Suchergebnisse

Der Autor erörtert in seinem Vortrag auf dem Hintergrund seiner Erfahrungen in der Schweiz die Möglichkeiten der direkten Demokratie in Deutschland. Er betont, dass angesichts des modernen Entwicklungsstandes der Rechtsvergleichung und der vergleichenden Rechtspolitik nicht das jeweilige Land mit seinen Besonderheiten, sondern ihr verallgemeinerungsfähiges Gestaltungspotential im Mittelpunkt des Interesses stehen sollte. Im ersten Teil seiner Ausführungen zeigt er die Unterschiede zwischen direkter und repräsentativer Demokratie sowie die hauptsächlichen Rechtfertigungsgründe der direkten Demokratie auf, die in der Bekämpfung autokratischer Willkür, einer sachlich-gemeinwohlorientierten Beurteilung, der politischen Freiheit und der Relativität dieser Rechtfertigungen bestehen. Der zweite Teil hat die bisherigen Entwicklungen in Deutschland im Allgemeinen und den Gesetzesentwurf von SPD und Bündnis 90/Die Grünen im Besonderen zum Inhalt. Im dritten Teil diskutiert der Autor die Perspektiven der direkten Demokratie, die sich z.B. auf den Wandel zur Bildungs- und Informationsgesellschaft, die erzieherisch-integrierende Wirkung, die Qualität der Deliberationsprozesse und finanzwirtschaftliche Vorzüge beziehen.

Modern direct democracy has recently become an important element of political life in many countries. These developments can be observed at the national, regional, and local level of political systems. Participation and democracy in local political affairs play a major role in stabilising and developing democratic systems. This volume presents, for the first time, a broad basis of information on the wide variety of local institutions and practice of direct democracy in 19 countries. Country specialists analyse - the role of direct democracy in the institutional context and culture of national political systems, - political processes of introduction and development of initiatives and referendums, - regulations of procedures of municipal direct democracy, - practice of local direct democracy, - the contribution of local direct democracy to democratic development in general.

Modern direct democracy has become an essential element of political life in many countries in Europe and worldwide. The initiative and referendum process offers extra channels for citizen participation and thus represents an important supplementary institution in modern democracies. This third volume of the series Direct Democracy in Modern Europe focuses on direct-democratic decisions on minority affairs. The main question is whether direct democracy tends towards a domination of the majority over a minority, producing new conflicts, or whether, how, and under what conditions it helps to solve problems in complex societies and leads to lasting solutions to political disputes. This volume includes articles by specialist researchers on - historical experiences of direct-democratic decisions on territorial conflicts; - theoretical considerations on direct democracy and minorities; - case studies on popular votes concerning minority issues; - several country case studies; - the role of the media in direct-democratic campaigns on minority affairs; - the potential of transnational direct democracy.

Discusses forms of direct democracy envisaged by the Croatian Constitution of 1990, which defined Croatia as semipresidential republic, before constitutional amendment of 1997. The article describes normative regulation of referenda & speculates about reasons for their absence. One of the main reasons seems to be the specific institutional framework & political consensus existing among the Parliament, the Government, & the President of the Republic, which is of a dynamic nature. Referendum, having a gridlock-breaking capacity, offers a solution in the form of recourse to the people on initiative of the President of the Republic or of the Parliament in the absence of political consensus. However, due to the existence of such consensus, referenda never took place in Croatia. The author also discusses citizens' right to petition the government in light of an important decision of the Croatian Constitutional Court. Adapted from the source document.

I want to argue today that direct democracy is undesirable and unconstitutional. I want to argue to you that the Supreme Court should find that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is unconstitutional, and strike it down. So I want to make two points. First, I am going to argue that direct democracy is undesirable. This is a normative argument; it's not an argument about constitutional doctrine. Second, I want to argue that direct democracy is unconstitutional, and make a series of different arguments as to why.

Abstract
Instruments of direct democracy can be – and are – used to further and strengthen illiberal democracy by restricting minority rights (1). The legal design of these instruments can make this easier or less likely (2).