Direct and Representative Democracy: A Comparative Analysis
Direct Democracy
Direct democracy, often limited in practice, is typically seen in small communities (under 100 inhabitants) using open councils. Due to the impracticality of gathering all citizens for every decision, semi-direct democracy emerges, employing referendums to consult the populace. This presents two key issues:
- Modern governance involves numerous complex decisions. Consulting citizens on every matter could lead to paralysis, yet bypassing consultation undermines democratic principles.
- Many decisions are too nuanced for simple yes/no answers. Constitutional referendums can be particularly problematic, especially when used to undermine representative democracy.
Referendums, while used sporadically in countries like Switzerland, can be categorized by content (legal or decision-based), constitutional requirement (mandatory or optional), and effect (binding or advisory). These categories are internally exclusive but can be combined across groups (e.g., a referendum can be mandatory, legal, and advisory).
Recall (Withdrawal)
Another semi-direct democracy tool is the recall, allowing citizens to petition for the removal of elected officials. This petition is then subject to a referendum. Though infrequently used, it exists in countries like the United States and Switzerland.
Popular Legislative Initiative
Many constitutions include the popular legislative initiative, enabling citizens to propose legislation directly to parliament. This is often viewed with caution and is typically regulated, requiring a substantial number of signatures (e.g., 500,000) and excluding certain law types (e.g., organic laws in Spain or tax laws).
Representative Democracy
Given the challenges of direct democracy, representative democracy arose as a mechanism to apply democratic principles. This system transfers the representation of the people (the electoral body) to elected representatives who act on their behalf. These representatives serve in state bodies like parliaments and governments.
The State’s Role in Economic and Social Life
The state’s legitimacy in economic and social life stems from societal demands for its intervention in securing an existential minimum for its members. This relates to Forsthoff’s concept of existential procura, which posits that individuals need a guaranteed living space (habitat) for a decent life. This living space has become increasingly complex due to sociological and economic transformations.
Components of Living Space
- Dominated Habitat: The portion of living space that an individual can acquire and control themselves.
- Cash Habitat: The portion of living space that an individual needs but cannot acquire independently (e.g., public roads).
The difference between cash habitat and dominated habitat represents the existential minimum, which individuals seek to fulfill. While economic liberalism has addressed some aspects of this, it has left others uncovered, except through philanthropy or charity.
Three Roles of the State
Society demands three key roles from the state:
- Provide Community Equipment: This includes infrastructure necessary for a dignified existence, which varies depending on the historical and sociological context (e.g., roads, motorways).
- Create Security: This extends beyond public safety to encompass broader aspects, such as food safety in complex modern societies.
- Secure Direct Social Provisions: This involves the state providing essential elements of living space that individuals can no longer secure independently, such as education and minimum wage.
These demands reflect the evolving needs of society, where factors like education and wages become crucial components of the actual living space. The state is expected to provide a safety net, especially in situations of hardship.