Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and ...

The public assembly is not practical in a modern democratic
state, except at the local level. But that is not a problem. The
public assembly as a type of democracy can happily be surrendered.
What is essential is that the fundamental elements of the
archetype of democracy are retained. The public assembly is only
one of the possible manifestations of the underlying archetype.
The public assembly model has its limitations. Beyond a certain
size of population, the town square simply becomes too
small. As a result, the public debate must take place somewhere
else: via the media, via district meetings, etc. The debate
will last longer and be of a less direct nature. This is
more of an advantage than a drawback. There is more time
for consultation, more opportunity to see through false arguments.
Furthermore, we will no longer vote by a show of
hands, but in ‘the privacy’ of the voting booth. This type of secret
ballot is undeniably a great benefit: everyone can express
his or her opinion free from social pressure.
Through these two changes, the public assembly is transformed
into a referendum. A referendum is essentially a public
assembly in which the participants no longer come together physically.
But, at the same time, the citizens’ initiative referendum
still retains all the essential characteristics of the public
assembly: the principle of equality, the right of initiative, majority
rule and the mandate principle.
It is interesting that in historical terms – particularly in
Switzerland – this transition from public assembly to referendum
has also occurred by public initiative: “In many cantons,
the referendum and initiative devices were viewed as
an acceptable replacement for direct communal assemblies
and cantonal ‘Landsgemeinden’. Population growth was
making this type of public assembly impractical. In some
cantons, such as Schwyz and Zug in 1848, the substitution
was immediate and direct, with the referendum introduced
as the Landsgemeinde was withdrawn.” (Kobach, 1994, p.
100-101)
Representative democracy
But the referendum also has its limits. We cannot hold referendums
on every issue: the costs to society of direct decisionmaking
are just too great. Not only does each referendum
cost money. More importantly, each referendum demands
time and effort from the citizens: they must use their best
capacities to form an opinion about the issue that is under
discussion, and then cast their votes.
Of course, overtaxed citizens can refrain from voting in the
referendum and, by doing so, provide a mandate to those
who do vote. If there are too few people interested, however,
this procedure is also unusable. It is absurd to organise a
national referendum on a matter for which only a handful
of voters eventually show up. Not only is the public assembly
unworkable, but even the systematic use of the referendum
becomes impracticable.
Thus another solution has to be found. The essential question
in this context is: when the referendum is an unsuitable method
for making decisions, who will then actually make those decisions?
The mandate problem with the referendum normally
solves itself: those entitled to vote and who actually do vote receive
the mandate of society. Because everyone is free to accept
this mandate or not, the principle of equality is not violated. But
who is given the mandate if the referendum doesn’t take place?
1
Representative democracy is essentially a technique for solving
this mandate problem. Representative democracy must be
implemented as soon as the citizens have too little time or interest
to cooperate in a decision that still has to be made. The
costs to society for a referendum on each separate subject are,
at a certain time, according to the citizens themselves, too high in
proportion to the democratic benefit (direct access to decisionmaking
for every citizen). That is why the citizens appoint a
fixed parliament for several years; it receives the mandate to
make decisions on all the matters that the citizens do not want
to decide directly. The election of the parliament is therefore a
special type of direct-democratic decision: the citizens decide
who will decide, and under what conditions, on the issues for
which the people want to delegate the mandate.
The mandate received by the parliament is, therefore, a special
manifestation of the mandate given to the effective voters in direct-democratic
decision-making by the entire community. In direct-democratic
decision-making (referendum), the effective
voters form as it were an enormous ad hoc parliament that is
mandated to decide on the subject. The only difference with
representative decision-making (voting in the parliament) is
that the parliament received its mandate some time before
the vote, and the mandate is given for a specific period of
time. It is clear that this separation of mandating and deciding
is not fundamental. But it is, however, essential to understand
that the parliament and the community of voters in a
referendum have the same basis both logically and formally.
The relationship between referendum
and parliamentary decision-making
The introduction of the representative parliament raises a
new problem. How does one determine which issues the
citizens still wish to decide directly?
The supporters of the purely representative system have their
answer ready. They argue that the parliament is all-powerful
and they reject the referendum. This severely damages the
principle of popular sovereignty included in the archetype
of democracy. In the purely representative system it is once
again possible to pass laws that are wanted by an elite, but
which are rejected by the majority. As soon as the parliament
is installed, it can act freely against the will of the majority.
The right of initiative, which follows directly from the principle
of equality, is rescinded.
The defenders of the ‘purely representative system’ justify
this system with two main arguments.
An imposed mandate is no mandate at all
First of all, the defenders of the ‘purely representative system’
state that the citizens give a mandate to those elected and
that, as a result, the latter now possess the right to decide.
In doing so, they ignore the fact that this type of imposed mandate
creates an internal contradiction. A legitimate mandate,
just like a legitimate gift, can only be given voluntarily. This
voluntariness also means that the citizen must be free not to
provide a mandate, but to opt for direct decision-making via a
referendum. An imposed mandate is a sham mandate.
An analogy can clarify this. Imagine that you are held up at
night by five muggers who demand your wallet. They do,
however, leave you the choice of which mugger you surren-