madison. Retrieved 2007-09-07.
  21. ^ Zagarri 2010, p. 97
  22. ^ Watts 2010, p. 75
  23. ^ Recall of State Officials, National Conference of State Legislatures (March 8, 2017).
  24. ^ M. Knapp, A. Flach, E. Ayboga and J. Biehl, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, London, Pluto Press, 2016, p. xv.
  25. ^ Biehl, Janet (2015). Ecology or Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 317. ISBN 9780199342495. 
  26. ^ M. Knapp, A. Flach, E. Ayboga and J. Biehl, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, London, Pluto Press, 2016, p. xvii.
  27. ^ a b M. Knapp, A. Flach, E. Ayboga and J. Biehl, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, London, Pluto Press, 2016, pp. 87-91.
  28. ^ Abdullah Öcalan, Democratic Confederalism, Cologne, 2011, bit.ly/1AUntIO, p. 26.
  29. ^ M. Knapp, A. Flach, E. Ayboga and J. Biehl, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, London, Pluto Press, 2016, pp. 43 and 63.
  30. ^ M. Knapp, A. Flach, E. Ayboga and J. Biehl, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, London, Pluto Press, 2016, pp. 64-76.
  31. ^ M. Knapp, A. Flach, E. Ayboga and J. Biehl, Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan, London, Pluto Press, 2016, p. 71.
  32. ^ Tax, Meredith. "The Revolution in Rojava". Dissent Magazin. Retrieved 3 September 2015. 
  33. ^ Stiglitz, Joseph (March 31, 2011). "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%". Vanity Fair. 
  34. ^ a b Taylor, Blair (2013). "From alterglobalization to Occupy Wall Street: Neoanarchism and the new spirit of the left". City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action. 17:6: 739. 
  35. ^ Graeber, David (2013). The Democracy Project. A History, a Crisis, a Movement. London: Penguin Books. p. 38. 
  36. ^ Graeber, David. The Democracy Project. p. 33. 
  37. ^ Graeber, David (November 30, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots". Al Jazeera. 
  38. ^ Graeber, David. The Democracy Project. pp. 214–215. 
  39. ^ a b Ross 2011, Chapter 3
  40. ^ Stokes 1998
  41. ^ Even Susan Strokes in her critical essay Pathologies of Deliberation concedes that a majority of academics in the field agree with this view.
  42. ^ Jarinovska, K. "Popular Initiatives as Means of Altering the Core of the Republic of Latvia", Juridica International., ISSN 1406-5509 Vol. 20, 2013. p. 152
  43. ^ Fishkin suggests they may even have been directly mobilised by interest groups or be largely composed of people who have fallen for political propaganda and so have inflamed and distorted opinions.
  44. ^ membership Cmte. "Young Communist League USA – Frequently Asked Questions". Yclusa.org. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 
  45. ^ Burgh, Gilbert (2006). Ethics and the Community of Inquiry: Education for Deliberative Democracy. Cengage Learning Australia. p. 98. ISBN 0-17-012219-0. 

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Arnon, Harel (January 2008). "A Theory of Direct Legislation" (LFB Scholarly)
  • Cronin, Thomas E. (1989). Direct Democracy: The Politics Of Initiative, Referendum, And Recall. Harvard University Press.
  • Finley, M.I. (1973). Democracy Ancient And Modern. Rutgers University Press.
  • Fotopoulos, Takis, Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project (London & NY: Cassell, 1997).
  • Fotopoulos, Takis, The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy. (Athens: Gordios, 2005). (English translation of the book with the same title published in Greek).
  • Fotopoulos, Takis, "Liberal and Socialist 'Democracies' versus Inclusive Democracy", The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, vol.2, no.2, (January 2006).
  • Gerber, Elisabeth R. (1999). The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence And The Promise Of Direct Legislation. Princeton University Press.
  • Hansen, Mogens Herman (1999). The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology. University of Oklahoma, Norman (orig. 1991).
  • Köchler, Hans (1995). A Theoretical Examination of the Dichotomy between Democratic Constitutions and Political Reality. University Center Luxemburg.
  • Magleby, David B. (1984). Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in The United States. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Matsusaka John G. (2004.) For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy, Chicago Press
  • National Conference of State Legislatures, (2004). Recall of State Officials
  • Orr Akiva e-books, Free download : Politics without politicians – Big Business, Big Government or Direct Democracy.
  • Pimbert, Michel (2010). Reclaiming citizenship: empowering civil society in policy-making. In: Towards Food Sovereignty. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02612.pdf? e-book. Free download.
  • Polybius (c.150 BC). The Histories. Oxford University, The Great Histories Series, Ed., Hugh R. Trevor-Roper and E. Badian. Translated by Mortimer Chambers. Washington Square Press, Inc (1966).
  • Reich, Johannes (2008). An Interactional Model of Direct Democracy – Lessons from the Swiss Experience. SSRN Working Paper.
  • Serdült, Uwe (2014) Referendums in Switzerland, in: Qvortrup, Matt (Ed.) Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 65–121.
  • Verhulst Jos en Nijeboer Arjen Direct Democracy e-book in 8 languages. Free download.
  • Zimmerman, Joseph F. (March 1999). The New England Town Meeting: Democracy In Action. Praeger Publishers.
  • Zimmerman, Joseph F. (December 1999). The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making. Praeger Publishers.

External links[edit]