Search results

The author reviews two books on the referendum phenomenon, one on the experience in Central and Eastern European countries, and the other on the Italian experience. The first book, edited by Andreas Auer and Michael Bützer, is a large collection of essays written by scholars, constitutionalists and political scientists, and has its origins in the conclusions of an international study congress held in Budapest in February 2000. The book is the result of intense study and research promoted by the Centre d'ètudes et de documentation sur la démocratie directe (c2d - http://c2d.unige.ch) set up in 1993 in the Department of Constitutional law of the University of Geneva. The first part contains twelve contributions on referendum as such as well as on experiences in twelve Central and Eastern European countries, from the Baltic to the Balkans. The second part features thirteen contributions commenting on a number of different institutional issues relating to normative theory and empirical analysis.The second book by Alfonso Di Giovine, an Italian constitutionalist, is a collection of articles on the Italian referendum experience. The Central-Eastern European and Italian experiences are different in many aspects, but they have two significant points in common: the importance of the role played by political parties, and the requirement of a quorum for the vote to be valid. Auer holds that «threshold requirements are a childhood disease of direct democracy» whereas Di Giovine believes that threshold requirements and abstentionism must be given due consideration in order to counteract referendum abuse. The reviewer's opinion is that the quorum ought to be disposed of.

A review essay on books by (1) Andreas Auer & Michael Butzer (Eds), Direct Democracy: The Eastern and Central European Experience (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2001); & (2) Alfonso di Giovine, Democrazia diretta e sistema politico ([Direct Democracy and the Political System] Padova: CEDAM, 2001). The author reviews two books on the referendum phenomenon, one on the experience in Central & Eastern European countries, & the other on the Italian experience. Auer & Butzer's edited collection offers essays written by scholars, constitutionalists, & political scientists, & has its origins in the conclusions of an international study congress held in Budapest in Feb 2000. The book is the result of intense study & research promoted by the Centre d'etudes et de documentation sur la democratie directe (c2d -- http://c2d.unige.ch) set up in 1993 in the Dept of Constitutional Law of the U of Geneva. The first part contains 12 contributions on referendum as such as well as on experiences in 12 Central & Eastern European countries, from the Baltic to the Balkans. The second part features 13 contributions commenting on a number of different institutional issues relating to normative theory & empirical analysis. Di Giovine, an Italian constitutionalist, presents a collection of articles on the Italian referendum experience. The Central-Eastern European & Italian experiences are different in many aspects, but they have two significant points in common: the importance of the role played by political parties, & the requirement of a quorum for the vote to be valid. Auer holds that "threshold requirements are a childhood disease of direct democracy" whereas Di Giovine believes that threshold requirements & abstentionism must be given due consideration in order to counteract referendum abuse. The reviewer's opinion is that the quorum ought to be disposed of.

Is the referendum phenomenon a manifestation of direct democracy & hence rooted in ancient democracy, or is it the result of political conflict within the democracy of today? Are referendums in democracies the first step down the slippery slope to a plebiscitary hell, or are they the humus that can foster a wide-ranging diversification of experience while staying within the bounds of modern-day, representative democracies? The author takes the stance that the referendum phenomenon stems from modern-day, representative democracies & does not necessarily jeopardize their stability or legitimacy. As a perfect example of popular sovereignty in action, are referendums to be perceived as more favorable toward society's democratic component rather than its liberal one? The author holds that referendum voting enables both liberal & democratic issues to be faced. He discusses Sartori's analysis according to which the referendum is a manifestation of ancient democracy incompatible with the requirements of modern-day democracy, especially concerning matters of a liberal nature. In the area of referendum experiences, the author critiques Sartori's analysis & argues in favor of the compatibility between liberal democracies & referendums. 3 Tables, 58 References. Adapted from the source document.

IntroduzioneAffrontando il tema delle consultazioni popolari dirette si pongono due problemi principali: perché tale tipo di processo elettorale è più usato in certi casi che non in altri e quali sono le conseguenze del ricorso ad esso sul sistema politico nel complesso. Rispetto al primo problema molti anni addietro, nel 1912, William E. Rappard sottolineava l'incoerenza degli avversari delle consultazioni popolari. Costoro, pur consentendo che le masse scelgano liberamente i loro rappresentanti, «fanno affidamento, per la loro sicurezza, sulle discrepanze che possono sorgere tra gli atti della maggioranza degli eletti e i desideri della maggioranza degli elettori». Rappard formulava, quindi, una previsione «In teoria … l'ulteriore estensione del controllo popolare mediante la legislazione diretta sembra inevitabile in tutti i paesi dove il suffragio universale prevale». È facile intuire che la previsione si basasse sulla conoscenza e l'analisi delle esperienze svizzera e statunitense. In altri Paesi, in quegli anni, si discuteva sulla opportunità di adottare forme di consultazione popolare come in effetti accadde con alcune costituzioni elaborate subito dopo la prima guerra mondiale, in primo luogo con la costituzione di Weimar.

IntroduzioneLa scienza politica mostra negli ultimi anni una ripresa del-l'attenzione per il fenomeno delle consultazioni dirette. Com'è noto, scopo di tali consultazioni non è quello di eleggere rappresentanti del corpo elettorale, bensí quello di chiamare il corpo elettorale ad esprimere la sua posizione su una legge o un progetto di legge. La letteratura statunitense include tra queste consultazioni il recall, con cui il corpo elettorale esprime un giudizio di conferma o meno di una determinata persona ad una carica pubblica. Si tratta di una consultazione abbastanza desueta e comunque assente negli altri sistemi politici qui presi in considerazione. Per questi motivi ho ritenuto di non includerlo nella mia trattazione.