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 ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>the</strong> proposition <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> highest <strong>of</strong>ficial responsible for <strong>the</strong> local<br />
public school network coolly declared that <strong>the</strong> proposition<br />
would not be implemented. This was despite <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong><br />
initiative was approved at state level <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> equality principle<br />
requires that <strong>the</strong> proposal be equally applied throughout <strong>the</strong><br />
entire state. In fact, <strong>the</strong> fate <strong>of</strong> Proposition 227 shows that <strong>the</strong><br />
legislator should not meddle with internal education issues.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> state leaves such choices to <strong>the</strong> schools, <strong>the</strong>y can select<br />
for each issue what seems <strong>the</strong> best for <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
state does not need to impose a uniform regime.<br />
In 1990, <strong>the</strong> voters approved Proposition 140. This proposal<br />
introduced, on <strong>the</strong> one h<strong>and</strong>, term limits for members <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
<strong>and</strong>, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, also scaled back <strong>the</strong> funds for <strong>the</strong><br />
members <strong>of</strong> parliament to approximately 80% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous<br />
level. The objective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> initiative was to combat <strong>the</strong> creation<br />
<strong>of</strong> a class <strong>of</strong> lifelong pr<strong>of</strong>essional politicians. Term limits limit<br />
<strong>the</strong> time during which a person can occupy a legislative <strong>and</strong>/<br />
or executive political <strong>of</strong>fice. Proposition 140 imposed a maximum<br />
term <strong>of</strong> six to eight years. Of course such a proposal<br />
cannot count on <strong>the</strong> approval <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> parliament<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves. It is, however, effectively impossible to actually<br />
circumvent term limits once <strong>the</strong>y have been approved. The<br />
political leaders in California have exhausted all possible legal<br />
remedies without success in <strong>the</strong> hope <strong>of</strong> reversing <strong>the</strong> term<br />
limits. The last judgment was finally h<strong>and</strong>ed down in 1997. In<br />
<strong>the</strong> meantime, thanks to <strong>the</strong> approved proposition, <strong>the</strong> members<br />
<strong>of</strong> parliament <strong>and</strong> those in top positions had already been<br />
entirely replaced. The established powers had more success<br />
with <strong>the</strong>ir attempts at reversing <strong>the</strong> financial restrictions introduced<br />
by Proposition 140. Via <strong>the</strong> courts <strong>the</strong>y succeeded in<br />
overturning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reduction in excessive pension provisions<br />
for top politicians that had been approved by <strong>the</strong> people. O<strong>the</strong>r<br />
restrictions from Proposition 140 were left untouched by<br />
<strong>the</strong> courts, but <strong>the</strong> political class swiftly succeeded in circumventing<br />
<strong>the</strong> law by changing <strong>the</strong>ir accounting methods: “By<br />
reclassifying agencies <strong>and</strong> moving <strong>the</strong>ir budgets outside <strong>the</strong><br />
realm <strong>of</strong> formal legislative spending, <strong>the</strong> legislature largely<br />
circumvented <strong>the</strong> intent behind Proposition 140’s spending<br />
limits. In doing so, <strong>the</strong>y not only managed to maintain <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
political staffs, <strong>the</strong>y also retained <strong>the</strong> services <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agencies<br />
whose funding <strong>the</strong>y cut.” (Gerber, 2001, p. 54-55)<br />
A recent example (not treated in Gerber’s book) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> arrogance<br />
that politicians can demonstrate with respect to democratically<br />
taken decisions was provided when <strong>the</strong> Californian<br />
parliament approved a law that wanted to recognise samesex<br />
marriages in that state. A referendum (Proposition 22)<br />
on this question was held in March 2000 <strong>and</strong> a majority <strong>of</strong><br />
61.4% decided that a legal marriage could only take place between<br />
a man <strong>and</strong> a woman. Despite this, <strong>the</strong> Californian parliament<br />
subsequently did approved a law that allows samesex<br />
marriages. Governor Schwarzenegger, however, used<br />
his veto against this parliamentary act, saying that <strong>the</strong> will<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people must be respected. Naturally, he was br<strong>and</strong>ed<br />
as ‘extreme right-wing’ for this by his opponents. However,<br />
Schwarzenegger left <strong>the</strong> possibility open that popular decisions<br />
could still be reversed by <strong>the</strong> courts.<br />
Germany: Bavaria <strong>and</strong> beyond<br />
October 1 st 1995 was an important day for European democracy.<br />
On that day, <strong>the</strong> citizens <strong>of</strong> Bavaria voted to grant <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />
many more rights to direct decision-making at <strong>the</strong><br />
levels <strong>of</strong> cities, municipalities <strong>and</strong> administrative districts<br />
(L<strong>and</strong>kreisen) (Seipel <strong>and</strong> Mayer, 1997).<br />
A limited form <strong>of</strong> direct democracy already existed at state<br />
level in Bavaria prior to 1995. Citizens could launch legislative<br />
initiatives <strong>and</strong> force a referendum on <strong>the</strong>m. The threshold for<br />
using this system was exceptionally high, however. In an initial<br />
phase, 25,000 signatures had to be collected. Only <strong>the</strong>n could<br />
an application for a referendum be submitted. If <strong>the</strong> Ministry<br />
<strong>of</strong> Internal Affairs [Innenministerium] formulated objections to<br />
<strong>the</strong> initiative, <strong>the</strong> Constitutional Court had to give a ruling on<br />
it. If <strong>the</strong> court saw no objections, <strong>the</strong>re was a fur<strong>the</strong>r stage,<br />
during which 10% <strong>of</strong> those entitled to vote (around 900,000<br />
citizens) had to go to <strong>the</strong>ir local government <strong>of</strong>fices within a<br />
two-week period to record <strong>the</strong>ir signatures as supporters <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
popular initiative. This second threshold was virtually unachievable,<br />
so that referendums almost never took place in Bavaria<br />
at <strong>the</strong> state level. The 1995 referendum was only <strong>the</strong> fourth<br />
to be held since <strong>the</strong> Second World War. Moreover, politics in<br />
Bavaria was <strong>and</strong> remains dominated by one political party, <strong>the</strong><br />
Christian-democratic CSU (Christian Social Union).<br />
The story <strong>of</strong> ‘Mehr Demokratie’ (More Democracy) – <strong>the</strong><br />
movement that created a breakthrough for direct democracy<br />
in Bavaria, including that via <strong>the</strong> 1995 referendum – is <strong>the</strong><br />
story <strong>of</strong> a double success. ‘Mehr Demokratie’ succeeded in<br />
clearing <strong>the</strong> highest hurdles required to obtain a referendum<br />
in Bavaria. But ‘Mehr Demokratie’ also succeeded in winning<br />
against <strong>the</strong> opposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CSU, which stubbornly resisted<br />
<strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> direct democracy at <strong>the</strong> municipal level.<br />
It was <strong>the</strong> first CSU defeat at <strong>the</strong> state level in 40 years.<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> direct democracy in Bavaria can be considered<br />
as being like an oil slick spilling over from Switzerl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
The fact that referendums were possible in Bavaria at<br />
all, even if with far too high a threshold, is quite likely due<br />
to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> first Bavarian Prime Minister, Wilhelm<br />
Hoegner, was in exile in Switzerl<strong>and</strong> during WWII <strong>and</strong><br />
learned to appreciate <strong>the</strong> system <strong>the</strong>re. Afterwards, he was<br />
instrumental in putting <strong>the</strong> referendum into <strong>the</strong> Bavarian<br />
constitution. Hoegner said in 1950: “The referendum is <strong>the</strong><br />
cornerstone <strong>of</strong> modern democratic municipal legislation”.<br />
(Meyer <strong>and</strong> Seipel, 1997, p. 12)<br />
The campaign for <strong>the</strong> 10% signatures<br />
Between 6 <strong>and</strong> 19 February, ‘Mehr Demokratie’ had to surmount<br />
an enormous hurdle. Within <strong>the</strong>se two weeks, 10% <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> people entitled to vote had to hurry to <strong>the</strong>ir local government<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices, during opening hours, to add <strong>the</strong>ir signatures<br />
to support <strong>the</strong> application for <strong>the</strong> municipal citizens’ initiative.<br />
This very high threshold was comfortably exceeded:<br />
13.7% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bavarians entitled to vote (or nearly 1.2 million<br />
people) made <strong>the</strong> effort. The result is even more remarkable<br />
when one considers <strong>the</strong> resistance from <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial side that<br />
existed in many places. For instance, many citizens were not<br />
able to register <strong>the</strong>ir support because <strong>the</strong>ir local government<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices appeared to be closed during <strong>the</strong> legally stipulated<br />
opening hours.<br />
The reaction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> press was mainly positive, except for those<br />
newspapers which traditionally backed <strong>the</strong> CSU. The Münchner<br />
Merkur (Munich Mercury) newspaper <strong>of</strong> 21 February 1995<br />
wrote condescendingly: “Jubilation <strong>about</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong><br />
‘Mehr Demokratie in Bayern’ popular initiative achieved <strong>the</strong><br />
threshold would be inappropriate. In principle, Bavaria has<br />
enjoyed democratic rights for a long time. Every citizen can<br />
withdraw support from a municipal councillor or a municipal<br />
council group at <strong>the</strong> next elections if <strong>the</strong>y don’t like <strong>the</strong> decisions<br />
coming from <strong>the</strong> administration...” On <strong>the</strong> same day, <strong>the</strong>