Direct participation of the eligible citizens in direct democracy has two aspects. One form is found in Athenian model where direct participation was in the form of physical presence of the eligible people in the assembly. A second model is found in Swiss cantons and American states. The later is characterised by certain popular methods of democratic participation and legislation. These methods include the practices of initiative, recall, plebiscite and referendum. The practice of initiative seeks ‘to place in the hands of the people a direct power of initiating or proposing legislation which must be taken up by the legislature.’16 Practice of initiative allows people to initiate proposals or submit issues and subjects, which require legislation and formulation of laws or acts or amendment to the constitution and existing laws and acts. The practice of recall is a check on the performance of the delegates and gives dissatisfied electors the right to recall their representatives even before the term of office is completed. It means a representative may be recalled from the legislature and replaced by another one as per the will of the people. Referendum is a practice of referring a law or a specific subject of importance to the whole body of electorates or citizens for their approval or disapproval. Referendum is also known as plebiscite. Both referendum and plebiscite were popular Latin practice. Referendum literally meant something to be referred to the Senate of Rome and plebiscite meant a law enacted by the plebeians or ordinary citizens of Rome gathered in assembly. According to C. F. Strong, referendum and plebiscite refer to the same practice.17 However, at times, a distinction is made between matters of constitutional importance and of political importance and referendum is related to the first while plebiscite is for the second. Ambitious rulers such as Napoleon I and later on, Hitler used plebiscite to secure popular approval to their political actions and circumvent the existing governmental machinery. In India, certain separatist groups have been advocating holding of plebiscite on the issue of separation of certain parts from India. However, it can be argued that when democratic process of negotiation, representation and influencing Government’s policy is already available, is there a need for a separate mechanism of confirmation through plebiscite?
In present days, referendum or plebiscite has been used in Europe to secure citizens approval on issues such as European Monetary Union, etc. Swiss cantons and the American states use these methods of direct democracy and popular checks. Referendum is being used in the Palestinian Authority to determine issues of political and constitutional importance. Generally, a referendum is worded to invoke answer in ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. ‘For example, ‘Do you agree to the merger of area X with Y’; or ‘Do you agree to X joining the European Monetary Union’, or ‘Do you agree to Y joining the WTO’..
All the twenty-six Swiss cantons (20 full and 6 half cantons) use referendum for approval of laws and constitutional amendments proposed by the parliament. An analysis of Swiss referendums between 1866–1993 by David Butler and Austin Ranney (Ed) in Referendums around the World, suggests that not all those that parliament proposes get approved by the people (see Table 11.1).
Table 11.1 Outcomes of Swiss Referendums, 1866–199318
One obvious conclusion is that if parliament and representatives alone had been the final authority for legislation, it would not have represented at least interests of the people ranging from 27 per cent to 51 per cent in different cases. However, defiance does not mean what Beedham says, ‘direct democracy spells chaos for Switzerland. In return for the parliament’s acceptance that the people are the boss, the people are quite often willing to heed the parliament’s views.’19
The idea of democracy is based on the assumption that every eligible citizen (voter) is entitled to have equal say in the conduct of public affairs and all are entitled to an equal voice in deciding how they should be governed. If this is the case, then why this voice should be heard only after four or five or even seven years. What happens to that supreme power of the people during the interval between two elections? If Swiss experience is a pointer, it appears some of the legislation may not have people’s consent, though the representatives enact them. A democracy in which we rise up periodically to feel powerful is what Beedham says, ‘part-time democracy’. For the rest of the period, we either nod our heads in approval and engage in debate or grow frustrated and apathetic. This echoes Rousseau, who was critical of representative democracy on the logic that General Will cannot be represented and that too only periodically.
Rousseau a supporter of popular sovereignty provided a philosophical basis for direct democracy. Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech spelt the spirit of both direct and indirect democracies. Lincoln had said, ‘… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’20 According to Andrew Heywood, Lincoln’s idea of ‘government by the people’ and ‘government for the people’ contains ‘two contrasting notions of democracy.’21 While government by the people stands for direct participation of the people in government and is equal to ‘popular self-government’, government for the people connotes government that serves public interests whether people themselves rule directly or not. Representative democracy assumes the second meaning and seeks to establish a form of government that benefits the people.
In contrast to the direct democracy, indirect or representative democracy is based on the delegated participation. This means instead of people participating directly in person, elected representatives participates in legislation and decision-making and in day-to-day political and policy affairs on behalf of the people. In indirect democracy, electorates get to elect their representatives periodically (at intervals of four, five or seven years) who represent the wishes and wills of the people during the terms of their office.
We can identify direct democracy with plebiscitory legislation and indirect democracy with filtered legislation. In the former, people express their wishes and wills directly, in the latter, wishes and wills of the people are filtered through the intelligence and wisdom of the representatives. Advocates of representative democracy argue that filtering of legislative enactments through the intelligence of representatives becomes necessary in the face of growing complexity of governmental activities, size of the population and technical nature of legislation in a welfare state. In fact, it has been observed that even representatives have now been faced with the problem of paucity of time and energy to devote time for entire legislative activities. A phenomenon called delegated or subordinate legislation has been on rise through which the elected members enact the broad requirements of legislation and leave the details to be completed by specialised and technical committees or officials. This means not the whole of legislation has the advantage of being filtered through the wisdom and intelligence of the representatives. Further, with growing level of awareness and educational qualification, the electorate can also boast of equalling the wisdom of the representatives. However, the factor of unmanageability of the electorate in direct manner may be an issue against direct democracy.
Beedham in his Survey on Full democracy published in The Economist in December 1996 has opined that the changes that have taken place between the ninetheenth and the twenty-first centuries ‘have removed many of the differences between ordinary people and their representatives. They have also helped the people discover that the representatives are not especially competent. As a result, what worked reasonably well in the ninetheenth century will not work in the the twenty-first century. Our children may find direct democracy more efficient, as well as more democratic, than the representative sort.’22 Based on Beedham’s prediction, we can say that democracy, as ‘government by the people’ is still an unfinished agenda that may grow to its full heights in the twenty-first century. Compared with Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of triumph of liberal democracy after collapse of communist ideology, it is obvious that liberal democracy may have triumphed over the nazi, the fascist and the communist forms of government in the twentieth century; it has still to struggle with the very concept of democracy in the twenty-first century. Probably, representative democracy may need to incorporate certain means of popular checks as referendum, recall and initiative to make it more democratic.
There is already a growing awareness and interest in participation of the people in the political affairs. In 1960s and 1970s, a host of activists and thinkers argued in favour of participatory democracy. This is also known as radical democracy and has been supported by New Left thinkers. They include C. B. Macpherson, T. B. Bottomore and Carole Pateman. They suggest that in liberal democracy, liberal values dominate and tilt towards requirements of capitalism. This means that values of democracy get belittled. In such a condition, democracy as a participatory and developmental mechanism does not help people in their advancement. As in J S Mill, the radical democrats conceive democracy as a mechanism of moral and self-development through participation, discussion and debates that shape citizens identities and interests. In his book, The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy (1977), Macpherson has discussed about ‘participatory democracy’ implying ‘substantial citizen participation in government decision making’.23 According to Macpherson liberal-democratic government can be made participatory if people do not participate in democratic process/elections as mere consumers but act as exerters and enjoyers of development of their own capacities and there is substantial reduction in social and economic inequality. Possibilities of democratic power sharing and direct and immediate means of political action can make possible a more continuous practical participation by large number of citizens in determining the quality of their lives. People’s actions and civil society initiatives that have brought awareness and have resulted in the Right to Information (RTI) Act in India fall under this category. India has also adopted Panchayati raj system which is grass root direct democratic set up and allows direct participation of village panchayat is local level decision making.
It seems the challenges to representative democracy in twenty-first century are two-fold. Firstly, it should shed some of the unnecessary representative flab and be more popular with democratic means of participation such as referendum, recall and initiative, as Beedham suggests. Secondly, it must become participatory in the developmental sense to realise the liberal goal of equal liberty through reduction of social and economic inequality, as the liberal democrats suggest. Table 11.2 lists the features of participatory and representative democracies.
Table 11.2 Features of Participatory and Representative Democracies24
| Features | Participatory Democracy | Representative Democracy |
|---|---|---|
| Justification for democracy | Political equality of citizens and freedom to rule and be ruled | Political equality of citizens, freedom to elect representatives, get elected as representatives and to public offices |
| Nature of sovereign power | Assembly of citizens as sovereign | People as sovereign but vested in representatives who legitimately exercise state functions |
| Who are the participants/ electors | Citizens defined in restricted manner | Citizens, initially restricted based on age, gender, wealth, education, etc.; presently, includes all eligible adult citizens irrespective of gender and social base though with prescribed age and certain conditions of exclusion such as mental incapacity, proven criminal offence, etc.Universal adult suffrage with equality of vote |
| Mode of participation | Direct participation in legislative and judicial functionsParticipation by means of recall, initiative, referendum/plebiscite | Direct participation in selecting representatives only, who participate in legislative and executive functions |
| Policy and legislation-making | Directly by means of initiative, referendum, etc. | By the elected representatives based on laid down procedure of policy and legislation making including constitutional amendments |
| Mode of acountability of public officials/ representatives | Short tenure, rotation of office, bar on multiple office, bar on holding the same office twice, etc.Recall | Periodic elections, multi-party competition, political majority required for election,Separation of power and checks and balances,Charter or Bill of individual rightsRule of law and constitutional limitations |
| How to differentiate the citizens and holders of public offices | No distinction of privilege between ordinary citizens and public officials | Representatives and public officials identified with exercise of state power within impersonal and legal frameworkPublic and official facilities during the period |
| Condition where prevails | Small communities, city states and where constitutionally or politically required to use means of direct participationAthens, Swiss cantons and some of the American States | Most of the large and complex industrial societies coinciding with nation-stateLiberal and capitalist societiesPrevails everywhere such as the Africa, Americas, Asia, Australia-New Zealand and Europe, though there are exceptionsAccording to one estimate, presently there are 119 countries where democracy prevails.25 These are mostly, in form or spirit, representative democracies |
| Merit | Fulfils the condition of democracy that it is government by the people, those who are ruled are rulers also | Wisdom and intelligence of the representatives are used for legislation and policy makingMakes democracy possible in a large and complex society |
| Demerit | Impractical in large societiesProne to legislate hastily as it does not allow moderation and percolation of wisdom and intelligence of the wise and knowledgeable representatives | Assumes supremacy of people but allow them only periodically to feel this and that too mechanicallyNo accountability or control of the people to hold representative responsible between the electionsRepresentation of the people only in form and not in spirit as representatives pursue their own goal rather than pure public interests |
Leave a Reply