And by that I don't mean the odd poll on some special issue. I mean direct democracy as an integral part of the political routine.
Powers:
- Turn-Down of any law (but only if initiation requirements of a popular vote are meat, I have no strong opinion on the details at this moment)
- Mandating the legislative body to be officially concerned with a proposed law or law-change (by that I mean hearings would have to be held, changes could be made and finally the legislative body would have to vote on it
- Re-Election of the legislative body and/or the executive (though that would require more than 50% + 1 to be sure - it is set up as an emergency tool if a significant share of the population is dissatisfied with the current leadership)
What would not be subject to popular votes:
- The constitution
- The judicial process and other highly sensitive stuff integral to the basic functionality of a law-and-order-state (if not already covered by the constitution)
- Tax rates
What I am uncertain about: Law-like-actions like executive orders
Why that is a good idea:
- Political power would significantly shift back to the idea of one-man-one-vote and away from special interests of lobbying groups
- Popular opinion could be expressed and would have to be taken into consideration with way more nuance = more substance in the political discourse, more responsible government
- Voters would have incentive to get more involved as they now would wage significantly more power = democracy would have more life
- By potentially directly screwing up and always being able to intervene - voters would have less excuse to shift all the blame to the political class --> more responsible citizens
What that would require:
- Mandatory classes through-out school trying to prepare to-be-voters for the task. I think emphasis should be on making them aware of the complexities of some issues and how easy it can go wrong --> providing sensitivity and basic perspective
- Publicly maintained but independent media which sole focus is getting across all the angles of issues up for a vote, while the coverage would have to be as sober and objective as possible (no talking-heads spouting their talking-points, no campaigning, just the facts and reporting on the content of suggested consequences, pros and cons) --> providing the fundamental base for rational discussion
- Efficient way to handle all popular votes. Not sure how exactly that should be handled but I am confident there is a way
But, but:
- Voters are too stupid / have no time to get sufficiently informed --> there is of course is some truth to that, which is why without the legislative body still nothing can be done.
Think of it as another dimension of checks and balances. The legislative body can check popular opinion, while popular opinion can check the legislative body.
But in the end, do we have any solid basis whatsoever to say that it won't work? I would say: no. It in the end would be an experiment, a bold move to new democratic frontiers. I can not promise that this will work. Nor can you promise that it won't. But I think it is clear as crystal that current political structures are hardly satisfactory. And that there is room for improvement and in the end, the question IMO is weather you think mankind should thrive to more and try new approaches and accept some risks or weather you are too afraid of such risks.
But are those risks really that great? Isn't the potential return infinitely greater? What is supposed to happen? Laws requiring popular approval will run the nation down? How? They haven't in Switzerland. I see no plausible suggestion. But please provide one if you do.
Powers:
- Turn-Down of any law (but only if initiation requirements of a popular vote are meat, I have no strong opinion on the details at this moment)
- Mandating the legislative body to be officially concerned with a proposed law or law-change (by that I mean hearings would have to be held, changes could be made and finally the legislative body would have to vote on it
- Re-Election of the legislative body and/or the executive (though that would require more than 50% + 1 to be sure - it is set up as an emergency tool if a significant share of the population is dissatisfied with the current leadership)
What would not be subject to popular votes:
- The constitution
- The judicial process and other highly sensitive stuff integral to the basic functionality of a law-and-order-state (if not already covered by the constitution)
- Tax rates
What I am uncertain about: Law-like-actions like executive orders
Why that is a good idea:
- Political power would significantly shift back to the idea of one-man-one-vote and away from special interests of lobbying groups
- Popular opinion could be expressed and would have to be taken into consideration with way more nuance = more substance in the political discourse, more responsible government
- Voters would have incentive to get more involved as they now would wage significantly more power = democracy would have more life
- By potentially directly screwing up and always being able to intervene - voters would have less excuse to shift all the blame to the political class --> more responsible citizens
What that would require:
- Mandatory classes through-out school trying to prepare to-be-voters for the task. I think emphasis should be on making them aware of the complexities of some issues and how easy it can go wrong --> providing sensitivity and basic perspective
- Publicly maintained but independent media which sole focus is getting across all the angles of issues up for a vote, while the coverage would have to be as sober and objective as possible (no talking-heads spouting their talking-points, no campaigning, just the facts and reporting on the content of suggested consequences, pros and cons) --> providing the fundamental base for rational discussion
- Efficient way to handle all popular votes. Not sure how exactly that should be handled but I am confident there is a way
But, but:
- Voters are too stupid / have no time to get sufficiently informed --> there is of course is some truth to that, which is why without the legislative body still nothing can be done.
Think of it as another dimension of checks and balances. The legislative body can check popular opinion, while popular opinion can check the legislative body.
But in the end, do we have any solid basis whatsoever to say that it won't work? I would say: no. It in the end would be an experiment, a bold move to new democratic frontiers. I can not promise that this will work. Nor can you promise that it won't. But I think it is clear as crystal that current political structures are hardly satisfactory. And that there is room for improvement and in the end, the question IMO is weather you think mankind should thrive to more and try new approaches and accept some risks or weather you are too afraid of such risks.
But are those risks really that great? Isn't the potential return infinitely greater? What is supposed to happen? Laws requiring popular approval will run the nation down? How? They haven't in Switzerland. I see no plausible suggestion. But please provide one if you do.