In a direct democracy can take the people directly through initiatives and referenda to influence the legislative process and thus act as a legislature. In a representative democracy, however, can only serve as the elected representative legislature. In a direct democracy can also be directly elected representatives and democratic means (such as at the federal level in Switzerland) or not authorized to be selected (eg at the municipal level in Switzerland). The direct democracy exists to varying degrees. It is, for example, depending on the canton in Switzerland vary difficult to file an initiative or referendum. The advantage of direct Democracy is the referendum threat, which forces the politicians to adopt consensual laws that run the people's interests not diametrically opposed. On the other hand, are carried out "unpopular but necessary" reforms less simple. This advantage of representative democracy but disappears when one considers that to be voted out in a representative democracy, politicians, which are capable of the people not the sense of a necessary reform to show clearly enough.
The initiative offers little organized and / or financially weak interest groups an opportunity to contribute outside the parliament in the legislative process. In particular, minimize the possibility that parliamentary lobby groups can stipulate through bribery of the few parliamentarians an unpopular law. For it is much harder to convince with money and bad arguments the people than a few parliamentarians.
A referendum is binding as an election promise and with the obligation to act in the eyes of the citizens give increased legitimacy. It is therefore reasonable to assume certain decisions to the mandatory referendum - that will ensure that the policy on important issues the public will not lose sight of. If you think that the foundations for populist policies in place and important decisions in the Hands of lay persons will be added to forget that is also taken in representative democracies, the selection of the representatives of populist arguments influenced by lay people. Even a discarding of responsibility by the politicians can not speak, because anyway is the final responsibility of the political decisions from the company and also a politician is still responsible for his arguments during a campaign.
course can be taken in direct democracies bad decisions. However, no institution is immune to each of them (even a representative democracy) and it is still sophisticated Sun The association may at any time re-negotiated and demokratiebewahrende, fehlentscheidverhindernde institutions can be abolished. Furthermore, it should be noted that populist arguments in parliaments probably catch fewer, but there are monetary incentives to attach the vested interests of certain groups of excessive weight. Thus, at most be said that the people of other bad decisions is the Parliament.
reforms of direct democracy can take longer than in representative democracies. This is not inherently bad, can have as experimental, and unpopular reforms imposed negative effects. Supported and understood by the people can reform plans implemented it can quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, there are in a direct democracy instruments to bring significant issues that otherwise would be neglected for a long time.
summary it can be said that direct democracy provides the right incentives for politicians to conduct themselves according to their order. Wrong decisions of the parliament, triggered by lobbying can be corrected. Furthermore, the people can be torn down and a discussion are then voted on several proposed solutions. The increased legitimacy of laws and institutions are less apathetic citizens, and - as proven by empirical research has been - even happier. This outweighs the perceived disadvantages of direct democracy over to.
0 comments:
Post a Comment