Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...
Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...
Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The right <strong>of</strong> initiative<br />
The right <strong>of</strong> initiative means that every member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> public<br />
assembly has an equal right to submit proposals. Therefore,<br />
<strong>the</strong> public assembly’s agenda is not set by an elite.<br />
The right <strong>of</strong> initiative is nothing less than a special application<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> equality. It does not mean that <strong>the</strong><br />
submission <strong>of</strong> proposals cannot be bound by rules. For example,<br />
such rules could specify that a proposal must be submitted<br />
14 days before <strong>the</strong> meeting, or that a proposal must be<br />
signed by at least a hundred members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> meeting. What<br />
is essential is that <strong>the</strong> rules are <strong>the</strong> same for everyone.<br />
Majority rule<br />
In <strong>the</strong> ideal situation, <strong>the</strong>re is unanimity: everyone agrees<br />
with a proposal. However, unanimity will not usually be<br />
achievable. That is why majority rule is used. It is a consequence<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> equality <strong>and</strong> stems from <strong>the</strong> desire<br />
to minimise disorder: by applying majority rule one achieves<br />
<strong>the</strong> smallest number <strong>of</strong> dissatisfied people. One could also<br />
argue that any solution o<strong>the</strong>r than simple majority rule essentially<br />
denies <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> equality. After all, if we work<br />
with a qualified (e.g. two-thirds) majority, this means that a<br />
minority can deny <strong>the</strong> majority its wishes – for example if 60<br />
percent want option A <strong>and</strong> 40 percent want option B.<br />
Majority rule has an existential dimension. By accepting this<br />
rule, we recognise human shortcomings. The existence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
minority shows that <strong>the</strong> discussion <strong>and</strong> perception-forming<br />
process has been incomplete. At <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>the</strong> majority<br />
principle reminds us <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that democracy must always<br />
be perceived as an historical process. Today’s minority may be<br />
tomorrow’s majority. Most new ideas initially meet with resistance<br />
<strong>and</strong> rejection, but may later become generally accepted.<br />
Majority rule can actually only operate properly when it is sufficiently<br />
understood in <strong>the</strong> society or community in historical<br />
terms. When a decision made by a majority against a minority<br />
is perceived by that majority as an absolute ‘triumph’, outside<br />
<strong>of</strong> all historical perspective, <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> democracy suffers.<br />
The majority rule is at odds with all elitist tendencies. Authoritarian<br />
movements never recognise majority rule. They always<br />
foster one or o<strong>the</strong>r image <strong>of</strong> an ‘avant-garde’ or elite that can<br />
impose its will on <strong>the</strong> majority. Leninists will speak <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> spearhead<br />
role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> communist party <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dictatorship <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
proletariat. National-socialists will point to elites based on racial<br />
characteristics. Religious fundamentalists will reject equal rights<br />
for women <strong>and</strong> dissidents, even if <strong>the</strong>y constitute <strong>the</strong> majority.<br />
In a mitigated, but even so still very real form, this elitist<br />
principle also exists among <strong>the</strong> supporters <strong>of</strong> so-called representative<br />
democracy. Dewachter (1992, p. 70) puts it as<br />
follows: “According to <strong>the</strong> basic concept <strong>of</strong> ‘parliamentary<br />
democracy’, <strong>the</strong> decisions are taken by a selection <strong>of</strong> ‘philosopher-princes’.<br />
Representatively distributed throughout<br />
<strong>the</strong> entire territory, a sample <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people<br />
is elected. Yet <strong>the</strong> elected members <strong>the</strong>mselves are no longer<br />
representative; <strong>the</strong>y are not average, but are <strong>the</strong> best. The<br />
parliament is <strong>the</strong> assembly <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> best <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nation.” The<br />
former Justice Minister <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Federal Republic <strong>of</strong> Germany,<br />
Thomas Dehler, expressed this like this: “In my opinion, it is<br />
a misapprehension <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> democracy to believe that<br />
parliament is <strong>the</strong> executor <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people’s will. I think that<br />
<strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> representative democracy is something quite<br />
different: it is actually a parliamentary aristocracy. Members<br />
<strong>of</strong> parliament have <strong>the</strong> duty <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> opportunity to act from<br />
13<br />
a greater insight, a superior knowledge, than that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual<br />
citizen”. (Quoted by Dewachter, 2003, p. 30)<br />
For this clear expression <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> elitist idea behind purely representative<br />
democracy, Dehler was applauded not only by Christian<br />
Democrats, but also by Liberals <strong>and</strong> Socialists. The difference<br />
with totalitarian systems in this context is that, in a purely parliamentary<br />
system, <strong>the</strong> elite must obtain a formal majority from <strong>the</strong><br />
people. What <strong>the</strong> pure parliamentary system <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> totalitarian<br />
system have in common, however, is that <strong>the</strong>y allow <strong>the</strong> implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> laws against <strong>the</strong> will <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people.<br />
The m<strong>and</strong>ate principle<br />
Continuous unanimity is unachievable in a democracy. That is<br />
why majority rule is part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> democratic ‘archetype’. But <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is still ano<strong>the</strong>r problem. Universal participation in <strong>the</strong> democratic<br />
decision-making process will also be unachievable. There<br />
will always be members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community who do not want to<br />
take part in deciding on certain matters: because <strong>the</strong>y don’t have<br />
<strong>the</strong> time, because <strong>the</strong>y believe that <strong>the</strong>y have insufficient knowledge,<br />
or because <strong>the</strong>y have o<strong>the</strong>r reasons for not doing so. So, in<br />
addition to majority rule, <strong>the</strong> m<strong>and</strong>ate rule is also introduced:<br />
those who do not participate in <strong>the</strong> public assembly are considered<br />
to have given a m<strong>and</strong>ate to those who do take part.<br />
The m<strong>and</strong>ate rule cannot be avoided by imposing compulsory<br />
voting or compulsory attendance (moreover, such compulsory<br />
attendance is undesirable; see inset 6-2). Even if it is decreed<br />
by law that all members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community must participate in<br />
<strong>the</strong> public assembly, an arrangement must always be made for<br />
those who do not honour this obligation. The public assembly’s<br />
decisions will always be binding on <strong>the</strong> absentees as well.<br />
Thus, <strong>the</strong> m<strong>and</strong>ate principle has nothing to do with <strong>the</strong> difference<br />
between representative decision-making <strong>and</strong> direct-democratic<br />
decision-making. The m<strong>and</strong>ate principle is a direct consequence<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that, by definition, laws apply to everyone<br />
in <strong>the</strong> community. In o<strong>the</strong>r words: I cannot deny that a law<br />
applies to me personally by using <strong>the</strong> argument that I did not<br />
take part in <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> law. By forgoing participation in<br />
<strong>the</strong> decision-making on <strong>the</strong> law, I am automatically considered<br />
to have given a m<strong>and</strong>ate to those who actually made <strong>the</strong> decision.<br />
Without this principle, every individual could withdraw<br />
from <strong>the</strong> applicability <strong>of</strong> laws at <strong>the</strong>ir own discretion.<br />
In a direct-democratic decision-making process via a public<br />
assembly, <strong>the</strong>refore – from a formal perspective – <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
always two decisions to be made:<br />
• first a m<strong>and</strong>ate decision is made: each citizen decides ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
that he or she will personally take part in <strong>the</strong> ‘ad hoc parliament’<br />
that will make <strong>the</strong> decision, or that he or she m<strong>and</strong>ates<br />
fellow citizens (which is done by not taking part);<br />
• secondly, <strong>the</strong> public assembly <strong>the</strong>n makes <strong>the</strong> decision<br />
<strong>about</strong> <strong>the</strong> issue under discussion.<br />
From public assembly to referendum<br />
Up to this point we have assembled <strong>the</strong> following elements<br />
that are unavoidable components for <strong>the</strong> operation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
public assembly <strong>and</strong> which we can consider as elements <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> ‘archetype <strong>of</strong> democracy’:<br />
• <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> equality<br />
• <strong>the</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> popular sovereignty (<strong>the</strong>re is no authority<br />
higher than <strong>the</strong> people);<br />
• majority rule<br />
• <strong>the</strong> m<strong>and</strong>ate principle