Is direct democracy flawed?

Direct democracy, although increasingly appearing in public debate as an alternate to typical systems, is inactive faced with a wave of criticism. The charges against her may be repeated, and their origin is frequently fear of giving real power to citizens. But are these concerns justified? The following are the most commonly published disadvantages of direct democracy — along with a consequence that sheds fresh light on them

The adoption of a polemic on this subject requires presentation – what this direct democracy is. I believe that this is essential due to the fact that it seems that many are discussing it on a "I don't know but I will speak" basis.

We will talk about direct democracy at national level. As a mention point, we will consider the direct democracy applied in Switzerland.

These are the instruments that are essential for direct democracy to work smoothly.

Establishment of the Council of Ministers

The National Assembly will appoint a seven-member Council of Ministers, composed of representatives of the most popular political parties, in the form of:

1. three political groups with the highest electoral support shall appoint 2 representatives to the government,
2. one group taking 4th place in the ranking of support shall designate 1 typical to the government.

Ministers after the election share resorts in the privacy of cabinets, without political organization interference.

The Council of Ministers shall take decisions collegiately, seeking consensus.

The seven-member Council of Ministers due to the fact that the government consists of 4 competing political groups. Making decisions in specified a government is highly difficult. It requires compromises in pursuit of consensus. Making a decision by voting, as a last resort. A greater number of ministers than 7 will make consensus difficult. Any decision will be subject to a vote, which will consequence in the search for a majority, and if the majority does, so will the opposition, which we want to avoid in direct democracy.

The decision taken by the government will be defended by the full composition of the Council of Ministers, whether the political organization appointing the minister and the minister himself agrees or not.

Discussions during the Council of Ministers will be confidential, inaccessible to the public, although this will not always be achieved.

No political group has a majority in the Council of Ministers. Therefore, Parliament besides has no majority and no opposition. If we destruct the ruling majority then and destruct the head of this majority, who practically manages the legislative process forcing members of his group, and in the case of the coalition, besides the coalition groups to vote according to the narrow leadership of the group or coalition.

The Constitution introducing direct democracy in Poland prohibits the application of voting discipline.

President of Poland

The president of the Republic of Poland and the Vice president will be elected by the National Assembly from among the members of the Council of Ministers. The word of office of the president and Vice president will last 1 year, without the right to re-election. After a year (in December) the Vice president will become President, and the incumbent will return to directing only his ministry in the past year.. The president will be liable for the work of the Council of Ministers, acting as minister and acting as representative. Everything will take place calmly, without loud campaigning.

Parliament and the Senate

In a country applying direct democracy, the Sejm and the legislature are 2 chambers of parliament with equivalent competence. They will be held separately, but the agreement of both chambers is essential to make the decision.

The parliament remains a national chamber, elected in national general elections. Represents citizens as a whole

The legislature becomes a provincial chamber, chosen by autonomous voivodships. The constitution defines the number of senators, but the rules for their choice are determined by the voivodships themselves. The Marshals of the Sejm and the legislature would be elected for an yearly term, without the right to re-election.

This solution strengthens the position of the regions and allows them to have a real influence on the content of the laws passed, regardless of their size or population.

Autonomy of voivodships and subsidiary way of carrying out tasks

Constitutional division of Poland into 16 or 41, or 49 or X, autonomous voivodships.

The autonomy of voivodships can be limited only by the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Each state will have its own constitution, its parliament, its government, its senators. The provincial constitution includes all the instruments of direct democracy contained in the Constitution of the Republic, and any issues are even broader.

Examples:

• The Provincial Citizens' Initiative may concern the revision of the Provincial Constitution and the adoption or amendment of laws.
• A compulsory referendum may be announced on one-off expenditure exceeding, for example, PLN 25 million or recurring yearly expenditure above, for example, PLN 3 million.
• The provincial constitution defines the numerical composition of the provincial parliament and government. Both bodies are elected in the general election. The government elects its president and vice-president for an yearly term.

The Constitution of the Republic introducing direct democracy will establish a subsidiary way of carrying out tasks. It will be based on the fact that the higher level of organisation of the state must not interfere in the performance of the lower level tasks. The higher organisational level of the state helps to carry out tasks at a lower level, but only erstwhile the lower level, for reasons of competence, financial, organisational or other, is incapable to accomplish its task.

Citizens' initiative demanding a complete revision of the Constitution

• The constitutionally determined number of citizens (e.g. 300 000) may propose a complete amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland within 18 months of publication of the initiative.
• The proposal must be put to a national vote.

A akin evidence exists in the Swiss Constitution since 1848, though it has never been used.

Citizens' initiative demanding a partial revision of the Constitution:

• A constitutionally determined number of persons entitled to vote (e.g. 300 000) may, within 18 months of the authoritative publication of its initiative, apply for a partial amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
• The citizens' initiative concerning the partial amendment of the Constitution of the Republic may take the form of a general proposal or a detailed draft of the proposed provisions.
• If a citizens' initiative fails to meet the requirements of unity of form and subject substance or violates mandatory global law, The National Assembly shall declare its nullity in full or in part.

(DThe initiative does not meet the unity of form or object when:

• Contains different topics, which are not logically linked (e.g. change in immigration law and at the same time taxation reforms).
• Connect general requests with circumstantial provisions (e.g. a call for environmental protection with a ready-made draft article of the Constitution).
• He tries to smuggle controversial changes under the cover of popular themes — which could mislead voters.)

• If the National Assembly agrees with the initiative in the form of a general proposal, it shall, on the basis of this initiative, draw up a draft partial amendment and put it to a national vote of citizens and voivodships. If the National Assembly rejects the initiative, it puts it to a national vote. Citizens decide whether the initiative should be adopted. If citizens vote in favour, the National Assembly will make an appropriate draft amendment of the Constitution and put it to the vote of citizens and provinces.
• The initiative in the form of a circumstantial task is put to the vote of citizens and provinces. The National Assembly recommends that the initiative be adopted or rejected. It may make a counter-proposal to the initiative.

Procedure applicable to initiative and counter-proposal:

• Citizens besides vote on the initiative and counter-proposal.
• Anyone can vote for both proposals. In consequence to the 3rd question, he may indicate a proposal he prefers if both are accepted.
• If, in consequence to the 3rd question, 1 proposal to amend the constitution receives more votes from citizens and the another receives more votes from the voivodships, then a proposal comes into force, which will scope a higher sum if the percent of votes of citizens and the percent of votes of voivodships in the 3rd question is summed up.

(What is this evidence about?

In constitutional changes, they vote both Citizens, as well as the voivodship. The consequence of the citizens' vote in the voivodship is the voice of the voivodship. If they appear two different proposals for amending the Constitution – e.g. citizens' proposal and Parliament's counter-proposal. Then the vote takes place in 3 stages:

1. Are you in favour of a citizens' initiative?
2. Are you in favour of the Parliament's counter-proposation?
3. If both are accepted – which 1 is to enter into force?

What happens if the score is divided?

• If Citizens' proposal has more votes than citizens, and accountsrParliament proposal More votes than the provinces, there is no clear winner.
• That's erstwhile you consider total percent of votes from the 3rd question – which proposal received greater support combined from citizens and provinces.

Simple example:

• Citizens' proposal: “ZA” voted 55% of citizens, 55% of voivods

=> sum: 110%

• Parliament's controversy: “ZA” voted 55% of citizens, 60% of voivodships => sum: 115%

In that case Parliament's counter-proposal it enters into force due to the fact that it has a higher total).

The Constitution of the Republic of Poland is the highest law.

Therefore, the Citizens' Initiative to change this law is simply a very crucial political instrument for direct democracy. The citizens' initiative is simply a prerogative of citizens. It is the cornerstone of direct democracy. The initiative may be utilized to add fresh articles to the Constitution or to amend existing articles. The citizens' initiative concerns only the Constitution. At the level of the Republic through the Citizens' Initiative, there will be no anticipation to amend or introduce fresh laws another than the revision of the Constitution.

The amendment or introduction of a fresh law will be possible at provincial level. The provincial initiative may require:

• a complete or partial revision of the provincial constitution;

• the adoption, amendment or repeal of the provincial law;

All formalities related to the Citizens' Initiative concerning the partial amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland will be conducted by the Initiative Commission with the support of the Chancellery of the Republic of Poland

Mandatory referendum

• Citizens and provinces should be voted on:
  1. Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic,
  2. Joining collective safety organisations or transnational communities,
  3. Extraordinary acts of the Republic, which are not based on the provisions of the Constitution and whose word of validity exceeds 1 year; specified laws of the Republic must be put to the vote within 1 year of the adoption by the National Assembly.
• Citizens shall be put to the vote:
  1. Citizens' initiatives for the complete amendment of the Constitution of the Republic,
  2. Citizens' initiatives on the partial amendment of the Constitution of the Republic in the form of a general proposal which were rejected by the National Assembly,
  3. The question of whether a complete amendment of the Constitution of the Republic should be carried out in the event of disagreement between the Sejm and the Senate.

The compulsory referendum (mandatory) is announced without the collection of signatures and without the peculiar initiative of citizens. The work to carry it out follows constitutional provisions and is the work of the government.

It is besides worth considering a mandatory referendum on:

1. grant the Polish entity with abroad capital and abroad entity a concession to extract natural resources located in the Polish land.
2. giving consent to permanent stationing of allied troops on Polish soil;

Optional referendum — civic veto

• If, within 100 days of the authoritative publication of the act adopted by the National Assembly, a fixed number of persons entitled to vote (e.g. 200,000), or a fixed number of voivodships so requested, the following legal acts will be submitted to the citizens' vote:
  1. the laws of the Republic;
  2. Exceptional acts of the Republic of which the word of validity exceeds 1 year;
  3. Regulations of the Republic, if required by the Constitution or by the Act;
  4. International treaties which:
     • They are unlimited and are not subject to denunciation;
     • provide for accession to an global organisation;
     • They contain crucial legal provisions or whose implementation requires the amendment of the government of the Republic.

I would like to point out here that the optional referendum (citizen veto) concerns the recently passed laws. specified as have not yet entered the legal circulation of the Republic of Poland. The request to amend, or to terminate laws already in place in the legal order, citizens initiate through a citizens' initiative on a partial revision of the Constitution. Within the power to make a counter-proposal, Parliament may propose to pass a new, or amend an existing law.

An optional referendum (citizen veto) may have a negative impact on the legislative process if there are 2 hostile camps in parliament – the majority of the Sejm and the opposition. The opposition will do anything to block even the best laws through a referendum. The Swiss had tremendous problems with this erstwhile they entered an optional referendum in the Constitution in 1874. The referendum pursued a referendum. Therefore, in 1959, Swiss political parties concluded an agreement called the "magic formula", which defined the establishment of a government consisting of 4 groups that achieved the best election results. In expression 2; 2; 2; 1. This calmed the legislative process. The more so, the next government would be appointed according to the same formula. no of the rival political parties would take power.

Required majority:

• Proposals submitted to the public to vote shall be accepted if the majority of the voters approves them.
• Proposals submitted to the vote of citizens and voivodships shall be accepted if the majority of voters and the majority of voivodships approve them.
• The consequence of the general vote in the voivodship decides on the vote of the voivodship.

MOSTLY PUBLISHED DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Inability to make effective decisions in complex cases.

It is believed that for many political issues, decisions require in-depth analysis and expertise, which may be lacking for average citizens. As a result, populist ideas can develop, which gain support not due to the fact that they are the best, but on the basis of emotions and moments.

In consequence to this allegation, Let us just remind briefly about what issues citizens make decisions in referendums:

1. Citizens' initiative – adding an additional article to the Constitution, or amending the existing one,
2. Obligatory referendum – voting on matters specified in the Constitution,
3. Optional referendum (citizen veto) – a vote on a bill which has not yet entered the legal order,

Without these mechanisms, would Parliament make decisions — but are parliamentarians free of influence, manipulation and political pressure? In fact, it is simply a limited number of decision-makers that make the perfect conditions for lobbyists. Furthermore, in countries applying direct democracy, citizens receive information booklets containing opinions from different parties before voting. They have time for consultation, discussion and reflection. And if they do not feel competent — they do not gotta vote

Members and senators in a state ruled by a majority of the Sejm may be forced to vote against their own beliefs and their own knowledge.

2. Long time-consuming decision-making

It is considered that The crucial issue is time-consuming decision-making.‍ It takes considerable time and resources to organise a referendum. Citizens can be tired of constantly voting, resulting in apathy and failure of interest in public affairs.

In consequence to this allegation, It must be stated that there should be no rush in passing the law. You can't pass a bill in 24 hours. This will last for months, and frequently for years, due to the fact that a bill that cannot be rejected by citizens can do more harm than the cost of holding a referendum. Referenda are organised in advance on deadlines (2 to 4 times a year) and can address many issues.

The example of Switzerland shows that society is not only tired but is actively active in the decision-making process.

3. There is simply a hazard of manipulation

When decisions are made by masses, there is simply a anticipation that any interest groups will usage different techniques to influence public opinion. Disinformation and propaganda can easy distort reality, leading to erroneous decisions.

In consequence to this allegation, It must be said that manipulation is much easier among a narrow parliamentary group than among millions of citizens. Members can be persuaded, intimidated or bribed. Society — No. In addition, a citizen has a choice: if he does not realize the subject, he may resign from the vote. A parliamentarian frequently fails to do so.

4. Problem in access to information

In direct democracy, it is crucial that all citizens have equal access to data and cognition of decisions taken. Unfortunately, in fact there are frequently crucial differences in access to information, which can lead to inequality during voting.

In consequence to this allegation, It must be said that parliamentarians have access to expertise and analysis. But in direct democracy, citizens receive authoritative information material before voting, prepared by parliament and parties to the dispute. It's a tool that evens the odds and allows everyone to make an informed decision.

Summary

Direct democracy is not without challenges, but many of the charges against it are based on stereotypes and incomplete knowing of its mechanisms. In fact, it is an effective tool for strengthening civilian engagement, reducing the influence of lobbyists and building a more transparent decision-making system. The key is the reluctance of the political class to give power to citizens.

At the moment, no 1 is pressing charges concerning:

1. The method of setting up a seven-member Council of Ministers consisting of members of the strongest political groups, in expression 2; 2; 2; 1.
2. Appointment by the National Assembly of the president and Vice president for a one-year term.
3. Comparing the powers of the Sejm and the Senate.
4. The division of Poland into autonomous voivodships and the work of subsidiary way of carrying out tasks.

Why don't you press charges?

Because nobody in Poland has so far exposed the request for specified a reform. They all focused on referendums reasoning it was the only and adequate instrument of direct democracy. The past of Switzerland proves that it does not. Especially with respect to the way in which the government and the president are established.

After this publication, possibly any opponents will respond. I encourage and gladly justify this need.

Marian Waskielevich

The author is an activist of the Polish thought Club in Silesia.